Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Elites versus the public on renaming army bases

According to the Washington Post:

Half of Americans oppose renaming military bases currently named after Confederate generals, while 42 percent support the changes. Once again there is a significant partisan split, with 81 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of independents opposed and 66 percent of Democrats in favor. A majority of Americans ages 50 and older are opposed to any renaming, while a plurality of those under 50 support the change.

Despite the fact that the public leans slightly towards keeping current names, military and political elites (with the notable exception of the President) seem to be fairly unified in favor of renaming.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, told The Wall Street Journal last week that he would not block the effort to rename the bases, and in an interview with a Louisville radio station, he said he didn’t “have any problem” with renaming the bases for “people who didn’t rebel against the country.” He has urged the president not to veto the bill.

“The issue of Army bases being named after Confederate generals is a legitimate concern in the times in which we live,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “I’m OK with a process that the Senate came up with. And there’s a lot of good things in this bill.”

So . . . what gives?  Why are Republicans refusing to play the race card here?  I can understand why military leaders object to having bases named after traitors, and they also need to create a force that can function effectively in a diverse world.  But what about Republican politicians?  Is this all being driven by members of Congress in tight races?  Is that plausible, given that most Americans oppose renaming?

Comments (11) | |

Democrats, please talk about carbon taxes

Or at least think about how you will talk about them in January . . .

It now seems likely that Joe Biden will win the presidency, and there is a reasonable chance that Democrats will capture the Senate as well.  If they do get unified control of the government, climate policy will high on their legislative agenda.  What is unclear is whether their approach will include a carbon tax.  This is troubling, because carbon taxes have very substantial economic and political advantages over other approaches to climate policy.

No doubt many Congressional Democrats understand the arguments for carbon taxes, although some progressives seem to be skeptical of using prices to reduce emissions.  Joe Biden’s climate plan says that “polluters must bear the full cost of the carbon pollution they are emitting”, which seems like an oblique reference to a carbon tax.  But so far Democrats have been avoiding the “t word” and instead emphasizing subsidies, direct job creation, and social justice, and this will make it difficult to switch gears after the election and implement a carbon tax.  The Democrats may be painting themselves into a rhetorical corner.

Any strong climate bill will face real challenges getting through Congress and maintaining political support.  Getting a carbon tax through Congress and preventing a public backlash will clearly require an effort to familiarize the public with the idea.  I believe this is possible, but Democrats (and Republicans) who support carbon taxation need to think about how and when this conversation will unfold.

Comments (10) | |

More economic wisdom from the Library of Economics and Liberty

In a post today at Econlib, David Henderson writes:

Postscript:

There was an unusually high percentage of good comments on my op/ed on the WSJ site. Here’s one I just noticed:

In Michigan, our Governor ordered auto insurance companies to issue rebates – due to folks driving less I guess.

But amazingly, our Governor who is owned by the teachers union, gave no such order  to rebate the portion of property taxes that go toward public schools. Even though there is no way teachers, who stopped in school teaching in March, provided the same level of service.

This needs to change.

Indeed!

This is, in fact, an absurd comment, strictly on economic grounds.  The cost of producing auto insurance has gone down due to the pandemic – people are driving less and having fewer accidents.  In fact, many auto insurance companies are offering rebates to customers as a good will gesture.  In contrast, it is not at all obvious that the cost of producing public education has gone down.  Of course, the quality of public education has gone down – on line learning is, for many students, a decidedly inferior alternative to in person instruction, and on line instruction does not provide child care to parents.  But as Henderson is well aware, price is driven by cost, not quality.  The bundle of goods and services I get when I go to the grocery store today is decidedly lower quality than it was 6 months ago, because I risk getting COVID-19 when I shop.  Yet the price of food has risen because the cost of grocery store inputs has risen.  (To be clear, I am not defending the governor’s order on auto insurance, or her handling of schools and property taxes, just explaining why the two situations Henderson is comparing are not at all comparable, on narrow economic grounds.)

Comments (9) | |

Is McConnell trying to destroy the economy for Biden?

Paul Waldman asks the question I’ve been worrying about for a few weeks:

Do Republicans even want to help the American economy through this crisis?

. . .

