This Moment

We're having another 'moment.' They seem to come more and more frequently. Wanted to quickly share a few articles I thought captured the current dynamics.

These two are especially interesting taken together:

"What Americans Do Now Will Define Us Forever," by Adam Serwer

and

"Trump Betting Indecency Can Win in America," by Andrew Sullivan

They compliment each other as they make similar points but also diverge, most notably on how Dems have responded to Trump. I'm more in tune with Serwer, but Sullivan's points shouldn't be discounted (even if occasionally he does write idiotic things).

After you read those consider this important reminder:

"Trump's Racism is Part of His Larger Con," by Matthew Yglesias

What he's doing is despicable in its own right and it matters, for sure, but let's not forget why he's doing it.

If you're looking for even more to read there's:

"Donald Trump Hates America," by David Brooks

It covers some of the same ground as Serwer and Sullivan, although more in Brooks' calm, erudite fashion. (He doesn't even bother to go after Dems.) Mostly just wanted to give him credit for writing it and proving not all Republicans are awful. (I know there are others: Charlie Sykes, etc. But it's a short list.)

Oh, and come to think of it, that article would pair well with (articles are like wine and cheese) this one:

"Trump is the Most Unpatriotic Presidential Candidate in American History," by Jonathan Chait

So true.


Have a great weekend!

Secure the Bag

If you're a Democrat thinking about who to support in the upcoming primary, let me suggest a name that might not be on your radar: Andrew Yang. There's still lots of time before voting starts and I'm not sure who I'll end up voting for myself... but for now I like Yang because he's campaigning on a great idea that no one else is even talking about: Universal Basic Income (UBI). Yang's plan is for every single adult American citizen to receive $1000 every month, no strings attached. The free market still reigns, we just don't start at "0". We "raise the floor," to essentially the poverty line, meaning everyone will have enough to at least technically not be in poverty.

The general idea of UBI is not new. It has been championed by Milton Friedman, MLK and even (going way back) Thomas Paine. There's nothing in the law that prevents it. Richard Nixon proposed a UBI which even passed the House before he was talked out of it by one of his advisors. Hillary Clinton considered running on some form of UBI in 2016 but decided against it in part because it was too "hard for people to grasp." Most people are still unfamiliar with the idea, but it has pockets of support on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.

To be clear, this is not a matter of just 'printing money' and giving it away... Yang suggests we pay for it in large part with a 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) to be levied at each stage of the production and distribution of goods. The nice thing about a VAT system is the taxes are difficult for corporations to evade with fancy accounting. The disadvantage traditionally is since the companies will pass them down to consumers in the form of higher prices it tends to be regressive... BUT, that regressiveness would be more than offset by the progressiveness of UBI. Unless you're spending many thousands of dollars a month on consumer goods (not including food, medical expenses, rent/mortgage) you will come out ahead in this scenario. And all that extra spending money everyone will suddenly have would, uh... get spent! It would turbocharge the economy while dramatically reducing poverty.

I think it's a good idea under any conditions, but it's especially relevant now as automation transforms our economy. As Yang likes to ask his audiences, malls are closing all across the country... why? We know the answer: Amazon. Is Amazon hiring tons of people to make up for all the jobs lost from these mall/store closings? No. Look at footage of their giant shipping centers and you will see robots packing things and moving boxes around, with just a few humans overseeing the whole thing. It's a triumph of efficiency, but it means lots of jobs are simply.... gone. Poof. A hundred years ago people were predicting that by now robots would be doing all the work and we'd all be living lives of leisure. Only half that prediction is coming true: Robots are starting to do the work, but major companies are reaping all the rewards, leaving everyone else scrambling. Cars are already being built by machines. Soon shipping trucks will be self-driving. Trump blames job loss on Mexicans and China, but robots may be the real culprit. (Hence Yang's slogan: "Humanity First")

Not everyone agrees automation is about to cause major job losses. This article argues automation will create as many jobs as it destroys, and the new jobs will require more human ingenuity and less drudgery. I'm not sure that helps an unskilled laborer who has recently been automated out of a job though. As Yang points out, teaching coal miners to code is not the answer. The current Dem party line is we need more infrastructure spending to create jobs, which is certainly true! But that alone, even on a large scale, is not going to be enough to address the challenges we're facing.

