Domestic Policy – Page 2 – The Wrongologist

The Gap Between Economic Statistics (good) vs. People’s Perception Of Economic Situation (terrible)

The Daily Escape:

Monument Valley, Navajo Tribal Park, AZ – May, 2024 photo by Hung Ton

“Americans paid roughly 25% more on groceries and dining out this March than they paid in January 2020, outpacing the rate of general inflation. Over that same period, the companies behind the country’s 10 largest grocery and restaurant brands have together returned or pledged to return more than $77 billion to shareholders.”

“In March 2024, consumers spent 95% more for a carton of eggs, 33% more for a pound of ground beef, and 22% more for a gallon of milk than they did before the pandemic.”

According to an analysis by Food and Water Watch, a corporate watchdog group, food costs for an average family of four living on a “thrifty” budget increased 50% from January 2020 to January 2024, from $654 to $976 a month.

When economists and pundits talk about the disconnect between America’s overall economic performance and how badly Americans view the economy, this unprecedented spike in food costs is at the heart of the problem.

In 2021, as food costs were skyrocketing, America’s biggest chains and grocery brands blamed the price hikes on supply chain issues and economy-wide inflation. But these same companies have expanded profits and quietly authorized billions of dollars in stock buyback programs and dividend payouts to shareholders.

Former PepsiCo CFO Hugh Johnston told Bloomberg last year that consecutive double-digit price hikes on the company’s products in recent years were “just there to cover inflation”. But in 2023, PepsiCo reported $91 billion in net revenue, a 35% increase over prepandemic income. And it used $7.7 billion of its profits to repurchase stock and issue dividends. Those buybacks increased by a whopping 843% compared to 2021.

More from The Lever: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Matt Gardner, senior fellow at the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, a tax policy advocacy group, said buybacks boomed right before the pandemic when Trump-era tax cuts left corporations with extra cash on hand.”

Advocates for the Republican tax cuts said that companies would reinvest that tax windfall back into the economy via manufacturing and jobs (more trickle down). But many began plowing money into buybacks instead.

Tyson Foods more than doubled its profit margins between 2021 and 2022 after hiking prices for beef, pork, and chicken by 30%. The company claims it raised prices because it needed to offset increased costs in labor, transportation, and grain for animal feed. But data from earnings reports show that while increased operating costs set the company back $1.5 billion dollars in 2022, price increases expanded profits by $2 billion, meaning consumers covered Tyson’s inflation costs plus they also shelled out $500 million more. That year, Tyson repurchased $702 million of its own shares and raised dividends by 4%.

Some Americans trying to save money by eating fast foods have seen those prices increase too. A study of the country’s biggest fast food brands by Finance Buzz found that at all of them, menu prices have outpaced inflation. The Food Institute’s survey shows that: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Due to inflated costs, 78% of respondents say they now view fast-food as a luxury. The percentage increases to 80% or higher among those making less than $30,000 a year.”

These high food costs have been largely caused by the food industry increasing prices faster than their costs.

Americans are largely supportive of efforts to regulate how much companies charge for food. In a new Data for Progress poll, 69% of respondents said the government “should do more to regulate grocery stores that raise prices to maximize profits.”

Sad to say, the Democrats will not do anything meaningful to bring down the cost of food.

And the higher expense of putting food on the table may partly explain the so-called “vibecession”. There’s a great divide in the US between how people see their personal financial situation (pretty good) and their view of the overall economy (terrible). Here’s another chart:

Data: Federal Reserve Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking; Chart: Axios Visuals

In the above poll by the Federal Reserve, respondents are asked to choose from four options when it comes to how they’re doing. The top two choices were “living comfortably” and “doing OK.” 72% of Americans landed in those categories.

Respondents are also asked about the financial well-being of the national economy — the top two choices, “excellent” and “good,” were chosen by only 22% of Americans. In addition, that gap between people’s perceptions of their financial well-being and that of the national economy has nearly doubled since 2019. From Axios: (brackets by Wrongo)

“This divide is showing up in plenty of surveys. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index for May [2024] came in lower than 84% of readings since 1978….Just 22% of respondents to a May Gallup poll said they were satisfied with the way things were going in the US, compared to 77% dissatisfied. That’s a wider gap than three-quarters of the time since they started asking the question in the 1970s. A Harris poll last month showed that 56% of Americans think we’re in a recession.”

Brian Beutler reminds us that if Trump were in office today — presiding over full employment while Americans enjoyed more purchasing power than ever before, and inflation was hovering steadily around three percent — he and Republican politicians would claim credit for building the greatest economy in US history.

