Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

There will be a lot of takes on the fall pileup of infrastructure, reconciliation, debt ceiling, government funding and voting rights but the biggest one is this: the filibuster makes our system nuts. We should get rid of it and treat ourselves to a rational system of governance.

[Winstonm]

the filibuster makes our system nuts. We should get rid of it and treat ourselves to a rational system of governance.

Try explaining that to King Manchin.

[johnu]

Try explaining that to King Manchin.

Even if Manchin were to change his position on the filibuster, the Senate still couldn't change the rules because Kyrsten Sinema is also against getting rid of the filibuster, even though she was against the filibuster earlier in her career.

 

Both Manchin and Sinema need to change their positions to get rid of the filibuster.

[Winstonm]

Even if Manchin were to change his position on the filibuster, the Senate still couldn't change the rules because Kyrsten Sinema is also against getting rid of the filibuster, even though she was against the filibuster earlier in her career.

 

Both Manchin and Sinema need to change their positions to get rid of the filibuster.

 

I doubt Sinema would hold that line alone.

[y66]

From Ohio House Republican, Calling Trump ‘a Cancer,’ Bows Out of 2022 by Jonathan Martin at NYT:

 

WASHINGTON — Calling former President Donald J. Trump “a cancer for the country,” Representative Anthony Gonzalez, Republican of Ohio, said in an interview on Thursday that he would not run for re-election in 2022, ceding his seat after just two terms in Congress rather than compete against a Trump-backed primary opponent.

 

Mr. Gonzalez is the first, but perhaps not the last, of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot to retire rather than face ferocious primaries next year in a party still in thrall to the former president.

 

The congressman, who has two young children, emphasized that he was leaving in large part because of family considerations and the difficulties that come with living between two cities. But he made clear that the strain had only grown worse since his impeachment vote, after which he was deluged with threats and feared for the safety of his wife and children.

 

Mr. Gonzalez said that quality-of-life issues had been paramount in his decision. He recounted an “eye-opening” moment this year: when he and his family were greeted at the Cleveland airport by two uniformed police officers, part of extra security precautions taken after the impeachment vote.

 

“That’s one of those moments where you say, ‘Is this really what I want for my family when they travel, to have my wife and kids escorted through the airport?’” he said.

 

Mr. Gonzalez, who turns 37 on Saturday, was the sort of Republican recruit the party once prized. A Cuban American who starred as an Ohio State wide receiver, he was selected in the first round of the N.F.L. draft and then earned an M.B.A. at Stanford after his football career was cut short by injuries. He claimed his Northeast Ohio seat in his first bid for political office.

 

Mr. Gonzalez, a conservative, largely supported the former president’s agenda. Yet he started breaking with Mr. Trump and House Republican leaders when they sought to block the certification of last year’s presidential vote, and he was horrified by Jan. 6 and its implications.

 

Still, he insisted he could have prevailed in what he acknowledged would have been a “brutally hard primary” against Max Miller, a former Trump White House aide who was endorsed by the former president in February.

 

Yet as Mr. Gonzalez sat on a couch in his House office, most of his colleagues still at home for the prolonged summer recess, he acknowledged that he could not bear the prospect of winning if it meant returning to a Trump-dominated House Republican caucus.

 

“Politically the environment is so toxic, especially in our own party right now,” he said. “You can fight your butt off and win this thing, but are you really going to be happy? And the answer is, probably not.”

 

For the Ohioan, Jan. 6 was “a line-in-the-sand moment” and Mr. Trump represents nothing less than a threat to American democracy.

 

“I don’t believe he can ever be president again,” Mr. Gonzalez said. “Most of my political energy will be spent working on that exact goal.”

 

Mr. Gonzalez said there had been some uncertainty after the assault on the Capitol over whether Republican leaders would continue to bow to Mr. Trump.

 

But the ouster of Representative Liz Cheney from her leadership post; the continued obeisance of Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader; and the recent decision to invite Mr. Trump to be the keynote speaker at a major House Republican fund-raiser were clarifying. At least in Washington, this is still Mr. Trump’s party.

 

“This is the direction that we’re going to go in for the next two years and potentially four, and it’s going to make Trump the center of fund-raising efforts and political outreach,” Mr. Gonzalez said. “That’s not something I’m going to be part of.”