But McConnell knows what’s happening. He has surely looked around and realized that with the pandemic surging, there is simply no way the economy is going to come roaring back before November. He’s seen the polls showing Trump trailing presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden by 10 points or more. He knows that the political environment grows less favorable to the GOP by the day. He understands that the odds his party will retain control of the Senate are probably 50-50 at best.

So from where he [McConnell] sits, the best outcome now may be to use the next stimulus package to win some minor ideological victories, but not allow it to be substantial enough to set the stage for a genuine recovery. That way, if and when Biden becomes president in 2021, the situation will be no less dire than it is now — and maybe more so.

And the worse things are in the country at that point, the better it is for Republicans. Just as they did when Barack Obama was president, they can blame Democrats for their own mistakes, then force austerity measures that sabotage the economy and slow the recovery.

If you were a Republican and you thought that Trump was doomed no matter what, this might be your best-case scenario.

I think there is a possibility that this is what McConnell is doing.  However, I am not sure of this.  It is possible that he is just posturing and angling for more corporate goodies, but will be happy to agree (“reluctantly”) to a large rescue package.

The House Democrats took automatic stabilizers off the table with the HEROES Act, and a large stimulus now that expires just when Biden takes office might be the “best” bet for Republicans – it would maximize their share of seats in the Senate, and position them for “optimal” obstruction even if they lose control.  An inadequate stimulus package that creates a full-fledged economic disaster now would be quite risky for the Republicans in narrow political terms.  Starting out with an inadequate stimulus package and bargaining for more corporate goodies in exchange for more stimulus might be McConnell’s game, just as in prior rounds.

A few further thoughts.

Republicans will argue for austerity – cluelessly or shamelessly, possibly now and certainly after a Biden win in November – to justify opposition to desperately needed stimulus spending.  James Kwak is right to worry that these arguments will lead centrist Democrats to go small.

The $2 trillion stimulus package over 4 years that Biden just proposed last week may not be sufficient, especially if McConnell refuses to pass a substantial bill now.  At a minimum, a Democratic stimulus bill in 2021 should have automatic triggers to extend economic support if the economy does not recover, because public opinion will turn against Biden and the Democrats if the recession drags on, and Democratic centrists may focus too much on current opinion polling about “deficits” rather than “latent” or future opinion about “recession” when voting on additional stimulus.

It is hard to say what the Democrats should bargain for without seeing what the Republicans propose, but I think Democrats should offer to let any state end the $600 weekly UI supplement (a “key” Republican demand) if they instead switch to 100% wage replacement of the first (say) 50k in wages, and 75% replacement up to 80k or 100k.  Let the states decide.  Aid to state and local governments should be close to non-negotiable.

I would seriously consider giving the Republicans corporate liability protection.  Sure, it sucks as a policy, but more because it reflects callous indifference to worker safety than because the status quo will actually benefit many people.  There are very few lawsuits so far and little reason to expect this to change.  If liability protection is symbolically important to Republicans, Democrats could try to pair it with an increase in life insurance and disability payments under Social Security and free coronavirus medical care for all, or they could agree to allow employers to avoid liability if employers agree to pay for workers’ comp that covers lost wages, medical care, and scheduled payments for death and permanent disability due to Covid.  (This tradeoff of negligence liability for workers comp is what greased the wheels for workers’ comp originally.)  These proposals seem hard to reject – you want people to go back to work without any legal protections, and you’re not even willing to support sick workers or the widows, widowers and orphans left behind?  Or Dems can demand that workers remain eligible for UI even if they refuse to return to work.  That would allow the most vulnerable workers to protect themselves.  Any of these trades would probably be good for workers, especially if they get Republicans to agree to a generous UI program and aid to state and local government.

I can’t say I’m looking forward to watching this play out over the next few weeks.

Comments (5) | |

Not ageing well . . .

A month ago, when the public health community was warning about the dangers of premature opening and our reality show President was turning mask-wearing into a culture war issue, David Henderson and Jonathan Lipow decided to use precious space on the Wall Street Journal op ed page to publish an essay titled “The Data Are In: It’s Time for Major Reopening” (ungated at the link).  They argue that “populationwide lockdowns should end” and even suggest that social distancing has been harmful.  OK, then, I guess there’s no need to second-guess re-opening bars in Florida or Arizona.  And no need to worry about testing and contact tracing, despite the fact that one of the papers they cite to support their position recommends it.  And no need to tear our hair out worrying about masks.  It’s all good.