There is one more MAJOR potential advantage I see to UBI: It could finally get us out of this political stalemate we've been stuck in. Can we all at least agree that our current politics suck?? The trouble with government programs that help people with this or that is many people perceive that the government is taking their money and giving it to 'other' people. There's a lot of baggage attached to that idea... you could write books on it. But with UBI we can side-step that whole bitter argument. In this case every single person... whether you live on a farm, in the suburbs, in a penthouse, or on the curb... EVERYONE gets $1000, every month. Currently we have smorgasbord of different programs targeting different communities, trying to solve different problems, each with their own bureaucracies and regulations... but dividing people up like that, even if effective from a policy standpoint, is bound to create resentments that can be exploited by those who would rather just let the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else.  Fox News is incredibly good at turning people against their own self-interest, but will they be able to convince people to be against receiving $1000 a month? It would be fun to see them try!

"So, if UBI's so great, why hasn't it happened?," you might ask. "There's got to be a catch." Well, this Mother Jones article mentions one possible sticking point:

to receive UBI, citizens would have to choose between the $1,000 or any existing welfare benefits—potentially including Social Security, disability insurance, food stamps, and housing assistance. And it’s unclear whether Yang’s UBI would be worth that trade-off for many low-income families, instead leaving the program as a boost to middle- and upper-income people.

while a “generous UBI” could replace the need for most welfare programs, it could also run the risk of redistributing funds away from the lowest-income families.

Current welfare recipients would receive either their current benefits or the UBI, whichever's greater... So UBI could potentially be less helpful for the most needy and more of a boon for the middle class. I understand the concern, but I think this might be the price of getting everyone onboard.

Paul Krugman, who is right about most things, says he's "not a UBI guy," arguing that UBI is very costly and would require massive new taxes to pay for, making it a very big lift politically. He points out that universal health care (expand the ACA, allow people to buy into Medicare) and universal child care would cost a fraction of UBI and would provide more bang for your buck, so we should just do those. I'm sure he's right as far as it goes, but if those things are "easier" to do, why haven't we done them? Because they're not that easy! They should be no-brainers, but evidently they're not... Again, I think that's because Fox News can convince people that even something like universal health care, a service everyone will need sooner or later, ultimately amounts to the government taking your money to give to 'those people.' (do we need to pretend we don't know who 'those people' are?)

I think of UBI as a kind of 'shoot the moon' strategy. A plan "so crazy it just might work." Yes, it amounts to a pretty major restructuring of our economy, with large new taxes funding a redistribution of wealth to all citizens... But it's hard to pit people against each other when everyone gets the same amount of money.  And while it's a big price tag, legislatively at least it's no more complicated to enact than passing a tax cut, and it doesn't require creating a large bureaucracy to implement. (The IRS could handle it.) If the political will is there, it's do-able!

So, join the Yang Gang and "secure the bag!" I will concede Andrew Yang is unlikely to be our next president... I'll likely end up voting for whoever I think has the best shot at beating Trump (and enthusiastically supporting whoever wins the nom). But I'm hoping Yang will at least attract enough attention to get this idea into mainstream discussion, in the way that Bernie managed to reframe the conversation last time around. Yang's already made it into the first Democratic debate... keep an eye out for him and hear him out! 

Here's a general overview of UBI:

And here's libertarian hero Milton Friedman making the case for UBI:

'Medicare-for-All' as the Wall

'Medicare-for-All' as an issue seems to playing out a lot like Trump's wall.  Both examples serve as good rallying cries for the base, as well as simple ways of declaring one's priorities.  And neither one will actually happen.

It has been suggested that Trump wasn't committed to a literal wall, but that it symbolized his priorities, namely cracking down on illegal immigration and tightening up the border. If that were true it would have been effective symbol, but clearly at this point we can see that Trump has become enamored with an actual physical wall. This is probably mostly because it would serve as a monument to himself. But it's also true he was willing to let it go until Ann Coulter and others started calling him a sell-out. So he's decided to die on this particular hill, and his poll numbers, never great but always stable, are finally starting to sink. He's boxed himself in and politically bleeding out.

