Trump to America: “Let Them Eat Eggs”

 

To wreck, to wreck, to wreck

Did I build this ship to wreck?

Florence & the Machine

As Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the cabal of plutocratic billionaires that the President calls his cabinet pursue their self-interested agenda, they are telling Americans that they need to prepare to sacrifice and feel economic pain for the good of society.

Why is it that the least advantaged in our society are always the ones asked to sacrifice for the greater good?

Trump's speech to Congress foretold economic pain for Americans.  Supposedly, tariffs, budget costs, layoffs and the elimination of the already decimated social welfare net will be good for America in the long run.  It will require sacrifice by farmers, laborers, people of color, and anyone who buys products or receives services from the government.

Perhaps sacrifice is occasionally necessary. Yet it never seems that the rich are the ones who are asked to sacrifice,

At one time the demand to ask the poor and the middle class to sacrifice was called trickle-down economics under the Reagan administration.  Tax cuts for the rich, coupled with a loosening of the regular regulatory system and cuts to the social welfare system would eventually trickle down and benefit all Americans.

Then the call for the poor to sacrifice for the country was called free trade under the Clinton administration.  Yet again, the argument was that by opening borders with free trade America would prosper, even though some in manufacturing and among the poor, the working class, and the people of color would have to sacrifice.

Then it was the demand under the Obama administration that people lose their homes so that we could afford to bail out the too big to fail banks.

The result of all those sacrifices were to produce an America with a gap between the rich and poor greater than we've seen in American history. It was to produce an America in where nearly one out of six children lived in poverty, where  economic mobility has nearly come to a halt, and the American dream of homeownership has become something that only a few can hope for.

Many years ago, philosopher John Rawls wrote his book A Theory of Justice. He argued that disinterested individuals constructing the rules of societal justice would agree to two principles. The first  would be like liberty consistent with the same liberty for everybody else. Two, what came to be known as the difference principle, specified that inequalities should be treated as arbitrary unless they work first to the advantage of the least advantaged person in our society.

Rawls’ book was a call for both political liberty and a challenge regarding the economy and social welfare. The challenge was to say inequalities were presumptively impermissible unless one could show that they were first advantageous to those who were poor.  Yet in the more than fifty years since his book was published, social policy has gone the other way. It has gone not to presuming inequalities are impermissible, and that the poor should not be to ask to sacrifice first, but that instead the poor should be asked to sacrifice ahead of the rich, ahead of the affluent, and that the inequalities in our society are somehow reflective of some basic principles of justice.

Trump's declaration that there will be pain for those who can least shoulder it is yet the latest manifestation of a series of social policies over the last cent half century that have wrecked the ship of American democracy. They are doing damage to the very framework of what has come to knit our society together  Somehow it is the belief that making people's lives miserable will motivate them to work harder, when in fact, making people more secure, economically, socially and politically, is what motivates people to work harder than what makes us all prosper.

In the end, Trump musk and his cabal of billionaires have adopted a modern-day Marie Antoinette view of the world. When Marie Antoinette was once told there was not enough bread to feed the French masses, she remarked:  “Let them eat cake.”  Perhaps now the adage for Trump fittingly would be:  “Let them eat eggs.”

The Standoff at the Minnesota State Legislature: Why the Courts should stay out

 I did two recent pieces, both published onJanuary 17, 2025, arguing against judicial intervention into  resolving the partisan control of the Minnesota House of Representatives.

One is in the Star Tribune, the other in Minnpost.

The Democrats Loss of the Working Class was Fifty Years in the Making

 One month out after Donald Trump and the Republicans beat Kamala Harris and the Democrats, the

reasons for the electoral defeat are still being debated. Yet, while it is possible that Harris could have won, but for several mistakes that she made, it is not clear that any Democrat could have won this election. In fact, the roots of Harris’s and the Democratic losses in 2024 are deep going back at least to three previous Democratic presidents.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the 2024 presidential race was close. Had Harris picked up approximately 124,000 votes in the critical swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, she would have been an electoral college winner for the presidency. This is comparable to how in 2016 Hilary Clinton would have won the presidency had she picked up 90,000 more votes in the same three states, or had Trump won 43,000 more votes in 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin.

Some might argue that had she picked a different vice-presidential candidate, such as Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania, which might have made a difference. Or that had she developed a better narrative or broken with Biden sooner, perhaps the results would have been different. But the roots of her and the Democratic Party’s failure to win, and especially to lose the working class, go back decades.

It started in the 70s and 80s, when the US economy was restructuring away from manufacturing. The jobs that were lost belong to the working class and with the new economic employment opportunities going to those who were college educated. As manufacturing disappeared from the US, the gap between the rich and poor accelerated, starting in the eighties up to the present. The Democrats did little to address this growing inequality, and in fact, embraced it and the new economy and the new workers who would be the winners.

