The View from Right Field

Donald Trump Bans Evictions. Huh?

While I was getting ready for more important things last week (the Cubs-Cardinals series over the weekend at Wrigley Field¹), the Trump administration issued a nationwide ban on evictions, through the end of the year, of tenants who are unable to pay their rent because of the Covid-19 pandemic.  I’m not going to go into whether a ban on evictions is a good idea or not, assuming it is done by the proper level of government.  I want to talk about the legal basis the Trump Administration is using to justify its action.  Well, I will talk about it as long as I can keep from laughing about it.

In issuing the order, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention

Sad News at Wrigley Field

As Phil Rosenthal notes in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune, there has always been gambling at Wrigley Field.  Gambling in the bleachers was one of the underlying themes in the classic play “Bleacher Bums.”  But the Cubs have decided to bring sports betting to Wrigley Field in a big and different way when the Friendly Confines opens again.

On Thursday, the team announced it has reached an agreement with DraftKings to set up gambling at Wrigley Field.  While the Cubs need approval by the City of Chicago and the Illinois Gaming Board,¹ it doesn’t appear anybody thinks that will be hard to get.  

Character Defines the Choice in November

The Wall Street Journal summed up the case for and against Donald Trump’s re-election in an editorial today.  Here are a few excerpts, with my comments added in italics:

“Four years [after President Trump’s election] our verdict is that he has been better on policy than we feared but worse on personal behavior than we hoped.  Whether Americans re-elect him depends on how they assess that political balance sheet. …

The President contracted out tax reform to Congress, especially Paul Ryan in the House and Pat Toomey in the Senate, and they delivered.  Mr. Trump also hired a cast of deregulators who liberated the economy from burdens on energy and more. …

A “Fair Tax” for a Poorly Run and Corrupt State

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has an idea to solve Illinois’s financial problems: a progressive income tax.¹  Illinois currently has a flat-rate income tax, but in November, voters will be able to vote on an amendment to the Illinois constitution allowing a graduated income tax.  In pushing for the change, Governor Pritzker assures us that only 3% of us would pay more under his plan. (I would say that, if you believe this, you probably also believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, but that would be unfair to the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.  They’re real compared to the chance that, within five to ten years, only 3% of us would be paying more under the Fair Tax.)

Illinois’s main problem is not its unpaid bills or huge unfunded pension liability.  It is, rather, that it is so poorly run and so corrupt.  So much of the money that Illinois government gets is wasted, and there is no reason to think this would change just because Illinois gets more money.  More money would just mean more money to waste.²

Lawless in Washington – Donald Trump Edition

Back in the day, I wrote a lot about Barack Obama’s overreach in the use of presidential power.  After the election in 2016, I asked “Lawless in Washington – Will There Be a Donald Trump Edition?”  The answer was always going to be yes, and some of President Trump’s actions over the weekend were of a kind with things President Obama did; i.e., lawless.

I’m not exactly sure what President Trump was trying to do with his order about evictions and rental relief.  It sounds like it is mostly just telling federal agencies to see what they can do.  In other words, not much.  Student loan relief was already being done.  This is a little more, I guess, but overall it, too, is not much.

I’m Hoping for a Landslide Come November

I hope the election in November is a landslide.  In saying that, I’m not saying who I want to win (you can find that elsewhere).  I’m just saying I just hope it’s not close because I’m not sure we, as a nation, can handle another close election.

I am especially worried because the pandemic means voting is going to be very different this year.  There’s going to be a lot more vote-by-mail.  In person voting will probably be different, too (who knows how many polling places we’ll have open).  I’m afraid there will be a lot of confusion, among voters and among election workers.  Plus who knows if the election authorities are ready for an election as different as this one will be.

Defund the Police – Or Neighborhood People and Neighborhood Police Talking to Each Other?

Because of the pandemic, we were in River Forest last month for the Fourth of July.  We haven’t been here for the Fourth all that often, and what I noticed this year was the amount of fireworks.  By 9:00 pm on the Fourth, there was a steady drone of fireworks, like a low bass humming.  You heard lots of individual fireworks, but even when there weren’t fireworks going off nearby, there was a constant drone that went on all night and into the early morning. 

There may have been more of it this year because of the shelter-at-home and social distancing orders that were just ending.  Still, it got me to thinking.  If all the fireworks and the constant noise bothered me in River Forest, where there really weren’t that many fireworks (most of what I was hearing was coming from neighboring towns), what must it be like in parts of Chicago where it’s not just fireworks and it’s not just one or two nights a year.

Abraham Lincoln on Our Founders

The new view of the United States, as seen in The New York Times’ “1619 Project,” is that United States history rests on slavery and white supremacy and that “[o]ur democracy’s founding ideas were false when they were written.”  I disagree.  I do not think our Founders were liars and hypocrites when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  I think they were in a position where they had to compromise with a terrible evil or give up their hopes for a new country built on a new set of principles.  What they did, therefore, was to compromise, but to do it in a way that kept those ideals alive for the future.

It is easy, looking back at people in history, to judge them on today’s principles.  What at the time were principled positions now look, to some, like racism, sexism, prejudice – and worse.  I’m not going to argue that point here, though I wonder how our views will look to people a hundred or more years from now.

Little Sisters of the Poor and Free Birth Control

There was considerable outcry earlier this week when the Supreme Court upheld Trump administration regulations under Obamacare that provided the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other religious groups, did not have to provide free contraceptive services under their health plan.  Well, actually, it was more complicated than that.  The Obama administration had not required the Little Sisters to provide free contraceptive services; it required the Little Sisters’ health plan to provide free contraceptive services, without charging the Little Sisters for the services.¹  The problem for the Little Sisters was, as I understand it, that they did not feel comfortable with what they had to do in order to opt-out of providing free birth control.² 

Apparently, 70,000 or more women could be left without free birth control under the Trump administration regulation, which bothers (outrages) a lot of people.  But the point is, which a lot of people seem to miss, is there is a simple way to make sure free contraceptive services are provided to all women without forcing groups like the Little Sisters to violate their religious principles: Have the federal government pay for it.  If free birth control is that important, just pass a law and provide for it.  Nobody’s religious principles are violated,³ and women get free birth control. 

What's Better? Something or Nothing? Police Reform In an Age of Polarization.

I’ve been writing a lot about baseball lately, mostly because baseball, even with people like Rob Manfred and Tony Clark unable to negotiate anything, is better than politics today, which says something.  But it’s back to the real world.

A big issue in Washington is police reform.  Your first thought about Washington and police reform might be like mine: Huh?  Police, like schools, seems like the epitome of a state and local issue.   We need police reforms (for one of my ideas, see here), but what’s the federal government got to do with it?  State governments, local governments.  Police reform is their issue.  Congress can’t pass laws telling state and local governments how to run their police forces.  About all the federal government can do (with one exception I will get to below) is cut back on the money it gives to state and local police departments if they do things the federal government doesn’t like.  It’s not much, but it’s something.  So the people in Washington are talking about a police reform bill which would increase or decrease the amount of money Washington gives to state and local police departments.