I
was happiest between the waves. ~ Gertrude Ederle
Have you ever spent holiday time
at a Disney theme park? I expect so. Disney’s two US theme parks, Disneyland in
California and Disneyworld in Florida, are the most-visited vacation resorts in
the world. Last year, 76.9 million folks attended one of these parks. That’s
close to twice the total number of people living in California, the nation’s
most populous state. When I first visited Disneyland in 1962 on a family
vacation as a teenager I was thoroughly captivated, especially by Fantasyland
and Frontierland. Tomorrowland wasn’t far behind.
Disneyland opened in 1955 as the
Happiest Place on Earth. It pioneered being an all-encompassing family resort
where both kids and their parents have enjoyed its four created “lands,” Fantasyland,
Frontierland, Tomorrowland and Adventureland. Customers have happily made 726
billion visits to Disneyland since it opened. Disneyworld opened in 1971 and
features two water parks and four theme parks, including EPCOT (Experimental
Prototype Community of Tomorrow) and its spherical Spaceship Earth exhibit.
When we visited, EPCOT was my favorite. Disneyworld has three times the number
of annual visitors of Disneyland.
For a while there have been some
new visitors to Fantasyland and Frontierland who are seeking their own happiest
place on Earth. These folks’ hoped-for happiest place isn’t on Disney’s iconic
Mainstreet USA in California or in Florida. It’s at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
These visitors are the aspiring candidates
for the 2020 Presidential election, that’s still in the distant future. At the
moment there are 7 Dems out of the 19 remaining who RealClearPolitics
shows
as having average poll numbers exceeding a measly 2%. Several of these
“leading” Dems’ rank very high on my Fantasyland Indicator – Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth
Warren and Andrew Yang.
My Fantasyland Indicator heuristically
accounts for each candidate’s approach to solving their signature issue(s). The
higher a candidate’s Fantasyland
Indicator is, the lower I believe is
the candidate’s likelihood of passing real, effective policies – based on those
they’re promoting as a candidate – implemented across the US, not just in Fantasyland.
The indicator’s maximum value is 10.
I recognize that reality – an
opposite of fantasy – by itself has hardly ever won an election. Politicians must
instill hope, belief, trust and aspirations through their campaigns and
programs in order to win. One of candidate Barack Obama’s successful slogans
was "Change We Can Believe In." I did believe in his wished-for
changes; some of which like the ACA actually became the law of the land. As a
voter I seek candidates whose proposed policies can, if implemented, offer improvements
to our lives. These policies need some realistic foundation and some
likelihood of political and economic success, not a utopian ideal that
sounds fantastic but isn't practically achievable.
I also recognize that my need for
some real, pragmatic possibility for these candidates’ proposed plans doesn’t
square with many primary voters. Oh well. But to not have some measure of
reasonableness simply allows the candidate’s policies and plans to become empty verbal
bait designed to catch targeted segments of voters. Vote for me because I’ll
offer you 100% student-debt forgiveness, “free” healthcare and a “green” or a
“great” America whether or not I can actually make it happen as president. The
higher a candidate’s Fantasyland Indicator, the less likely I think her or his
stated policies can actually become the law of our land.
Bernie Sanders. Sen.
Sanders’ signature issues – health care, inequality and college tuition – will
be remedied by his Democratic Socialist, revolutionary policies that will
significantly change both the structure and performance of our entire economy. His
revolution appeals to people other than me. Ironically, given that Bernie
suffered a mild heart attack last week, that he announced belatedly,
people now may be more concerned about his health and stamina rather than his single-payer
Medicare for All (M4A) plan.
As I’ve mentioned
here,
important parts of his M4A plan will disturb large numbers of already-insured
folks, including over half of people under 65 years old (158 million) who are
insured through their employers. That doesn’t bother Bernie. But at the least,
creating the required new and increased taxes to fund M4A and devolving the
nation’s existing healthcare system will be highly contentious and disliked. The
US healthcare system employs almost 17 million people – roughly 1 in 10 US
workers. Under Bernie’s M4A many of them will be dislocated and looking for new
work. It is the rare citizen who gladly pays more taxes, especially new ones,
or enjoys having to find another job. His free college tuition plan, like
Elizabeth’s, and his total student debt forgiveness plan could offer benefits
to one of his important constituencies, young people, but also will increase
some folks’ taxes (guess who). They also will increase the non-tuition costs for
public colleges to successfully provide ever-more entering students with an
A.A. or B.A. My Fantasyland Indicator for Bernie is 9.8.
Elizabeth Warren. Senator
Warren’s signature issues include income and opportunity inequality. Her “I
have a plan” candidacy includes 45 different plans listed at her website, but
curiously not one for comprehensive healthcare. Her wealth tax, which she initiated
before Bernie’s version, would provide some funding for several of her plans,
including student debt annulment, free college, universal child care, the
opioid crisis and green manufacturing.
Virtually any Dem candidate that’s
to the left of Attila the Hun has subscribed either wholly or partially to her
“2₵” wealth tax. It’s become a de rigueur keystone
of most progressives’ funding plans. Although it’s a reasonable idea for effecting
wealth redistribution, it will create several basic challenges including a
Constitutional one, an enforcement one, a compliance one and a capital flight
one. No matter. She has consistently staked out plans and policies that would
face a host of practical issues if she succeeds in winning the White House. The breadth of her plans impressively exceeds even Bernie's.
Passage of her plans (or of any other
successful Dem candidate) would require the Dems in November 2020 to produce a filibuster-proof
majority in the Senate as well as maintain their control of the House.
Several of Elizabeth’s plans could
have difficulty convincing moderates and others that they don’t reside just in
Fantasyland perhaps even with middle-class tax increases she refuses to ponder.
Such plans include her $150 billion (B) per year plan to expand Social Security
benefits – an immediate $200 boost in monthly benefits for each of the 64M Social
Security recipients. Social Security’s finances are already shaky. Last year
the negative cash flow for Social Security’s retirement and disability programs
was $80B. Would the FICA tax need to increase to help pay for her plan?
Perhaps. Another of her plans would cost at least $1.25B/year to offer free-tuition
for public colleges, like Bernie’s, and cancel most student debt. Her education
plan contains a fair amount of fiscal caprice, as does her $100B program to
resolve the opioid epidemic.
Her climate plan, which is adopted
in large part from Jay Inslee’s plan, includes quite imaginative timescales and
costs. Gov. Inslee dropped out of the race in August.
Sen. Warren wants to eliminate
planet-warming emissions from power plants, vehicles and buildings by 2030, that’s
only nine years after she hopes to start living in the White House. Her goal is
praiseworthy, her timing is Fantasyland. Her plan would shut down each of the 219
operating coal-fired power plants that account for 30.1% of US electricity generated.
The plan also seeks to achieve zero emissions from passenger vehicles and
medium-duty trucks and buses by 2030. In 2018, zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs)
represented just 1.9% of US vehicle sales. ZEV percentages now are even lower
for trucks and buses. Getting to zero emissions in less than a decade is
Fantasyland.
Do Elizabeth’s plans contain laudable
objectives? Yes, in most cases; but they’re not practically achievable in her
proposed timeframes or costs. My Fantasyland Indicator for Elizabeth is 9.5.
Andrew Yang. Andrew
Yang’s tour-de-force policy is his Universal Basic Income (UBI) plan, a favorite
of progressives and even a few conservative movers and shakers. It is the
central focus of his campaign. Like Donald Trump before he became #45, Mr. Yang
has no prior government experience. His UBI plan would provide $1,000/mo. for every
citizen older than 18 years. Their “freedom dividend,” as Andrew calls these unconditional
payments, regardless of income or employment status. Andrew’s program, unlike
all others, would truly be universal, with everyone covered. All other UBI
pilots to date have been offered only to low-income folks.
Andrew’s national program would be
funded by the federal government by creating a 10% national value-added tax,
much like a sales tax. Using our current population and the number of people
over 18, my and others’ estimates for his UBI come to around $3 trillion per
year. That’s a
large heap of money.
In
fiscal year 2018 the Federal government
spent $4.1 trillion. If
enacted, Andrew’s UBI would increase federal spending by a massive 73% in one
fell swoop, although he says that some existing welfare plan payments could be
“consolidated” with the UBI payments. Such an increase in government spending
would push the US up to levels seen in France and Scandinavian social
democracies. This is fiscal Fantasyland.
A UBI plan’s costs have always
been a substantial impediment to implementation. One of the largest UBI projects
was undertaken in Finland. In 2017, the Finnish government created and tested
the program, giving 560 Euros (~$616) to 2,000 unemployed Finnish citizens per
month, with no requirement to find a paying job. By 2019, Finland scrapped their
entire UBI “experiment” principally due to its cost that totaled $22.7M. Preliminary
results indicate there was no significant improvement in employment by
participants. Their actual benefits were in terms of “fewer problems” with health,
mood, concentration and stress. The Finnish government has no plans to
undertake other UBI projects. Ontario, Canada launched a UBI test in April 2017
involving 4,000 low-income people. The program was axed in early 2018 due to
the “extraordinary cost for Ontario taxpayers.”