The first major mistake was under Bill Clinton. His endorsement and support for NAFTA clearly demonstrated an indifference to how free trade would hurt the working class and people of color. The enthusiasm there and among the Clinton Democrats for free trade drowned out critics who said that unless the agreement protected the working class, it would have hurt them, even though it generated, perhaps overall greater net worth for the business community. NAFTA had winners and losers, and it favored the business community, as well as eventually favoring those college, educated, trained individuals who were to benefit from the new internet based intellectual service economy, of which NAFTA was part.

The second mistake was with Barack Obama. In 2008 as the global economy collapsed due to bank failures in the United States, initially, George Bush pushed through TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to help bail out banks. Once in office, Obama continued that approach to bail out the too big to fail. His Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, when asked at one point about all the hundreds of thousands or millions of homeowners who were going to lose their houses, he demonstrated a tin ear by saying that that would have to happen to save the banks.

Finally, under Joe Biden, his support for the working class was supposedly what led him to defeating Donald Trump in 2020. It was probably less that and more that Trump mishandled the pandemic. But among Biden’s signature achievements was the Inflation Reduction Act, a commitment of hundreds of billions of dollars to transition the United States to the green economy with green jobs. Yet again, these were not jobs that were going to benefit the working class that used to support the Democratic Party. Instead, it would go to those with different skill sets, and not necessarily in areas such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin, where Democrats needed votes.

Three Democratic presidents, three critical choices that demonstrated a turning away from the working class. What is not surprising is that they finally abandoned the Democrats en masse in 2024 what is more surprising is that they did not do it sooner. As the Democrats regroup, they need to think about these broader and deeper structural choices that the party made and how it has walked away from the working class under each Democratic President for the last fifty years.

When the Pohlads Sell the Twins the Taxpayers should get part of their profits

 

There's excitement in the air as the Pohlads announce plans to sell the Minnesota Twins baseball team after purchasing the team for $44 million in 1984.  Estimates are that the team is now worth $1.5 billion, and the sale will net the Pohlads a lot of money.

The state of Minnesota, Hennepin County, and Minneapolis taxpayers who subsidized the team should tax the profits to get back their investment in the Twins.

Professional sports are big business and very profitable. Profitability is largely due to the public subsidies it receives. Professional sports play on fan loyalties and threats to move as ways to extract corporate welfare from taxpayers. Many justify the subsidies by contending that sports stadiums provide. major economic stimuli for communities.  Yet no major, credible study supports this.  Viewed from an opportunity cost perspective, public investments in sports yield lower returns for the community than investments in museums, schools, or other public amenities. Yes, sports may contribute to the quality of life in an area, but they are not good economic investments for taxpayers.

Among the tactics sports owners use to increase their profitability is getting taxpayers to pay for the stadiums. Studies indicate that public investment in a new sports facility is one of the prime ways that teams and their owners increase profitability.  The Pohlads have benefited twice from the taxpayers in Minnesota.

 First prior to Pohlads purchase of the Twins in 1984, taxpayers provided subsidies to build the Metrodome. There was $155 million in bonds for the facility and $30 million in bonds for surrounding infrastructure.

Years later in 2006, the Pohlads successfully convinced the state of Minnesota, Hennepin County, and in Minneapolis to subsidize Target Field. This came after they threatened in 1999 to leave the state of Minnesota if Saint Paul taxpayers did not build them a stadium.  While St Paul voters rejected the tax and the team did not leave, just seven years later Minneapolis, Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota came up to bat and hit a home run for him.  They provided $90 million in bonds for infrastructure, $ 260 million in bonds for the facility, and Hennepin County enacted a 0.15% sales tax.

Thus, twice taxpayers have subsidized the Twins, a private business operating for private gain. As a result, the Pohlads original $44 million investment now will produce an estimated 1.5 billion sale. Such a gain is way beyond the inflation rate.  The $ 44 million in 1984 today would be worth $133 million.  The $1.5 billion far exceeds the rate of inflation and cannot be explained simply by increased valuation the Pohlads have added to the Twins unless one also includes the public subsidies.

While no one begrudges Poland's making money, they did so significantly at taxpayer support.  What they have now is an unrealized capital gain on their investment produced largely in part by public investment in their private business.  Their sale will be a realized capital gain.

Taxpayers are entitled to a part of that gain and the value of the team when it is sold. Exactly how much is not clear.  But nonetheless, the public made the Twins so profitable and valuable, and they are entitled to its fair share of the return on their investments.

The coming end of Tim Walz's political career in Minnesota

 Come this November, whether Kamala Harris wins or loses the presidency, Governor Tim Walz’s political career in Minnesota ends. 

