• How to Handle Thanksgiving With Your Crazy Relatives

    I’m lucky enough to have a family that’s all in sync politically, which means that Thanksgiving is a fun time for everyone. But lots of families aren’t so lucky: they have that one crazy relative who makes the whole holiday awkward with their constant TV-inspired rants about retrograde politics. So what do you do if you don’t want Thanksgiving dinner to turn into a war zone?

    The main thing is to keep in mind that your crazy SJW niece doesn’t necessarily share your value system, so arguing on your terms will often just make things worse. She’s a product of both her times and the liberal media, and you need to appeal to her on her terms.

    It’s equally important that you don’t meet anger with anger. Liberals, especially young ones, are full of fury over politics, and a little sympathy can go a long way. Agree with her that the economy should be doing better and there ought to be more good-paying jobs for new college grads. (Maybe you can even sneak in a pitch for tax cuts!) Don’t get angry over jargon. You had yours when you were a kid too: remember “supply-side economics” and “evil empire”? Keep things mild, and invite her to explain her views in ever more detail. Act interested, and keep asking for more. It’s possible she’s never had to do this in her entire life, and all by itself it might be enough to make her start doubting things she’s believed for years.

    Finally, remember that this is a long-term project. Rome wasn’t built in a day. You may not settle down your crazy niece in a single year, but you might make next year a little better.

    Here are a few examples of how to deal with a few common subjects.

    Race. Liberals are obsessed with race. Unlike you, they weren’t raised to be color blind, and they’re likely to bring up race as the underlying cause of practically everything. Try to make your crazy niece see what a rabbit hole this sends them down. Does she really want to harm Asian-Americans with affirmative action policies? Should well-to-do blacks get more assistance than poor whites? Is she familiar with research showing that illegal immigrants take jobs away from the very poorest Americans? Eventually a light bulb might come on, and she’ll realize that even using her own values, all she’s doing is pitting one “oppressed” group against another.

    Climate change. Because this is a scientific subject, your first instinct will probably be to engage in a torrent of facts and figures. Don’t bother. For most liberals, this is an emotional issue, not a fact-based one. You can tell them all about measurement error in the troposphere, variability in solar forcing, and corruption in the research community, but you won’t make any headway. Your niece is in an epistemic bubble, surrounded by friends and media who have convinced her that “97 percent of scientists agree” that climate change is real. She’s probably never even heard that there is any evidence against climate change, so take this slowly.

    Point out that reducing fossil fuel use hurts the poor more than the rich. Make the case that developing countries shouldn’t be stuck forever in impoverishment just to make privileged liberals in first world countries feel better about themselves. Explain that most of the “scientific” models don’t have good track records, and that even tiny errors can make a huge difference a century down the road. This may or may not make a dent, but you might at least spark a realization that climate change is a complicated subject that’s not as cut and dried as she’s been led to believe.

    Obamacare. Unlike climate change, this is an area where facts and figures might help. Your niece probably has plenty of them at hand, which gives you an opening to throw in a few she might never have heard before if she’s been getting all her news from Rachel Maddow and HuffPo.

    Does she realize that premiums have skyrocketed since Obamacare went into effect? Last year Arizona premiums were up 116 percent and they’re up again this year! Does she know that insurers are fleeing the market, and lots of areas are now down to a single provider? Try to explain what a “death spiral” is, which she might actually be interested in. Liberals love to think of themselves as wonks. Does she know that the Obamacare pool started out older and sicker than anyone projected, and has been getting worse every year? She may be skeptical that “the market” does a better job of running health care than the government, so try to get her to realize that every time the government interferes, it just creates yet another problem to be solved. Even with its faults, maybe the free market is best in the long run after all?