Concerns about such projects’
costs along with uncertain benefits have led critics to characterize UBI as a
solution searching for a problem. Harvard professor Laurence Summers stated, “A
universal basic income is one of those ideas that the longer you look at it,
the less enthusiastic you become.” Because of the problematic nature of UBI and
Andrew’s naïve expectation that Congress would pass a national value-added tax along
with his UBI program, my Fantasyland Indicator for him is 9.3.
Pete Buttigieg. Mayor
Pete Buttigieg’s campaign has focused on generational change; he is the
youngest Dem candidate, and only left-hander. He has endorsed expanding the
number of Supreme Court justices may be a progressive crowd-pleaser, but it
chiefly resides in Fantasyland. He has offered several ideas: increase the
number of permanent Supreme Court justices to 10 from the current 9 that’s been
in place since 1869, along with 5 others rotating in who could be seated only
by unanimous consent of the first 10. Pete is also considered having appellate
court judges serve rotating one-year terms on the court. Franklin D. Roosevelt
undertook the last attempted “packing” the Supreme Court; it failed in 1937.
Any of the mayor’s changes for the Supreme Court would require passing new
Congressional legislation and winning subsequent legal skirmishes. He also
believes students shouldn’t have to take on debt to go to college, by
substantially increasing aid. He’s in favor of a carbon tax and a single-payer
healthcare system modeled on M4A. My Fantasyland Indicator for Pete is 8.6.
Kamala Harris.
Senator Kamala Harris’ positions on some of the increasing number of
progressive Dem litmus-test issues like M4A, taxing the wealthy and allowing
convicted criminals to vote have changed over time, creating uncertainty about
her beliefs. She seems interested in straddling the wide Dem expanse between leftish
progressives (that the NYTimes now
oddly labels just liberals) and mere moderates. Kamala has yet to master this balance-beam
exercise’s difficult poising. She calls herself somewhat puzzlingly a
“progressive prosecutor.” My Fantasyland Indicator for Kamala is 8.1.
Beto O’Rourke. Former
Representative Beto O’Rourke’s campaign seems to have stalled. His principled stands
on immigration and gun violence are well-reasoned but unfortunately unlikely to
result in new policy – e.g., “Hell yes we’re going to take away your AR-15.” If
only. He’s in favor of a national cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions. If
only, one more time. Like most of his candidate colleagues, he’s taking the
high road by favoring the national legalization of marijuana. My Fantasyland
Indicator for Beto is 8.5.
Joe Biden. And last
but not least, Joe Biden. His campaign is founded on amending Dem policies to
be more relevant for today’s world, not revolutionizing them. As such, he’s the
Dems’ elder monarch of moderates. Little fantasy shines on Joe’s policy stars although
his verbal meanderings can indeed be fantastic. He’s far more in favor of modifying
the ACA, passed when he was Vice President and listening to LPs on his record player,
rather than creating a brand-new M4A healthcare system. He seems much more
politically-practical than most of the other Dem candidates, which befits his appreciation
of the Obama era. Fantasyland and Joe aren’t that chummy.
Will he and his candidacy be wounded
as collateral damage from the Dems’
Impeachment Inquiry on #45? Irony abounds. The Inquiry is focused, for
the moment, on the president’s conversation with the Ukrainian President. It’s
way too early to tell if Joe will survive, but it certainly can’t help to have his
and his son’s names repeatedly used in the growing swarm of media stories about
potential impeachment. My Fantasyland Indicator for Joe is 5.7.
My Fantasyland Indicators, shown
in the chart below, for Joe, Kamala, Beto and Pete, have values lower than Andrew’s,
Elizabeth’s or Bernie’s.
Fantasyland Indicator by Person
The higher the indicator’s score,
the more fantasy-like the person’s rating.
So let’s bid adieu to Fantasyland
and hitch our wagon to Frontierland. Disney’s Frontierland recreates the romanticized,
wondrous, long-ago pioneer times along America‘s frontier. Never mind the
realities of life in the 1800s; when life expectancy was only 40 years,
one-half what it is now, and maternal mortality was 35 times greater than it
currently is.
Instead, envision cowboys
gallantly herding steers to market across the plains or homesteaders straining
to grow corn on their 160-acre parcel. The appeal of Frontierland goes back to the
good ol’ days when men were … Marion Morrison. Marion had a wondrously
alliterative name, but Hollywood VIPs didn’t like it, so they changed this
actor’s moniker to John Wayne. Just like they did with Danlielovitch Demsky who
became Kirk Douglas and Archibald Alexander Leach who became Cary Grant. Talk
about old-time diversity suppression. As Franklin P. Adams aptly stated, nothing
is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.