 

His decision to leave rather than fight, however, ensures that the congressional wing of the party will become only more thoroughly Trumpified. And it will raise questions about whether other Trump critics in the House will follow him to the exits. At the top of that watch list: Ms. Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who are both serving on the otherwise Democratic-dominated panel investigating the Capitol riot.

 

Asked how he could hope to cleanse the party of Mr. Trump if he himself was not willing to confront the former president in a proxy fight next year against Mr. Miller, Mr. Gonzalez insisted that there were still Republicans in office who would defend “the fundamentals of democracy.”

 

With more ardor, he argued that Mr. Trump has less of a following among grass-roots Republicans than the party’s leaders believe, particularly when it comes to whom the rank-and-file want to lead their 2024 ticket.

 

“Where I see a big gap is, most people that I speak to back home agree with the policies but they also want us to move on from the person” and “the sort of resentment politics that has taken over the party,” Mr. Gonzalez said.

 

Congressional maps are set to be redrawn this year, and it’s unclear what Mr. Gonzalez’s district, the 16th, will look like afterward. But he said he would probably not take sides in the primary to succeed him, which is now likely to include additional candidates.

 

He said he would remain in the House through the end of his term unless something changed with his family.

 

Mr. Gonzalez was emphatic that the threats were not why he was leaving — the commute was more trying, he said — but in a matter-of-fact fashion, he recounted people online saying things like, “We’re coming to your house.”

 

In accordance with the advice House officials gave to all members, Mr. Gonzalez had a security consultant walk through his home to ensure it was well protected.

 

“It’s a reflection of where our politics looked like it was headed post-Jan. 6,” he said.

 

Neither Mr. Trump nor any of his intermediaries have sought to push him out of the race, Mr. Gonzalez said.

 

Asked about Mr. Trump’s inevitable crowing over his exit from the primary, Mr. Gonzalez dismissed the former president.

 

“I haven’t cared what he says or thinks since Jan. 6, outside when he continues to lie about the election, which I have a problem with,” he said.

 

What clearly does bother him, though, are the Republicans who continue to abet Mr. Trump’s election falsehoods, acts of appeasement that he said were morally wrong and politically foolhardy after the party lost both chambers of Congress and the White House under the former president’s leadership.

 

“We’ve learned the wrong lesson as a party,” Mr. Gonzalez said, “but beyond that, and more importantly, it’s horribly irresponsible and destructive for the country.”

[y66]

It's true that voters are not policy wonks. But the main tool politicians have to communicate their values is by issue taking, which is why tying Democrats to [popular economic] issues does better than traditional political content.

 

I talk about that here

[pilowsky]

You seem to be suggesting that politicians have 'values'.

What are they?

[y66]

Good to see see Krugman calling out some of the bogus arguments for opposing Biden's $3.5 trillion spending plans.

[pilowsky]

I searched an academic database with ARTICLE TITLE<Donald AND Trump> and came up with 812 hits.

 

Here is one of my favourites: https://bit.ly/TrumpMoscowUni

You either need to be able to read Russian or have google translate to read it - the abstract is below.

Here is the reference in case you want to correspond with the Author:

Balditsyn P.V.

Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Media Linguistics, Faculty of Journalism, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

e-mail: pbalditsyn@gmail.com

Turns out that Muscovites felt that Andy Borowitz is a bit mean; heartbreaking really.

This paper contains an analysis of stories, articles, letters, photographs and pictures of the American magazine The New Yorker for 2019 which represent a targeted campaign to discredit Donald Trump. It should be borne in mind that today the magazine is published in two main formats: as a traditional paper weekly and as an online publication Daily. In the printed version of the magazine, the presence of Trump's criticism was indispensable but not significant: one or two articles, several cartoons, only 1–2% of the text. Here The New Yorker was true to its intellectual and aesthetic traditions. In the online version, however, there were a number of articles and reports against the current president of the United States (up to 10 per day, nearly two-thirds of the columns Reporting and News & Politics). The online version was clearly serving the purposes of political struggle and propaganda. The particularity of this campaign was that its materials were in the tradition of quality journalism, they included a lot of reliable facts, quotes and opinions, but were presented in a completely one-sided perspective and created a negative "framing" effect, which was far from objective. For this, various media and linguistic means were used: caustic cartoons, sometimes on covers, photographs that distorted the appearance of the object and caused laughter or disgust, in the texts – the selection of negative vocabulary, quotes, idioms, comparisons and metaphors, repetition of stamps and clichés of a certain connotation ("liar", "racist", "sexist", "fascist" and the like), the use of sacred concepts and names from national history, on the one hand, and the mentions of odious political figures of our days, on the other, only to emphasize Trump's negative personal qualities and his inability to fulfill the position. In addition, satirical miniatures by Andy Borowitz regularly appeared in Daily, where grotesque, hyperbole and outright fantasy were generously used. In general, all these materials of the New Yorker magazine against Trump were indicative of the functions of a satirical pamphlet, whose aims are to expose, unmask and ridicule, to overthrow social evil.