    Guns. This can be an emotional subject. Most liberals have never even handled a gun, let alone fired one, and this often produces unreasoning fear. That’s just human nature: we’re afraid of what we don’t know. The best way to handle this is by showing rather than telling. Don’t push too hard, but offer to introduce her to some of your shooting buddies. Show her one of your hunting rifles and explain how it works. Appeal to her sense of “tolerance” by offering to take her down to the range to fire a few rounds. If she’s going to oppose guns, isn’t it fair that she should know a little more about them?

    Take this a step at a time: introduce her first to few easygoing shooters, not the Second Amendment know-it-alls. (You know the ones I’m talking about!) Start her out with an easy-handling sidearm that won’t scare her off. Point out casually that the ACLU supports gun rights, just like they support freedom of speech and religion.

    Patriotism. This can turn into a shouting match pretty easily. The idea of a callow twenty-something confidently claiming that her country is responsible for the world’s ills is hard to take. But rein it in. Remember that the only war she’s ever known is the Iraq War, and let’s be honest with ourselves: that wasn’t America at its best. But it’s hardly her fault that she didn’t live through any of the struggles that produced the country she lives in.

    Try to introduce her to some history. Talk about the real-life horrors of communism: gulags, famines, and show trials. She probably never learned any of that at her liberal arts college. The wealth of the modern world may seem obvious to her—like water to a fish—so point out that 50 years ago it was far from obvious. It only exists because America persistently defended capitalism and free trade even when it wasn’t always popular. And while every country has its problems to deal with—she’s certain to chime in with something about slavery, and you should just nod your head without getting into it—America really has been a beacon of democracy and anti-fascism ever since World War II.

    And remember: your niece is young! She was brought up in different times. You’re not going to change her mind overnight, but remember what the Bible tells us: A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger. So take it easy. Don’t get into shouting matches. A better Thanksgiving dinner for everyone will be your reward.

  • Please Cut the Crap About Red States Subsidizing Blue States

    The New York Times reports that many state governments are concerned that the Republican tax plan will hurt them:

    Of primary concern is the Senate’s plan to repeal the state and local tax deduction….The tax break is claimed by people across the nation, but is more heavily utilized in higher-tax states like Oregon, California, New Jersey and New York. Eliminating the deduction has long been a goal of many Republican lawmakers, who view the tax break as a subsidy that poorer red states provide to richer blue ones that spend heavily on government services.

    This is tiresome as hell. I don’t begrudge the fact that poorer red states tend to receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. Nor do I begrudge the fact that it’s mostly richer blue states who fund this state-level social welfare. That’s how things should work. But I do begrudge Republicans weaponizing the tax code against liberals with sanctimonious lies about how red states are subsidizing blue states. Via the Tax Foundation, here’s the truth:

    The biggest takers in the nation are almost all red states. The biggest net givers are unanimously blue states.

    Now, this chart is from a study done in 2005. Although I doubt things have changed a lot since then, it’s unfortunate that the Tax Foundation doesn’t have more recent data. Their website says they are “currently seeking funding to update this study,” but apparently none of their conservative donors are much interested in that. Odd, isn’t it? Maybe George Soros should step up to the plate.

    However, the Tax Foundation does have a recent study that looks at how much state budgets rely on federal aid. Here it is:

    Once again, the top takers are almost all red states, while the most self-reliant states are almost all blue. Any way you slice it, blue states heavily subsidize red states when it comes to federal spending. Can’t we at least be honest about this much?

    NOTE: State colors are taken from here to ensure that I’m not fudging the data.

  • Inflation is Weak, Weak, Weak

    The Wall Street Journal reports today on the most recent meeting of the Federal Reserve. They’re still planning to raise interest rates in December, but “many participants” are worried about weakness in inflation:

    Minutes of the Oct. 31-Nov. 1 meeting, released Wednesday with the usual three-week lag, indicated that officials thought persistently weak inflation could stay below their 2% annual arget for longer than many expected, raising questions about the pace of rate increases next year.

    ….After touching the Fed’s 2% annual target earlier this year, inflation has been weak for seven consecutive months, according to the Fed’s preferred gauge, the Commerce Department’s personal-consumption expenditures price index.

