The View from Right Field

The Republican Party’s Got Trouble

To paraphrase (poorly) Robert Preston singing Meredith Willson’s song “Ya Got Trouble” in “The Music Man”:  

“[The Republican Party’s] got trouble!
Right here in River City
Trouble with a capital "T"
And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for … former President Trump.”

Donald Trump is going around telling everybody that the 2020 election was stolen from him.  He calls it the “Presidential Election Fraud of 2020.”  Except the election was not stolen from him.  He lost because Joe Biden won a majority in the Electoral College.¹  But former President Trump can’t seem to handle that fact.  He wrote a long letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday listing all kinds of problems with the vote count in Pennsylvania.  The WSJ listed just some of the errors in former President Trump’s list in an editorial on Friday, but it is impossible to respond to all of his claims.  But that doesn’t mean they’re right.  He just says things.  Trying to respond to them all is a fool’s errand.

How Many New Government Programs Do You Want – And How Many Are You Willing to Pay For?

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that polls showed broad support among Democrats for Joe Biden’s big spending proposals.  According to two different polls, 75% of Democrats favored President Biden’s original $3.5 trillion plan.  Of course, we really don’t know how the question was asked.  If it was just: “Do you support spending $3.5 trillion on new social programs and have it paid for by rich people and big corporations?”, of course, Democrats would say yes.  Maybe independents and even Republicans would, too.  After all, most people like something for free.

But I wonder what the response(s) would have been, even among Democrats, if several different formulations of the question would have been asked.  For example:

Tax Reform Versus the 2021 Democratic Congress

In 2017, the Republican Congress passed real tax reform legislation.  Democrats claimed it was just tax cuts for the rich, but they pretty much always say that.  What is funny about that claim (“funny” in the bizarre sense, not funny in the ha-ha sense) is that one of the things the Democrats objected to the most in the reform was the limitation on the deduction of state and local taxes (i.e., the “Salt deduction”) to $10,000 for a couple, even though the legislation also doubled the standard deduction.  For most people, and especially middle class and below, this was a great deal.  It made tax filing simpler, and it saved them some money.  For upper middle class people in states with high local taxes, i.e., Democratic states, it wasn’t.  So, Democrats from states like California, New York, New Jersey, etc., have been pushing hard to reinstate the full SALT deduction ever since, even though it would almost entirely benefit the upper middle class.¹ 

In any case, then-House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republicans did real tax reform.²  They were trying to make the tax system better: simpler, easier to comply with, less inefficient, raising the most money with the fewest negative impacts on the economy.  In other words, real tax reform.

“Treat Them Mean, Keep Them Lean” Is Terrible Advice for Any Situation – Political, Economic, or Personal

A week ago, Chris Giles wrote in the Financial Times about the belief, fashionable in both politics and economics, “that companies respond best to a ‘treat them mean, keep them lean’ approach.”¹  Mr. Giles concluded his piece:

“While there are some exceptions, making life difficult for business does not improve corporate performance.  ‘Treat them mean, keep them lean’ is terrible advice for healthy relationships.  It is just as bad in economic policy.”

Which I agreed with in a letter than was published in Tuesday’s FT, making a point I have made before (since FT has a very high paywall, here is the letter, as published):

Is This the Way to Set Up New Social Programs?

As Democrats scramble to come up with a bill of social and climate-related programs that can pass, two big questions seem to dominate.

First, while normally you would think that government should decide what it needs to do and then come up with a way to pay for it, that is not what Democrats are doing.  Rather, they are figuring out how much they want to spend first.  Actually, it’s not how much they want to spend.  It’s what number sounds good politically.  $3.5 trillion was too high for some people.  Joe Manchin said $1.5 trillion was okay, but that’s too low for the progressives.  So they will probably come up with some number in between, though apparently closer to $1.5 trillion than $3.5 trillion.  Still, their first question isn’t what to do; it’s how much to spend. 

JB Pritzker, Redistricting, and the Illinois Way

In the 2018 campaign, then-candidate JB Pritzker said he supported an amendment to the Illinois constitution to have state legislative redistricting done by an independent commission.  If an amendment wasn’t adopted, he said the legislature should set up an independent commission, and he pledged he would veto any maps “drafted or created by legislators, political party leaders and/or their staffs or allies.”

Governor Pritzker first broke his pledge earlier this year when he approved redistricting maps passed by Springfield Democrats for state legislative districts.  Now, I am sure, he is set to break his promise again on the Congressional remap drawn up by Democratic “legislators, political party leaders and/or their staffs”.¹

National Health Insurance – The Other Kind

When people think of health insurance, they normally think of the insurance that pays their medical bills.  And when they think of national health insurance, they think of a national system that either provides people health care or pays their bills.  England has a National Health Service that does the former.  The United States has Medicare, which does the latter.¹

But I would suggest there is another kind of national health insurance.  The purpose of this kind of national health insurance isn’t to pay bills or provide services.  It is, rather, to make sure there is enough capacity in the health care system so that you can get care when you need it, separate and apart from who pays for it.

Electric Cars, Ice Storms, and the Grid

I was driving home from Lincoln, Nebraska, last weekend.  (We were there to meet a beautiful new granddaughter.)  As I drove back, I remembered another drive back from Nebraska.  It was in 2006 or 2007.  This time we were in Omaha, visiting our son who was going to Creighton University.  We drove home the day after a massive snow/ice storm hit Iowa.  As we were driving on I-80 across Iowa, we saw the effects of the storm: piles of snow, semis in the ditch, etc.  It was sort of scary, except we were a day after the storm, so the roads were clear, and it didn’t affect our driving.  

The only real problem for us was that electricity was out all along I-80, and we were starting to run low on gas.  (Note to self: In the winter {or spring or fall}, don’t let your gas tank get too low.  You never know when stations might be closed.)  Fortunately, we finally found a gas station that was open: It had a generator, so it had electricity and its gas pumps worked.  To say we were happy – and relieved – is an understatement.

“Don’t Worry About Inflation. It’s Transitory.”

That’s what Jerome Powell, Chair of the Federal Reserve, and most leading economists are telling us.  The idea is that the surge in inflation reflects the fact that last year at this time prices were down due to the pandemic.  The stay-at-home orders, the fact people wanted to avoid contact with other people, etc., cut demand and prices were down.  Now, demand is up, plus there are kinks in supply chains, which is pushing prices up.  Once those things are over, inflation will go back down.  Which may be true.

But what that explanation misses is that, while the rate of inflation may go back down, those increased prices, which the surge in inflation gave us, are going to stay up.  Just because the rate of inflation goes back down at some point in the future, doesn’t mean that the prices on groceries or anything else are doing to go back down to where they were.

If You Want to Win, You Have to Hit the Ball

A quick follow-up on yesterday’s post about the Cubs’ 2021 season.  With two games to go (I am posting this before Saturday night’s game), the Cubs have already set a team record for most strikeouts in a season (by batters, unfortunately, not pitchers), and they are only fourteen strikeouts away from setting a major league record.  Which they should be able to do since they are averaging 9.88 strikeouts a game.

While it may be obvious that you have to hit the ball to win,¹ it is actually more obvious than you think.  Consider the New Look Cubs’ seven-game winning streak from August 31 to September 6.  Two of those wins came on balls that were hit, but should have been outs.  On September 2, a whiffed pop up to the infield resulted in the winning run scoring in the bottom of the eleventh.  A strike out wouldn’t have done it, but when you hit the ball, you never know (see at 7:40):