But Biden and his handlers are vacillating about how to address the economy’s perception gap. From Beutler:

“Nevertheless, the emerging Democratic consensus seems to be that Biden should continue to ‘meet people where they are’: sympathize with the plight of the struggling, implicitly concede that the economy—which would poll through the roof with Republicans stealing credit for it—is actually bad.

Within the White House…aides are pushing for a message that makes empathy toward the economic plight of certain Americans more central….Some noticed a preview…when the president described the April inflation report…‘I know many families are struggling, and that even though we’ve made progress we have a lot more to do.’”

That can’t be right if we can swap Republicans for Democrats without changing anything else, and the perception gap would somehow magically go away.

But Biden shouldn’t be speaking as though the economy is one where more people need help when the truth is that fewer people need it. That would affirm the false notion that economic suffering is broadly based and something must be done to alleviate it.

The WaPo’s answer was an editorial saying that “Nearly everything Americans believe about the economy is wrong”. The same issue also had a story saying that people can’t make ends meet.

Are both of those things simultaneously true? Politicians better figure out which is primary (great economy) and which is secondary (bad personal financial situation).

We know that people are struggling to pay rent and mortgages and now, fast food’s a luxury. This is what is making many people think that this is the worst economy ever. And if you look closely this isn’t just “anecdotal”. The statistics supplied above seem to bear it out in some detail.

Biden needs to brag about the economy but he also must call out the food industry, and show people who are struggling that he’s trying to help.

Will The Guilty Verdict Matter?

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Cundy’s Harbor, ME – May 2024 photo by Eric Storm Photo

Everyone’s talking about it. Apparently, as with everything political, there are two sides. In real life, Trump was found guilty. For those of you who feel good about what the jury decided, Wrongo would give you all a big hug if you were nearby. In the Republican parallel universe however, he’s the victim of a Communist show trial. Wrongo hasn’t seen this many White men cry since Larry Bird retired. Don’t be surprised if the verdict caused Martha-Ann Alito to lower her “Stop the Steal” flag to half-mast.

You may not have already heard, but one of the jurors who voted to convict Trump regularly gets their news from Truth Social and Fox, meaning against all odds, they were convinced by the evidence. That was most likely the juror Trump was counting to deliver a hung jury.

At the Mansion of Wrong, we opened a bottle of good champagne.

In a nutshell, the reality facing Americans in the presidential election is that one of the two main contenders is a felon whose campaign is based on claiming the system is rigged. From Ed Luce in the Financial Times (paywalled):

“The Republican party’s nominee now joins his former campaign manager, senior political adviser, chief White House strategist, and national security adviser as a convicted criminal. The jury’s speed and unanimity leave little doubt about the watertightness of the verdict.…No matter what his lawyers advise, Trump’s court of appeal will be the US electorate.”

What happens between the guilty verdict in New York and inauguration day on January 20, 2025 will be a comprehensive stress test of American society. The decision will be made by the individual votes of the 244 million citizens who are eligible to vote, many of whom will stay home rather than vote.

November 5^th, 2024 isn’t the end point of this struggle because if the election outcome is disputed, societal forces beyond the courts and the ballot box will again come to draw up sides, as they did in the interregnum between November 2020 and January 2021.

The verdict matters. But is it enough to be decisive? The jury is, well, still out on that, and will be until November. But the verdict is a welcome outcome if you’re anti-Trump. It pierces Trump’s preferred narrative that he’s a winner and it’s plausible that it will depress some margin of potential Trump swing voters while activating the Democratic base.

Biden should seize the moment. He doesn’t need to speak about the details of the NY case, except to profess his faith in the judicial system and his respect for our fellow citizens who served on the jury. He doesn’t have to engage with the hysterical Trump defenders, except to point out their dangerous demagoguery and un-American attacks on our legal and judicial system.

Trump OTOH, can bitch and moan about unfairness all he wants, but only losers do that. And if you’re explaining, you’re losing. So while we should expect Trump’s conviction to have a very small effect on MAGA Republicans, it will be repellant to most centrists. By contrast, the verdict will be a heartening reminder to liberals and anyone invested in responsible government that the system can still work.

But first let’s take a deep breath and let this uplifting moment wash over us. Now, agree to start every conversation about him by saying: “Convicted Felon Donald Trump…”.

From Dan Pfeiffer:

“A lot of polling shows that a conviction is bad news for Trump. The highly respected Marquette University Law School poll recently did a split-sample. The first group was asked “If it turns out that Donald Trump is found guilty in his New York trial, would you vote for Joe Biden or for Donald Trump?” Biden led Trump 43-39. The other group was asked “If it turns out that Donald Trump is found not guilty in his New York trial, would you vote for Joe Biden or for Donald Trump?” In that group, Trump led 44-38.”

