Category Archives: American Politics

The technology of revenue enhancement.

Posted on by
Reply

In Summer 2007, the New York Times published a story detailing one effect of modern scanning or signaling technology.  In places where the EZPass system had been introduced, tolls went up thirty percent more than they did in places where the old-fashioned wait-in-line-to-pay-cash system still existed.  The explanation for this was that policymakers knew that people were much less aware of the real costs they were paying when using EZPass.  So they wouldn’t get bent out of shape.[1]  At the same time, the use of EZPass systems allows State Departments of Transportation to steadily cut down on the number of toll-takers they employ.  Is there any evidence that the number of toll-takers has fallen with the introduction of EZPass?  Or were they re-directed to other work for the department?  Or do departments just keep as many toll-takers on duty, while raising everyone’s pay out of the additional revenue?

Between 2010 and 2015, the State of Maryland issued 2.35 million citations for speeding in highway construction work zones.  The citations were based on traffic cameras.[2]

The use of the traffic cameras seems to have had some effect on work zone safety.  Work zone collisions and worker deaths are both down compared to the pre-camera period.  Although state officials argue that the cameras are meant to serve an educational purposes as much as an enforcement purpose, there are some curiosities about the law that feed the belief that it is really just a revenue enhancer.  For one thing, the car must be traveling at least 12 miles per hour over the posted limit to be ticketed.  The fine is set at a standard $40, regardless of how fast the vehicle was traveling or how many prior citations have been issued to the vehicle.  Repeat violators can’t lose their license.  Apparently some drivers see the fines as buying a personal license to speed.

With a standard fine of $40 per citation, the state should have accrued $94 million in gross revenue.  Out-of-state violators pay up at a rate of 85 percent.  Maryland violators pay up at a rate of 94 percent.  All in all, the net revenue amounted to $45 million.  This has gone to the Maryland State Police to pay for salaries, vehicles, and equipment.

Is there any pattern in the citations issued?  Scarcely any are issued between 3:00 AM and 5:00 AM, or between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM.  In the former case, there just aren’t many people on the road.  In the latter case, there are too many people on the road, traffic jams keep anyone from speeding.  The numbers rise sharply from 6:00 to 9:00 AM and from 6:00 to 8:00 PM.  So, the morning rush hour as people try to get to work, and the aftermath of the evening ruish hour as the traffic jams start to break up and drivers attempt to make up lost time.  The numbers stay high from 8:00 PM to mid-night, then they drop off sharply.  The really high numbers of tickets issued, however, come between 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM.  Who are these people?  Why are they speeding through work zones?  Maybe they’re driving on business, trying to cram in as many appointments as possible.  Maybe they’re travelers trying to get as far as possible in the day by passing through the next city on their route before the traffic jams starts.  Maybe they’ve been driving this speed long before they got to the work zone, the road looks manageable, and they don’t see any reason to slow down.

[1] “Noted,” The Week, 20 July, 2007, p. 18.

[2] Scott Calvert, “Traffic Cameras: Safety Tools or Cash Grabs?” WSJ, 11-12 June 2016.

The ACA in August 2016 2.

Posted on by
Reply

One means to control costs included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) took the form of a mechanism for publicly reviewing requests for rate increases by insurance companies.[1]  In Summer 2016, health insurance companies began requesting large increases in premiums.[2]

A witness for one Pennsylvania health insurer observed that his company had about 250 clients who had signed up for coverage under the ACA, then received treatment worth about $100,000 each, and then had cancelled their policies immediately after receiving treatment.[3]  The cost of the care then had to be passed on to other clients.  In Montana, ten individual customers consumed more than $4 million in care in the first six months of 2016, for an average of about $70,000 a month each.  In this case, 1 percent of customers accounted for 30 percent of pharmacy bills.  Making matters worse, in the first years of the ACA, a federal program helped insurers pay the cost of some of the most expensive claims.  Now, according to a Department of Health and Human Services economist, that program is winding down.

What has been happening in Pennsylvania is not unique to the Keystone State.  In Montana in 2015, one insurer reported that it had paid out $1.26 in claims for every $1.00 in premiums.  Unable to sustain such losses, major insurance companies have had to choose between seeking much higher premiums and abandoning the health-insurance market places.  In 20 states, insurers have asked to raise their premiums by at least 25 percent.  In some other states, insurers seem to be abandoning the market places to more efficient or competitive insurers.

 

Who are the uninsured?[4]

More than half of the uninsured live in the 20 states that refused to expand Medicaid, many of them populous Southern states like Texas and Florida.  As a result, 39 percent of the uninsured have incomes below the federal poverty level.

In 2013, 28 percent of people between 19 and 34 years old were uninsured; today 18 percent are such “Millennials.”  Still, that 18 percent accounts for almost half of the total uninsured.

In 2013, 50 percent of the uninsured were white; now 41 percent are white.

In 2013, 36 percent of the uninsured were American citizens of Hispanic descent; today 29 percent of the uninsured are American citizens of Hispanic descent.[5]

In 2013, 13 percent of the uninsured were black; now 12 percent are black.

More than half (57 percent) of the working Americans without insurance work for small companies that were exempted from the requirement to provide insurance.

[1] It speaks volumes to the intellectual world inhabited by Democratic legislators that the NYT reporter Robert Pear can describe the process as intended to “shame” companies that requested increases.  Apparently, Democrats believe that immense profits by health insurers and exorbitant pay for executives explain high health costs.

[2] Robert Pear, “Health Insurers Use Reviews, Intended to Constrain Rate Jumps, to Justify Them,” NYT, 15 August 2016.

[3] The chief executive of the federal insurance market-place optimistically portrayed the join-spend-quit pattern as a one-time “decline in pent-up demand for services.”  In all likelihood, uninsured people will continue to pen-up their use of services, then join-spend-quit again.  Robert Pear and Reed Abelson, “As Insurers Balk, U.S. Makes New Push for Health Care Law,” NYT, 18 August 2016.

[4] Abby Goodnough, “Still Uninsured, Even With the Health Law,” NYT, 18 August 2016.

[5] However, the ineligibility of illegal immigrants for coverage means that the total Hispanic share without insurance has risen from 29 percent to 40 percent.

The ACA in August 2016.

Posted on by
Reply

Prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), many Americans received their health insurance through their employers; many others bought individual insurance; and a relatively small percentage had no insurance at all.  As one part of the effort to extend health insurance to the uninsured, the ACA required everyone to have insurance, created a system of subsidies to make that insurance affordable for lower-income people, and encouraged the creation of market-places where individuals could purchase standard plans offered by insurance companies.[1]  (In essence, lots of younger, healthier, lower-income people would be constrained to buy insurance to pay for the care of older, sicker, and often higher-income people.)  Broad participation in the health-exchanges by the major insurance companies would create a competitive environment that would help hold down prices while providing a broad array of choices to customers.

In spite of the unfortunate early mishaps of the ACA (the botched roll-out of the web-site, the president’s terminological inexactitude about keeping one’s insurance, the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the portion of the ACA that tried to coerce states into expanding Medicaid), far more serious problems have begun to emerge.

In what seems to have come as a surprise to Democrats and the New York Times (“but I repeat myself” as Mark Twain once said), it turns out that people really are economic animals.  First, for many potential customers, the price of health insurance is too high for what it would buy.  While it had been projected that about 21 million people would be enrolled in health exchanges by 2016, only about 10 million have enrolled.  That’s a lot of premiums that never get paid to insurers.  In 2015, half of the people who did buy insurance in the market-places bought the cheapest possible plan.[2]  Those who buy the more expensive plans tend to be people with serious medical conditions.  Furthermore, many of these customers don’t care about choice of physician or the size of the network of providers. They have opted for plans offered by smaller insurance companies.  Some of these companies already had deep experience dealing with Medicaid payments.  They knew low income customers and they knew how to keep down costs.  Part of this involved limiting choice of care to doctors and hospitals that were willing to accept a low level of payment.

Second, private enterprise runs on a profit and loss basis.  Having run health insurance policies for employer-provided health insurance, the major insurance companies assumed that their new customers would want the same range of choice of physicians and hospitals.  They didn’t.  Anticipating large numbers of customers, many without serious health needs, the insurance companies priced many of their policies too low.  Getting half as many customers, many with serious health issues, the insurance companies suffered heavy early losses.  Facing continuing huge losses in this sector of their business, major insurers like United Health Group, Humana, and Aetna have either decided to pull out of the health-exchange market or limit their participation.  The insurers who remain in the health exchange market place plan to steeply raise premiums for 2017.  This may well drive even more price-sensitive customers out of the market place.  A health care expert at the Urban Institute rationalized that “you can’t lower costs without breaking some eggs.”  In this case, the “eggs” are companies owned by stock-holders as an investment of their assets.  The big insurers need to learn the market or to get out.

One solution would be to let the experienced low-cost providers take over this market.

[1] Reed Abelson, “Health Insurers Lose as Clients Focus on Costs,” NYT, 13 August 2016.

[2] “Bronze,” like coffin handles.

The current explanation.

Posted on by
Reply

Back in 2000, the Clinton Administration held a conference to congratulate itself on its skillful economic management.[1]  The participants foresaw the opening of a new era of rapid economic growth.  Low inflation would run in tandem with stable growth in what some saw as a “Great Moderation.”  Markets behaved rationally most of the time.  Technological innovation increased labor productivity.  Increasing international trade through agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement expanded high-end American exports while providing American consumers with low-cost imports and stimulating the shift of factors of production (capital, labor) out of low-end industries.  China, in particular, tantalized businessmen and economists alike.  More education and geographic mobility offered the best means for displaced workers to adapt.  Investors faced a host of “staggering high-quality investment opportunities.”  Central bankers could manage the economy with relatively small changes in interest rates.

Like many another rosy dawn, this one failed to arrive.   The host of “staggering high-quality investment opportunities” turned out to be the “tech bubble” that collapsed almost as soon as Bill Clinton handed the White House keys to George W. Bush.  “The China Market” turned out to be just as much of an illusion now as in the past.[2]  Indeed, China’s enormous labor force multiplied by rising productivity multiplied by low wages created an export giant unlike anything ever seen before.  (A 2016 paper by three economists calculated that between 1999 and 2011, Chinese competition ate up 2.4 million American jobs.)  The financial crisis at the end of the Bush administration showed that at least some markets were far from rational and self-correcting.  More education has not guaranteed a better adaptation to a changing economy, while fewer start-ups are creating new businesses and many displaced workers have been reluctant to relocate toward growth areas.  Technological innovation has destroyed far more jobs than it has created.  Indeed, one economist argues that there is a shortage of investment opportunities to provide either an outlet for savings or new jobs.

The rewards of economic change have flowed disproportionately to the upper levels of American society.  In 1990, the top 20 percent of families earned 44.3 percent of total income.  In 2014, the top 20 percent of families earned 48.9 percent of income.  In 2000, wages, salaries, and benefits accounted for 66 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while business profits accounted for 8 percent.  By 2010, wages, salaries, and benefits accounted for 61 percent of GDP, while business profits have now risen to 12 percent.  Between 2000 and 2015, median family income fell by 7 percent.  One recent poll reported that 91 percent of Bernie Sanders supporters and 61 percent of Donald Trump supporters think that the economy favors powerful interests.   (More likely it favors certain skills and behaviors, but no one is buying that line.)

Those job losses and income shifts now are having a political effect.  Of the 100 counties with industries worst hit by Chinese competition, 89 voted for Trump in the primaries.  Of the 100 counties with industries least hit by Chinese competition, only 28 went for Trump.   Faced with losing their own jobs, many Republican leaders are re-thinking their positions.  A former Treasury official in the Bush II administration reflected that “Washington and we in the establishment spent too much time celebrating the efficiency gains of trade and not enough time thinking about the people who were impacted.”

[1] John Hilsenrath and Bob Davis, “Unkept Economic Promises Drive Stormy Election,” WSJ, 8 July 2016.

[2] “If every Chinaman would add eight inches to the length of his shirt it would take all of the cotton cloth that we have in America, because they all wear them on the outside.”  Proceedings of the … Annual Convention of the Investment Bankers (1919), p. 71.

Good news and bad news on the economy.

Posted on by
Reply

The American economy is huge (producing $18 trillion worth of goods and services every year) and growing (GDP is projected to double over the next fifteen years).[1]  Business analysts had projected that the American economy would grow at a rate of 2.5 percent in the second quarter of 2016.[2]

What’s the good news?  If you leave out business inventories, then in the second quarter of 2016, the rest of the economy grew at 2.4 percent.  Also, consumer spending (which makes up roughly two-thirds of the economy) grew at a rate of 4.2 percent.  This reflects the belated rise in wages (by 2.5 percent over last year) and the fall in gasoline prices.  The United States International Trade Commission projects that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal could add 128,000 full-time jobs and $42.7 billion to the GDP by its fifteenth year.

What’s the bad news?  First, companies have been meeting the rising demand in part by drawing down their inventories, rather than by making new stuff to keep their inventories stocked.  If you include inventories, then the economy grew at a rate of only 1.2 percent.  This is half the rate calculated if inventories are excluded.

Second, the fall in energy prices has caused energy companies to shut down a lot of production rather than investing; in other sectors, the strong dollar is choking off a lot of sales, so companies aren’t investing as much.

Third, the TPP’s projected job creation and GDP growth projections are pretty small compared to the over-all economy.  In addition, it is projected to increase wages by only 0.19 percent over where they will be otherwise.

Fourth, the growth of labor productivity holds the key to economic progress.  Labor productivity is the amount of output (stuff) per hour of work.  If labor productivity increases, the employers get more stuff to sell at the same labor cost as before.  That allows for higher profits, or lower prices to buyers, or higher wages to workers, or—the trifecta—all three.[3]  Between 1870 and 2013, the American economy averaged 2.3 percent growth in productivity each year.   This made for a gigantic rise in living standards.[4]  However, that average disguises differences in productivity growth during the sub-periods.  From 1948 to 1973, the annual growth in productivity averaged 2.8 percent.  From 1973 to 1995, it averaged 1.4 percent.  From 1995 to 2010, it averaged 2.6 percent.  From 2010 to 2013, it averaged 0.7 percent.[5]

Apparently no one knows what caused the shifts.  No one knows why it suddenly dropped in 1973 or why it dragged along at a low level for two decades; no one knows why it shot up in 1995 and stayed at a high level for fifteen years; no one knows why it fell again in 2010 (after the end of the financial crisis); and no one knows what the poor performance of the last few years portends or when it will end.  However, in the first quarter of 2016, it fell by 0.6 percent.

The future is uncertain.  Over the short-run, will companies begin investing to meet rising consumer demand or will the investment decline undermine the growth of consumer spending?  Over the longer-run, will productivity growth begin rising or will it continue to limp?  Will rejection of the TPP leave world trade as it is or will it begin a downward spiral in trade?

[1] Eduardo Porter, “Uneasy Alternative to an Imperfect Trade Deal,” NYT, 27 July 2016.

[2] Neil Irwin, “What’s Right and Wrong With the Economy,” NYT, 2 August 2016.

[3] See: Henry Ford.

[4] Alan Blinder calculates this as a 25-fold increase.

[5] Alan S. Blinder, “The Unsettling Mystery of Productivity,” WSJ, 25 November 2014.

Trumputin 2.

Posted on by
Reply

Did Donald Trump encourage the Russkies to hack the email of Hillary Clinton?  Well, no.  It doesn’t matter what the New York Times[1] or the Public Broadcasting Service says.  The truth is different.

Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server handled both her correspondence as Secretary of State and her “personal” e-mails.  In theory, these personal e-mails related to things like the place settings at the wedding of her daughter Chelsea Clinton.  However, some people (other than Ann Coulter) believe that some of the e-mails reveal the involvement of the Secretary of State with donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton shut down her private e-mail server after she ended her term as Secretary of State in 2012.  All of the “personal” e-mails were deleted, although the State Department-related e-mails were subsequently turned over to the State Department.  The server cannot now be hacked because it hasn’t been operating for four years.  Thus, the EffaBeeEye could not recover the deleted e-mails.

Was it hacked in the past?  F.B.I. Director James Comey sharply criticized Hillary Clinton’s “reckless” behavior in handling e-mail while serving as Secretary of State.  Experts consulted by the New York Times concluded that her e-mail had “probably” (i.e. almost certainly) been hacked during visits to China and Russia.[2]  This raises the possibility that the Russkies accessed her e-mail before she ended her tenure as Secretary of State and before she wiped the 30,000 “personal” e-mails from the server.

The New York Times has been quick to engage in damage control.  In its view, the released e-mails from the DNC “portrayed some [DNC] officials as favoring Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy while denigrating her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders.”  It pointed out that the DNC had been targeted, but “apparently not those of the Republican National Committee.”[3]  This farcical idea is used to introduce a reference to Watergate and, by implication, Richard Nixon.

Assuming that the Russians had hacked Clinton’s e-mail server, Donald Trump urged the Russians to release the now-deleted e-mails. “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI.”

Nevertheless, the incident has become more of a problem for Republicans than for Democrats.[4]  For example, Paul Ryan’s spokesman responded by denouncing Russia and Vladimir Putin as “a global menace led by a devious thug.”  For their part, the Democrats quickly portrayed Trump as having invited the Russians to hack a server that had—in reality–been out of operation for four years.

Did the Russians hack the Clinton e-mail server while it still functioned?  Did they provide any information to the Obama Administration through the FBI legal attache in the Moscow embassy?[5]  How would revealing the contents of her personal e-mails harm Hillary Clinton’s chances to become president?  Should American voters anticipate an “October surprise”[6] based on these hacked e-mails?

[1] Ashley Parker and David E. Sanger, “Trump Eggs On Moscow In Hack of Clinton Email,” NYT, 28 July 2016.

[2] David Sanger, “Hillary Clinton’s Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say,” NYT, 6 July 2016.

[3] It would be odd if the Russians did not attack the computer systems o both major parties.  Perhaps we’re waiting on revelations about Republican plans to derail Donald Trump.

[4] Or perhaps I just read the wrong newspapers.

[5] Not likely.

[6] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise on the origins of the term.

NAFTA You.

Posted on by
1

Most economists hold that “past major trade deals [NAFTA, Chinese entry to the WTO] have benefitted most Americans.”[1]  Now we’re facing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  There is no doubt that this is true.  Still, lots of working people think that an open world economy has turned into a disaster.  Naturally, in an election year, all sorts of candidates—from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton to Boris Johnson—are having road to Damascus experiences.  It’s how you get ahead in a competitive environment.

How is this possible?  On the one hand, there is a certain gap between quantitative-based reality and perception-based reality.  While economists calculate that “trade deals benefited most Americans,” most Americans (55 percent) calculate that they did not.[2]  Who is right?

On the other hand, Economics is the greatest of the “social sciences” that arose at the end of the 19th Century.  Those social sciences (Economics, Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, Marketing) all study the behavior of people in the aggregate to discover “laws” of human behavior.  The thing is, people don’t live their lives in the aggregate.  They live their lives individually and for themselves.  “Most” people can be doing really well, while a minority are doing badly.  The minority takes no consolation from the happy situation of the majority; apparently, the fortunate majority gives little thought to the hardships of the minority.