My Frontierland Indicator accounts
for the person’s approach to solving key issues, this time with our historic
frontier as his frontispiece. The higher
a candidate’s Frontierland Indicator is, the more fond he is of the good old
days and the lower I believe is the
candidate’s likelihood of passing actual effective, implemented policies in the
present-day US, not just in long-ago Frontierland. The indicator’s maximum
value is -10.
Donald Trump. Among
the current posse of presidential candidates one stands out as the numero uno denizen of Frontierland,
Donald Trump. Every Trumpian acolyte who wears one of his MAGA hat subscribes
to his rants to get back to a former, but more “great” era, even if it never
ever actually happened. His so-far silent, obsequious Congressional comrades
are similarly culpable for #45’s ruinous antics that are founded on an
imaginary past.
In this sense, President Trump genuinely
lives in Frontierland’s yesteryears. His faint policy record since he was
inaugurated has been grim and depressing. Now that the Dems are understandably
and singularly focused on their Impeachment Inquiry, I hope they surmount the
challenges to convince enough of the public, not only Dem stalwarts, that their
quest is both appropriate and can be successful. They’d better remember, and
side skirt what happened to the Repubs when they over-reached in their effort
to impeach President Clinton two decades ago.
My Frontierland Indicator for #45
is a -9.9; who knows what actions he’ll take next that raise his rating to a
maximum 10, or beyond. The possibilities seem horribly endless.
Andrew Johnson. For
comparison’s sake with #45, I’ve also included that of #17, Andrew Johnson, in
the Frontierland Indicator chart below. In April, 1865, six weeks after he was
elected Vice President, Mr. Johnson ascended to the presidency when Abraham
Lincoln was assassinated. He presided over the end of the Civil War and favored
quick restoration of the 11 seceded Southern states back into the Union. His
policies did not provide protection to former slaves. Andrew’s obstinate
interactions with the Republican-controlled Congress ended with his impeachment
in the House. [Sound eerily familiar?] The Senate acquitted Andrew by a single
vote. Based on numerous surveys of US presidential rankings, obstreperous Andrew Johnson’s average ranking is 37th
out of the 45 US presidents. His historical ranking places him solidly in the
bottom fifth of all presidents. I give Andrew a Frontierland Indicator score of
-8.7.
Frontierland Indicator by Person
The larger the indicator’s score, the more frontier-like the person’s
rating.
So, what will it be a mere 391 days from now in our presidential election, Fantasyland,
Frontierland or something else?
If such prospects seem disheartening,
here’s a smidgeon of completely non-political news that may provide a smile and
some relief. More importantly, this event confirms that despite the obsessions
of the inside the DC Beltway crowd, the actual world thankfully still functions.
I’m referring to the
just-completed World Stone-Skipping Championship. As reported in The Economist, the contest again happened
on Easdale Island, a jaunty 3-hour drive out of Glasgow Scotland, plus a ferry
ride. This island is a small protuberance in the Firth of Lorn off the west
coast of Scotland with a permanent population of about 60 resilient souls. It seems
an unlikely place to hold a world championship, perhaps as much as Doha, but
these hardy Scotts think otherwise. [FYI, the average daily high temp on the
island in Sept. is 60oF, a whopping 42o less than Doha.]
On September 29 Easdale Island held its 22nd World Stone Skimming
Championships. Contestants skim their slate stones across the surface of a
flooded quarry. The winner is the skimmer who achieves the greatest cumulative
distance with their 3 throws.
Peter Szep of Hungary repeated his
2018 victory and threw an impressive 189 meters (620ft) this time around. Wow.
Each skim must bounce off the water at least twice. As in other sports, success
in stone-skimming requires maintaining good technique under pressure. It’s all
in the wrists as they say. Researchers have found that a stone is most likely
to skim if it hits the water at an angle of around 20 degrees, if it is spinning and if it travels at more than 2.5
meters a second. It’s both remarkable and gratifying that individuals have
actually devoted time researching what optimal slate stone skimming techniques should
be. Clearly Peter has this down. So bend your knees, flick your wrist – as
shown in the picture – and toss it with focused power to get ready for next
year’s world championship on the island. Onward…
Visualization
assistance: Cody I. Smith
This remains true on a national
basis. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the average US
utility customer in 2017 experienced 1.4 interruptions including those caused
by major events like hurricanes, tornados, winter storms (and firestorms).
These interruptions averaged 7.8 hours (470 minutes). In contrast, Bangladeshi electricity
customers experience a power outage in 249 days per year!