Comments (18) | |

Trump’s handling of the economy

Robert Kuttner on public approval of Trump’s handing of the economy:

As general support for Trump keeps sinking, there is one anomaly. According to this July 15 Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, which finds Biden leading Trump by 11 points, fully 54 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the economy.

Really? That would be the corona economy, the worst since the Great Depression, thanks substantially to Trump’s catastrophic policies. How can this possibly be?

I put the question to some leading pollsters and strategists. One person whom I greatly respect told me that in focus groups several people volunteered that they credited Trump personally for the supplemental unemployment checks and one-time $1,200 relief payments because his name was on the checks.

I suspect there is more going on here than Trump’s name on checks.  Part of what is going on is issue ownership.  Voters tend to trust Republicans more on the economy than Democrats.  This seems to be true even on budget deficits (seriously).  You can scan through some old polling data here.  Why this is the case is not entirely clear; perhaps it is because business is generally a Republican constituency and people equate the economy with business.  Another factor is likely Trump’s carefully crafted reputation as a “successful” “businessman”.  Voters tend to trust business people; they want government to be run more like a business, etc.  Remember Ross Perot.

Of course, these factors will only take Trump so far; his ratings on the economy are slipping along with his overall approval:

As recently as last month, even as Mr. Biden led the presidential race, a majority of voters said they trusted Mr. Trump more on economic matters. But a poll released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University showed Mr. Biden edging ahead on that question, 50 percent to 45 percent. Quinnipiac found that 53 percent of registered voters disapproved of Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy, and polls from CNBC and the Democratic firm Navigator Research found similar disapproval numbers.

Comments (12) | |

Suppose the Democrats win the Presidency and the Senate in 2020 . . .

Given the state of the race, people are starting to ask what this would mean for the future of progressive politics in America.

James Kwak is gloomy:

I think the policy solutions are obvious . . .

The problem, of course, is the politics—not just President Trump and the Republicans, but a Democratic Party controlled by its conservative wing, defined primarily by its insistence on fiscal responsibility, and terrified of doing anything that anyone might call socialist . . .

Julia Azari is more open to the possibility of a new political era:

An important feature of these orders are the social movements that energize the parties in power and help to define the issues. These movements tend to start their work creating a new political order well before the transition to a full reconstructive politics. The conservative movement that defined the Reagan years began to really gain influence during the Nixon years. The abolition movement helped shape the politics of Lincoln’s presidency. FDR was drawing on decades of Progressive movement thinking and action.

Simply put, Biden’s party affiliation allows him to reject the politics of Trump, Reagan and the Republicans in between – but no matter who the Democrats nominated this year, that person was never going to actually be the engine for major political change. Rather, that groundwork has been in progress for many years. If Biden wins in November, he might be in a good position to be a reconstructive leader. He’s an odd candidate for such a position – he seems much less likely than Obama at first glance. The thing is that reconstructive politics is about more than the president.

I see arguments on both sides . . .

Beginning with the case for pessimism.  There are several reasons for doubting that a big Democratic win in November will signify the beginning of a long run shift in American politics to the left.

Comments (37) | |

Warren’s eviction bill is economically and politically savvy

Senator Elizabeth Warren has a new bill out to prevent evictions during the COVID-19 crisis.  The bill imposes a 1 year moratorium on evictions nationwide.  That’s it.

On its face, the bill seems to have two deficiencies.  First, millions of low-income tenants will be unable to repay their past due rent.  To give them a fresh start we will probably need a streamlined process for consumer bankruptcy filings.  Second, a rent moratorium may trigger a financial crisis, as landlords default on their mortgage payments.  To prevent this, an eviction moratorium will need to be accompanied by a bank bailout if banks end up having their capital depleted by mortgage defaults.  Although bank bailouts are unpopular, an eviction moratorium coupled with bankruptcy reform and a bank bailout will potentially be much cheaper for taxpayers than giving insolvent tenants money to pay their landlords in full, because it pushes losses due to tenant insolvencies from taxpayers to landlords and banks.

In a rational world, these predictable problems would be addressed in Warren’s bill.  But we do not live in a rational world, and an eviction moratorium is much easier to sell politically than a bankruptcy overhaul and a bank bailout.  (We know this is true, because a 120 day limit on evictions included for federally financed properties was included in the CARES act, Democrats have made numerous proposals for a more comprehensive approach, and many states and localities have put a temporary freeze on evictions.)  And – this is the critical part – Congress will deal with the bankruptcy problem and bank bailout if they lead to crises in the future.  There is certainly some risk here, especially if a bank bailout is handled poorly, but the benefits to struggling tenants (avoiding homelessness) and savings to taxpayers could easily be worth the risk.  Warren knows what she is doing.

The general approach of shifting losses caused by the COVID economic collapse from renters and taxpayers to landlords and banks would also be valuable for small businesses, who (if I understand this correctly) cannot avoid past rent obligations in bankruptcy reorganizations.  An eviction moratorium – especially if coupled with bankruptcy reform – might do more to help small businesses survive than the Paycheck Protection Program, which did not adequately address non-wage costs and probably channeled hundreds of billions of dollars to businesses that did not need support.

Comments (11) | |

Trump’s recent polling in retrospect

The betting markets and statistical models of the 2020 election suggest Trump is either likely or very likely to lose.  I have no reason to doubt this, but it is interesting to look back at the history of his approval ratings.

Trump’s approval trended down throughout his first year in office, with low points in the summer (Charlottesville, Obamacare repeal) and winter (highly unpopular corporate tax cut).  He finished the year with approval around 37 or 38%.  In 2018, his approval rose from the high 30s to the low 40s, with a dip in September to around 40% corresponding to the Mannafort prosecution and Kavanaugh fiasco.  In January 2019 his approval briefly dipped below 40% due to the month long government shutdown.  Since then his approval has bounced around from 41 to 43%, with a surge to 46% in March 2020 due to a relatively small coronavirus “rally around the flag” effect, before falling to around 41% over the past couple of months due to some combination of COVID and his response to the George Floyd murder and the BLM protests.  So right now, Trump’s approval is not all that much lower than it has been the past couple of years, and it’s still higher than it was during the highly unpopular policy actions Republicans took while they controlled Congress in 2017.  That’s interesting, to me anyway.  COVID and Trump’s racist response to the police brutality protests is less of a problem for him than Charlottesville/Obamacare were.

Turning to polls of the contest between Trump and Biden, Biden has been fairly stable since March, at around 50%, and Trump has declined by about 4 points to 41.5%.

Comments (15) | |

An open letter to Professor Boudreaux: why fear progressives and BLM protesters?

In a recent post, the blogger/economist Donald Boudreaux expressed deep fear of the people protesting for police reform and of progressive politics generally.  Below is an open letter responding to his post.  It is long (mostly below the fold) but it highlights some of the key issues separating libertarians and classical liberals from progressives and liberal egalitarians.  I hope you’ll take the time to click through!  Comments welcome as always.

Professor Boudreaux:

In a recent post at Cafe Hayek, you state that these are scary times, that you have seldom been as distraught as you are now.  The cause of your unease is what you see as “virtue signaling” and “rabid mobthink” by progressive protesters of police brutality and their supporters.  A puzzling feature of your post is that although you (I believe) agree with the protesters that reform is needed to curb police violence, you do not emphasize this point of agreement.  Instead, you claim that progressives are close-minded and charge anyone who disagrees with them with being a racist, which you believe is drowning out dissent and preventing reasonable discussion of the issues.  You seem to believe that this threatens the liberal values you hold dear.

Although I have no doubt that your emotional distress is real, your fears seem overblown, and your failure to emphasize your support for police reform has the paradoxical effect of giving the protesters good reason to doubt your motivations – the very outcome that you find so objectionable.  Of course, it is possible to find examples of protesters doing and saying unreasonable things, but on the whole the protesters have a righteous cause, they are pursuing reform in a remarkably thoughtful, peaceful way, and there is every reason to believe that their efforts will make our country a morally more decent place.  You should support them, applaud them, and encourage others to do the same.

How will protesters interpret your critical reaction to their calls for reform?  What will they think motivates your fearful reaction and (apparent) resistance to change?  I can think of a few possible interpretations:

Comments (11) | |