CAVEAT EMPTOR POLITICO

In politics, absurdity is not a handicap. ~ Napoleon 

Promising a multitude of equality-filled rainbows when they’re elected, virtually all of the 23 fervent Democratic presidential candidates have been campaigning for a brighter future, come Nov 3, 2020. That’s a mere 529 days away. Given recent trends and Trump’s example (he formally began his reelection campaign on his Jan 20, 2017 inauguration); I expect the 2024 campaigns to begin just after we’ve finished 2020’s Thanksgiving stuffing. Oh, my.

As long as one anointed Dem is successful, a brighter future isn’t terribly hard to imagine, given our Drama-King president’s continuing record of fear-based ukases and misinformed, damaging policies covering all substantive issues.

What is hard now for every one of these candidates is first getting anyone to care what they are saying, including Iowans, where the earliest Democratic caucuses are but 255 days away. And second, for a specific candidate in the 22andMe throng, does anyone know I’m in the race and how can I distinguish my positions from everyone else’s, assuming somebody cares? At this point, it’s the very rare person outside of the political-media complex or the Washington DC beltway that cares at all.

Nevertheless, the media is overflowing with a plethora of “latest polls.” RealClear Politics lists 58 political polls being undertaken over just the past two weeks. At this neonatal state of the presidential campaign such polls hardly mean anything beyond whether the polled somebodies have ever heard of the candidate. Have you heard of Marianne Williamson or Wayne Messam? No matter who you now might possibly favor for president in 2020, there’s at least one extant poll that will support your choice in some fashion. Current polls about who’s winning the contest for the Dems’ candidate are essentially chaff, not kernels of worthwhile wheat. What else is excessive?

As of Apr 15, when there were only 15 announced candidates (not including Joe Biden), they had already raised $118.5 million. Bernie Sanders has the biggest war chest with $20.7M in his coffers (probably including the $6.1M left over from his 2016 campaign); Juan Castro was last at $1.1M. Naturally, the political-media complex has been reaping large sums of money from the candidates’ ads in this nascent stage of campaigning. According to the Federal Election Commission’s first-quarter filing, 12 of the Dem candidates spent $6.7 million on online advertising and assembling their digital strategy. Each and every Dem candidate is now in full, 24/7 primary voter acquisition mode. Realistically, the vast majority of these 23 candidates are at best competing for consideration as vice president, senator or governor in the Nov 2020 elections.  

These Dem candidates imply that ordinary people, together with their acolytes, won’t be paying any taxes for their plans, only the rich will be. Now they’re simply summarizing what their policies will somehow accomplish, like end inequality, perfect healthcare, put everyone back to work, pay reparations, provide debt- and tuition-free college education, reduce the voting age to 16 years and rapidly clean-up our environment. Such programs will require raising beaucoup government revenues, through increased taxes and public debt financing. Only a few candidates admit these fiscal consequences.

Meanwhile our strategy-free, solipsistic president persists in telling us that China has been paying for his tariffs (I’d give him 4 Pinocchios, adopting the Washington Post’s fact-checker icon) and that the Dems, especially these presidential candidates, are extreme socialists (another 4 Pinocchios), along with his ever-growing multitude of other fact-free fictions. His campaign now has $65.7M to spend, far exceeding that raised by any Dem. L

The Dem campaigns’ diminutive fiscal standing, together with our economy’s sustained strength (3.6% unemployment, 3.2% increase in average worker’s earnings, with 3.2% real GDP growth), represent ample challenges that any Dem will be facing to conquer #45. Defeating Trump will require victories in enough states beyond the coastal true blue ones so the winning Dem graduates triumphantly from the Electoral College, although probably not debt-free.

With rare exception, no candidate has revealed how their programs will specifically work or how they’ll be funded. However, Sen. Elizabeth Warren bravely stated in January that if elected, she would implement a new wealth tax imposed on the top 0.1% of income-earners and later added a new, larger corporate profits tax to finance several of her proposed pro-equality programs. Her policies would reduce student debt, provide free tuition and fees for students in public colleges and offer universal child care and early-childhood education. In making these and other definitive proposals she has positioned herself as the early race’s wonky, “I’ve got a plan” leader in the Dem candidate flock. Consequently, she has twice the number of paid campaign staff as Sen. Sanders. She needs such intellectual firepower to keep churning out thorough position/policy papers like no other candidate.

Actually implementing such wealth and profits taxes is far more problematic. Effecting such new taxes as federal statutes assumes the Dems keep control of the House, gain control of the Senate with her in the White House. Her proposed wealth tax will also need to overcome a number of legal and execution issues that have contributed to eight OECD nations getting rid of their existing wealth taxes. No matter; they are clever ideas that distinguish her from all other candidates. Successful politicians are rarely criticized for under-promising during their campaigns.

It’s quite safe for a progressive Dem like Sen. Warren to propose a wealth tax, because the people she’s casting votes for (progressives for sure, millennials and maybe folks who shower after, not before they work) rightly don’t consider themselves rich enough to be subject to her wealth tax. Her appeals for new government programs, like those of other Dem candidates, are portrayed as basically costless for their targeted potential primary voters. Other folks, the rich ones across the proverbial freeway or tracks will pick up the tax tab, not them. Each candidate knows a “free” program beats all others.

Progressive Dems are proposing momentous, major programs that, if enacted, will have substantial effects, including many unforeseen ones, on our economy and us. This is the “revolution” that Bernie et al. are focused on creating. Programs like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal will influence virtually every aspect of our lives. By voting for either Michael, Joe, Bill, Cory, Steve, Pete, Julian, John, Tulsi, Kirsten, Kamela, John, Jay, Amy, Wayne, Seth, Beto, Tim, Bernie, Eric, Elizabeth, Marianne, Andrew or even another Dem (are there any?), we expect our lives will be significantly improved and nirvana will move much closer to us.

At this point we consumers, taxpayers and eventual voters are mostly left in the dark about how these candidates’ policies and programs will actually affect our lives and what they will cost us. With such evidence we can make more knowledgeable decisions when we’re deciding who to vote for by also knowing how this person’s proposed programs will affect us. Such particulars can illuminate how a candidate’s policies will influence us individually and collectively.

As the Dems canter around their political race course and the field inevitably narrows, starting after the first debates on June 26 and 27, we will hopefully start receiving additional details so we can make more-informed judgements in the voting booth.

Knowing such details matters. Bernie’s single-payer Medicare for All Plan (M4A) has been endorsed by at least five other Dem candidates: Cory, Tulsi, Kirsten, Kamela and Elizabeth. When polls asking about his M4A state that it will eliminate all private health insurance and will increase individuals’ taxes, this program’s support drops dramatically to just 13%. Most published polls show a small majority of respondents favoring M4A; these polls never state the very likely (and unpopular) consequences in their questions.

Thus, we citizens should demand more details, the sooner the better, as well as abide by caveat emptor politico, denoting let the voter beware (my fractured alteration of the well-known 500-year old Latin phrase).

GREEN DEALING

The future will be green or not at all. ~ Bob Brown  

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (OAC), Sen. Ed Markley and their fellow Green Dealers may be in their ascendency. Their Feb. 7 introduction of the Green New Deal (GND) certainly got the media’s attention. So much so that it was promptly designated another key litmus test that all Democrats vying for the 2020 presidential nomination must judge. How many Dem candidates are there now? It seems like at least 23; with the list including Pete Buttigieg [mayor of Ft. Wayne, IN] but at this moment it’s merely 13 and sure to rise.

After Medicare for All appeared at the top of candidates’ litmus tests several weeks ago, it’s now just basic blue and the GND now basks as uppermost. These litmus tests are being tossed at candidates as each new “hot topic” newly emerges and the media decides it’s one that candidates must instantaneously adopt or reject. Unfortunately, most candidates readily take the bait before understanding what they’ve signed on to. These repeated tests must make each candidate feel like they’re back in high school. Ah, the good ol’ days.

