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 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.

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. 

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?

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.

Biden Is Breaking Traditions Because Trump Is a Threat to Traditions

The Washington Post reports today:

“Outgoing presidents often conclude their tenure with a flurry of activity, such as pardons or proclamations, but Biden’s efforts have been unusually wide-ranging, reflecting his conviction that Trump represents a unique threat to American traditions.”

So, in other words, the Biden administration is breaking American traditions, as to what an outgoing president does, because Donald Trump is a threat to American traditions.  As I said in a letter to the editor published by the Chicago Tribune a year ago: