I'd love to read your essay in the NYT but, alas, it's behind a paywall. Will keep looking for it in other venues, however, just in case it pops up somewhere!
Given the stress on the Democratic Party (my party) as it ponders what to do about its demented leader. Maybe, just maybe it should return to listening the concerns of the working class and thus avoid an historic loss. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I am extremely disappointed in the wokeness epitomized by my party.
Men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons.
Our borders should be open to billions when we can’t house our own citizens.
We discriminate against whites, Asians and men to counter past discrimination against others.
Children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
Crime and homelessness destroy beautiful cities because politicians won't say no to destructive behavior.
> So, voters decide who runs agencies (appointed by elected presidents) but not who serves as judges (appointed by elected presidents).
Presumably, the point is that it is far easier for an elected president/government to _remove_ a bureaucrat than a judge.
> In reality, the checks on presidential power are far more complex and inchoate.
And many of those checks are customs and principled subordinates. Trump makes a point of both ignoring customs and replacing principled subordinates with sycophants.
Agree on the judges vs agencies point. Judges once appointed tend to rule forever in the manner their appointing president wanted when he appointed them. Administration officials can and often do change with each president, much more accountable to the popular will.
n the United States, where public officials have no class interest to insist upon, the general and continuous course of government is beneficial, even though those who govern are often lacking in skill and sometimes contemptible.
Substitute Race for Class. Six of one\half-dozen of the other.
Thing is you can point out Elite hubris but there is never going to be some magical introspection. Time and time again people say one thing and do another. The redistributionists talk about the 99% but in reality it's the top 20% of America that has never been doing better economically or socially and they absolutely will not sacrifice their children's future for the proles. Expect this bifurcation to only expand and be formalized by legal structures in the future.
Sounds like most people would go for sustainable over growth-y as the core value. Don't be afraid to use the word.
Yes, the 2017 tax cuts were unnecessary. The elites goosed the economy and captured and kept a larger share. Borrowed from the future to do it. Not sustainable.
The corporate tax rate wrangling; it's not 1908 and this is a backdoor way to tax the wealthiest Americans. Eliminate income tax on business (corporate and private) income, replace with a 4-5% gross receipts tax on income earned in the US and its territories.
Are comments allowed from non-paying subscribers? If so, here is a paraphrase of a letter to the editor I wrote in response to your article, with which I was almost entirely in agreement. Except for one thing: you seem to look back fondly to the time when a blue collar worker could earn enough money to support a family with children, which would include an ability to purchase a home.
My reservation was this: given the plethora of modern appliances and other labor-saving technologies (indoor plumbing, central heat and air) that have become standard in American homes over the course of the last hundred years, wouldn't it make more sense to look forward to a day when two half-time jobs could support a family, the idea being that both parents would work half-time outside the home, using their free time to garden, cook and care for their children and grandchildren, and, yes, even participate in the construction of their own house if the right circumstances made that an economically feasible alternative.
As for what those circumstances might be, I've made a stab at adumbrating them in a short "populist" manifesto that I recently self-published on Amazon. Now granted, I am merely an amateur economist with no advanced degree or other recommendation beyond the cogency of my arguments and an excellent undergraduate liberal arts education such as is no longer available today, so I may not be worth a hearing.
Pregnancy throws a uterus-having person out of her usual level of productivity for at least several months and more likely a couple of years. (US maternity leaves don't reflect this and are ridiculous in that aspect.) Two half-times thus become one half-time at a time when expenses suddenly grow.
That would depend upon the nature of her job. Besides no maternity leave required if the husband can be at home while she is at work. Grandmothers might be nearby too.
You... don't seem to grasp the point, do you? A person who just pushed a baby out of their genitals, or who carries several kilograms worth of that baby, isn't fit for a lot of work, including a lot of mental work, because it's a strain on the organism. Maternity leave is not _just_ for the baby's sake.
I'd love to read your essay in the NYT but, alas, it's behind a paywall. Will keep looking for it in other venues, however, just in case it pops up somewhere!
