Whither the Economy -- a long overdue Open Thread

by wj

It is pretty clear that President Trump’s hopes for re-election depend enormously on having the economy be in good shape thru next fall. After all, his actual accomplishments otherwise (beyond constantly giving voice to his supporters fears) are essentially . . . nothing. (Well Putin and Kim may disagree. But getting them to successfully swing the election to him will be a challenge. Especially as Iran may be working in the other direction.)

It is increasingly clear that he knows it. And knows that the prospects are fading. He can’t, of course, admit that his policies, especially his trade policies, are to blame. Nor can he admit that the chaos and uncertainty that he revels in lead to the kind of uncertainty that causes businesses to stop investing until the future is clearer. So he’s spewing demands and putting up scapegoats, in the apparent hope that this will be enough.

The latest flurry: demanding that the Fed drop interest rates. Not just lower them, but drop them to zero. Or even go negative! https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/11/trump-says-boneheads-fed-should-cut-interest-rates-zero-or-even-set-negative-rates/ This at a time when unemployment is as close to zero as it gets. He combines this with denouncing the Fed governors (3 out of 5 of whom are his appointees!) as “boneheads” -- which seems likely to be counterproductive. It looks, basically, like a panic attack. But perhaps not an unwarranted one.

Just another straw in the wind….

Comments

[Nous]

Anyone who is into the conversation about water rights here needs to read Paolo Bacigalupi's science fiction stories. Both The Water Knife and "The Tamarisk Hunter" are premised on the sort of governmental breakdown that comes from these western water rights in the face of long-term anthropogenic drought.

https://windupstories.com/books/pump-six-and-other-stories/the-tamarisk-hunter/

I teach "The Tamarisk Hunter" in my SF class.

Also, I read The Water Knife while driving from CA to CO to visit family. 100 degrees out and utterly chilling.

[wj]

pretty certain that it will continue going downhill until November 2020.

Your faith that Trump won't manage one (or more) final disaster between then and Inauguration Day is touching. Me, I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on it. More likely, if he loses he will be lashing out in panic in all directions.

[CharlesWT]

GftNC: I confess that I do not understand what seems to be a taboo on speculating about people's motives, ...

What I find unethical is psychiatrists and psychologists using the weight of their professions to speculate about anyone's state of mind or motivations.

[wj]

will people who have private insurance be happy to pay taxes for a public option they don’t use?

How enthused do you think they will be to pay even higher taxes to support Medicare for all? Or are you under the delusion that, when private (company-paid) health insurance goes away, all those companies will just give all their employees a raise with the freed-up funds? I'd think a dividend increase far more likely. See the response to the Trump corporate tax cut.

[sapient]

Your faith that Trump won't manage one (or more) final disaster between then and Inauguration Day is touching.

Don't worry. I have no such faith.

[Michael Cain]

Or are you under the delusion that, when private (company-paid) health insurance goes away, all those companies will just give all their employees a raise with the freed-up funds?

If forced to bet, I'd bet on those companies getting hit with a health insurance tax somewhat smaller than what they're spending on health insurance premiums today. Every detailed state-level single-payer plan proposal I've seen that has gone into funding details has had one. The selling "feature" will be a promise that with M4A, costs are really going to be contained and the tax rate will be stable compared to premium growth rates.

[wj]

My take there is that
1) Trump will insist that he lost due to vote fraud. No matter how overwhelming the loss.
2) His cultists (as opposed to those who are merely his devoted fans) will believe him. The more overwhelming the loss, the fewer others will.
3) Trump will file lawsuits everywhere he lost (yeah even places like California, because . . . why not, it's what he does). At minimum demanding that official counts be delayed pending.
4) Enough courts will decline that enough votes will be official that the Electoral College is not in doubt. All those will get appealed, of course. But, in the last analysis, John Roberts (and quite possibly Samuel Alito) will refuse to buy that bridge.
5) Trump refuses to accept that either, of course. (See his rants about the Fed governors that he appointed.)
6) But come Inauguration Day, the Chief Justice shows up holding the Bible (or whatever; although at that point I suspect the winner will be bending over backwards to be as traditional as pissible) and swears in the new President.
7) The military holds to their oaths to the Constitution, and ignore Trump thenceforth. Including the guy with the football leaving for the side of the new President.
8) The Secret Service clears the White House for the new President. Using as much force as necessary.

Beyond that? I'm put in mind of Heinlein's description of the rump of The Prophet's followers in Coventry. But actually, I expect we see nothing more that a spate of domestic terrorist attacks, ending with our ranks purged of some of our worst nutcases.

[McKinneyTexas]

I didn’t bring up Yemen btw. I’d rather hear from MkT on GCC.

Starting on that now. Give me a couple of hours.

[wj]

That was a response to sapient, btw. And I suppose I should have prefaced it with
0) Trump loses. Which looks increasingly likely. Even if the Democrats got with their worse choice out of the top half dozen.

[cleek]

Which looks increasingly likely.

remember, nothing matters but the actual 50 state results.

don't start counting eggs.

[sapient]

Thanks, wj. And I agree with cleek - by no means should we assume anything.

[Donald]

“Or are you under the delusion that, when private (company-paid) health insurance goes away, all those companies will just give all their employees a raise with the freed-up funds?”

Michael Cain knows more than me— see his response. I would add that it would be a nice idea if we had a stronger labor movement, because no, I don’t believe the invisible hand will necessarily force companies to give in salary increases what they save not having to pay in insurance premiums.

[byomtov]

I suspect the degree of change necessary if we want to keep private insurance and be certain that nobody goes bankrupt from a serious illness would be immense.