Other polls are similar. CNN released a poll in late April that offered some interesting details on the voters who could abandon Trump if convicted:

“They tend to be younger than other Trump supporters (64% are younger than 50 compared with 37% of those who would not reconsider), are less likely to be White (49% are people of color compared with 17% of those who would not reconsider), are more apt to report being Biden voters in 2020 (20% of them say they backed Biden in 2020 vs. 6% of those who would not reconsider) and are likelier to acknowledge that Biden legitimately won enough votes to win the presidency four years ago (63% vs. 22% among those who would not reconsider). They are also more apt to be politically independent (49% vs. 31%) and ideologically moderate (50% vs. 38%).”

These are some of the same voters who supported Biden in 2020 but who might defect in 2024. We need to remember that Trump is very good at distracting people from his problems by creating new ones, and most voters have very short attention spans.

America no longer has political guardrails. We no longer have standards which are bottom-line required in order for someone to be considered an admirable person. Apparently, a significant percentage of us are willing to elect anyone who yells the loudest or lies the most.

Still, there’s nothing but upside in believing Trump’s conviction will matter. Because if that turns out to be wrong, America will no longer be a place where it’s worth living.

Sadly, Wrongo has no plans for leaving it.

So it’s time for our Saturday Soother, where for the first time in forever, we can stay plugged into the news and talk about what’s going on with our friends and family. But we still need to take a few moments to consider the upcoming week and what it can mean for the nation. Since there’s beautiful weather in the northeast, start by grabbing a seat outdoors in the shade. Now, watch and listen to two musical performances.

First, “Song from a Secret Garden”, from an album by the Norwegian group, Secret Garden. Their music is sort of neo-classical new-age compositions. Here it is performed in 2022 by the Millennium Symphony Orchestra, a Korean group with solo Cello by Yoon Kyung Cho. It’s a lovely arrangement:

Second for levity, watch and listen to “I fought The Law” by the Bobby Fuller Four from 1966. The tune was written by Sonny Curtis of the Crickets and covered by the Bobby Fuller Four. Their version of the song was ranked No. 175 on the Rolling Stone list of The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time in 2004:

Democrats’ Grasp On Political Power Is Slipping

The Daily Escape:

Shiprock reflection, Shiprock, NM – May 2024 photo by Alex Spahn

Hope that everyone had a relaxing Memorial Day break. Despite our relaxing, time continued to march forward. And now some pundits are saying that America has entered the stretch run to the November presidential election. To a large extent, they’re correct. There’s only four months until early voting begins.

And its not just Trump we should be worrying about. At the moment, the Senate’s electoral map for November is grim for Democrats. They are certain to lose West Virginia, and the nine most competitive Senate races feature eight Democratic incumbents and Ted Cruz. And despite having a great Democrat (Colin Allred) running against Cruz, Texas may be the least likely to flip of those nine seats. So the odds on that are as long as drawing to an inside straight.

This brings up just how stacked against Democrats our Constitutional Republic has become. Fifteen years from now, states with 30% of the nation’s population will control 70% of the Senate’s seats. And the Senate is a legislative body where you need 60% of the votes (with certain exceptions) to bring a bill to the floor.

The difficult Senate map for 2024 means it is more likely than not that we may be kissing goodbye to adding additional progressive justices to the Supreme Court for some time, since a Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to ever confirm a Biden nominee. (That’s assuming Biden wins in the fall.)

And it’s become clear that the Supreme Court as currently constituted is completely unfriendly to making voting easy for the masses. And they’re doing that in support of the Republican agenda. As Mark Jacob reminds us:

“The court has made a series of key rulings in recent decades that have handed Republicans major advantages, including:

The Bush v. Gore decision to block a recount in Florida in 2000 and award George W. Bush the presidency

The Citizens United ruling of 2010 that was rocket fuel for the political influence of wealthy donors and corporations

A 2013 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts that gutted the Voting Rights Act and cleared the way for voter suppression laws

A 2019 pro-gerrymandering ruling also written by Roberts that let political parties draw election maps to their unfair advantage. (The court takes the position that it can strike down gerrymandering if it’s done for racially discriminatory reasons rather than partisan ones….”

Back in the day, we all wanted to believe that the Supreme Court was MOSTLY unbiased and above the political fray. We’re now painfully aware that this “pillar” of justice is simply a facade. Alito and Thomas are doing whatever they please.

