Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 26, 2023

TikTok’s CEO testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week. He wasn’t well received. The main focus of your Congress critters was how TikTok could be weaponized against Americans through data surveillance and/or algorithm manipulation.

TikTok is used by about 150 million Americans. It may (or may not) be owned or controlled by the Chinese government. Given what we know about how American Big Tech abuses your data, and how China embraces surveillance as a tool of social control, it’s common sense to ask questions about how best to guard against TikTok’s misuse.

TikTok could be used to collect information on American citizens. But if TikTok was banned, that wouldn’t protect the privacy of American citizens. Many other companies are already collecting that information and are willing to sell it to any buyer.

The only thing that could protect the privacy of American citizens is a law preventing anyone from collecting that information: A law that would restrict all companies’ capacity to collect data on Americans, not simply TikTok’s.

A final argument made in Congress is that TikTok could be used to promote Chinese propaganda. It could; but is our government in the business of protecting us from a free flow of ideas? If America is still a democracy, people should be free to promote or listen to any kind of speech. That is the very essence of free speech. On to cartoons.

Why hammer only the Chinese?

The hypocrisy by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs after the bank failure was breathtaking:

Tranny vs. tyranny. GOP knows what it hates:

Stormy weather ahead:

More hypocrisy by Republicans:

Woke or witch, it’s all the same:

Vlady isn’t into upsets:

Facebooklinkedinrss

China’s Triangulation Of Russia And The West

The Daily Escape:

Joshua tree in bloom, Joshua Tree National Landmark SW, UT – March 2023 photo by Lisa Simer

We’re back at the Mansion of Wrong after a few lovely days in St. Helena, CA. Surprisingly, it seems that lots of things happened while we were away. From Heather Cox Richardson:

“So, for all the chop in the water about the former president facing indictments, the story that really seems uppermost to me today is the visit China’s president Xi Jinping made today to Moscow for a meeting with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.”

In 2015, shortly after Russia intervened in the Syrian Civil War, Wrongo asked a visiting Russian author who spoke at our local library whether Putin wanted to move Russia closer to the west or to the east. He said unequivocally that Putin was a product of the west and would keep Russia in the west’s orbit.

It’s clear that he was wrong. Russia has moved away from the west, possibly permanently. Earlier in March, Wrongo said the following:

“The US is attempting to isolate both China and Russia. With Russia, we’re using ever-tightening economic sanctions. With China, we’re building a geographic containment strategy among our allies in Asia.”

And on Monday, Chinese President Xi met with Russian President Putin in Moscow. Here’s a meeting summary from the blog Institute for the Study of War:

“… [the meeting]…on March 20…offered a more reserved vision for Russian-Chinese relations than what Putin was likely seeking. Xi and Putin touted the strength of Chinese-Russian relations in their meeting…but offered differing interpretations of the scale of future relations….on March 19 Putin published an article in Chinese state media in which he argued that Russia and China are building a partnership for the formation of a multipolar world order in the face of the collective West’s seeking of domination and the United States pursuing a policy of dual containment against China and Russia.”

….Xi offered a less aggressive overarching goal for Russian-Chinese relations in his article published in Russian state media….in which he noted that Russia and China are generally pursuing a multipolar world order but not specifically against an adversarial West. Xi instead focused…on presenting China as a viable third-party mediator to the war in Ukraine….

David Ignatius concluded in the WaPo that the meeting was about:

“A strong China…bolstering a weak Russia….The Chinese aren’t providing weapons (yet), but Xi certainly offered moral and psychological support in what might be described as a get-well visit to an ailing relative….The paradox of the Ukraine war is that Putin’s bid for greater power in Europe has made him weaker. This diminished Russia will fall increasingly under China’s sway….Maybe that’s the biggest reason for Xi’s…visit: He is bolstering a flank against America and the West.”

China’s dominance over Russia will grow if Russia cannot find a way to end the war in Ukraine. Russia has lost its energy markets in Europe because of the invasion, so it must depend heavily on demand from China. China’s growing economic power in Asia coupled with its capabilities in space, cyber, and artificial intelligence will increasingly dwarf Russia’s.

Russia’s economy is concentrated on exports of energy. It also has a major population problem. The Economist reports: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Over the past three years the country has lost around 2million more people than it would ordinarily have done, as a result of war, disease and exodus. The life expectancy of Russian males aged 15 fell by almost five years, to the same level as in Haiti. The number of Russians born in April 2022 was no higher than it had been in the months of Hitler’s occupation.”

More:

“…the life expectancy at birth of Russian males plummeted from 68.8 in 2019 to 64.2 in 2021, partly because of Covid…Russian men now die six years earlier than men in Bangladesh and 18 years earlier than men in Japan.”

And the Economist says the exodus of well-educated young people at the start of the Ukraine War also hurts Russia’s future. According to its communications ministry, 10% of IT workers left the country in 2022. Many were young men, further skewing Russia’s unbalanced sex ratio. In 2021 there were 121 females over 18 for every 100 males. More:

“Demographics is rapidly making Russia a smaller, worse-educated and poorer country, from which young people flee and where men die in their 60s.”

