Category: Domestic Policy

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – April 30, 2023

This month, Texas Senate Republicans passed three bills allowing religion into public schools. From Vox:

“The first, SB 1515, would require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in a “conspicuous place” in classrooms. The other bill, SB 1396, would permit public schools to set aside time for students and staff members to pray or read the Bible and other religious texts. The third, SB 1556, would give employees the right to pray or “engage in religious speech” while on the job.”

Some of this sounds unconstitutional. You can be certain that plenty of Texans will be happy to comply as maliciously as possible next fall.

The three bills now go to the Texas House for approval. They follow Texas’s SB 797, which took effect in 2021 and requires schools to display “In God We Trust” signs.

When the Texas Right say they want to bring religion back into public schools, they mean they want to make public schools more Christian. This flies in the face of America becoming noticeably less religious over the past 20 years:  Weekly service attendance and religious self-identification are both down 20% overall, which translates to about 50 million fewer Americans than two decades ago.

This is ironic: If religious identification is to increase, it will have to come from “importing” traditional believers from the global south. But few of them are white. So that’s a problem for Trumpism and the reactionary Right. On to cartoons.

State-sponsored religion is hard to swallow:

Biden announces he’s running:

How do young voters fit in the race between these geriatrics?

A certain debate this time:

House Republicans pass a debt ceiling bill:

McCarthy wonders why Biden won’t talk:

Daylight come and he got to go home:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Late Stage Capitalism

The Daily Escape:

A 20 feet x 9 feet sign placed in Times Square, NYC in Sept. 2013. Created by Steve Lambert.

In yesterday’s column about Bed Bath and Beyond’s (BBBY) bankruptcy, Wrongo used the term “Late Stage Capitalism” to describe some of the factors that led to the firm’s demise. Several readers asked what Wrongo meant.

First, some history. A German economist named Werner Sombart seems to have been the first to use the term “Late Capitalism” around the turn of the 20th century. A Marxist theorist named Ernest Mandel popularized it in the 1960s. For Mandel, “late capitalism” described the economic period that started with the end of World War II and ended in the early 1970s, a time that saw the rise of multinational corporations, mass communication, and international finance.

In America the terms “Late Capitalism” and “Late Stage Capitalism” are used interchangeably. Late-stage capitalism is characterized by greed, corruption, and a focus on profits over people.

The current crisis of capitalism’s legitimacy stems from business pursuing the aberrant form of capitalism known as shareholder capitalism, which began in the 1970s. It causes firms to seek maximizing shareholder value as reflected in the current share price, at the expense of all other stakeholders and society.

Some of the problems with late-stage capitalism include wealth inequality, environmental destruction, and financialization. Financialization refers to the increase in size and importance of a country’s financial sector relative to its overall economy. In the US, the size of the financial sector as a percentage of GDP grew from 2.8% in 1950 to 21% in 2019. The financial services industry, with its emphasis on short-term profits, has played a major role in the decline of manufacturing in the US. Financialization has created “unproductive” capitalism. According to economist Michael Roberts: (brackets by Wrongo)

“…financialization is now mainly used as a term to categorize a completely new stage in capitalism, in which profits mainly come not from…production, but from financial [engineering]

Today, capitalism is no longer the heart of a free market. Algorithms run the stock and foreign exchange markets. Large players in these markets operate freely with the expectation that they will eventually be caught. They then pay off the DOJ or SEC, chalking up the fines to the cost of doing business.

Lobbyists on Capitol Hill curry favor with politicians. Companies then receive substantial tax breaks and move their ever larger profits to offshore tax havens. The revolving door between Wall Street and the banking sector allows former Federal Reserve Chairs to charge speaking fees of $500,000 and earn seats on the boards of the algorithmic trading firms. The Pentagon continues to benefit from budgetary increases while the profits of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other defense contractors continue to swell.

Late stage capitalism helped create the current distortion of wealth. From the wealthy one percent living in multiple homes and flying private, to the plight of the working poor in America. In a 2020 survey by Edelman, a marketing and public relations firm, 57% of people worldwide said that:

“capitalism as it exists today does more harm than good in the world”

When you have money, capitalism is your wing man. It opens doors to business leaders and helps develop political influence, all with the goal of amassing more wealth and power.

Late stage capitalism has allowed oligopolies and the oligarchs that run them, to rig the system in their favor. They’ve won Supreme Court cases, such as Citizens United v. FEC (2010), that give corporations the same speech rights as people, allowing them to spend millions on political ads to elect compliant politicians.