Most recently, as Democracy Docket reported, the Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina’s congressional map is not a racial gerrymander, reversing a lower court decision that had earlier struck down the same map. That decision will result in worse representation for South Carolina’s Black voters. This is in stark contrast with a Louisiana district court’s decision in which the state’s white voters were able to get a racially compliant map struck down as a racial gerrymander, meaning that it too will now favor White representation for a Louisiana district.

This now means that the Supremes have kneecapped the ability of plaintiffs either to prove racial bias or to change gerrymandered districts on the basis of partisanship. Black voters are reaping what was sowed by Chief Justice John Roberts in his 2013 opinion gutting the Voting Rights Act. The president of the South Carolina NAACP, Brenda C. Murphy, said about Alito’s decision against South Carolina’s map:

“The Supreme Court has failed. The American people’s voting rights have taken another gut punch, and the future of democracy in South Carolina is dangling by a thread,”

As if this isn’t bad enough, Matt Cohen, also of Democracy Docket, reports on yet another Right-wing group organizing to disrupt the national election this fall. The group is called United Sovereign Americans (USA). They’re planning a series of lawsuits aimed at upending the voting process in a handful of states by claiming that non-citizens are voting in the federal election. Forget that there is nearly zero evidence for the claim, and that non-citizen voting is already forbidden by federal law.

In early March, United Sovereign Americans filed a lawsuit in Maryland challenging the state’s voter roll maintenance practices and other election procedures. The group says they plan to file similar lawsuits in at least nine states challenging election administration and voting laws. And although a federal judge tossed out the Maryland lawsuit, the group recently filed an appeal to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The crux of USA’s argument is that inaccurate voter rolls lead to illegally cast votes, a civil rights violation because the US Constitution guarantees that right. The group’s claim is that when an election is marred by hundreds of thousands of illegal votes, it dilutes the power of lawful votes and violates the civil rights of US citizens.

This is a legal longshot. So the group is also building a grassroots movement that, much like in 2020 and 2022, is radicalizing a large group of people across the country to become election vigilantes. Their job is to swamp local election officials with false claims in an effort to derail current election policies in various states.

Finally, we turn to that bastion of democracy, Texas. The Texas Tribune reports that:

“Republican Party of Texas delegates voted Saturday on a platform that called for new laws to require the Bible to be taught in public schools and a constitutional amendment that would require statewide elected leaders to win the popular vote in a majority of Texas counties.

Other proposed planks of the 50-page platform included proclamations that “abortion is not healthcare it is homicide”; that gender-transition treatment for children is “child abuse”; calls to reverse recent name changes to military bases and “publicly honor the southern heroes”; support for declaring gold and silver as legal tender; and demands that the US government disclose “all pertinent information and knowledge” of UFOs.”

How is it that these Republicans are taken seriously as politicians in a state as diverse as Texas? Apparently, they don’t trust their ability to keep winning statewide elections, even if it’s hard to see when (or if) Texas may become a purple or blue state.

Trump has shown America that there really aren’t any political constraints. Add to that the removal by the Supremes of several of the real constraints we did enjoy. What’s left is that state political parties can do just about anything to keep themselves in power.

Texas shows that. State electoral colleges? Sure. Gerrymandering where you can lose 57-43 and still win? Sure. Make voting a pain in the ass for voters you don’t want to see vote? Sure.

With the rules as they are, there is little recourse. But if Dems say “Court Reform” every time they’re in front of a camera, in a few years, the message might start to gain adherents.

Cartoons Of The Week – May 26, 2024

The Republican War against women continued as Louisiana became the first state to criminalize abortion pills. The state’s Republican governor Landry signed a bill classifying mifepristone and misoprostol, two drugs used to induce medical abortions as controlled substances.

That puts the abortion pills in same category as anti-anxiety medications Xanax and Valium. The law makes it a crime to possess them without a prescription or outside of a professional medical practice, punishable by one to five years in prison and fines of up to $5,000.

The law will also make it harder for people who need misoprostol for other conditions. The drug is used to induce labor, treat miscarriages, reduce the risk of serious bleeding from ulcers and other indications. This is yet another reason for women everywhere in America to turn Republican legislators out of office.

And we’ve ended another week of decidedly ordinary cartoons, with many about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and his flags. On to cartoons.

What the future is for women in Louisiana:

Then and now, where “then” wasn’t long ago:

The Red Flags are there. What should we do?

Alito is sitting pretty:

In a not-so-unlikely future:

Haley backtracks on Trump:

Why do Republicans always minimize the Trump outrage du jour?