As Wrongo said, separating China from Russia used to be a central goal of US foreign policy. The Biden administration tried that strategy in reverse: Warming relations with Moscow at the June 2021 summit in Geneva in part to concentrate on the challenge China presented.

How did that work out?

Now it’s China trying the role of triangulator. Xi’s playing off the split between the US and Russia, helping Putin, but also keeping some distance while building China’s bona fides with the third world.

Xi’s also used China’s close relations with Iran to make a diplomatic breakthrough between the Saudis and the Iranians, something that the US could never achieve.

We seem powerless to blunt what’s happening before our eyes.

And all the while, the Republican Party of the world’s greatest superpower argues about drag queens and wokeness.

Wake up America! Check out what China, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia are building for us. You’re not going to like it.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Another Bank Bailout!

The Daily Escape:

Pronghorn in Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, AZ  – March 2023 photo by Alan Nyiri Photography

More about the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). A joint announcement by Treasury Secretary Yellen, Fed Chair Powell, and FDIC Chairman Gruenberg said:

“After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13…”

This appears to be the mechanics of the bailout:

  1. The Fed gives money to the FDIC as needed.
    2. The FDIC makes all deposits available on Monday. Not just those that are FDIC-insured.
    3. The FDIC then sells the assets of the banks, which will take time.
    4. The difference between the cost of bailouts and the net proceeds from the asset sales is the actual amount the FDIC will have lost.
    5. The FDIC will charge all other banks a “special assessment” to cover the losses.
    6. The FDIC will then pay the Fed back with the special assessment funds it collects.

Much about this makes Wrongo’s blood boil. We have a well-defined regulatory system for the US banking industry. But, as with our lax regulation of train traffic that resulted in the Norfolk Southern accident in East Palestine, these pesky banking regulations were considered a major impediment to Mr. Market.

Regional banks argued that they shouldn’t be held to the same standards as the biggest banks because if they failed, they wouldn’t pose systemic risks to the banking industry or the nation.

So in 2018, Dodd-Frank was amended by the Trump administration to raise the asset threshold at which a bank would be considered “too big to fail” from $50 million to $250 billion. The 2010 original law required that banks considered systemically important keep more capital on hand, undergo stress tests and produce a “living will” that would provide for their orderly dissolution.

But now five years later, the FDIC says that SVB and Signature Bank in NY really do pose a systemic risk to the banking system! The regulators are saying that the threat of a systemic risk gives them the authority to hold all SVB depositors harmless, even if their deposits exceed the current FDIC maximum of $250,000.

Few if any average Americans have $250,000 in a single bank account. Who has bank accounts above $250,000? Corporations.

The FDIC insurance on deposits is meant to assure retail customers, not companies that hold very large balances. Why? Because companies have the ability to perform their own risk analysis. This risk analysis should force them to ask questions about the business practices of the bank, to make sure the bank will properly manage their assets.

The US is going to protect the deposits of corporations in this bailout despite the fact that there’s a product called “Insured Cash Sweep” that cuts your large deposits into pieces that are FDIC insured (i.e. $250k each). In the event of a bank run, those deposits would not be over the limit, so they would be safe.

But, for reasons unknown, the Silicon Valley Venture Capital masters of the financial universe didn’t deign to use it.

American capitalism remains a system that privatizes profits until shit happens. And then? We socialize the losses, meaning it’s up to the federal government and taxpayers to handle the problem. When Biden says the banking system will pay fees via a special assessment, that means the cost will ultimately be paid by depositors and borrowers through higher fees and interest costs.

This is why people have so little faith in our government.

The very serious people in finance and politics were worried that the 2023 version of the US banking system might be close to another 2008-style collapse. So the Treasury, Fed and FDIC had to step in.

The basic problem relates to what’s called “asset management” in the banking biz. The goal of asset management is to maximize the return of the bank’s investment portfolio while maintaining an acceptable level of both liquidity and risk.

For banks, that means keeping a certain amount of cash available to meet the needs of depositors and investing the rest in loans or bonds. SVB invested in long-term bonds in order to realize better returns on their investment portfolio, because short-term interest rates were very low. They, like others, felt it was necessary to maintain a portfolio of higher yielding assets to offset the low market rates generally available to them.

But when mass withdrawals from depositors started to happen, they had to sell bonds at a loss, ultimately leading to default and FDIC takeover. Wasn’t it the job of the SVB executives to foresee this? And adjust their asset management accordingly?

This seems to mean that the $250,000 FDIC limit has effectively gone away. If true, there’s systemic risk that taxpayers will have to bail out bank deposits with uninsured deposits at any bank. Most of those depositors will be corporations. So, new rules must be written. And until then, we’re in trouble.

The big picture is that very few people of means in America ever pay a price for bad management.