    ….For much of this year, Ms. Yellen and other Fed officials said the shortfall in inflation could be caused by transitory factors, like a drop in pricing for wireless phone plans and subdued growth in health-care prices. But in the weeks since their last meeting, some have questioned how transitory the price weakness may be.

    ….There is also “some hint” that after many years of low inflation, inflation expectations may be drifting down, and “that would be a very undesirable state of affairs,” she said.

    I don’t have anything new to say about this. I’m just reproducing it to revel in the sheer novelty of the writing. Until just a couple of years ago, can you even imagine a front-page Journal article describing 1-2 percent inflation as “weak” six times in less than a thousand words? It would have been low or steady or well-controlled, all of which sound like good things. But never weak, which sounds like a very bad thing.

    And yet, it is bad. Low inflation makes it hard to maintain low interest rates when you need them. If the inflation rate is 1.6 percent, then a zero percent interest rate is effectively -1.6 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. That’s it. That’s as low as you can go. The Fed may think this isn’t a problem right now, but when the next recession hits it will be.

    In theory, a central bank can engineer any inflation rate it wants. In reality, politics makes this asymmetrical. We’re willing to tolerate a recession of almost any size if we need to reduce inflation, but we’re not willing to tolerate money creation of any size if we need to raise inflation. This is perverse, but there you have it.

  • Ron Johnson Is Making an Epic Run For “Greediest Senator” Award

    Bill Clark/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA

    Over at National Review, Jibran Khan reports that several Republican senators are still skeptical about the tax bill:

    Most of the skeptics are concerned about debt. Susan Collins (Maine) questions the inclusion of individual-mandate repeal and the removal of SALT deductions. And Ron Johnson (Wis.) opposes the different treatment of different kinds of business taxes.

    ….Senator Johnson has emphasized the Senate tax bill’s treatment of pass-through businesses as the reason for his opposition to the bill as currently written. Pass-throughs are over 90 percent of American businesses and “generate over half of U.S. business income,” per a 2015 NBER paper. While they would face a lower tax rate under the reforms than they do now, pass-throughs would still face higher taxation than corporations. Johnson, whose family runs such a business, thinks this is unfair.

    I’m an idiot. I wasn’t paying attention to this and vaguely thought that Johnson was taking a principled stand against the reduction in rates on pass-through income. After all, the whole point of pass-through income is that it passes through the business untouched to the owners and becomes personal income that’s taxed at personal rates. It’s absurd that under the Republican tax bill, the CEO of a big corporation has to pay 43.4 percent on her income (the top tax rate of 39.6 percent plus the 3.8 percent Obamacare tax) while the CEO of a pass-through business only has to pay 25-35 percent.

    But no! Johnson is all in favor of this. He’s only griping about the bill because the pass-through tax rate isn’t being lowered even more. He wants it to be set at 20 percent, just like the corporate rate.

    Think about this. Under the Republican bill, a corporate CEO who’s paid $100 will have $56.60 left after taxes. But pass-through business income is taxed at a lower rate that ranges between 25 and 35 percent. Out of that same $100 paycheck, $65-75 is left over. This is the greatest, least defensible gift to the rich in the entire bill, but Johnson thinks it’s still not enough. After all, the guy owns a pass-through business himself and he’s tired of having to pay so much.

    Holy greedballs, Batman. It just never ends, does it?

    UPDATE: I did the math wrong in the initial version of this post. It’s fixed now.

  • Lunchtime Photo

    This is the very last picture I took on our vacation. We landed right at sunset, and this was taken from inside Terminal 2 at LAX, where we deplaned. Circling over Los Angeles just before sunset was a lovely way to return home, and a good reminder that every place has its own beauty. It almost made me wish I were rich enough to rent the Goodyear blimp and take a whole series of aerial pictures of LA when the light is good.

  • Revisiting the Sins of Mark Halperin

    Patrick Fallon via ZUMA

    Eve Fairbanks says that Mark Halperin did a lot more harm than just abusing women. Via his authorship of The Note, he spent years abusing the entire city of Washington DC:

    I want to talk about the deeper, subtler, more insidious effect Mark Halperin had on our politics — one which we’ll be paying for for years to come. The Note purported to reveal Washington’s secrets….It replaced normal words with jargon. It coined the phrase “Gang of 500,” the clubby network of lobbyists, aides, pols, and hangers-on who supposedly, like the Vatican’s cardinals, secretly ran DC….Halperin wrote about Washington like it was an intriguing game, the kind that masked aristocrats played to entertain themselves at 19th-century parties: Everyone was both pawn and player, engaged in a set of arcane maneuvers to win an empty jackpot that ultimately meant nothing of true importance.

    At the same time, The Note made it seem that tiny events — a cough at a press conference, a hush-hush convo between Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell in a corridor — held apocalyptic importance. Cloaked in seriousness, with the imprimatur of Peter Jennings’ ABC News, in reality The Note was not news but simple gossip.

    ….I dare say Halperin is the single journalist most responsible for Donald Trump….After all, what did Trump respond to? Most of all, two things: the sense among Americans that the language of politics has become an incomprehensible jargon of the elite, and the sense that a disaster or a dramatic change that will upend everything looms at every moment — hidden from sight, but still imminent. We have an apocalyptic politics in part because Halperin helped promote an apocalyptic approach to political coverage.

    I don’t really buy this. The Note was gossip and palace intrigue, but that’s the exact opposite of apocalyptic. Gossip makes everything trivial and fleeting, and Halperin’s writing was invariably aimed at the world-weary cynic who was too cosmopolitan to ever find anything truly apocalyptic. Gossip is both the great leveler of men and the great enemy of policymaking, which was always a subject that was just too, too dreary for readers of The Note.¹

    But if Halperin wasn’t responsible for the apocalyptic approach to politics, who was? There’s really not much question about this: it came from post-Gingrich movement conservatives, especially (and fittingly) conservative evangelicals. I don’t feel like digging up chapter and verse here, but all you have to do is read the speeches and emails and newsletters that they produced to understand exactly where this has come from. For years, they’ve told each other that the United States is literally² on the verge of collapse if the liberal agenda continues much longer. That’s what produced Donald Trump, not Mark Halperin.

    That said, Trump is also a creature of gossip, and Halperin certainly helped set the stage for the centrality of gossip—and the disdain for policy—that’s so widespread among thought leaders in modern politics.

    And for what it’s worth, this is why I always refused to read The Note and its imitators from the day I started blogging. It’s not possible to read this stuff “just for fun” and then pretend that it doesn’t affect you. Nor can you read it and pretend that its selection of topics that will “drive the news” doesn’t affect you. The only way to avoid being affected by it—and the only way to avoid boarding its puerile bandwagon—is not to read it at all. Does that mean I missed out on things? Not that I can tell. Over the past 15 years, I can’t recall more than two or three items of any importance that were reported first in one of the morning gossip newsletters. They may not be responsible for apocalyptic politics, but they have plenty of other sins to account for.

    ¹It’s worth noting that Washington DC, like all company towns, has always been a hornet’s nest of gossip. Halperin didn’t start this, he just packaged it for the masses and made it reputable.

    ²Note that I’m using the word literally in its correct sense here.

  • Obamacare Enrollments Continue to Thrive

    CMS reports today that Obamacare enrollments through the federal exchange are now up to 2.3 million this year. That’s about a 50 percent increase over the same period last year. If we assume that state exchange enrollments are up the same amount, total enrollments so far amount to just over 5 million:

    This is all based on eyeballing Charles Gaba’s famous chart, so it might be off slightly. And projections are, obviously, just projections. We don’t have confirmed figures for total national enrollment yet. Still, it’s good to see that signup activity seems to be very robust. With only three weeks left to sign up on the federal exchange, this needs to keep up.