Remembering The 1960s

The Daily Escape:

Corona Arch trail, UT – photo by Mark Shutt

Over the past few days, Wrongo and Ms. Right have taken a temporary deep dive back into the 1960s, the Vietnam War, activism and the folk music that accompanied those times. We did this by reading “The Women” a novel by Kristen Hannah, and watching a documentary “I Am A Noise” a truly stunning biopic about Joan Baez.

The scope of both go beyond the 1960s into the 1980s for “The Women” and up to the present for the Baez film, but the Sixties decade is the foundation for the book and the film.

Let’s talk about the book. “The Women” is about the early days of the Vietnam War, and is the story of an Army nurse, Frances McGrath (Frankie). She goes from being a newbie to a highly skilled surgical nurse on the frontlines of the Vietnam War only to return to a changed America that does not welcome home its veterans. Worse, the US government, including the VA, will not recognize that women were even in Vietnam, despite the fact that around 6,000 of them served in-country. How Frankie adapts to a world in which she feels totally out of place is the plot of the novel.

The book also charts Frankie’s PTSD, and estrangement from her upper class family after the war. It is filled with references to the music of the time, and if you are of that generation, all of the tunes will be familiar. While the historical fiction aspects of the novel are engaging, all of the characters are very thinly sketched. Frankie’s several romances propel the narrative, with all of them ending badly, contributing to her spiral into drug and alcohol dependence. It’s not giving too much away to say that she finds a healthy place in society, after many difficult years.

Wrongo has read much of the great literature that came out of the Vietnam War, including O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried“, as well as the extraordinary non-fiction Herr’s “Dispatches“; Sheehan’s “A Bright Shining Lie” and Halberstam’s “The Best and the Brightest“.

“The Women” isn’t up to the standard of any of those books, but it took Wrongo and Ms. Right back to revisit the changes that the Vietnam War brought to America in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Joan Baez film is essentially two stories, first about her being dead-center of the civil rights and antiwar movements, and the second, a starkly frank and difficult look at her life-long struggle with the crippling anxiety attacks she suffered beginning in her teenage years. At one point in the film, she says:

“I’m not very good with one-on-one relationships, I’m good with one-on-two-thousand relationships,”

Her mental health struggles are handled with sensitivity and finesse, although there’s a big reveal near the end.

In the 1950s, Baez was a college dropout singing barefoot in coffeehouses around Boston. She was invited to perform at the 1959 Newport Folk Festival and was “discovered”. That led to her meteoric rise to fame. She sang at Carnegie Hall before she was 18 and was on the cover of Time magazine at 21. Baez says in the film:

“For whatever reason…..I think I was the right voice at the right time.”

Baez’s crystal-clear soprano was unforgettable. Wrongo started listening to her in 1963. Her pure young soprano on the first few albums still give him chills. And her activism placed her at the center of several political movements. She sparked a resurgence of American folk music, sang at both the 1963 March on Washington and at Woodstock. She helped raise Bob Dylan to prominence. She was on the fields with Cesar Chavez. And MLK Jr. visited her after she was arrested for protesting the Vietnam War.

Baez remained interesting if not relevant down through the decades, until today. In the early 1980s, she dated Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. In 2015, Taylor Swift invited Baez to dance on stage with her at a concert. Baez also visited Ukraine with the Ukraine Children’s Action Project, helping raise awareness for the war’s youngest victims.

The film’s big reveal comes about 90 minutes in, when Baez gets therapy and begins to grapple with childhood trauma. Periods of seeming contentment would be followed by breakdowns. After she endured a decade-long addiction to quaaludes, Baez tried to prise out “the kernel” of her interior darkness. It turns out that in therapy, Joan and her younger sister Mimi both believed that they were abused by their father as young children.

Baez thinks that was the cause of her difficulties with intimacy and her long periods of anxiety and depression. Clearly the film shows Baez and her two sisters as having been damaged early in life and then trying to cope with it for the rest of their lives. Ultimately Baez is shown having successfully navigated the past six decades, if not always easily, with her talent, perseverance and courage. See it yourself.

Enough for this week, it’s time for our Saturday Soother where we try to sluff off the tiny particles of outrage that cling to us from another week of political and geopolitical trauma. Here on the Fields of Wrong, the hummingbirds and the bluebirds are back. But this week, we’ve gotten very few things on our to-do list crossed off.

To help you prepare for another week of RFK Jr.’s brain worms and Trump’s trial, grab a seat outdoors in the shade and listen to a few tunes that come from the 1960s. First, the Vietnam anthem “We Gotta Get Outta This Place” by Eric Burdon and the Animals:

There are films that show hundreds of GIs in Vietnam singing this. Next, Joan Baez got her start as a folk singer. Here are two deep cuts from when she was very young. First, the traditional “Will you go laddie go?” Recorded in Edinburgh 1965:

Second, “With God on our side” also recorded in 1965, where she covers Bob Dylan:

This Bob Dylan song was written 1965…. and in 2024 we still don’t get it.

Oops, Boeing Does It Again

The Daily Escape:

Lenticular cloud at sunrise, Salton City, CA – May 2024 photo by Paulette Donnellon

At a time when Boeing is facing calls by the flying public as well as from governments to return to its focus on safety, the company has scored an “own goal” by deciding to pick a fight with its in-house firefighters union, who help to keep Boeing itself safe.

From The Stand, a Seattle-based newsletter about working people:

“The more than 120 fire fighters who protect Boeing employees and facilities in Washington state — members of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local I-66 — are struggling to get a fair contract from the Arlington, Virginia-based company.”

At the heart of the dispute is Boeing’s insistence on raising the time it takes for firefighters to reach the maximum pay scale from 14 years to 19 years. Negotiations have been ongoing through a federal mediator for more than two months, with no deal reached. Nineteen years is nearly the entire work span of a firefighter’s career. If this deal is accepted, they will hit the top of their pay scale and retire soon after. It’s understandable why that would be good for the company. From Boeing: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Despite extensive discussions through an impartial federal mediator, we did not reach an agreement with the union….We are disappointed the union chose not to even bring our offer to its members for one final vote….We have now locked out members of the bargaining unit and fully implemented our contingency plan with highly qualified firefighters performing the work of IAFF members.”

Cartoons of the Week – May 5, 2024

We’re at the start of a new week, and the cartoonists remain deeply into the student protests and Gov. Kristi Noem shooting her dog. But let’s start with a chart from the polling organization Civic Science. This is from the weekly newsletter by their CEO, John Dick:

“Last month, America’s attention to politics reached a new low. For the first time in the 9+ years we’ve tracked it, more US adults follow politics “not at all closely” than those who follow it “very closely.” The stat is especially mind-boggling when it’s what many believe to be an existential-level election year.”

The percentage of Americans who say they follow politics very closely has fallen from 50+% in Q4 2020 to 26% today:

Note that the result was based on 1.1 million responses. OTOH, the survey found that “very closely” plus “somewhat closely” totaled 71%. On to cartoons, which this week, aren’t funny.

People were shocked by Trump’s answers in Time Magazine:

Gov. Noem can’t live down shooting her puppy:

Santayana said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. University administrators should take note:

The press thinks Biden should have ended the Hamas/Israel war by now:

The Dems still own the best issue for this November:

Can We Make Billionaires Pay More Taxes?

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Cundy’s Harbor, ME – May 2024 photo by Eric Storm Photo

Economist Gabriel Zucman is a proponent of a global wealth tax. His column in the NYT explains what that is and how it would work:

“Until recently, it was hard to know just how good the superrich are at avoiding taxes. Public statistics are…quiet about their contributions to government coffers….Over the past few years…scholars have published studies…attempting to fix that problem. While we still have data for only a handful of countries, we’ve found that the ultrawealthy consistently avoid paying their fair share in taxes.”

The problem of billionaires paying very little in taxes is international. In the US, the problem is that billionaires rarely have any salaries to speak of:

”Why do the world’s most fortunate people pay among the least in taxes, relative to the amount of money they make? The simple answer is that while most of us live off our salaries, tycoons like Jeff Bezos live off their wealth. In 2019, when…Bezos was still Amazon’s chief executive, he took home an annual salary of just $81,840. But he owns roughly 10% of the company, which made a profit of $30 billion in 2023.

If Amazon gave its profits back to shareholders as dividends, which are subject to income tax, Mr. Bezos would face a hefty tax bill. But Amazon does not pay dividends to its shareholders. Neither does Berkshire Hathaway or Tesla. Instead, the companies keep their profits and reinvest them, making their shareholders even wealthier.

Unless…Bezos, Warren Buffett or Elon Musk sell their stock, their taxable income is relatively minuscule. But they can still make eye-popping purchases by borrowing against their assets. Mr. Musk, for example, used his shares in Tesla as collateral to borrow $13 billion to put toward his acquisition of Twitter.”

Slashing the corporate tax rate and getting rid of the estate tax have also had dire effects in terms of wealth distribution:

“Historically, the rich had to pay hefty taxes on corporate profits, the main source of their income. And the wealth they passed on to their heirs was subject to the estate tax. But both taxes have been gutted in recent decades.”