And none go to jail.

Average Americans who get caught cheating on their taxes might go to jail if you were represented by an overworked public defender. But if you had the means to hire a high-priced lawyer, most likely, you will get community service, or probation.

It’s never been a fair system. Back in the 2008 Great Financial Crisis, then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked to save his banker cronies; they didn’t lose money. They didn’t go to jail. The economy was saved, but no one who profited from blowing it up paid a price.

The bottom line: If I’m bad at my job, I’ll get fired. If these bankers are bad, they may get rescued by the government.

And one way or another, we’ll be paying for it.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Saturday Soother – March 11, 2023

The Daily Escape:

Sunset, Santa Elena Canyon, Big Bend NP, TX – March 2023 photo by Rick A. Ludwig. Cliff on left is in Mexico, the one on the right is in US. The Rio Grande is in the middle.

Signs that we’re starting to think about the 2024 election are everywhere. Wrongo wants to connect a few dots regarding Biden’s recent efforts to move the Democratic Party more to the middle on crime and immigration while staying left on financing the country’s social and military needs.

Biden proposed a budget to reduce the deficit, protect Medicare and Social Security, and raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. From the NYT:

“In a speech in Philadelphia on Thursday, Mr. Biden said that his budget was designed to ‘lift the burden on hard working Americans’ and drew sharp contrasts with the proposals that Republicans have offered, which the president argued would threaten the nation’s social safety net programs and benefit the rich.”

This contrasts with Biden’s right-leaning position on the recent DC crime bill. Since DC is controlled by the Congress, it’s legislation can be vetoed by the US Senate. Also from the NYT:

“The Senate…voted overwhelmingly to block a new District of Columbia criminal code that reduces mandatory minimum sentences for some violent offenses, with Democrats bowing to Republican pressure to take a hard line on crime in a move that underscored the rising political potency of the issue ahead of the 2024 elections.”

By an 81-to-14 vote, with 31 Democrats voting with the Republicans, the Senate passed the Republican-written measure to undo the District’s law. It now goes to Biden, who after initially opposing it abruptly changed course and said he would sign it.

So, Biden’s tacking left on spending but to the center-right on crime. He’s making a series of calculated moves to position his Party to compete successfully in 2024. Still, it’s disappointing that Biden and 31 Democrats joined with the Right to deny DC residents the right to govern their own city.

But this shouldn’t be surprising. Last year, Biden and the Democrats turned their backs on labor during their contract battle with the railroads.

Here’s Nick Catoggio in the Dispatch: (Brackets by Wrongo)

“[Biden has]…begun to tiptoe toward the center lately on another major Democratic liability, immigration…..Centrist analysts…have warned Biden and his Party that their political viability depends on escaping the…“cultural bubble” in which an unsecured border is treated as a civic good.”

And last week Biden changed his immigration policy. He’s requiring asylum seekers to seek refuge in nations they pass through rather than waiting to do so in the US.

These new policies bring Biden closer to public opinion. Among Democrats, a plurality want to see the number of asylum applicants increased rather than reduced. Among the overall public, it’s the opposite. Biden is tilting toward the latter.

Biden wants to be seen as strong on crime. Democrats walk a fine line of being against crime but not wanting to wholly support the police. Doing that would risk looking anti-Black in cities that are so important to their political success. Dems support compassionate justice and not retributive justice, so they get tied up in knots when violent crime increases, which is rising in America. The problem of course is that the descriptor “violent” isn’t consistently applied.

Biden’s idea is to try to win more votes from people who are not fanatic MAGA types. That means picking off White suburban voters, Asian voters and Hispanic and Black voters, all of whom are concerned about crime.

Tom Sullivan points out that while the moderate-to-conservative White population is in slow decline, their votes remain significant, and that Democrats shouldn’t ignore them over the next two years:

“Sadly, Democrats often do. Campaigning in concentrated urban areas that tend to vote your way is simply easier and more cost-effective. What it means for largely rural states like North Carolina is that while it remains possible to elect a Democrat like Roy Cooper as governor, Democrats’ urban focus bequeaths him a Republican-dominated legislature…”

Sullivan says the Democrats need to start acting like the big-tent party that they used to be.

And that’s what Biden is attempting to do.

Time to say “enough” to war-gaming the 2024 election. It’s time for our Saturday Soother. The daffodils have sprung through the snow, a sure sign of spring. We turn back the clocks tomorrow night, another win for those who hate dark days.

So, it’s time to take a few minutes to center yourself. Start by sitting in a comfy chair and watch and listen to Lili Boulanger’s “D’un matin de Printemps” (On a spring morning). She wrote this piece in 1917 when she was 23. Boulanger battled bronchial pneumonia throughout her short life, dying a year later at age 24. Here, it is played by the Seattle Symphony conducted by Cristian Măcelaru.

