The View from Right Field

Thoughts on Ukraine, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden

The news articles are all about Donald Trump’s telephone call with the president of Ukraine and his request (suggestion, threat, whatever) that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and/or his son Hunter Biden’s activities in or relating to Ukraine.  A few comments:

1.  Democrats claim they are shocked that President Trump would allegedly do this. I am not, but after the 2015-16 presidential campaign, nothing President Trump does either surprises or shocks me.

2. Some Democrats are calling for President Trump to be impeached. Really? It is less than fourteen months until the 2020 election.  Don’t impeach him.  Beat him.  Trying to impeach him is just going to get those people who supported President Trump in 2016 more motivated to vote for him again.  Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in 1998, and he got more popular.  If Democrats impeach President Trump on something like this, which is, as I mentioned in point #1, neither surprising nor shocking, they will just increase the chances he gets re-elected next year.

The Purpose of a Corporation. I’ll Go with Milton Friedman.

Last Monday, the Business Roundtable, a group of chief executive officers of big U.S. corporations, announced that it had changed its statement on the purpose of a corporation and had issued a new “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation.”¹  This was a big deal:

“The leaders of some of America’s biggest companies are chipping away at the long-held notion that corporate decision-making should revolve around what is best for shareholders. …

No longer should decisions be based solely on whether they will yield higher profits for shareholders, the group said.  Rather, corporate leaders should take into account ‘all stakeholders’ – that is, employees, customers and society writ large. …

I Am So Tired of @realDonaldTrump

In the middle of his snit yesterday over trade and tariffs with China, President Trump tweeted, in part:

“Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.” (Here and here)

I just don’t know what to say.  Maybe Xi Jinping and Kim Jung Un, people President Trump calls his friends, can order their companies to do this.  But, President Trump, you can’t do this.  We are a free country, and you can’t order people or companies around like some Communist dictator.  And saying things like this is stupid. 

Helping People Takes More Than Just Raising Taxes and Spending Money

Taxes are going up in Illinois tomorrow.  The gas tax is going up 18 cents a gallon, and there are probably other taxes going up, too.  Also, there will eventually be new taxes on things like marijuana and sports gambling.¹  I understand why taxes have to go up.  Illinois has spent more than it has raised in taxes for so long that the time has come to start paying up.  I am not sure, however, that enough of the tax increases is going toward the unpaid bills and funding the pension promises the legislators have been making for years.  Actually, I am sure.  Enough isn’t going for these things.  But that is not what I want to talk (spelled “r-a-n-t”) about today.  I want to talk about how the Illinois spends its money.

One of the problems with the politicians we have in Illinois is they seem to think that, once they have passed the programs and appropriated the money, their job is done.  They think that all they have to do is spend money and problems will be solved.  Which is just so far from being true.

Declaring a “National Emergency” to Build a Wall Is a Terrible Idea

President Trump has apparently decided to sign the budget bill and then declare a “national emergency” to build a wall on the border with Mexico.  I’ll be brief: This is an absolutely terrible idea.  Presidential power once stretched never returns to its prior limits.  A national emergency that lets President Trump build a wall, will let his successor do other things.  Even if you approve of the former, you may not approve of the latter.  And even if courts or Congress stop President Trump from doing this,¹ the mere fact that President Trump tried to use emergency powers in this way will be a precedent for future presidents to use their emergency powers in other ways.  This is a really bad idea.
--------
¹ It could be an interesting question as to who would have “standing” to challenge President Trump’s order in the courts.

Yet Another Shutdown Post

The shutdown is getting to be silly.  But, as Janan Ganesh said in today’s Financial Times, it is continuing because “[n]either party values its own objective as much as it values the denial of the other side’s.” 

The problem, however, is not how long this shutdown will last, but how long the next one will last.  Because given the attitude of President Trump and his supporters on one side and Congressional Democrats and their supporters on the other side, there will be another one, if not more than one.  Perhaps September 30, when the federal government’s fiscal year ends.  Maybe some time before that if the national debt limit needs to be raised or if something needs to be done and one side or the other thinks it can turn it into a battle it can win.

The shutdowns will keep happening – until enough of us get mad enough at both sides that they finally understand we care more about government operating, and government employees getting paid, than we do stopping the other side from getting what it wants.  Unless we would rather the government shutdown and government employees not get paid if that is what it takes to stop the other side from getting what it wants.

A Few More Comments on the Stupid Shutdown

A few comments on the federal government shutdown, though I am not sure they add all that much to what I wrote back on January 3.  In any case, it is all the news, so here goes.

1. As I understand the shutdown, it boils down to this:  President Trump thinks that it is better to have a government shutdown than it is to not build the wall he wants to build.  The Democrats in Congress, on the other hand, think it is better to have a government shutdown than it is to let President Trump build the wall he wants to build.  Or, at least, that is how they are acting.

Shutdowns and Walls. How Will It End?

Cutting through all of the tweets, press conferences, and claims of outrage, the current partial government shutdown boils down to a simple problem.  President Trump would rather have a partial government shutdown than approve spending bills that do not include money for his “wall.”  He has promised his supporters that he would build a wall.  It was one of the main themes of his campaign, and he hasn’t been able to get it done.  From his viewpoint, he needs to do it.  He promised.

Democrats, on the other hand, would rather have a partial government shutdown than approve money to build President Trump’s wall.  They have pretty much promised their supporters that they will never approve money for a wall.  They feel they need to keep their promise.  Plus, they don’t want to give President Trump the political victory of getting money for his wall.

Can Americans Be Trusted With Campaign Finance Disclosure? – An Update After the Brett Kavanaugh Hearings

Four years ago, I wrote a post asking “Can Americans Be Trusted With Campaign Finance Disclosure?”  I noted that, while some people want to limit political spending either by limiting how much people can contribute or by limiting how much candidates can spend, the First Amendment (at least as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court) doesn’t allow either of those.  Therefore, as I said back then:

“[T]hey fall back on disclosure of contributions.  If we can’t limit spending, they say, at least we can require contributions and spending to be disclosed.  In the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (before he was on the Court), ‘[s]unlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’”

But, I asked, as I do again in the title of this post: Can Americans be trusted with campaign finance disclosure?  This question recently returned when a federal district court judge threw out a 37-year old Federal Election Commission rule dealing the disclosures that nonprofit advocacy groups have to make with respect to the names of their donors.  Without going into the technical detail of the case,¹ the judge’s ruling increases the number of people whose names have to be disclosed, even though the people aren’t making contributions to candidates, but just to groups that are making independent political expenditures.

Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court, and Roe v. Wade

With the hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court starting,¹ one of the questions will be about women’s right to choose/abortion.  Will a Justice Brett Kavanaugh vote to take away a woman’s right to choose by overturning Roe v. Wade?  While Judge Kavanaugh told Senator Susan Collins that Roe v. Wade was settled law, settled law can be overturned. 

What people are missing, however, in talking about whether the Supreme Court might overturn Roe v. Wade, is that overturning Roe v. Wade is not going to take away a woman’s right to choose.  The Equal Rights Amendment was never adopted, but over the last 30+ years all, or at least almost all, of what the Equal Rights Amendment was supposed to accomplish has happened anyway.  It has been done by laws, regulations, and the general agreement of society.  Women are heads of Fortune 500 companies.  Female soldiers are going into combat as members of our military.  Women are as equal today as they would have been if the Equal Rights Amendment had been adopted 35 years ago.