In recent years, capitalism’s shortcomings have become more apparent: Prioritizing short-term profits has sometimes meant that the long-term well-being of society and the environment has lost out. Indeed, if you judge by measures such as inequality and environmental damage, as economists Michael Jacobs and Mariana Mazzucato wrote in their book “Rethinking Capitalism”:

“…the performance of Western capitalism in recent decades has been deeply problematic…”

There’s also no denying that this strain of capitalism has led to increased economic growth worldwide, while lifting a significant number of people out of poverty. At the same time, its tenets of lowering taxes and deregulating business has done little to support investment in public services, such as crumbling public infrastructure, improving education and mitigating health risks.

Watch Paul Tudor Jones, a successful hedge fund manager describe why we need to rethink capitalism:

He’s concerned about capitalism’s laser focus on profits. He says that it’s:

“….threatening the very underpinnings of society.”

More people are aware of the term “late, or late-stage capitalism,” due to the growing wealth gap. People now have access to information that exposes the defects of capitalism, and the effects of political and elitist interference in the monetary policy of a country. There is a popular Reddit community devoted to it.

And calling something “late” implies the potential for significant change or revolution, A “late” period always comes near the end of something. Calling it “Late capitalism” says:

“…This is a stage we’re going to come out of at some point…”

Perhaps we’re on the cusp of society dictating that capitalism provide us with a more equitable way of life. Or maybe the wealth gap will continue to grow, and the corporations will continue to seize more power.

Whenever late-stage capitalism eventually comes to an end, you can be sure of one thing – it won’t be a soft landing.

 

Sources and reading list:

https://wrongologist.com/2023/04/bed-bath-and-beyond-another-retailer-bites-the-dust/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/late-capitalism/524943/

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financialization.asp

https://www.linkedin.com/in/prof-michael-r-roberts/

https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/

https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/Rethinking+Capitalism%3A+Economics+and+Policy+for+Sustainable+and+Inclusive+Growth-p-9781119120957

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210525-why-the-next-stage-of-capitalism-is-coming

https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-01/2020%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/

Alternative Views:

https://tomdehnel.com/crushing-the-myth-of-late-stage-capitalism/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/opinion/american-capitalism-good.html

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call- April 17, 2023

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Woodenshoe Tulip Festival with Mt. Hood in background, WA – April 2023 photo by Mitch Schreiber Photography

If you drink beer, you know that Bud Lite is terrible. Wrongo shares this opinion with the GOP, but for different reasons.

Wrongo hates the taste. Conservatives hate Bud Light because of a recent Bud Light promotion featuring influencer Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender woman. Mulvaney posted a sponsored video on her Instagram account announcing that Bud Light had sent her a customized beer can with her face on it.

Bud sent the can to Mulvaney in celebration of the first anniversary of her transition.

Some on the Right are calling the brew a “Woke Mind Virus”. But shouldn’t the real focus be on the MAGA Mind Virus? The Right has created a kind of Bud-lash fever: Some have machine gunned or crushed cases of the beer with heavy equipment. Then a person or persons moved on to making bomb treats at a Bud plant in Van Nuys, CA. Several Budweiser facilities across the nation have also been targeted with bomb threats.

Many on the Right call for a boycott of the bestselling beer in the country. If that sounds ludicrous, it’s because it is. It’s also indicative of where we are in America today.

Trans issues are front and center in the GOP-inspired culture war. Anti-trans sentiment is on display by many on the right, targeting children’s health, sports, drag shows, and health care. It’s seen throughout Conservative media. Anti-trans legislation is growing. And it’s even entering the mainstream. From Vox:

“Mainstream publications like the NY Times increasingly follow the lead of anti-trans agitators, treating what should be understood as a fundamental human rights battle more like a semantic “debate,” fixating on terminology and labels and medical minutiae, instead of humanizing trans and nonbinary people and their experiences.”

Vox reports that this has created a contentious situation at the Times. In February, contributors and members of the Times’s staff posted an open letter protesting the paper’s escalating bias toward anti-trans talking points.

But the Bud-lash fever may be breaking. The Daily Beast reported that on Saturday, the Twitter account for the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) removed a fundraising post that trashed Bud Lite. Apparently, they realized that Anheuser-Busch isn’t some progressive company. In 2022, they gave the NRCC $464,505. The NRCC has decided that they like political donations more than they hate trans people.

Bud’s partnership with Mulvaney also triggered a nearly $5 billion drop in the Anheuser-Busch stock value as of last Wednesday.