Listen and think about her writing this during the darkest days of her life:

Facebooklinkedinrss

New Legal “Doctrines” Help Supreme Court Push Farther Right

The Daily Escape:

Sunset, midtown Manhattan viewed from the Williamsburg Bridge – March 2023 photo by Mike Davis

Plenty of ink has been scrawled or printed describing how the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has navigated its way into being the supreme executive branch of our government. The SCOTUS has long been a bastion of Conservative thought in America, but since gaining its 6-person supermajority, we’re seeing them bring forward novel legal concepts to help move decisions towards the Right’s agenda.

The best example is the Court’s majority creating new “doctrines” to help deliver rulings that their clients on the Right argue for. Prior to embracing “the major questions” doctrine and the “Independent state legislature” doctrine, Conservative members of the court used to insist on “textualism” to achieve their goals. Textualism says that when interpreting the Constitution, judges should confine themselves only to the words of the Constitution. Originalism says that if the words are unclear, then judges need to consult historical sources to determine their meaning at the time of ratification.

But we’re now seeing cases where a statute’s words aren’t delivering a decision that the Supremes are aiming for, so using these new doctrines give them a pretext for breaking their own rules.

That’s how they blew up the EPA’s Clean Power Rule. Eight months ago, SCOTUS first invoked the “major questions doctrine” in a majority opinion, using it to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to address climate change.

Last week, the court seemed ready to use it again, to kill  Biden’s proposed student loan relief. More on the new “doctrines” from the NYT’s Adam Liptak: (brackets by Wrongo)

“On the last day of the 2021-22 Term, the Supreme Court handed down a decision on “the major questions doctrine” and [agreed] to hear a case presenting “the independent state legislature doctrine” – neither of which had been called “doctrines” there before.”

The rationale behind the major questions doctrine is the contention by the Justices that the agencies must receive explicit direction from Congress to address a particular issue if action by the agency is of political or economic significance. Conveniently, this “doctrine” gives the Court’s Conservative supermajority a tool to achieve their preferred outcomes when textualism doesn’t get them there.

Liptak quotes Allison Larsen, a law professor at William & Mary:

“The phrase was used just once by any federal judge before 2017, and in only five federal decisions — at any level of court — before 2020,”

But you guessed it, the turning point in 2017 was when Justice Brett Kavanaugh, then a judge on the US Court of Appeals, used the term in a dissent. More from Professor Larsen: (brackets by Wrongo)

“[Using] the word ‘doctrine’ to describe the major questions concept was first used by law professors and then bandied about on blogs…and used as a rallying cry in opinion pieces and programming by those seeking to challenge the administrative state….In 2016 — long before it was anointed a ‘doctrine’ by the Supreme Court — the ‘major questions doctrine’ was featured by name in the annual Federalist Society conference,”

Interestingly, at Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asked him about the doctrine, calling it “something else that you (Kavanaugh) came up with.” Liptak reports that Kavanaugh responded vaguely that the “major questions doctrine is rooted in Supreme Court precedent.”

In his 2017 dissent, Kavanaugh conceded that “determining whether a rule constitutes a major rule sometimes has a bit of a ‘know it when you see it’ quality.” That’s some real Wavy Gravy right there.

Back to the EPA case: Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Court’s use of the term was unexceptional:

“It took hold….because it refers to an identifiable body of law that has developed over a series of significant cases all addressing a particular and recurring problem: agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”

Turning to the student loan debt relief case, in the oral arguments, Roberts argued that since loan relief is expensive, it must be authorized by Congress. But as Justice Elena Kagan said in the same oral argument, “Congress could not have made this much more clear, adding, “We deal with congressional statutes every day that are really confusing. This one is not.”

Welcome to 2023, where when cases come out the way the Conservative justices want, it’s just fine. But if the legal text gets in the way, the “major questions doctrine” allows them to make the explicit text disappear because they’re willing to engage in bad faith readings of statutes to get the job done.

So much for the rule of law.

If under a Republican president, when the Supremes need to find a sweeping executive branch authority to justify a Conservative wet dream policy, they’d find it without even a whiff of self-reflection.

Will we ever make up the ground now being lost to the decisions by these ideologues?

Facebooklinkedinrss

What To Do About Social Security and Medicare

The Daily Escape:

Lupine and poppies, near Glendale, AZ – March 2023 photo by Marion Cart

From Joe Perticone:

“Social Security and Medicare are headed for insolvency—that’s just a mathematical, demographic fact. But when it comes to addressing the problem, there’s virtually nothing the two parties actually agree on. For years, Republicans have waffled between proposing cuts and kicking the can down the road.”

Republicans are correct that Social Security (SS) and Medicare (M) are marching toward insolvency. But they trip over their own feet with their proposals to save them. Republicans are wrong to think they can solve the solvency questions without raising taxes. Once the Republicans take taxes off the table, they’re left without any real solutions to propose.

The Biden administration has done a good job in pre-emptively going after Republican’s ideas about cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits. The result is that the GOP is squabbling between themselves and scrambling to come up with a plan they could take to the public.