  • Another Shoe Drops in the Florian Jaeger Affair


    Last month Madison Pauly reported on Florian Jaeger, a linguistics professor at the University of Rochester:

    Celeste Kidd was elated when she learned, in 2007, that she had been invited to interview for a Ph.D. program at the University of Rochester in New York….As she began the interview process, Kidd was told that in addition to Aslin, she would be encouraged to work closely with the department’s prized recent hire, professor T. Florian Jaeger, an expert in linguistics and computational methods. She met with Jaeger—but left the interview disturbed. Rather than asking about her research, she says, the professor invited her to a party that weekend, which she declined. Within days, he had sent her a message on Facebook. “you should have come to that other party,” he wrote.

    “I wanted to come, and ordinarily I would have but what with my not being accepted into Rochester yet, I didn’t want to make myself look like I enjoyed myself too much too often, you know?” Kidd wrote back.

    “you should not be worried about that type of stuff. at least no with me,” Jaeger replied. He added: “rochester used to be the place for legendary parties (with lots of nudity,etc. =)”

    Things got much worse after that, leading to a series of formal complaints. Initially the university defended Jaeger and dismissed the complaints filed by Kidd, now an assistant professor at Rochester, and six other faculty members (plus one former grad student). But that was pre-Harvey Weinstein. Today the Washington Post reports that a second shoe has dropped in the Jaeger affair:

    Hundreds of professors are urging their students not to apply to the University of Rochester, a private research university in western New York. The boycott comes after allegations that Florian Jaeger, a professor in the brain and cognitive science department, preyed on female students. Eight current and former Rochester researchers filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint against the university in September for what they viewed as the administration’s failure to adequately protect its students.

    ….[It] is unprecedented for these discussions to occur openly. This the first time academics have issued this sort of public statement, said Heidi Lockwood, a Southern Connecticut State University professor of philosophy and co-author of the letter of concern.

    ….The university has commissioned another investigation, led by attorney Mary Jo White, a former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission….White “has accepted the assignment on conditions of unconditional independence and unfettered access to all witnesses, documents, and information within the University’s control,” a representative for the University of Rochester wrote in an email to The Washington Post.

    Stay tuned. In September, this might have gone nowhere. Today, it might finally get taken more seriously.

  • Nine Out of Ten Economists Agree: The Republican Tax Bill Is Ridiculous

    The latest question put to the IGM Economic Experts Panel was about the Republican tax plan. Without further ado, the results:

    Will it increase GDP? Oh hell no. Will it increase the debt? Hell yes. It’s designed to increase the debt.

    My favorite answer to Question 1 comes from Oliver Hart of Harvard: “The incentive effects are unclear to me. Some of the simplifications make sense but many of the changes look like hand-outs to the rich.”

    You don’t say? Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago wins for his answer to Question 2: “Cut taxes. Lose money. Repeat.”

    What a mess. There’s really no reason to think that corporate taxes are too high in America, but it’s still possible that legitimate tax reform could help the economy. That calls for a tax bill that simplifies the corporate code; thoughtfully reforms our current worldwide taxation system; reduces industry subsidies and tax preferences; moderately lowers rates; and ends up revenue neutral. Unfortunately, what we have is a tax bill that includes a few useful features buried inside a chaotic assortment of giveaways to the wealthy and other special interests. It’s unlikely to accomplish much except to make a few rich people about $1.5 trillion richer over the next ten years. Even most conservatives support it only tepidly.

    But if there’s a single thing in this bill that demonstrates the difference between Republicans and Democrats, it’s not the favoritism toward the rich. I pretty much take that for granted these days. Rather, it’s the treatment of worldwide income.