Tim Walz has had an amazing run in Minnesota politics. It includes six terms as a member of Congress, having flipped a Republican conservative district Democratic, even if only temporarily, and by winning the governorship twice and becoming a star among progressives. Nationwide. He was selected as Kamala Harris's vice president both because of his supposed appeal to progressives and his folksy Midwest image that would endear him to swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Were Harris to win the presidency, Walz would resign as governor, move off to Washington, and probably never return to Minnesota politics again. This would be like what happened to Walter Mondale after his national career ended. There is a slight chance that Walz might return to Minnesota much like Hubert Humphrey did after serving as vice-president and losing the presidency, but odds are against it.

On the other hand, were Harris to lose Walz will take the blame for her loss. It will be because of his missteps in many of his claims about his resume or because he turned out to be the wrong and risky choice for Vice President. Many said that perhaps Harris should have selected Pennsylvania. Governor Josh Shapiro to be her running mate, a popular political figure in the most critical swing state.

Were Harris to lose, Walz returns to Minnesota as governor. It will be in the remaining two years of his second term. It is hard to imagine that Walz would be successful in seeking a third term if he decided to do so. While Democrats like him, Walz has built up a lot of opposition across the state of Minnesota, receiving in his second election run for governor a smaller percentage of the vote than the first time, against an arguably weak opponent. Winning a third term in modern Minnesota history has only been accomplished once by Rudy Perpich, and that occurred under extraordinary circumstances of which it is unlikely we will see again.

Walz effectively becomes a lame duck after the 2024 elections in Minnesota, one way or another. Moreover, were the Republicans able to flip one or both houses of the legislature that would also significantly diminish or end his influence in this state. But even if the Democrats hold their political trifecta, they faced the consequences of a possible budget deficit according to the most recent fiscal forecast.  This was caused in part by the significant budgetary increases they enacted in the last two years. Walz will not have the budget surplus he did in the past to do the things he wants. He will have to make far more difficult choices politically than he had to do in his previous six years.

But even assume that Walz does stay on as governor and the Democrats hold the trifecta, having tasted the national spotlight, it is unlikely that he will want to continue his focus at the state level. As the adage goes, after you visited the city, it's kind of hard to keep you down on the farm.

 Under any of these scenarios, Tim Walz will become less of a feature in Minnesota politics in less than a month.

If the US presidential election were held today–Look at what the Young Spectator will do

  The US presidential election remains inconclusively close.  But it still favors Donald Trump.

However, as political scientist E.E. Schattschneider  once declared, look at role of the audience or the undecided voter when it comes to political fights or elections. In this election, it may come down to the youth voters who decide the election and who are notoriously difficult to poll. 

As has been the case for well over a year, the 2024 presidential election has come down to six swing states where 150,000 to 200,000 voters will decide the electoral college outcome.  The electorate is polarized and there are few voters to persuade or move.  Polls suggest a close race. As of September 30, Harris is leading in three of the swing states. Trump is leading in three of the swing states. But the margins of their leads ranges from one-tenth of a point for Harris in Pennsylvania to a two point lead for Trump in Arizona.  Most of the polls being done have margins of error ranging from two to four points, while  indicating approximately two percent of the voters described as likely to cast a ballot  who are undecided. 

What we know is that polls indicate a that Trump is favored in terms of his handling of the economy and immigration, both of which are listed as important, if not the most important, issues in 2024.  His supporters have been loyal and enthusiastic for him from the start, and there is no question they will show up to vote for him. 

Additionally, among those few voters who list themselves as undecided, generally 60% vote against the incumbent.  That is, if they vote. In 2024 Harris is viewed as the incumbent.  A majority of Americans also do not like the direction the country is headed. Put all this together, these numbers and trends favor Donald Trump. 

Conversely, Harris has many things operating in her favor.  She has largely, but not completely, overcome the enthusiasm gap that stymied Joe Biden versus Donald Trump. She has an incredible amount of money and a cash advantage over Donald Trump to be able to  get out the vote, advertising, and other electoral matters. She has the abortion issue on her side, which is tremendously important to many college educated suburban women, as well as many other voters, Harris has picked up increasing support among Latinos and African Americans.  All of this suggests movement in the right direction for her, and some polls suggest that she would squeak out a narrow electoral college victory.

But the real challenge in this election is with younger voters, those under the age of 30.  They are much less likely to vote than those over the age of 30.  While Joe Biden's was in the race, they were unenthusiastic to vote for him. With Taylor Swift's endorsement of Vice President Harris, we've seen some evidence of increased voter registration among younger voters.  Most evidence suggests that celebrity endorsements have at best marginal impact on voters but Taylor Swift could very well be different in terms of her impact.  Additionally, this could be an election where reproductive rights, LGBTQ issues, and perhaps other matters of concern to voters under the age of 30 might drive them yet again to the ballot in ways pollster do not see.