It’s not just the federal debt that should be discussed. Dr. Donald Berwick head of Medicare and Medicaid during the Obama administration wrote in JAMA: (emphasis by Wrongo):

“A total of 41% of US adults, 100 million people, bear medical debts. One of every 8 individuals owes more than $10,000. In Massachusetts, 46% of adults say they skip needed care because of costs. As of 2021, 58% of all debt collections in the US are for medical bills.”

The WaPo explains why people who live in the American South have bad credit scores. It turns out that neither race nor poverty were the deciding factors. It was medical debt:

“Of the 100 counties with the highest share of adults struggling to pay their medical debt, 92 are in the South, and the other eight are in neighboring Oklahoma and Missouri…”

But why the South? Yes, as a region, it’s unhealthy. But there are several Northeastern states where residents struggle with chronic health conditions but have good credit. One thing that stands out is the lack of Medicaid:

“…a recent analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association…found that medical debt became more concentrated in lower-income communities in states that did not expand Medicaid after key provisions of the Affordable Care Act took effect in 2014.”

So bad health and bad credit are because of Republican governors’ refusal to expand Medicaid to cover more poor people. Leave it to the south to show a MAGA future for all of us: undereducated, unhealthy, and neck-deep in debt.

More from WaPo:

“In states that immediately expanded Medicaid, medical debt was slashed nearly in half between 2013 and 2020. In states that didn’t expand Medicaid, medical debt fell just 10%, the JAMA team found. And in low-income communities in those states, debt levels actually rose.”

It’s probably not a surprise that deep medical indebtedness isn’t a threat in any other developed nation on earth. It isn’t a surprise that health care in the US costs nearly twice as much as care in any other developed nation, while US health status and longevity lag far behind.

Legislating in the US is always a process. That means Congress labors to find incremental gains they dress up as reforms. The 1983 deal struck by Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill is considered to be one of the great bipartisan compromises. It combined benefit cuts with revenue increases to put Social Security back on a sound financial footing that has lasted for decades.

This time, getting rid of the income cap on the SS tax would help to keep it funded for an additional 35 years. At that point the Baby Boom demographic bulge will be over, and a different set of reforms can be proposed.

Medicare is the second largest program in the federal budget, equaling 10% of the total. Medicare spending is also a major driver of long-term federal spending and is projected to rise from 4% of GDP in FY 2021 to about 6% in FY 2052 due to the retirement of the Baby Boom generation and the continuing rapid growth of per capita healthcare costs:

Medicaid accounts for another 9%. But it’s also the largest source of federal revenues for state budgets. As a result of the federal dollar matching structure, Medicaid has a unique role in state budgets as both an expenditure item and a source of revenue.

Over the next few years, we’re going to need to come up with solutions to the problem of what to do about growing health care costs that are (along with lower tax revenues from recent Republican tax cuts) driving our ever larger US budget deficits.

Both sides are going to have to compromise. There’s no way we’re going to balance the budget in 10 years (or ever) unless we talk about increasing revenues while slowing the growth in the costs of health care that our entitlement programs cover.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – February 27, 2023

The Daily Escape:

Sunset, Blue Ridge Mountains, near Asheville, NC – February 2023 photo by Andre Daugherty

Yesterday, Wrongo posted the Gallup Poll’s recent survey showing that 65% of Americans support continuing with the war in Ukraine, even if it’s a prolonged conflict. Staying the course in Ukraine requires us to think carefully about both the means of continuing to arm Ukraine, and also about the ends we hope to achieve once the fight is over.

The New Yorker’s David Remnick interviewed Russian historian Stephen Kotkin about how the war in Ukraine ends. Kotkin points out that the war is far from over, but we can look at how it might end:

“The Biden Administration has effectively defined victory from the American point of view as: Ukraine can’t lose this war. Russia can’t take all of Ukraine and occupy Ukraine, and disappear Ukraine as a state, as a nation.”

Kotkin thinks that from the Ukrainian viewpoint, victory has mostly to do with getting into the European Union:

“…that has to be the definition of victory: Ukraine gets into the European Union. If Ukraine regains all of its territory and doesn’t get into the EU, is that a victory? As opposed to: If Ukraine regains as much of its territory as it physically can on the battlefield, not all of it…but does get EU accession—would that be a definition of victory? Of course, it would be.”

Currently, we’re experiencing a war of attrition between Ukraine and Russia. In order to win this type of war, you have to out-produce your enemy’s weapons production.

But is that realistic? The US is the major supplier of arms to Ukraine, but we haven’t ramped up our production of the weapons we’re sending to Ukraine. Instead, we’re drawing down our supplies of armaments. More from Kotkin: (brackets by Wrongo)

“We haven’t ramped up industrial production at all. At peak, the Ukrainians were firing…upward of ninety thousand artillery shells a month. US monthly production of artillery shells is fifteen thousand. With all our allies thrown in, everybody in the mix who supports Ukraine, you get another fifteen thousand….So you can [produce] thirty thousand…artillery shells while expending ninety thousand a month. We haven’t ramped up…..We’re running out.”