    There’s broad agreement that the US system, which taxes all the income of domestic companies but provides credits for taxes paid to foreign countries, is clumsy and inefficient. Most countries rely instead on a territorial system that taxes only income earned within their borders. This is something that Republicans could have taken on and that the business community would likely have supported. The problem is that it’s not a simple matter that fits on a bumper sticker or gets cheers at a rally. Transitioning to a territorial system is complex and full of potholes.

    If this were a Democratic priority, liberal think tanks would have spent the past decade churning out dozens of detailed models and white papers, and legislative aides would be ready to dive in and start working on it. But if you scan conservative think tanks, you’ll find a few op-ed length proposals for a territorial tax and not much more. Not enough, anyway, that Republicans felt confident about taking it on this year. They just don’t care enough about detailed policy to be able to do stuff like this. So instead they threw a few ideas in the air, tossed out the ones that got any pushback, and ended up with an embarrassing collection of hobbyhorses and giveaways. It’s the same story as health care: after seven years of denouncing Obamacare, Republicans had little more than a few bullet points to work with when it turned out they couldn’t just repeal the entire law and be done with it. Detailed replacement proposals were almost nonexistent.

    Republicans can blow raspberries at honest wonks all they want, but this is the result: For anything complex, they’re incapable of passing legislation that’s worthwhile even from their own point of view.

  • We’re in Danger of Squandering Our Sexual Abuse Moment

    Bill Clark/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA

    John Conyers is the latest politician to be accused of sexual harassment:

    Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader, moved swiftly on Tuesday against the House’s longest serving lawmaker, calling for the House Ethics Committee to investigate sexual harassment charges against Representative John Conyers Jr., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

    Good for Pelosi. If there’s a credible accusation against a Democrat, it should be investigated. Ditto for Republicans.

    But there’s the rub. The charges against Conyers were leaked to Mike Cernovich, a nutcase white nationalist who was a big supporter of the insane Pizzagate conspiracy last year. The partisan motivations here are pretty obvious.

    Likewise, after Leeann Tweeden accused Al Franken of improper behavior, a conservative radio host jumped on the bandwagon with a series of absurd allegations. Again, this was obviously a partisan hit.

    Meanwhile, Roy Moore and Donald Trump have simply denied all the allegations against them—loudly and threateningly. Earlier today, Trump basically endorsed Moore on this basis. “He totally denies it,” Trump explained.

    There’s a partisan issue here, but there’s also, for lack of a better phrase, an asshole issue as well. If you’re fundamentally a decent human being, like Franken, you apologize. Then you get investigated. Then you might resign, because lots of your fellow decent human beings think you should.

    But if you’re an asshole, not only do you deny the charges, you do your best to smear the accusers. That’s what Moore and Trump have done. This gives your fellow assholes the cover they need to back off while they “wait for more evidence.”

    The result is that the more decent you are, the more likely you are to pay the price for your sexual misconduct. The more of an asshole you are, the less likely you’ll pay any price.

    This is hardly an ironclad rule. Harvey Weinstein is pretty clearly a huge asshole, but the allegations against him are so numerous and so disgusting that nothing he says or does is going to matter much. That said, if we’re going to investigate Al Franken for some fairly minor offenses, let’s also investigate Donald Trump over his far worse and far more numerous offenses. And if we’re going to investigate John Conyers over allegations that were eventually settled by Congress’s Office of Compliance—as we certainly should—let’s not rely solely on partisan leaks. Let’s open the books and take a look at everyone who’s been accused of bad behavior.

    The fastest way for this moment in time to be squandered is for it to become a partisan football. If liberals eat their own because they believe sexual abuse is intolerable, but conservatives survive by simply denying and blustering, what do you think will happen? First, conservatives will spot an opportunity: a way of taking advantage of liberal principles that they’ve learned doesn’t apply to them. Second, liberals will probably start to back off. Like it or not, this is just human nature. No group ever remains completely committed to a principled stand if it becomes obvious that it only applies to themselves.

    I wish I had an answer to this problem, but I don’t. Nevertheless, it’s worth putting out there. Maybe somebody else has something productive to say about this.