[pilowsky]

kenberg, on 2021-September-20, 16:18, said:

And somehow every time I read Krugman I wish I hadn't, or at least I wish I had just let it lie. I don't doubt that the man is smart, very smart, very educated etc. He also seems to delight in explaining how stupid everyone else is.

I bet he plays Bridge.

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2021-September-20, 16:18, said:

And somehow every time I read Krugman I wish I hadn't, or at least I wish I had just let it lie. I don't doubt that the man is smart, very smart, very educated etc. He also seems to delight in explaining how stupid everyone else is.

My point exactly. We don't all see things the same way. If you don't see it my way I think no less of you. And I hope that if I don't see it your way you think no less of me. I'd just like us all to be on the same pursuit.......Life, Liberty, Happiness.

[Winstonm]

There is a battle ongoing in the GOP between those who want a return to the days of Ozzie and Harriet and those who prefer a bit further back, to a time when the Church ruled the land. It appears the church-goers are in the lead.

[y66]

Finland is winning the war on fake news. What it’s learned may be crucial to Western democracy

[y66]

Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg said:

https://www.bloomber...r?sref=UHfKDqx7

A deadline crisis appears to be approaching for Congress: Legislation is needed to temporarily fund the U.S. government into October, and to raise the debt limit so that the government doesn’t default at some point this fall. In fact, it’s unlikely that either disaster will happen. But that’s not the whole story.

Start with the possibility of a government shutdown. The fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, and therefore new funding is needed for all government operations and programs that rely on annual appropriations from Congress. As is usually the case at this point, Congress isn’t ready to pass the necessary appropriations bills. But all that is needed is a temporary measure to keep things going, and there’s no sign so far of any significant problem getting that done; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says he supports a stand-alone bill (a “continuing resolution”) to keep things funded.

The immediate problem is that Democrats in Congress are currently bundling together the spending bill with a debt limit increase and some emergency spending (for recent natural disasters and Afghan refugees), and Republicans are objecting to the debt limit part. But if the combined bill fails, there’s nothing to keep Democrats for bringing the bill back without the debt limit increase. Presumably, given that Republicans don’t object, that would pass, and the government would stay open.

It’s not plausible that President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would insist on keeping the government closed more than a few hours when they had the votes to keep it open. Even if public opinion turned against Republicans — no sure thing — that would be forgotten rapidly, while any economic damage from a prolonged shutdown could last, and would surely hurt the incumbent party regardless of who was at fault.

Congress can process continuing resolutions quickly, in hours if necessary, as long as no one objects. So government shutdowns don’t happen by miscalculation or accident. Every extended shutdown has taken place because one group wanted a shutdown and the others didn’t have the votes to avert it. That’s not the case this time. Democrats don’t want a shutdown, and they have the votes to keep the government open. It’s possible that they’ll hold out until the deadline is close in order to make a (perfectly correct) point about Republican obstruction and irresponsibility, but there’s no sign that a shutdown is coming.

And dealing with the debt limit? Yes, the Republican refusal to cooperate with what should be a routine matter is terrible. As the out-party, the GOP is within its rights to force Democrats to come up with the votes to raise or suspend the debt limit. But only if it can be done by a simple majority. As Bloomberg’s Steven Dennis said on Twitter Monday: “Dems don’t need Republicans to actually raise the debt limit. They just need them not to actively *filibuster* it.” Instead, by filibustering the bill to raise the debt limit, Senate Republicans are making Democrats act as a majority but at the same time preventing that majority from functioning by requiring 60 votes for passage.

Something will have to give, and putting the combined bill on the floor and watching Republicans vote to defeat it by filibuster can only be the first step. The next step will be to open another crack in the filibuster. The smallest crack would be if Democrats wind up including the debt limit increase in the full reconciliation bill (which is protected against filibusters) already being negotiated.

But that bill may not be ready on time. A somewhat larger crack, and what’s probably the most likely method, would be if Democrats pass the debt limit increase as a stand-alone additional reconciliation bill, which would be the second one for the budget year. That’s allowed under the rules, but the norm has been to do just one a year, so this would strengthen reconciliation as an option — and since reconciliation is a way to get around filibusters, anything that makes reconciliation more robust is a way to limit the power of the filibuster. The problem for the Democrats with this method, as Dennis points out, is that it would be costly in Senate floor time, which would make it harder for Democrats to take care of other priorities.