But it is difficult for pollsters to capture this group of voters in polling.  Survey research wants to determine who a likely voter is. If you have not voted before or just turned 18, for example, polling you or assessing you as a likely voter is problematic and it is possible that the polls are not capturing these younger voters. They are the audience or the bystanders in a political fight.

EE Schattschneider once stated that what the audience or what the bystander does, determines the outcome of political fights, in this case, an election.  What we don't know is whether these younger voters will go from being audience or bystanders who are currently not reflected in the polls to participants and voters in the 2024 election in the critical swing states that will decide the outcome.

Profit-Driven Polling and the 2024 Election

 

Yet again this election cycle, polling and the polls are a major controversy. The issue is that the polls are all over the map, or again, will be simply wrong, as allegedly, they were both in 2016 2020 and even in 2022 during the midterm elections. The real problem with the polls is not their accuracy. Instead, it is a misunderstanding of the purpose of polls and the problem of profit-driven polling.

Recent polls,  as reported  on sites such as Real Clear Politics, especially those after the September 10 Trump Harris debate, seem to be all over the place. Some national polls have Trump up by three, some have Harris up by four, with others offering different margins. This has led some to conclude that this year will again be a mess for polling.

The problem with polling lies both in misunderstanding what polls are meant to do and in the motives for the polling. First, remember that polls are snapshots in time. They are not predictors. Polling is not some type of model that inexorably declares or states what will happen on November 5 this year. Polls merely tell us on any given day what some individuals think about some subject, such as, who they likely to vote for President.

Many black swans, October surprises, or unknown unknowns have already happened in the 2024 race, and many more could still occur, thereby impacting the final voting decisions of  voters regarding whether they will vote and for who,  Ascertaining who is likely to vote, which is critical to polling, is not easily predictable and subject to some guesses and some polls and pollsters are better or worse at doing that.

That is the second point to remember. There are some polls that are more accurate, and some with more biases or inaccuracies over time. Casting all polls as of equal value is inappropriate, and one needs to think about good versus bad.

A third issue is interpreting the margin of error. Most polls indicate a specific number in terms of polling results, such as the recent ABC/IPSOs poll indicating among likely voters Harris has a 52% to 46% lead over Trump, with a margin of error of plus or minus two precent. This is a small margin of error. But for many polls these margins seem to range from three to four to five points. In part the margins of error reflect many polls using small samples to reach their conclusions. But to say that somebody has a one- or two-point lead, according to a poll, with a margin of error of three to four points tells us very little. It could be that one candidate has a larger lead or a smaller lead than thought, or that with such a margin of error, the other person could be winning,

Deciding about who is ahead or who is behind, based on one poll is insufficient. It fails to provide evidence of trends. Even if more than one poll is used but if the results in them are both within margins of error, it still may not be enough to establish a trend.

Polls also have confidence levels. Confidence levels refer to the issue of accuracy and sampling certainty. These are questions regarding from a mathematical or statistical perspective, how likely a sample of respondents might mirror a larger population. Most standard polls have a confidence level of .05, or 95% certainty. This means that even on the best days, there is a one in twenty chance that the poll will just be wrong. But sometimes polls, to save money, reduce the sample size of those surveyed, thereby reducing the confidence level.

There is then another problem where some websites or aggregators average out the different polls and to give some type of composite number with the belief that their average is more accurate. Statistically, this is not sound practice. Such composites average good and bad polls together, with different methodologies, dates, and questions. One cannot really average them together.

Finally, when it comes to polling, especially national polls for the presidency, ignore them all. We do not elect presidents by national popular vote, and national polls do not tell us anything about what' is going to happen in the six or seven swing states that will decide the election. Here it is 150,000 to 200,000 voters that would be decisive, and polling cannot be done easily at this level of granularity.

But beyond all these methodological misinterpretations of polling, there is a bigger problem, and that is profit driven polling. It is the habit of some organizations to do repeated polling to make their polls the new stories of the day, as opposed to covering the campaigns or examining the public policy issues that the candidates are espousing. Profit-driven polling is meant to create a horse race and to focus on who is ahead or who is behind.

Profit-driven polling is not about providing accurate reporting of public opinion, but about making money, or in some cases, organizations releasing polls to confuse or impact public opinion. It is possible that the misunderstandings among many journalists or websites regarding polls is simply a consequence of what polling can and cannot do. But it is also possible that all this misunderstanding is more intentional in terms of seeking to maximize profits from polling.