Green Dealers like OAC seem to believe that shouting from the proverbial tippy-top of endangered redwood trees, combined with a fervent belief that they’re holding a royal flush of solutions, is the best way to change laws. Others, including the many more taciturn Democrats, likely disagree. OAC hopes the GND manifesto will rearrange everyone’s priorities, now. Why; because she has gladly taken the scepter of lead spokesperson for the capital “P” Progressive clan at the capital “C” US Capitol and beyond. She also sees herself as savior of the truly environmentally righteous (or is it leftous) across their much-expanded purview. This expansion comes from the nature of progressivism.

Progressivism is progressive. Over time it seeks ever larger moral advance. If progressives have their way, the list of things considered unequal, unjust and unworthy will broaden, as the scope of the GND’s “environmental” agenda has swelled. This can be a good, but. Here’s a recent example of progressivism’s progressiveness: Additional New York City regulatory guidelines to be released this week will give legal recourse to individuals who have been harassed, punished or fired because of the style of their hair. NYC will henceforth ban discrimination based on an individual’s hair style, which will now be considered racial discrimination.

Because I live way outside the DC beltway, I wasn’t aware of the GND’s initial rounds of formulation, based on gathering opinions of experts and stakeholders. There were some discussions, right? If so, it’s not obvious. Instead, it appears OAC and Markley couldn’t and didn’t say no to any progressive idea that’s somehow connected to an improved “environment” for needful people, especially workers. Beyond decarbonizing the entire US economy in 11 years, the GND’s extra-environmental commandments, er objectives include the government being responsible for:

·        guaranteed jobs, with living, sustainable wages and full benefits for all workers, including folks who have been unable or unwilling to work;

·        affordable, adequate and energy-efficient housing for all;

·        universal, high-quality health care provided by a single-payer;

·        competitive economic markets not clouded by nasty monopolies and oligopolies; and

·        high-quality, free public college tuition for all.

In other words, the GND comes in many varieties of green that will cost lots of green; likely over $40 trillion during the next decade. And these multiple, herculean goals must be accomplished by 2030, only a few proverbial ticks of the governmental clock to entirely revamp the world’s largest economy. Sir Thomas More, the creator of utopian literature 500 years ago, would be impressed with the GND.

Advocates of the GND, being fantasists, are insisting that no trade-offs will be needed nor sacrifices incurred in order to satisfy their manifesto’s objectives. Indeed, AOC has stated, “The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.” [Emphasis added.]

She’s not worried about how to pay for these grand objectives perhaps because progressives like her are thoroughly at one with emerging Modern Macroeconomic Theory (MMT). MMT posits that sizeable government deficit spending, which increases the nation’s public debt, isn’t a concern at all. The government can keep printing Benjamins 24/7 as long as inflation doesn’t rise to an unpleasant level.

Fiscal irony is very much alive and well in Washington. MMT’s semi-magical leftish thinking is completely in line with solidly-right Republican conservatives who happily passed their unfunded 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that’s raised the US debt to historically high levels. This year’s federal budget deficit will be nearly $1 trillion. The 2017 tax law revealed Repubs to be hyper-hypocritical deficit scolds. They condemn “excessive” government expenditures only when it involves Democratic policy, not their own.  

Let’s look at the GND’s principal environmental objective, rapid decarbonization of our $20.7 trillion economy. I spent the majority of my career working to promote and assess energy efficiency programs and policies. I’m all in with a greener America. The GND’s objective of requiring the entire nation to produce 100% of its energy from renewable sources and produce net zero carbon emissions by 2030 is as astonishing as it is realistically unattainable. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) has previously and ambitiously proposed to cut global emissions just by 40% to 60% by 2030, and hopefully get to net zero by 2050. How does OAC and her Green Dealers propose do to this in 20 less years than the IPPC? They never say; that’s for others to stress about.