The most intriguing possibility is that Democrats could raise the debt limit by either eliminating the filibuster, or more plausibly, punching a new hole in it. That can be done by majority vote, but so far at least two Democrats, Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have been reluctant to mess with the filibuster. Faced with a choice of the filibuster or the economic chaos and disaster of a government default, it’s possible that filibuster fans would feel compelled to impose reform by majority rule. After all, if Republicans insist that the majority acts without their help, then making it possible for a simple majority to act makes plenty of sense.

Of course, the arguments for and against the filibuster don’t have to make sense; they just have to have the votes. And it’s likely that Manchin would prefer the reconciliation workaround, despite its costs, to creating a new precedent that debt limit increases cannot be filibustered, let alone a new precedent that only a simple majority is needed to defeat any filibuster. But it’s possible that what Schumer and Pelosi are doing is at least trying to set up the choice of default or filibuster in the hopes that Senate Democrats will unify in favor of majority-imposed reform.

And by the way? It’s not impossible that McConnell is seeking that outcome, too. Just as McConnell in 2013 refused all compromise and pushed reluctant Democrats into joining their reformer colleagues in eliminating the filibuster for nominations, he may be deliberately pushing for the same result this time. It’s also possible that McConnell didn’t and doesn’t believe that Democrats would really go through with majority-imposed reform. If so, he was proven wrong in 2013. We’ll see what happens this time.

As far as the politics of the situation, Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent of the Washington Post are correct: Democrats who fear this supposedly tough vote are worrying about nothing. There’s no evidence that voters care about the debt limit. There’s little evidence, for that matter, that voters care about federal budget deficits.

In this particular case, the Democrats who may be attacked for inflating deficits will have already voted for trillions of dollars of spending in a pandemic relief bill, an infrastructure bill that’s passed in the Senate, and at least the budget providing for a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. In other words: If spending is a problem for voters, the Democrats have a lot more to worry about than a debt-limit vote. And if spending isn’t a problem, then it’s impossible to imagine the voters who would approve of those three major bills but vote against Democrats because of the debt limit.

The debt limit has never made any sense. One way or another, Democrats are going to have to prevent a government default. It should be the last such vote. They should repeal the debt limit, or suspend it for a million years, or set it to an impossibly large figure (I’m suggesting calling it the constitutional option and raising it to 1787 to the 1787th power; others have even sillier suggestions). That would be good politics, but it would also be good policy.

[y66]

Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg said:

https://www.bloomber...t?sref=UHfKDqx7

Here’s the most important question right now in U.S. politics: Should the 2024 presidential election be determined by the choices of voters in the several states, with pluralities in each state determining the electoral votes from that state, and the candidate who receives the most electoral votes chosen in that fashion winning?

Or should Vice President Kamala Harris just pick whomever she wants to win? Perhaps herself, if President Joe Biden doesn’t run and Harris is the Democratic nominee.

Two documents about the Republican plan to subvert the 2020 election went public this week. And yes, it was a Republican plan even more than it was a Donald Trump plan, as can be seen from the nonsense-filled memo from Republican lawyer John Eastman from last winter that outlined a scheme for then-Vice President Mike Pence to throw out valid electoral votes.

For explanations of the memo’s legal absurdities, see the analyses by law professors Derek Muller here and Jonathan Adler here. Perhaps more to the point are reports that Republicans such as Utah Senator Mike Lee and former Vice President Dan Quayle believed the whole thing was nonsense — indeed, they join the ranks of Republicans who stood up to the Trumpy side of the party and, collectively, managed to preserve democracy.

So far.

Because we all know what happened after efforts to subvert the 2020 election failed. The Trump faction has systematically worked to eliminate those who didn’t go along while doing its best to convince Republican voters that all of this is a necessary defense against Democratic conspiracies.

That’s where the other document comes in: It turns out that at least some of those claims were debunked within the Trump campaign and White House early in the process — indeed, before Trump allies took those false claims public.

No wonder that Republicans were so ready to falsely claim fraud in last week’s failed vote to recall California Governor Gavin Newsom that they accidentally posted an analysis based on election returns … before the election happened and the votes were counted.

The bottom line is that the dominant faction of the Republican Party tried, through a combination of public lies, attempts to bully people into improper use of office, and, yes, mob violence, to overturn a presidential election. And it appears that this faction will become more dominant within the party. At the presidency level, we don’t know when Republicans will again lose an election, but it will happen sooner or later, perhaps with a Republican in the White House and with Republican majorities in Congress. It’s not at all clear what will happen then.