So, can we actually provide the means to get to the ends Biden wants, or the ends that Ukraine wants? Not without doing something radically different than we’re doing now.

Politically, from here to the 2024 election we’ll see a debate about whether we should be in Ukraine at all. This debate will form a key element in who the Republicans select as their presidential nominee.

Mike Pence isn’t a first-level presidential candidate, but on Friday he rebuked fellow Republicans who have given less-than-robust support for America’s defense of Ukraine. On NBC, he lays out the classic Republican position clearly:

“…I would say anyone that thinks that Vladimir Putin will stop at Ukraine is wrong…”

NBC also quoted DeSantis: (brackets by Wrongo)

“An open-ended blank check [in Ukraine]…is…not acceptable…..Russia has been really, really wounded here and I don’t think that they are the same threat to our country, even though they’re hostile. I don’t think they’re on the same level as a China.”

The WSJ’s Kimberley Strassel writes that Trump intends to make limiting or ending the war in Ukraine a central element in his campaign. She quotes Trump:

“This thing has to stop, and it’s got to stop now…the US should negotiate peace between these two countries, and I don’t think they should be sending very much.”

Strassel thinks that Trump sees an opening to rally the part of his base that’s skeptical of military commitments abroad. So he, like Congressional Republicans are floating a false choice: A strong America globally or a strong America domestically:

“The GOP for more than 70 years has been the party of strong defense….Trump and a small group (at least for now) of congressional Republicans risk throwing all that hard-earned credibility away, neutralizing one of the party’s greatest strengths…”

Clearly there’s a developing split in the GOP over whether America should be backing the war or seeking immediate peace in Ukraine.

Regardless of Republican Party politics, don’t Ukrainians deserve the chance to try to win on the battlefield? Whether America is willing to ramp up its weapons production will partially answer that question. And whether we’re able to keep our eyes on the prize of a reunited NATO, a reunited EU, and a free Ukraine.

Time to wake up America! It seems possible that the Republican Party might shift to preferring a strong America domestically rather than a strong America globally.

That would be a political earthquake in our politics.

And how would the Democrats adjust? Their political brand is already pretty damaged among the White non-college educated in heartland America. Would the Dems become America’s military spending Party?

To help you wake up, listen to 1973’s “Live and Let Die” written by Paul and Linda McCartney, and performed live by McCartney:

Facebooklinkedinrss

A Few Wealthy A—holes Want To Secede From America

The Daily Escape:

Poppy bloom, Picacho Peak SP, Picacho, AZ – February 2023 photo by Leila Shehab

Wrongologist blog commenter Terry McK had this to say responding to Wrongo’s post about Speaker McCarthy and his lieutenant Marjorie Taylor Green’s antics surrounding gifting Tucker Carlson with the J6 videos:

“We lie to ourselves about the nature of our government…..Nor have we a marketplace of ideas. We could have – but the marketplace is dominated by the intellectual equivalent of soda and snacks….Now most speeches are performance art delivered to an empty chamber. ”

He’s correct. Here are a few recent developments that track with Terry’s thinking. First, Joe Perticone in the Bulwark: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“A strange proposal is working its way through the Idaho state legislature that would have that state envelop more than a dozen of Oregon’s most conservative eastern counties—in effect, shifting the border between the states 200-plus miles to the west. While last Wednesday’s vote in the Idaho House approving this “Greater Idaho” idea is nonbinding, it does legitimize the movement that has long been promoting the plan.”

A Bluer Oregon and a Redder Idaho. This movement is by the far-Right members of Idaho’s government. And among the 15 Oregon counties targeted to become part of Idaho, 11 have so far formally expressed their support for the plan. So unlike Taylor Greene’s rantings about a national divorce, this idea has a lot of elected officials on board.

Second, Ars Technica reports that:

“Two Republican lawmakers in Idaho have introduced a bill that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone in the state to administer mRNA-based vaccines—namely…COVID-19 vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.”

This probably won’t go anywhere. And state-level politicians everywhere also have tons of bad ideas.

Finally, a sober look how some of the wealthy in the fancy towns across the western US are angling for succession or civil war comes from Vanity Fair’s James Pogue. Writing about Jackson Hole, Wyoming:

“…there was a constant traffic of small jets and private aircraft, humming into and out of a town that has become a modern refuge for people with remote jobs…many of them driven to the Northern Rockies by a worry…that the rest of America is on its way toward environmental, political, or economic breakdown.”

Pogue speaks with Catharine O’Neill, great-great-granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller. She’s a Conservative who worked in Trump’s State Department and after the 2020 election moved to Wyoming:

“She…views the corporate elite as enemies of America and believes that we’re on the cusp of a populist uprising against the brand of transnational capitalism championed by Republicans for most of the last half-century.”