In 2018, under the Trump administration, the US cut its maximum corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%. And the estate tax has almost disappeared. Relative to the wealth of US households, it generates only a quarter of the tax revenues it raised in the 1970s.

The effective tax rate (the percentage of someone’s total income that they paid in taxes in all forms) is now lower for the 400 richest American billionaires than it is for the bottom 50% of income earners. Here’s the effective tax rate in 1960 and 2018 for these two groups respectively:

Source: NYT

The US national debt is $35 trillion, almost all of which we acquired during the same period as the reduction of taxes on the rich. That isn’t a coincidence. And since capital and people are both completely mobile, the problem of taxation of wealth doesn’t end at our borders. More from Zucman:

“There is a way to make tax dodging less attractive: a global minimum tax. In 2021, more than 130 countries agreed to apply a minimum tax rate of 15% on the profits of large multinational companies. So no matter where a company parks its profits, it still has to pay at least a baseline amount of tax under the agreement.”

Zucman is proposing we apply a similar minimum tax to billionaires:

“Critics might say…this is a wealth tax, the constitutionality of which is debated in the US. In reality, the proposal stays firmly in the realm of income taxation. Billionaires who already pay the baseline amount of income tax would have no extra tax to pay. The goal is that only those who dial down their income to dodge the income tax would be affected.”

Critics of a minimum tax say it would be hard to apply because wealth is difficult to value. But according to Zucman’s research, about 60% of US billionaires’ wealth is in stocks of publicly traded companies. The rest is mostly ownership stakes in private businesses, which can be assigned a value by comparing them to the value of similar firms.

But the big issue is how to get broad international participation in this billionaire’s minimum tax. In the current multinational company minimum tax agreement, participating countries are allowed to overtax companies from nations that haven’t signed on. This incentivizes every country to join the agreement or lose tax revenue.

The same mechanism could be used for billionaires. For example, if Switzerland refuses to tax the superrich who live there, other countries could tax them on its behalf. Countries such as Brazil, have shown leadership on the issue, and France, Germany, South Africa and Spain have recently expressed support for a minimum tax on billionaires.

This is far from a done deal, although Biden has proposed a billionaire tax with similar objectives. And Zucman’s proposed tax wouldn’t impact the ordinary rich. He says there are about 3,000 people who would be required to give a relatively small bit of their profits back to governments.

Zucman’s closing words:

“The idea that billionaires should pay a minimum amount of income tax is not a radical idea. What is radical is continuing to allow the wealthiest people in the world to pay a smaller percentage in income tax than nearly everybody else.”

Great idea, one that almost everyone agrees with, EXCEPT those who have the power to do something about it. We’re looking at you, Republicans! Also, when a significant percentage of the (relatively) poor in this country support Trump who is dedicated to cutting taxes for the rich, is there any hope that taxes will be raised on the wealthy?

That’s more than enough thinking for this week. It’s time for our Saturday Soother, where we attempt to ignore the latest about the campus protests, or whatever else Gov. Kristi Noem is training her gun at, and gear up for another week in the political and cultural wars.

Here on the Fields of Wrong, the crab apple trees are in full bloom along with our weeping cherries. There is still plenty to do if we are to finish our spring cleanup before summer.

But, before we start down that backbreaking path, let’s grab a mug of coffee and a seat outside. Now watch and listen to Luigi Boccherini’s “Guitar Quintet No. 4 in D major “Fandango”, G.448”, recorded in the Unser Lieben Frauen Church, in Bremen Germany in 2019. Boccherini was an Italian composer and cellist. He wrote a large amount of chamber music, including over one hundred string quintets for two violins, viola and two cellos:

More On The Campus Protests

The Daily Escape:

Japanese Garden, Portland, OR – April 2024 photo via The Oregonian

On Tuesday night, hundreds of NYPD officers entered Columbia University in riot gear, one night after students occupied the University’s Hamilton Hall.

And in a “you can’t make this s__t up” moment, Tuesday was exactly 56 years to the day when police cleared Hamilton Hall of Vietnam War protestors in 1968. The new clear out happened 13 days after students built their encampment and lit the match that started a student movement against the war in Gaza on college campuses nationwide.

The police crackdown at Columbia isn’t an isolated event. There was a round of arrests at City College in Harlem (NY). And police responded to clashes between pro-Palestinian and counter-protesters at UCLA. On Monday, demonstrators at The New School took over Parsons School of Design. Meanwhile, police cleared an encampment at Yale. Nationwide, more than 1,000 students have been taken into police custody since the original encampment began at Columbia on April 18.