The good news? There isn’t much. Yes, some of the Republicans who rallied for the republic and the rule of law after the 2020 election will still be in place in 2024. It’s at least possible that others will take their responsibilities seriously, no matter how partisan they otherwise may be. That was, after all, the case in 2020. The Republicans who defied Trump and his allies were in many cases solid, even rabid, partisans — but it turned out that they did not, when push came to shove, betray their oaths of office. Perhaps that will be true of others in the future, even those who are cheering on subversion now when it’s not directly on their watch.

And it is at least possible that if Trump leaves the scene, the threat will recede. This problem didn’t begin with him, and there were more than a few regular Republicans who were eager to jump on the bandwagon. But Trump is more brazen than others, and that may give license to some who wouldn’t act on their own. It is, after all, in the nature of political parties to seek control of the government, so it’s not surprising that when given the opportunity, many party actors turn out to feel few constraints from the rule of law other than practical ones. Perhaps without a party leader who apparently has no feel for democracy and the rule of law egging them on, the party would go back to having only some unhealthy impulses, rather than having those impulses dominate.

Perhaps. But that’s not a lot to hang the hopes of the nation on.

It is good to know that election law experts are working on ways to make it harder to overturn election results. Rick Hasen, a legal scholar who has worked on these issues for years, has an important new draft paper out about the dangers of election subversion and some potential remedies. And Hasen’s new Free Elections and Free Speech Center is hosting a conference this Friday with an impressive — and bipartisan — group of scholars and political actors. (The conference is virtual; registration available here). In other words, election subversion is on the radar in a way that it wasn’t five or 10 years ago. If we were taken by surprise in 2020, even if we shouldn’t have been, we won’t be in 2022 or 2024. That might help. But right now I’m not sure it will.

[Gilithin]

Quote

And it is at least possible that if Trump leaves the scene, the threat will recede.

Nah, it just means that the strategy will be implemented by someone that is actually competent. The US was lucky that the Republicans showed their hand with such a dysfunctional administration. After this dress rehearsal, the next coup will not be defeated so easily.

[kenberg]

The worry about democracy, as discussed by b\Bernstein, is real. What to do? He speaks of 2024, and that's important, but there is also the long term.

Here is a portion from a previous post about Finland coping, or hopefilly coping, with political problems:

Quote

It may be difficult to export democracy, but it is easy to import experts, which is precisely what Finland did in 2016 to combat what it saw as a rise in disinformation emanating from accounts linked to its neighbor to the east.

"They knew that the Kremlin was messing with Finnish politics, but they didn't have a context with which to interpret that. They were wondering if this meant they [Russia] would invade, was this war?" Jed Willard, director of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Center for Global Engagement at Harvard University, who was hired by Finland to train state officials to spot and then hit back at fake news, told CNN.

Russia maintains that it has not and does not interfere in the domestic politics of other countries.

Behind closed doors, Willard's workshops largely focused on one thing: developing a strong national narrative, rather than trying to debunk false claims.

"The Finns have a very unique and special strength in that they know who they are. And who they are is directly rooted in human rights and the rule of law, in a lot of things that Russia, right now, is not," Willard said. "There is a strong sense of what it means to be Finnish … that is a super power."

Not all nations have the type of narrative to fall back on that Finland does.

Note: "The Finns have a very unique and special strength in that they know who they are." That got my attention. I think we, as a country, don't know who we are. Of course we cannot expect unanimity or anything like it. Nor would we want it. But there is no getting around the fact that when I was a kid Democrats and Republicans could go out for a beer together and discuss baseball. That's much less true now.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2021-September-22, 07:43, said:

I think we, as a country, don't know who we are. Of course we cannot expect unanimity or anything like it. Nor would we want it. But there is no getting around the fact that when I was a kid Democrats and Republicans could go out for a beer together and discuss baseball.

baseball and Ruskies.

[kenberg]

I have spent some time this morning thinking about "where are we headed?" issues. There can be many topics, but I looked up a bit about US birthrates. they have fallen, everyone knows that. I found an NPR program where this was discussed.
https://www.npr.org/...-u-s-birth-rate
I have not yet listened to it all, but the guest explained that after much research they have come to the conclusion that birthrates have fallen because women have decided to have fewer children.
Maybe I will listen to the rest later.