She lives on a 580-acre “vertically integrated cattle operation” she started. Today she’s anti both Parties but would happily vote for Tucker Carlson if he’d step forward. These are the thoughts of the “dissident right”. A few of the wealthy have created secretive groups to help people “exit’ from society and from what they see as a failing American system.

From Pogue:

“Who even needs a civil war,” one…texted me recently, “when the institutions are doing such a good job of delegitimizing themselves?”

This cohort sees the Northern Rockies as one of a few places in America that will be livable once life in much of America is fighting heat waves, floods, storms, and fires. They’re focused on how to live through “managed decline,” the wind-down period after the age of cheap fossil-fuels and rapid economic and technological progress wane.

They’re certain that will also bring about the erosion of America’s “state capacity”, the government’s ability to do things. Then our “real economy” will hollow out, and our political divisions will worsen, even more than currently.

But this movement isn’t only supported by the wealthy. Average American workers are increasingly priced out of housing and better educational opportunities for their kids. Many of these workers have service jobs that support the wealthy from Los Angeles to Jackson Hole, and from Cape Cod to Miami Beach. A Moody’s Analytics report says that for the first time in 20 years, the average American is “rent-burdened”, meaning they put at least 30% of their income towards housing.

This makes many middle class Americans very susceptible to arguments by the dissident right about how corporate elites and modern capitalism are hurting their chances to realize the American Dream. This was the basic thrust of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement in 2011. Now, the right wing is trying to take up their cause.

Will there be a second civil war? It doesn’t need to be a war. People don’t understand how easy it would be to launch an insurgency in America. We should take a lesson from the way the Taliban defeated the American military using small arms, and there are plenty of small arms in America. Insurgencies are less a war than an extended political conflict, in which the insurgents try to get governments to overreact. And when they inevitably do, the insurgents build support. It doesn’t take all that much to create a plausible scenario for conflict.

This is Wrongo’s second wakeup call this week. We can’t do much about the wealthy who tell themselves that they’re better off without America.

But we can and must do a lot to persuade average Americans not to fall victim to their rhetoric.

Jimmy Carter’s 1976 stump speech included this:

“I’ll never lie to you”…and…”we need a government as good as its people…”

Would living his message today help us hold the country together?

Facebooklinkedinrss

Speaker McCarthy Gives FOX’s Carlson The Jan 6 Videos

The Daily Escape:

Poppies beginning annual super bloom, Chino Hills, CA – February 2023 photo by Road to Something New

Mike Allen of Axios reported on Monday that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) had made all the Capitol security footage from January 6 available to FOX’s Tucker Carlson:

“House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has given Fox News’ Tucker Carlson exclusive access to 41,000 hours of Capitol surveillance footage from the Jan. 6 riot, McCarthy sources tell me. Carlson TV producers were on Capitol Hill last week to begin digging through the trove, which includes multiple camera angles from all over Capitol grounds. Excerpts will begin airing in the coming weeks.”

Yes, it’s the same Tucker Carlson who repeatedly questioned official accounts of Jan 6, downplaying the insurrection as “vandalism.” It’s also the same guy who, in Dominion Voter Systems’ lawsuit against FOX News, was shown to be lying to his viewers about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.

Carlson’s producers are already going through the videos. They will be looking for footage of insurrectionists that will support the MAGA contention that the insurrectionists actually were tourists who simply had lost their way. It seems likely that Carlson’s team will selectively edit the footage to paint a picture that Jan 6 couldn’t have possibly been an insurrection. If you doubt this is his intent, Mike Allen also reports that:

 “Carlson last year called the attack an ‘outbreak of mob violence, a forgettably minor outbreak by recent standards.’”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) a member of the Jan. 6 committee, said this:

McCarthy granted access to non-public materials about the insurrection to an amoral propagandist who constantly misrepresented the facts about both the 2020 election and the Jan. 6th insurrection.

Giving Carlson this access to the materials may be within McCarthy’s purview, but the videos actually belong to the American people. So why can McCarthy grant “exclusive access” to Carlson? If the idea is to achieve more transparency, then all news organizations (and the American public) should be able to view them, not merely a political hack like Carlson.

In one sense, McCarthy’s doing this shouldn’t be a surprise. The extremists who extracted concessions during McCarthy’s campaign for the Speakership have been calling for this almost from the start of the J6 Committee’s work.

And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who spent time yesterday calling for the red states to secede:

She then spent the rest of her day taking credit for the video release to Fox:

Let’s repeat that: The person taking credit for pushing McCarthy to make this release, was calling for “a national divorce” (civil war to the rest of us) two hours earlier. It all sure sounds legit.

Here’s some background on how the Committee handled these videos when they were conducting investigations. Compare that to handing them over to FOX. From the WaPo:

“People familiar with the video footage say that the committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection had access to a special dedicated terminal installed in the committee office that had password- protected access to the volume of footage. The committee asked for permission from U.S. Capitol police before they used any of the footage in public hearings, these people said, as they did not want to publicly disclose the location of security cameras in the building.”