Given the stress on the Democratic Party (my party) as it ponders what to do about its demented leader. Maybe, just maybe it should return to listening the concerns of the working class and thus avoid an historic loss. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I am extremely disappointed in the wokeness epitomized by my party.
Men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons.
Our borders should be open to billions when we can’t house our own citizens.
We discriminate against whites, Asians and men to counter past discrimination against others.
Children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
Crime and homelessness destroy beautiful cities because politicians won't say no to destructive behavior.
The list goes on and on. Enough.
> So, voters decide who runs agencies (appointed by elected presidents) but not who serves as judges (appointed by elected presidents).
Presumably, the point is that it is far easier for an elected president/government to _remove_ a bureaucrat than a judge.
> In reality, the checks on presidential power are far more complex and inchoate.
And many of those checks are customs and principled subordinates. Trump makes a point of both ignoring customs and replacing principled subordinates with sycophants.
Agree on the judges vs agencies point. Judges once appointed tend to rule forever in the manner their appointing president wanted when he appointed them. Administration officials can and often do change with each president, much more accountable to the popular will.
Some of this seems to contradict the findings in “The Myth of American Inequality.” It would be great to see AC do a review of those data.
n the United States, where public officials have no class interest to insist upon, the general and continuous course of government is beneficial, even though those who govern are often lacking in skill and sometimes contemptible.
Substitute Race for Class. Six of one\half-dozen of the other.
Thing is you can point out Elite hubris but there is never going to be some magical introspection. Time and time again people say one thing and do another. The redistributionists talk about the 99% but in reality it's the top 20% of America that has never been doing better economically or socially and they absolutely will not sacrifice their children's future for the proles. Expect this bifurcation to only expand and be formalized by legal structures in the future.
Sounds like most people would go for sustainable over growth-y as the core value. Don't be afraid to use the word.
Yes, the 2017 tax cuts were unnecessary. The elites goosed the economy and captured and kept a larger share. Borrowed from the future to do it. Not sustainable.
The corporate tax rate wrangling; it's not 1908 and this is a backdoor way to tax the wealthiest Americans. Eliminate income tax on business (corporate and private) income, replace with a 4-5% gross receipts tax on income earned in the US and its territories.
Are comments allowed from non-paying subscribers? If so, here is a paraphrase of a letter to the editor I wrote in response to your article, with which I was almost entirely in agreement. Except for one thing: you seem to look back fondly to the time when a blue collar worker could earn enough money to support a family with children, which would include an ability to purchase a home.
My reservation was this: given the plethora of modern appliances and other labor-saving technologies (indoor plumbing, central heat and air) that have become standard in American homes over the course of the last hundred years, wouldn't it make more sense to look forward to a day when two half-time jobs could support a family, the idea being that both parents would work half-time outside the home, using their free time to garden, cook and care for their children and grandchildren, and, yes, even participate in the construction of their own house if the right circumstances made that an economically feasible alternative.
As for what those circumstances might be, I've made a stab at adumbrating them in a short "populist" manifesto that I recently self-published on Amazon. Now granted, I am merely an amateur economist with no advanced degree or other recommendation beyond the cogency of my arguments and an excellent undergraduate liberal arts education such as is no longer available today, so I may not be worth a hearing.
But for those who are curious, here is a link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
Pregnancy throws a uterus-having person out of her usual level of productivity for at least several months and more likely a couple of years. (US maternity leaves don't reflect this and are ridiculous in that aspect.) Two half-times thus become one half-time at a time when expenses suddenly grow.
That would depend upon the nature of her job. Besides no maternity leave required if the husband can be at home while she is at work. Grandmothers might be nearby too.
You... don't seem to grasp the point, do you? A person who just pushed a baby out of their genitals, or who carries several kilograms worth of that baby, isn't fit for a lot of work, including a lot of mental work, because it's a strain on the organism. Maternity leave is not _just_ for the baby's sake.
I'll let working-class mothers decide who is right about this. It won't be for everyone, I'll grant you that much.