However, some research indicates that this is too simple an answer.  Lots of people who oppose free trade are not individually harmed by it, but they believe that the country as a whole is harmed by it.  It has been suggested that isolationism plays a role; that nationalist feelings of “cultural superiority” plays a role; and that racism (couched as “ethnocentrism”) plays a role.  People who have less education are more likely to be isolationist, nationalistic, and “ethnocentrist” than are the better educated.  Gregory Mankiw has a funny coda to this story: once people have more education, this nonsense will pass.[3]

There is another possible explanation.  Many people recognize that America is still a racially segregated society, but not many people recognize that America is still a class segregated society.  My father taught people to drive and eventually bought the business[4]; his brother had some experience in construction and some training as an engineer in the US Army, and then became a consulting engineer[5]; their brothers-in-law were a mill-hand at Weyerhauser, a ship-wright at Vic Foss Boatyard, and a salesman-turned-entrepreneur.  My beloved[6] in-laws graduated from Ivy League colleges, often went to grad school or law school, are “professionals,” and have lovely summer homes on the Eastern Shore, in New Jersey, and in Nova Scotia.  All the same, if the people losing from globalization mostly come from one social group, then maybe their extended families and friends intuitively or out of human sympathy push back.  Their own family and friends also suffer from economic change.  They recognize that they themselves may suffer in the future.  Class solidarity trumps [NPI] economic “rationality.”

Maybe, shock absorbers against the impact of trade deals are best?  Or maybe not.

[1] N. Gregory Mankiw, “Trade Is Good, But Voters Aren’t Buying It,” NYT, 31 July 2016.

[2] This may be an example of what Marxism terms “false consciousness.”  People think that they are something different from what people in authority tell them they are.  Alas.

[3] Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon, has a funny coda to Mankiw.  People always suffer from relative lack of development

[4] My Dad taught me how to tie a necktie and had a couple of suits, but he didn’t wear a jacket or tie to work.

[5] Basically a burr under the saddle of construction companies trying to cut corners on jobs that they had bid.

[6] I’m not being arch here.  They’re wonderful and incredibly generous human beings with a Hell of a lot more social conscience than I possess.

A Fork in the Road.

Posted on by
Reply

“All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that’s an alibi for my ignorance.”—Will Rogers.

One sign of our political paralysis/polarization shows up in the reliance on special bi-partisan commissions to deal with troubling issues.  The 9/11 Commission did an excellent (if imperfect) job.  The Simpson-Bowles Commission[1] also did an excellent, if imperfect, job.  The work of the 9/11 Commission requires no explanation.

The Simpson-Bowles Commission sought to address the growing problems with federal spending, taxation, and deficits.  Basically, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense each consume about 22 percent on federal spending.  So, two-thirds of the budget goes to old people and to psychological Viagra.  Even though reforms in 1983 cut benefits by 25 percent, the dynamics remain unsupportable.  Simpson-Bowles made a series of recommendations to address the rising cost of entitlements.  The Commission recommended a combination of tax reforms to enhance revenue with spending cuts.[2]  These recommendations went nowhere, for reasons that are equally disgraceful to both parties.   President Obama returned to the need for cuts in his failed effort to strike a budget deal with the Republicans.

Currently, the trust fund for Social Security is projected to run dry in 2034.[3]  After that the system will have to rely on only withholding taxes from current workers.  That, in turn, will mean that payments will fall to 79 percent of the promised level.  One alternative would be to increase withholding taxes by something like 25 percent.  Another alternative would be to reduce benefits by limiting the cost-of-living adjustments.  A third would be to increase benefits.  Some argue for a 10 percent raise for recipients, others for 100 percent of their own benefit plus 75 percent of their deceased partner’s benefits.  A fourth alternative would be to give care-givers and widows who left the work force an equivalent pay for their loss of Social Security income (although they paid no withholding tax during that period).

The current presidential campaign has shifted the debate on this issue.  The white populist revolts led by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have racked the Republican and Democratic parties alike.  Established party positions have had to shift in response.  According to Nancy Altman, “the real question is whether you expand Social Security across the board, so middle-class workers get an increase,…Then you can argue about how big to make the increase.”