From John Dean:

“More than four dozen colleges now have active protests against . . . against what? Signs demand an end to genocide in Gaza, disinvestment from Israel, and an end of US support for Israel. But Jewish students are also being attacked. For some protestors, Palestinians are the people fighting for freedom, and the Jews are the oppressors.”

As the protests continue, the story grows ever more complicated. House Republicans plan a series of hearings into what they are characterizing as antisemitism on college campuses. House Speaker Mike Johnson announced the hearings and also threatened the loss of federal funding:

“Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen absolute lawlessness and chaos on college and university campuses across America. It’s not right, and everybody in this country knows it. If they don’t correct this quickly, you will see Congress respond in time, you’re gonna see funding sources begin to dry up. You’re gonna see every level of accountability that we can muster.”

Columbia’s leadership took the Republicans at their word. They invited the NYPD to campus to remove students from Hamilton Hall with force.

Before the Columbia students occupied Hamilton Hall and got ejected, and before the UCLA demonstrating groups decided to fight each other, these protests seemed familiar in that they were an echo of the Occupy Movement in 2012. Back then, the vast majority of the violence was caused by police, much like it is today, But it isn’t clear that today’s encampments have sufficient size or strength to achieve their goals. They are certainly not of the scale of 2012’s Occupy, let alone the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

If the past tells us anything, we should be skeptical that these protests will actually lead anywhere. The 1968 Vietnam protests eventually fizzled out, particularly when it became clear that students would be shot and killed by police and the National Guard. Occupy ended with a 17-city crackdown by police that happened just two months after Occupy began. The George Floyd protests fizzled out, but not before significant property damage and police crackdowns.

One thing is very clear: The speed with which campus protestors have embraced Palestine is remarkable. These students have never shown interest in the slaughter of Muslim children in Syria, or women and teenage girls in Iran. To Wrongo’s knowledge, none have protested against genocide in Darfur. Is now what we’re seeing the power of TikTok to feed highly curated information to them?

Some might say that the students are expressing normal human empathy, possibly with a touch of ignorance regarding the history of the Palestinians and the Israelis. And certainly with a definite lack of understanding of the limits of free speech in America. Free speech does not permit extended protests on private property.

The purpose of free speech is the absolute freedom to speak your mind. The First Amendment does not grant the right for a person or group to occupy property that doesn’t belong to them. Freedom of speech does not include resisting arrest. Would any of us say that freedom of speech allows protesters to occupy their home? Free speech doesn’t allow making threats to kill a person or members of a group.

In addition to the desire to draw attention to the Gaza carnage, the campus protests seem to be about the role of the US government and American companies supporting Israel. Doesn’t that make their protests difficult to understand? Israel has been a US ally for more than 70 years. In that time, it hasn’t been able to defend itself without substantial US aid. Most Israeli aircraft bombing Gaza targets today are American-made.

Does our support for Israel make the US complicit in the Israeli military action in Gaza? Of course, but should the US now end that support? If colleges divest from Israel, would that help Palestinians? Hard to say, but it’s unlikely to cause any meaningful change.

Wrongo doesn’t think the students’ problems are with Israel the country or necessarily, with the Israeli people. Most of the heat is reserved for actions by Bibi, his cronies and the IDF. From The Economist:

“Two areas where the IDF has fallen short are its responsibilities as an occupying power and its duty to minimize civilian deaths. Some 1.7m people have been displaced; many lack adequate food, water or medicine.”

More: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“…many armies would find Israel’s rules of engagement disproportionate and hence illegal. The IDF is reported to have set the threshold of civilian deaths in justifying decisions to strike a junior Hamas fighter at 20:1 and a senior leader at 100:1. For Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s dictator, America set a threshold of 30:1.”

The IDF appears to be failing in its goal of destroying Hamas. After six months, Hama’s most senior leaders are still alive, and over 100 hostages remain in captivity. Most important, Israel appears to have no strategy to prevent Hamas from rising from the rubble. Without meeting their goal of destroying Hamas, Israel will remain subject to insurgency.

Israel is paying a high price both economically and diplomatically for its Hamas war. There has been a very real shift in support for Israel’s methods of conducting its war with Hamas. If the student protests were to energize America voters to reject supporting an unending conflict, a significant number of American politicians would eventually follow.

Today, Israel is in a doom loop where the operations designed to reduce the number of terrorists will likely attract recruits to replace them. Without a plan for peace, Israel will end up as an occupier or as in the past, repeatedly striking Gaza to tamp down the insurrectionists.

The story of the 2024 campus protests is still being written. The outcome remains difficult to predict. With the end of the academic year approaching, could the calendar be the deciding factor?