Looking more broadly at where we are, it seems that immigration is essential. We need immigrants for skilled labor, we need immigrants for unskilled labor, and apparently, we need immigrants to sustain the population. Maybe we should think a bit about just how we reached this point.

[y66]

Matt Yglesias said:

A long time ago, I got cognitive behavioral therapy for an anger management problem.

The nature of this kind of therapy is that it involves explicitly saying a lot of stuff that’s so obvious it almost feels dumb articulating. Like when you’re feeling upset, ask yourself before you do something, “is this going to make me feel better or worse?” Well, don’t do the thing that’s going to make you feel worse. Most people seem to have a handle on that intuitively. Some of us, for whatever reason, don’t. You need to try to learn to recognize the physiological signs of anger and remind yourself to repeat the basic point.

And for a lot of stuff with Democrats, I think it’s similar. The basic demographic facts are not secret. Nor is there some giant controversy over the size of the population of various metro areas in Pennsylvania.

And I don’t think there’s a mass delusion where people have come to believe that left-wing cultural politics and student debt relief are the top priorities for 50-something working-class people living outside the top 50 metro areas. But when people who work in Democratic and party-aligned causes put out their products, I think they tend not to stop and consciously go through the process of asking, “Who are we centering here? What is the message we are implicitly sending about who we care about? Whose language are we speaking?”

Which mostly means there’s enormous room for improvement.

https://www.slowbori...0YSOPJvDlmePPZA

[Gilithin]

kenberg, on 2021-September-22, 08:56, said:

I have spent some time this morning thinking about "where are we headed?" issues. There can be many topics, but I looked up a bit about US birthrates. they have fallen, everyone knows that. I found an NPR program where this was discussed.
https://www.npr.org/...-u-s-birth-rate
I have not yet listened to it all, but the guest explained that after much research they have come to the conclusion that birthrates have fallen because women have decided to have fewer children.
Maybe I will listen to the rest later.

Looking more broadly at where we are, it seems that immigration is essential. We need immigrants for skilled labor, we need immigrants for unskilled labor, and apparently, we need immigrants to sustain the population. Maybe we should think a bit about just how we reached this point.

Back in the 70s and 80s, one of the great challenges facing mankind was seen as overpopulation. Governments throughout the world invested huge amounts of effort to persuade people about the dangers of large families and the benefits of having fewer children. This was part of many school curricula (mine included) and in many places was presented as more or less a national duty. So it is hardly surprising that, 2 generations later, numbers of births have decreased. Yes it is because women/couples have decided to have fewer babies; but perhaps being bombarded with heavy propaganda from childhood might at least make it to the list of reasons how that decision was reached.

[kenberg]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-22, 09:30, said:

Back in the 70s and 80s, one of the great challenges facing mankind was seen as overpopulation. Governments throughout the world invested huge amounts of effort to persuade people about the dangers of large families and the benefits of having fewer children. This was part of many school curricula (mine included) and in many places was presented as more or less a national duty. So it is hardly surprising that, 2 generations later, numbers of births have decreased. Yes it is because women/couples have decided to have fewer babies; but perhaps being bombarded with heavy propaganda from childhood might at least make it to the list of reasons how that decision was reached.

I agree that this should be on the list. I doubt that many women who wish to have children forego that wish in order to do their duty to the cause of controlling world population, but I can imagine it playing a role when parents have, say, two children. Something like "We have our two, let's leave it at that" could at least partly come from an awareness of worldwide population growth. Still, I doubt that it is anywhere near the main reason. On NPR the person was saying that various suggested reasons such as difficulty with childcare don't really stand up. I can believe that, as long as "don't really stand up" means that it is not the total explanation. My guess is that "How will we handle the childcare problems while we both work" has a bigger influence on the average potential parent than "We must help control world population growth". Neither entirely explains it.

Part of the explanation involves "What is considered normal?". I got married (the first time) in 1960. Yes, I knew women who were not planning on having children, well, maybe knew one woman who was not planning on having children. That was regarded as a very unusual choice. There is probably some sort of feedback loop. As more women make that choice, it appears to be a more normal choice, so it is easier for other women to make that choice, and so on.

Whatever the case, the world has changed a lot. It is hard to think of a country as thriving if it does not create by birth, and through education, enough skilled workers, and has the same issue with unskilled workers, and has a birthrate far below what is needed for population replacement. At the very least, it raises the question of just what is going on.