 

[Gilithin]

How many peer-reviewed articles? Not everything in an academic database is worth using for something other than loo roll.

[pilowsky]

How many peer-reviewed articles? Not everything in an academic database is worth using for something other than loo roll.

 

Even the "peer-reviewed" stuff is sometimes a bit dubious - don't get me started.

[Chas_P]

Good to see see Krugman calling out some of the bogus arguments for opposing Biden's $3.5 trillion spending plans.

.

If Krugman calls it "bogus", does that automatically make it "bogus"? I'm just askin'.......

[kenberg]

Good to see see Krugman calling out some of the bogus arguments for opposing Biden's $3.5 trillion spending plans.

 

 

.

If Krugman calls it "bogus", does that automatically make it "bogus"? I'm just askin'.......

No, of course not, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that it does.

 

But care is needed in all things. I'll take a look at Krugman, then at the piece he criticizes.

 

The Krugman tweet:

 

Really surprised to see Greg Mankiw raising the specter of European economies depressed by excessively large welfare states. Even more surprised to see him citing as his main source a 2003(!) paper by Ed Prescott 1/

 

From the Mankiw piece:

 

In the real world, this leakage occurs because higher taxes distort incentives and impede economic growth. And those taxes aren't just the explicit ones that finance benefits such as public education or health care. They also include implicit taxes baked into the benefits themselves. If these benefits decline when your income rises, people are discouraged from working. This implicit tax distorts incentives just as explicit taxes do. That doesn't mean there is no point in trying to help those in need, but it does require being mindful of the downsides of doing so.

 

Which brings us back to Western Europe. Compared with the United States, G.D.P. per person in 2019 was 14 percent lower in Germany, 24 percent lower in France and 26 percent lower in the United Kingdom.

 

Economists disagree about why European nations are less prosperous than the United States. But a leading hypothesis, advanced by Edward Prescott, a Nobel laureate, in 2003, is that Europeans work less than Americans because they face higher taxes to finance a more generous social safety net.

 

 

 

 

Later Mankiw cites an even earlier work:

 

Arthur Okun, the former economic adviser to President Lyndon Johnson, addressed this timeless issue in his 1975 book, "Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff." According to Mr. Okun, policymakers want to maximize the economic pie while slicing it equally. But these goals often conflict. As policymakers attempt to rectify the market's outcome by equalizing the slices, the pie tends to

shrink.

 

So, while Mankiw does cite a 2003 piece, and even a 1975 piece, he is speaking of G.D.P. in 2019 so he is not simply thinking back to the old days. He is citing past views of past causes of past events, something that I am sure many economists of many stripes do. No doubt Mankiw is picking these sources in order to support his own views. People who write columns for newspapers have been known to do that.

[y66]

Seems like a good chance we get neither bill.

"SINEMA [said to] JOE BIDEN ... If the House delays its scheduled Sept. 27 vote on the bipartisan infrastructure plan — or if the vote fails — she won’t be backing a reconciliation bill" --

[Winstonm]

Or it could be that both Manchin and Sinema are playacting for their respective conservative voters prior to capitulating "in order to get something done, no matter how imperfect.".

[Gilithin]

So, while Mankiw does cite a 2003 piece, and even a 1975 piece, he is speaking of G.D.P. in 2019 so he is not simply thinking back to the old days. He is citing past views of past causes of past events, something that I am sure many economists of many stripes do. No doubt Mankiw is picking these sources in order to support his own views. People who write columns for newspapers have been known to do that.