On Friday, Anheuser-Busch released a tepid statement from its CEO, Brendan Whitworth, saying he is “responsible for ensuring every consumer feels proud of the beer we brew”:

“We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people. We are in the business of bringing people together over a beer.”

The company cancelled an event in Missouri last week, citing safety concerns for its employees. Wrongo is against banning TikTok. Here’s a TikTok video of Bud Lite cans being crushed by a steam roller. Where else would we see news like this?

Boycotts are a tradition in America, so like all the others, this one will fade away. The difference with this one is how wound up Conservatives get about something as trivial as a one minute video that pitches Bud Lite.

Time to wake up America! These clowns will try to take you down in a hail of gun fire, saying it’s for God and Freedom, (loosely defined). They just can’t abide sharing the country (or political power) with people who aren’t just like them.

To help you wake up, watch and listen to “All I Ask of You” from the musical “Phantom of the Opera” which had its last Broadway performance yesterday. It opened on Broadway in January of 1988. Since then, Phantom has played almost 14,000 performances (the most in history) to more than 20 million people, grossing over $1.3 billion. An estimated 6,500 people have been employed by the production – including over 400 actors.

Here the song is performed by Michael Ball and Sarah Brightman (the original Christine) at London’s Royal Albert Hall Celebration for Andrew Lloyd Webber, who wrote the play:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – April 16, 2023

America is in a literal death spiral. The more mass shootings take place, the more innocent people die. And then more of America’s Republican politicians tell us that only more guns will solve the problem.

Republicans say that school shootings would be minimized if we would just hire a security guard to cover the door of every school. But with school budgets under pressure, where will the money come from to hire them? And how would the GOP’s plan for out-gunning the next mass shooter turn out?

We need to see mass shooting as a form of domestic terrorism. We’ve moved from having ten Constitutional Amendments that most of us cared deeply about to a place where the Right only really cares about the Second Amendment. Maybe we shouldn’t be all that surprised that there are so many Americans who care more about guns than they care about people.

For a certain group, that seems to be what America is all about. If they cared about freedom, nothing would be more of a priority than defending every person’s right to go about their daily lives without the threat of violence. If we really cared about the sanctity of human life, we would prioritize people over guns. On to cartoons.

The unholy trio who prioritize guns over people:

The GOP’s platform is turning into a cliff:

When your anti-human policy list is this long, you must be a Republican:

It isn’t a game:

Clarence is tracking mud into the Court:

Rep. Jim Jordan plans to investigate AG Bragg in NYC:

Facebooklinkedinrss

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

Final Thoughts On The SVB Situation

The Daily Escape:

Spring wildflowers, Four Peaks Wilderness, AZ – March 2023 photo by Chris Flores

(This will be the final column for this week as Wrongo and Ms. Right are heading to CA for the Napa Valley wedding of granddaughter Nicole. Columns will resume on 3/23)

Several readers commented on how Silicon Valley Bank’s (SVB) major problem went beyond Wrongo’s discussion of asset management. They’re all former bankers and former colleagues of Wrongo, and they rightly brought up liability management as a key contributor to SVB’s problem.

For banks, the deposits that people make are the bank’s liabilities. The essence of banking is borrowing short term (deposits, overnight borrowings and medium term borrowings) in order to lend that money out for a longer term (mortgages, long term loans or, investments in bonds and long dated US treasuries). The difference between what they pay on their liabilities and what they earn on their loans and investments (the spread) is how banks make their profits.

SVB had little risk that their loans wouldn’t be eventually paid back (credit risk), but they did have substantial interest rate risk if rates went up. That included the risk that the face value of the bonds they invested in would decline in value in higher interest rate scenarios.

This is a well-known challenge for all banks. They try to maintain enough of their assets in easily sold investments so if there’s an unforeseen need to pay out cash to depositors, they can meet that need. The bigger the expected (or unexpected) cash need, the more assets the bank must hold that are easily converted to cash.

It wasn’t a surprise to the banking industry that the Federal Reserve (Fed) was raising rates; Chair Powell clearly said they were going to do that until inflation was under control. Basic liability management principles should have told SVB to move to hedge the risks in a rising rate environment by investing more in very short term (near cash) assets. But SVB didn’t. Maybe they thought they knew better.

SVB isn’t alone. The Fed raised interest rates quickly and sharply during 2022, so the face value of bonds fell. According to the FDIC, US banks were sitting on $620 billion in unrealized losses (assets that had decreased in market value but were still on their books at purchase price) at the end of 2022.