I still plan to listen to the rest of the NPR show, but not now.

Added: Thinking back, I am not so sure that in my young days it was as unusual as I said for women to choose not to have children. I overstated it. But much less common than today.

Further edit: I have been reading some more about the declining birthrate and ok, I agree that it is complicated. Still, I think some simple features are evident. We can use the 'village" metaphor: Parents, or potential parents, are struggling and announce "It takes a village to raise a child" The village responds "We are not going to do that". Whatever the role of other causes, it seems like this metaphorical interchange would have an effect.

But it was not just the birth rate that I mentioned. We seem to be a bit lost.

[y66]

From Illinois' brilliant new climate, jobs, and justice bill by David Roberts at Volts

Quote

In 2016, Illinois passed a decent enough energy bill. It shored up the state’s (relatively modest) renewable energy standard and kept its existing nuclear power plants open. It was a compromise among varied interests, signed into law by a Democratic legislature and a Republican governor. At the time, I figured it was the best any state in the coal-heavy Midwest was likely to do.

Well, that will teach me to go around figuring. Just five years later, Illinois has raised the bar, passing one of the most environmentally ambitious, worker-friendly, justice-focused energy bills of any state in the country: The Climate and Equitable Jobs Act.

Illinois is now the first state in the Midwest to commit to net-zero carbon emissions, joining over a dozen other states across the country. It is also a model for how diverse stakeholders can reach consensus.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Donald Trump and his inner circle face mounting legal troubles all while a number of the ex-president's highest-profile lawyers have ejected from his orbit.

I've heard that Bob Odenkirk might be available. But Trump Tower Albequerque doesn't have the same ring as Moscow.

[y66]

From Politico:

Quote

The select panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection is issuing subpoenas to four current and former top aides to President Donald Trump, including his most recent chief of staff Mark Meadows.

The committee issued its first subpoenas on Thursday to Meadows; former Pentagon official and longtime House Intelligence Committee aide Kash Patel; former top White House adviser Steve Bannon; and longtime Trump social media chief Dan Scavino . It marks a turning point in the investigation as lawmakers begin homing in on Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election results.

The Jan. 6 committee's chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), had foreshadowed Wednesday that the first subpoenas would go out imminently, as the panel kicks into high gear with the goal of finishing its work by next spring. The four Trump associates will be commanded to produce relevant documents by Oct. 7 and appear for depositions the following week.

https://www.politico...r-circle-513989

[pilowsky]

House committees are very important in American (and UnAmerican) political life.
Here is a documentary produced by the HUAC.
I've watched a few of the old sessions going back to the 1950s. Including Ronald Reagan appearing at the time of the Hollywood 10 - he opposed the idea of banning the CP - on free speech grounds.
He states inter alia that we have done a good job of preventing a vocal minority from taking over.
He was wearing spectacles.
Ou sont les Republicans d'antan?

[johnu]

y66, on 2021-September-23, 20:57, said:

From Politico:

One informed school of thought is that these high level Trump stooges are getting subpoenas right now at the beginning of the committee hearings is because the committee expects them to delay, delay, delay. So, may as well do the subpoenas immediately and fight the delays in court while the committee can continue investigation in other areas.

[y66]

Heather Cox Richardson said:

Also tonight (Thursday), the report from Cyber Ninjas, the company conducting the “audit” into the votes in Arizona’s Maricopa County, was released to news outlets. The report remains a mess and continues to insist that Arizona election processes are flawed, but it says that Biden did indeed win Maricopa County, and thus Arizona…by a higher margin than previously counted.

https://heathercoxri...ws99mFR5iCdcK0A

[kenberg]

pilowsky, on 2021-September-23, 23:28, said:

House committees are very important in American (and UnAmerican) political life.
Here is a documentary produced by the HUAC.
I've watched a few of the old sessions going back to the 1950s. Including Ronald Reagan appearing at the time of the Hollywood 10 - he opposed the idea of banning the CP - on free speech grounds.
He states inter alia that we have done a good job of preventing a vocal minority from taking over.
He was wearing spectacles.
Ou sont les Republicans d'antan?

Ou sont les mon pays d'antan?

No, I don't speak French, but I borrowed a couple of words from https://www.youtube....h?v=0lLly_oHvSo

I suppose it is Ou est not Ou sont

And in the early 50s at least, I think Reagan was still a Democrat.