More:

“The committee cut and minimized use of the footage accordingly, these people added. ‘We used the material that we thought was most important in demonstrating findings, and we were extremely cautious in what we chose to use,’ said a former committee staffer who expressed concerns about the security risks posed by Carlson’s access to the entire trove of surveillance footage.”

So don’t say McCarthy didn’t have a choice. He undoubtedly felt pressure to release the raw footage to FOX, but he could have done that on a government server allowing all news services to comb through it, as well as the public.

He went to Carlson because he needs to satisfy his extremist Republican Congressional members.

We need to learn whether the DoJ already has copies of these tapes. We know that McCarthy’s release of Capitol Police surveillance video will have limited effect on the current J6 criminal cases because defense lawyers have already had access to the footage for months and have been using it in existing cases at trial.

Tucker is gonna tuck around.

Democrats and any other defenders of democracy had better get ahead of the FOX narrative. Like Biden just got ahead of Putin’s spring Ukraine offensive.

Because we know what’s coming.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – February 20, 2023

The Daily Escape:

Oatman, AZ on Route 66 – February 2023 photo by Laurel Anne Lindsay

Some of you may have heard about a study called “The Hidden Tribes of America” by the group More in Common. It’s trying to understand the forces driving political polarization in America today. They classify the American electorate into seven distinct groups, they call “Tribes”.

But their key conclusion is that most people don’t belong on the far left or far right: (brackets by Wrongo)

“
the largest group that we uncovered in our research has so far been largely overlooked. It is a group of Americans we call the Exhausted Majority…representing a two-thirds majority of Americans, who aren’t part of the Wings….most members of the Exhausted Majority aren’t [simply] political centrists or moderates. On specific issues, their views range across the spectrum.”

More:

“But while they hold a variety of views, the members of the Exhausted Majority are also united in important ways: They are fed up with the polarization plaguing American government and society
.. [they] are so frustrated with the bitter polarization of our politics that many have checked out completely
.. they aren’t ideologues who dismiss as evil or ignorant the people who don’t share their exact political views. They want to talk and to find a path forward.

This chart from the study graphically illustrates the seven tribal groups of the American populace. As you can see, there is a left-wing group that is about 8% of the US population. And there are two right-wing groups that equal about 25% of Americans. That leaves four groups in what the authors call the “Exhausted Majority”. They are 67% of the American populace.

Here are some demographic characteristics of the seven groups:

  • Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
  • Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
  • Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
  • Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic,
  • Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
  • Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
  • Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising,

Wrongo identifies as one of the Traditional Liberals, their description rings true.

The authors say that in their research, this tribal membership predicted differences in Americans’ views on various political issues better than demographic, ideological, and partisan groupings. You can read or download the whole study here.

An “Exhausted Majority” may be a positive political development. Wrongo spends nearly every day thinking that there are just two opposing camps. And that they each view each other with fear and loathing, refusing to listen to anything that doesn’t fit their existing narrative. As we’re entering the next presidential campaign, it’s good to know that Wrongo’s view of our polarization might be well, wrong.

Is the “Exhausted Majority” merely a new response to our dysfunctional politics? Wrongo isn’t alone in thinking that what’s wrong with our country will take decades to overcome. Faced with that, people start to look for quick fixes, or a way to stop listening to the wrangling. And you don’t have to be unaligned with either Party to share this sense of exasperation.

The people described in the “Exhausted Majority” are similar. It’s also true that for most people, politics isn’t the be-all-end-all of their lives. They’d prefer that the business of government didn’t require their involvement. They’re trying to get their kids educated, and to keep them safe. They prefer to see political compromise happen without needing to be involved.

But if you can walk away from politics when it frustrates you, then you’re in the lucky minority:

  • There are large numbers of parents who have discovered that their child is addicted to opioids.
  • There are many people who had lost their health insurance when they were laid off.
  • Many sent their daughter to college in the South only to learn that she no longer has any reproductive rights.
  • Many are worried that books are being taken from public school libraries.
  • Some fear that they may lose the right to vote.

These people can’t simply throw up their hands and walk away. Only political action will help them. We all know that the political radicals are irredeemable. We also know they make the most noise, but they’re a minority.

The fed-up people on both sides and in the middle have to find a way to take the country back from the radicals, instead of allowing ourselves to be herded into existing opposing camps.

Time to wake up America! We can’t simply drop out. There’s too much at stake. Democrats need to find candidates and a message that can motivate an additional 5%-15% of the “Exhausted Majority” to vote with them. To help you wake up, watch, and listen to the RedMolly band play a very nice cover of Richard Thompson’s “Vincent Black Lightning 1952”. It’s a surprise how beautifully it adapts to a bluegrass idiom, and the dobro work makes it:

“Vincent Black Lightning” is one of the most perfect songs ever written. We saw Thompson perform it live at Tanglewood last summer.

Facebooklinkedinrss