Of that amount, Bank of America alone had unrealized losses of around $114 billion, or 18% of the total.

A major risk that the banks didn’t correctly anticipate was the effect of huge cash injections into the economy during the pandemic, along with a prolonged period of historically low interest rates that predated the pandemic. That had ripple effects on all banks. According to Marc Rubinstein:

“Between the end of 2019 and the first quarter of 2022, deposits at US banks rose by $5.4 trillion. With loan demand weak, only around 15% of that volume was channeled towards loans; the rest was invested in securities portfolios or kept as cash.”

Then came the Fed’s rapid rise in interest rates. From FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg:

“The current interest rate environment has had dramatic effects on the profitability and risk profile of banks’ funding and investment strategies….Unrealized losses weaken a bank’s future ability to meet unexpected liquidity needs,”

Banks do not continually adjust the value of their bond portfolio to market. So their unrealized losses can be difficult for an outsider to see. It also means banks find that selling parts of the portfolio will bring in less cash than they may need, because the securities are worth less in the market than they originally paid for them. That happened to SVB.

From Michael Batnick at Irrelevant Investor:

“Without the pandemic, rates are not at zero for two years. Without the pandemic, $638 billion does not go into venture capital. Without the pandemic, rates don’t go from 0% to 4.5% in a year. And without the pandemic, we wouldn’t be talking about a run on the bank.”

So there’s plenty of blame to go around. The SVB management surely failed: More Treasury bills and fewer bonds would have helped, that’s for sure. They had to know that their customer base, which was concentrated in start-ups, were hemorrhaging cash. They knew that they had unrealized losses in their bond portfolio. Shouldn’t they have shortened their asset mix?

Should we blame the regulators or SVB’s auditors? KPMG gave them a clean bill of health just a few weeks before they went belly up. You would think KPMG should have seen what was coming. And the Fed just announced that they are leading a review of “the supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank in light of its failure.”

For SVB, the government drastically changed its policy about insured deposits. Had SVB been “The Bank of Depositors With No Political Clout”, you can bet that the $250,000 insured deposit limit would have been enforced. And depositors with larger deposits would have had to wait for their money.

But, the exception was made, and now, it will certainly happen again. Ben Carlson says it best:

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

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 12, 2023

Let’s talk about Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). The tech industry’s go-to lender just became the second-largest bank failure in US history. The bank’s customers withdrew $42 billion from their accounts on Thursday. That’s $4.2 billion an hour, or more than $1 million per second for ten hours straight.

We ancient, moss-covered former bankers call this a bank run. That occurs when a large number of customers of a bank withdraw their deposits simultaneously over concerns about the bank’s solvency.

Nearly half of all venture-backed US companies were SVB customers. We’re unsure why the run started, but on Thursday, several Venture Capital firms started telling their client companies that pulling cash from SVB was prudent, and the run began.

While bank deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to $250,000, few of SVB’s deposits, by value, were FDIC insured, since its customers were overwhelmingly corporations with much more than $250,000 in the bank. By Friday, there was no cash left in SVB’s coffers. In fact, the cash on hand was negative, to the tune of $958 million.

Do you remember when Trump and Republicans rolled back some of the regulations Dodd-Frank placed on regional banks?:

“Some banking experts on Friday pointed out that a bank as large as Silicon Valley Bank might have managed its interest rate risks better had parts of the Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory package, put in place after the 2008 crisis, not been rolled back under President Trump.”

Trump signed the bill despite a report from Democrats on Congress’s joint economic committee warning that under the new law, SVB and other banks of its size:

“…would no longer be subject to nearly any enhanced regulations”.

This also affects ordinary people. Wrongo has a California friend who banks with SVB. Here’s a quote from her:

“While I’ve been waiting to sign the purchase contract on a condo, I woke to the news that my lender Silicon Valley Bank has been closed and taken over by regulators. That concludes literally 8 months of working on this….and the end of my effort to buy a home.”

So don’t listen to the pleas for another bank bailout. Wrongo would be okay with bailouts if they were accompanied by personal accountability by management. Like, we’ll rescue your institution, but none of the bank senior management can ever work in finance again. On to cartoons.

Tucker’s mendacity:

It takes two teams to play:

Walmart’s OK with pills for boners, but not for pregnancy:

GOP wants to regulate Trans not Trains:

GOP loves doormats:

Most appropriately named movie of this or any year:

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