Medicare-for-All likewise effectively signals a politician's priorities in a simple, easy to understand way. And, likewise, it will never happen. Not just because of the insurance lobby, but because of the American public. Medicare-for-all polls well... until it doesn't. Until people are told their taxes will go up, and that they will lose the insurance plans they have.  As Jonathan Chait explains:

If you could sit down face to face with every American and calmly talk them through the numbers step by step, you could probably convince them to feeling comfortable giving up employer-sponsored insurance. Since you can’t do that, the only option is passing a bill in a hysterical atmosphere where the insurance industry and conservatives bombard the public with warnings of massive middle-class tax hikes and tens of millions of Americans losing their current insurance to get moved onto a government plan.
If we didn’t have an employer-based system already, it might be politically feasible to build a single-payer system. But the politics of uprooting that deformed tree are extremely imposing. 

This is the reality that some sectors of the left would like to just wave away. I'm old enough to remember all the way back in 2010, when Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate while controlling the House and the Presidency (a combination unlikely to occur again anytime soon), and were only barely able to drag Obamacare, a far less radical piece of legislation, across the finish line. It was excruciating and exhausting. And they paid for it at the ballot box. It was worth it, but they paid for it. To think a newly elected Democratic president would simply be able to wipe out our entire health insurance industry is just absurd.

But like Trump and his wall, at some point there will come a reckoning when reality has to be acknowledged.  At that point the Ann Coulters of the left will scream 'corporate sell-out!' Hopefully our next leader will have more sense than Trump when that day comes and deal with political reality.  Obamacare insured 20 million formerly uninsured people.  Further improvements could insure even more. Insisting on Medicare-for-all will insure zero new people, because it won't happen. But its supporters will at least be able to feel morally superior to everyone else, so...

Class war

Illustration of capital gains being taxed at the same rate as income

As a quick follow up to the last post, this article makes a good point that I alluded to but should be stressed: 'moderation' isn't necessarily the best way to get elected. It depends on the issue. The article argues that the language of class-warfare ('soak the rich!'), regardless what you think of it on the merits, does at least make for good politics. Dems just need to stop talking about 'income inequality,' an abstract concept that most people don't care about, and just talk about making rich people cough up more money. I think this is probably right, and I think it's good policy as well... so let's do it!  

Now, don't get your hopes up that it's actually going to happen.... unless we also elect a House and Senate that are also on board... a much more challenging task. But by all means, raise the battle cry!

Warren 2020

Thoughts on who Dems should nominate for Pres

Hey, look, I'm back. Why not?  

So, it's actually way too early to be talking about this stuff... we just had an election for God's sake... but I guess I can't help myself (sigh).

I would like to share what I believe are the three most important things we should be thinking about when we consider who to nominate as our Presidential nominee, in order of importance:

1) Can they win?

2) Can they win?

3) Can they win?

That is, of course, my way of saying that electability is pretty much the only thing that really matters.  Why? Because the Presidency is actually a pretty limited position... they can really only do as much as Congress will let them. This was a source of great frustration during the Obama years and has been a source of some solace more recently.  The two things that a President can really affect are foreign policy and judges (and other appointments).  So, let's say the fourth most important thing to consider is foreign policy, because we do have some different viewpoints there.  Judges are more consequential for our daily lives, but the truth is any Democrat is going to be choosing from the same bench of liberal justices. There aren't a bunch of 'socialist' judges out there waiting to be chosen.

I've said it before, but the fundamental flaw in reasoning of Sanders-supporters and their ilk is they think the reason we still had so many problems after 8 years of Obama as President is that he wasn't liberal enough.  Obama did as much as he could. Demanding single-payer health care would have only ensured he didn't make the VERY SUBSTANTIAL progress on that issue that he did.  The first two years of his presidency, when he had a Democratic Congress, were the most productive since LBJ. But once he lost Congress there was only so much he could do. So, if you want big change, don't focus on purity tests for Presidential candidates, focus on getting MORE DEMOCRATS in Congress.