He might find it useful to come up to date. According to the most recent data, the USA currently ranks 11th in productivity per worker, behind 10 European countries. It does better in terms of GDP, only being beaten by 4 European countries.

[kenberg]

He might find it useful to come up to date. According to the most recent data, the USA currently ranks 11th in productivity per worker, behind 10 European countries. It does better in terms of GDP, only being beaten by 4 European countries.

 

Perhaps so but it wouldn't matter as far as Krugman is concerned. He has an unbroken record of treating anyone who disagrees with him about anything with total contempt. You like your eggs fried? You are an idiot, Krugman will tell you that boiled is the only way.

 

In the example at hand (not one I picked) he thoroughly distorts Mankiw's presentation. But why would he bother to do otherwise? Mankiw disagrees with Krugman, therefore Mankiw is not worth taking seriously.

 

I suppose I will regret my comments, but I very much wish that a person with his brains would try to explain his thoughts with clarity instead of with so much contempt for others

[Gilithin]

Perhaps so but it wouldn't matter as far as Krugman is concerned. He has an unbroken record of treating anyone who disagrees with him about anything with total contempt. You like your eggs fried? You are an idiot, Krugman will tell you that boiled is the only way.

 

In the example at hand (not one I picked) he thoroughly distorts Mankiw's presentation. But why would he bother to do otherwise? Mankiw disagrees with Krugman, therefore Mankiw is not worth taking seriously.

Did you actually click on the link Ken? If you look at the table it is blindingly obvious why the USA does relatively well in terms of GDP per capita - Americans simply work more hours on average than any other developed country. Is that really a positive thing though? When you take the hours worked out and move to the productivity column, you get to see what is really happening, which is that US workers are not more productive than European ones. So the entire basis of the argument is completely flawed. The proper question to ask is why Americans work ~20% longer than Europeans when the benefits of doing so are clearly at best minimal. If you want to increase productivity, have each employee work fewer hours (either through public holidays or by contract) and, if necessary, employ additional workers to make up the shortfall of hours. I may be wrong but suspect it might have something to do with the way healthcare works in the US as to why this model probably increases costs for the employer rather than simply being a win for everyone. In other words, it is precisely the mechanism that Mankiw is criticising that allows European companies to have the flexibility to provide a better model for its employees that helps to increase productivity above that of the US. But let's not let feal data get in the way of a good right-wing scare story.

[y66]

This is just my occasional reminder that you can eliminate the filibuster with 51 votes. The parliamentarian is not the obstacle. The obstacle is Senate Democrats who support the filibuster.

There is nothing moderate, sensible, or traditionalist about this Senate. No one ever intended for it to work this way.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/opinion/democrats-senate-reconciliation.html

[kenberg]

Did you actually click on the link Ken? If you look at the table it is blindingly obvious why the USA does relatively well in terms of GDP per capita - Americans simply work more hours on average than any other developed country. Is that really a positive thing though? When you take the hours worked out and move to the productivity column, you get to see what is really happening, which is that US workers are not more productive than European ones. So the entire basis of the argument is completely flawed. The proper question to ask is why Americans work ~20% longer than Europeans when the benefits of doing so are clearly at best minimal. If you want to increase productivity, have each employee work fewer hours (either through public holidays or by contract) and, if necessary, employ additional workers to make up the shortfall of hours. I may be wrong but suspect it might have something to do with the way healthcare works in the US as to why this model probably increases costs for the employer rather than simply being a win for everyone. In other words, it is precisely the mechanism that Mankiw is criticising that allows European companies to have the flexibility to provide a better model for its employees that helps to increase productivity above that of the US. But let's not let feal data get in the way of a good right-wing scare story.

 

I was thinking of starting a conversation about some items that concern me. There are several and it will take some thought, but I think we are reaching a point of great change.

 

If I do this, I doubt I will mention Europe at all. If something sounds good and they are doing it in Europe that's fine, but if it sounds good and they are not doing it in Europe I would still be fine with it.

 

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 will try to express some of my own thoughts in an organized way, this is probably the last I want to say about Krugman. I realize he does not have this same effect on most others.

[pilowsky]

 

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]

 

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]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-21/debt-limit-stalemate-opens-cracks-in-the-filibuster?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.