For reference, in 2017 (a baker’s dozen years before 2030) just 18% of total US power generation was produced from renewable energy sources, an all-time high. In the nine years between 2008 and 2017 this renewable share of power generation doubled, an impressive accomplishment. The GND’s goal for 100% of US energy use, not just power generation (electric power accounts for about 16% of total energy use), to be produced from renewable sources, would require renewable energy to increase by 550% over the next 13 years. The Green Dealers leave reality by the side of their utopian, all electric-vehicle throughways to the future.

I have no doubts that were only one of the GND’s lofty objectives to be undertaken; it could certainly benefit us all and would create many prosperous winners in that endeavor. But there also would be losers. For example, the vast majority of workers in the coal, oil, gas and petrochemical industries (1.44 million people, over half of which are blue-collar workers) would be out of jobs. Sure, job retraining is clearly called for, but in the undefined interim that can last for a while in job retraining, such workers would be SOL. They are not likely to be happy GND campers, nor would their employers. But no worries; each of them would be offered a government-guaranteed job.

Eliminating the internal combustion engine as the transportation sector’s motive power, another GND goal, would likewise lead to numerous lost high-paying manufacturing jobs and large economic dislocation in the short- to medium-term. Transportation of people and goods accounts for 29% of US total energy use. The auto industry is one of the largest in the US, contributing about 3% to the US GDP. Three percent seems like a small number, but it works out to $620 billion in cumulative yearly economic activity. That’s not a small number to trifle with. In 2018, US electric vehicles (EVs) sales reached an all-time high of 361,300, accounting for 2.1% of total vehicle sales. Getting to 100% EVs in 11 years boggles my mind’s engine.

As always, trade-offs will be present if and when the government begins investing in GND’s vast decarbonization. Any and all trade-offs have been denied by the Green Dealers, together with dismissing the substantial costs of attaining the manifesto’s goals. Such denials weaken OAC’s Green Dealing in the jungles of Congress and make the prospect of political victory much smaller. She might not care.

However, if AOC et al. really do want to create actual legislation based on the GND, then it’s incumbent on them to transparently develop specific plans for how the GND objectives could be met by 2030; how these objectives can overcome inevitable challenges; and what trade-offs, if any, the Green Dealers are willing to make to secure decarbonization within 11 years. That process is unexciting and tedious compared to commandment creation.

Maybe OAC is playing a longer game. Fundamentally, I suspect the Green Dealers don’t view their GND as a basis for actual legislation. In this sense it’s worthwhile remembering that Nancy Pelosi has already agreed to step down as Speaker by 2022. After all, the GND will require unprecedented and very big expansions of federal, state and local government programs, oversight and regulation. This is entirely consistent with the precepts of the few elected democratic socialists, like AOC and Sen. Bernie Sanders. This future is not consistent for the majority of current Congressional Democrats. Speaker Pelosi has given the GND a “seal clap,” hardly unequivocal support. But who knows what the future will bring.

With all its practical and political challenges I imagine AOC and other acolytes see their GND more as an edict for progressives of every stripe to rally around their maypole, not as a summarized playbook for real legislation.

Any specific legislation that might have a chance of becoming law coming through Speaker Pelosi and other “establishment Democrats” will elicit cries of derision from progressives. Because Democrat decrees that could actually pass the House will be instantly declared limited, insufficient and unworthy by Green Dealers. They have already claimed the very highest green ground, even if it’s realistically and politically impossible. They’ve now planted their flag, the GND, atop an ever-green Mt. Everest, without having to worry about actually climbing it.

It will be a long time before AOC and Green Dealers might gain enough votes in the House to pass her GND. I’m not holding my exhaled CO2-filled breath. Nevertheless, she has three million Twitter followers right now who have rallied behind her and probably the manifesto. To these devotees, the GND and its 6 commandments are gospel for achieving an alleged more perfect and far greener future. Alas, I’m not one of them; I’m too pragmatic.