Having said that, choosing the most electable candidate isn't necessarily so obvious.  With fewer and fewer swing/independent voters, being able to rally your base is important.  Preferably you don't want a lightning rod who's going to rally the other side against you either.  But you do need to give Democrats something to be excited about. Obama threaded the needle perfectly in terms of exciting liberals without freaking out middle of the road types. Do we have someone who fits the bill this go round? For what its worth, here are my thoughts on some of the candidates being discussed, in no particular order...

First, I'll just come out and say: The ideal candidate should probably be a man. Women are simply not treated the same by our media, or indeed by our population as a whole. People are just way more likely to view a woman seeking power negatively. It's completely unfair. But this next election MUST be won. Let's deal with the world at it is, not as we wish it were.

Also, for the record, I will say now that whoever wins the Democratic primary will have my full, enthusiastic support, without any reservations.

Ok, onto the candidates... 

Elizabeth Warren: I like her a lot. Hell, there's a part of me rooting for her, despite myself. That said, if we want to recreate the dynamics of the last election that led to the current disaster, I think she's the one you would pick! Look at how people treated her over that Native American DNA test... somehow it was some huge blunder. Essentially, no matter what she does she will be wrong and terrible somehow.  Again, it's BS, but let's acknowledge the dynamic and plan accordingly.

Kamala Harris: A black (ok: mixed) woman from California. Think people might bring some pre-conceptions to how they view her? That said, when you see her speak she does defy those pre-conceptions. As a former DA she brings a certain toughness. Still, most people outside partisan Democratic circles aren't going to even give her a chance. She, like Warren, will be a formidable candidate in the primary but I suspect have a lot of trouble in a general election. Fox News would love it. They'd turn her into the devil incarnate.

Bernie Sanders: Pass.

Michael Bloomberg: The other Democrat-when-it-suits-me. I lived in NYC during his tenure and unlike most of my friends I actually thought he seemed to be doing a pretty good job. He's pragmatic. That said, I will never forget him standing on that stage at the Republican National Convention in 2004 and speaking in support of George W. Bush. I think that dooms his chances in the primary, as perhaps it should.

Biden: The only real reservation I have about Biden is his age. The guy is old. He's got a great resume, obviously, and he's a like-able dude. There are plenty of things over his long career to nitpick about (the Anita Hill hearings weren't so hot), but I think he'd make a damn strong candidate. He's just.... OLD. 

Beto: Speaking of like-able dudes, I like this one a lot. He's got great, positive energy. I feel like if you don't like Beto as a person you need to take a look at yourself, haha.  That said, his resume is quite thin for a presidential candidate. I think people would have fair concerns about if this guy's really prepared for the job (granted, when whoever wins the nomination goes up against DT it will seem kind of absurd to worry about that).

Sherrod Brown: I like this guy! Working class guy focused on working class people. I hope he runs!

Jay Inslee: Washington state governor, says if he runs the environment will be his top issue. The environment is my top issue, so I'm already intrigued.  Apparently he enjoys a good fight and has no reluctance to give it to DT.  I do think we need someone who WANTS to fight. Who enjoys the back and forth and who is without fear. Perhaps that's Inslee? 

Amy Klobuchar: I already said I think we probably need a man, but Klobuchar does make me question that assumption. She's got this low-key Midwestern thing going on that maybe could allow her to avoid the awful gender dynamics in this country. I find her like-able and down-to-earth. (If you don't know her here's a clip of her on The View talking about John McCain) I imagine her presidency would be very boring, and wouldn't THAT be a relief!! I hope she runs.

Those are not the only people running, of course, but those are the ones on my radar at least. Eric Holder and Cory Booker are a couple others that might get some traction, although I don't have much to say about either at the moment. 

You will notice I did not apply a bunch of liberal litmus tests in my assessments, because: It. Does. Not. Matter. We just need to get Individual 1 out of the White House (so he can stand trial), and get someone in there not actively trying to ruin the country, who will appoint some good judges.  

THEN, if you want to actually change this country for the better, start thinking about what you can do to elect more Democrats to Congress.  Because that's where change will really come from.