Democrats have endorsed expanding and “modernizing” Social Security.  Three years ago “Progressives” began looking for a new issue to galvanize the Democratic electorate after the end of Barack Obama’s presidency.  [NB: So, the Democratic agenda is driven by the search for new ways to extend the role of government?  Rather than,…?]  First, Bernie Sanders took up the cause; then Hillary Clinton joined in.  Characteristically, realizing that she would have to veer to the center after winning the nomination, she took the low road: expanded benefits for widows and widowers and for those who lost benefits because they served as caregivers.

Still, how to pay for the expanded benefits?  One answer would be to raise the cap on taxable income above the current $118,000.  Another answer advanced by Democrats would be to “privatize” Social Security funds by investing them in equities.  The Bush II administration tried this on without success.  Now it may become a Democratic policy.

What can we afford?

[1] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform

[2] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform#Final_plan

[3] Mark Miller, “Social Security Expansion Gains Support in Washington,” NYT, 16 July 2016.

Trump l’oeil 1.

Posted on by
Reply

Just over a third (38 percent) of Republicans are satisfied with Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee.[1]  How will they respond in November?  Will they turn out in full force to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House?  Will some sit out the election?  The Republican Party needs a big turn-out.  Even if they don’t want Trump as president, they do want lots of Republicans to vote for all the other candidates down ballot.  The Republicans seem likely to retain control of the House, but control of the Senate doesn’t seem to be a lock.  Then there are all the state and local races.  How to get Republicans to turn out in large numbers?

There are two answers.  First, Clinton is deeply unpopular with all Republicans (and many Independents).  Keeping Clinton out of the White House probably will overshadow putting Trump into the White House as a Republican campaign theme.[2]  This is going to get very ugly, even by current standards.  The foolish Benghazi investigation has been done to death.  However, F.B.I. Director James Comey’s brutally honest assessment of her e-mail issue hurt her on the competence argument that she wants to make against Trump.  Polls run after Comey’s press conference reported a 5 point fall in her favorability rating and a 7 point fall in her honesty and trustworthiness ratings.[3]  This is worth pondering.  The honesty and trustworthy score fell more than the favorability score.  Some 2 percent of the respondents think worse of her as a person, but still prefer her as the candidate.  That’s because Trump is the rival candidate.  However, it also shows that personal attacks can drive down her favorability rate.

Clinton has provided a lot to work with here.  Both the Clinton Foundation and her post-Secretary of State speeches are still ripe for the plucking.  It should come as no surprise if the Republican rage-generators use these topics as a device to portray Clinton as an influence-peddler, or bribe-taker, or even extortionist.  This could end in a scorched-earth campaign founded on fanning the flames of personal animus.[4]  The day after the election, Americans are going to wake up to a legacy of ill-feeling and failure to address real issues.

Second, Republicans have already begun to sell themselves on the idea that a President Trump could be “managed” by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan.  Solid Republican majorities in the House and Senate would give them control over the Trump administration’s legislative agenda.  In this view, Trump really is just an empty suit who wants to fly around on Air Force One and tell the U.N. to its face where it can get off.  There is a large measure of self-delusion in this view.  Trump is a guy from New York City.  Regardless of anything he has said so far, he probably doesn’t believe in a “right to life”; probably isn’t any more homophobic than most Americans (Republican or Democrat); and isn’t a racist just because he takes a really hard line on both illegal immigration and immigration from Muslim countries “compromised” by Islamist terrorism.  “Because the New York Times says so” isn’t much of an argument.[5]  A guy who has used corporate bankruptcy to force his creditors to write down a lot of debt isn’t going to feel that McConnell and Ryan have got him over a barrel once he becomes President.  What is a Republican Senate going to do if Trump nominates Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 29 July 2016, p. 17.

[2] Probably there will be a lot of work for Trump-wranglers to keep him from saying or doing something that makes her seem the less-repellant candidate.

[3] “Clinton: a wounded candidate,” The Week, 29 July 2016.

[4] There is a certain passing similarity to Democrats’ personality-based attacks on Richard Nixon throughout his career.  None of that did America any good.

[5] See the column by NYT Public Editor Liz Spayd, “Why Readers See The Times as Liberal,” NYT, 24 July 2016.