I'm not convinced of this. In principle it seems wholly possible to have private insurance with a government reinsurance backstop for ruinous cases.

[Donald]

“In principle it seems wholly possible to have private insurance with a government reinsurance backstop for ruinous cases.”

Possibly so. And if so, there is no good reason I can think of why this couldn’t have been done decades ago. So there must be some bad reasons.

[wj]

And I agree with cleek - by no means should we assume anything.

Absolutely agree. But in my mind I wasn't assuming, but predicting. Not quite the same thing.

I think the best thing to do, at this point, is to assume it will be damn close (even though I don't think it will be). And work hard everywhere that there is even an outside chance (i.e. Texas, but not Wyoming) -- in order to, at minimum, make Trump spend resources to defend them.

At the same, I think it's critical to remember all those picky little state legislative races. Beating Trump is super important. But we will be living with the results of those legislative races for a decade, thanks to redistricting. This is the moment to try to ride a blue wave into a bunch of otherwise successfully gerrymandered seats.

[wj]

there is no good reason I can think of why this couldn’t have been done decades ago. So there must be some bad reasons.

Simple. It's "socialized medicine". The label, not the reality.

[sapient]

This is the moment to try to ride a blue wave into a bunch of otherwise successfully gerrymandered seats.

We're on the same page, again, wj.

[wj]

You begin to see why this conservative has gotten on so successfully with liberals all these years. ;-)

[byomtov]

are you under the delusion that, when private (company-paid) health insurance goes away, all those companies will just give all their employees a raise with the freed-up funds? I'd think a dividend increase far more likely. See the response to the Trump corporate tax cut.

I think this depends on the company, and especially the industry. I happen to be on the board if a small software company, and finding well-qualified employees is a constant issue, so yes, I would expect to start paying higher salaries if we didn't have to pay for health insurance.

Of course, there is also the issue that the single-payer plan has to be financed somehow, so it's likely that taxes will go up, which will also have an effect.

The distinction between this and the Trump tax cut is that the latter didn't actually reduce the compensation companies pay to workers.

[Hartmut]

Here is also a German translation of the Jabba-Bonk

Schwafelbumsy

Um Tuckzwitsch schleimstrunz Kloppmentars
Kötpfiffen/Tölpfufften reineksch im Blondiestall
Ginmies warn Inceloffs in Bars
Und Afden schäumengroll

Hab Acht vorm Schwafelbums, Dirn lütt
Dem Schmatzerschlund und Muschigrapsch
Halt fern dich von dem Moos-Kuh-Mück
Scheu Leinsam-Graham-Flatsch

AOC Teigens Tweet schlägt an
Behufs Entblähung des orangen Schrats
Wider Aufdunsfeind kühnen Hauf vereint
Sie warten im Rondell des Staats

Und während weibsstolz man dort stand
Der Schwafelbums, Schmähgosch entloht,
Cofvevte her durchs Hohlkopfland
Und schamlos streichernd droht

Oh Nein! Sechs-Neun! Geselchtes Schwein
Friß Teigens Tweet arg und viral
Das geht glatt rein mit Text unfein
Die Wirkmacht ist fatal

Dem Schwafelbums bogt ihr es bei?
Umhalst der Mädel wackren Bann
Jauchztag! Juchei! Tandaradei!
Der Petz steppt wie er kann

Um Tuckzwitsch schleimstrunz Kloppmentars
Kötpfiffen/Tölpfufften reineksch im Blondiestall
Ginmies warn Inceloffs in Bars
Und Afden schäumengroll

[bobbyp]

there is no good reason I can think of why this couldn’t have been done decades ago. So there must be some bad reasons.

You have to understand what we are up against.

[wj]

The core flaw in the libertatian argument is that their idealized Free Market assumes perfect information on both sides. Because otherwise how can you know what you are getting?

Are you an expert who can test the purity of the drugs you are buying? (How does that work out in the notoriously unregulated illegal drugs market?) An expert who can test the purity of the gold (or whatever) that you are being paid with?

In reality, of course, this is what would (will) happen if the Kocks and the Mercers and their friends succeed: they will, briefly, get richer -- whatever that means to them. And then they will discover that all those guns their philosophy has insisted on having available are a whole different animal from pitchforks. Which is to say, they will quickly get dead as well.

Guns. The difference between feudalism past and their longed-for feudalism future. For defending against them, rather than against the government.

[hairshirthedonist]

The proposition that people screwing each other over with impunity is somehow best for everyone involved is just idiotic. How anyone swallows this crap is beyond me.

[wj]

I had somehow missed this election report out of Russia.
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/11/vladimir-putins-party-just-lost-an-election-even-after-blocking-opponents-ballot/

Why care about the results of a rigged election, you ask. Well when someone manages to lose a rigged election, it says something.

In this case (the Moscow city elections) Putin's boys kicked the opposition politicians off the ballot. And, for good measure, locked them up. And yet, thanks to tactical voting for "anybody else", lots of Putin stalwarts lost. Including the head of his Moscow party organization -- even though he ran as an independent to try to avoid a toxic brand!

The thesis that Putin really is popular in Russia is beginning to look a bit threadbare.

[cleek]

no no, you see when Bob screws over Alice, Eve will know about this and then refuse to do business with Bob. extrapolate to everybody at all times in all circumstances, and The Market is perfect.

the reason people don't already do that is probably due to government interference or something.

[wj]

no no, you see when Bob screws over Alice, Eve will know about this and then refuse to do business with Bob. extrapolate to everybody at all times in all circumstances, and The Market is perfect.

How convenient that we have at hand a test case for this theory. Just replace "Bob" with "Donald"....

Somehow Trump managed to keep finding contractors who would take jobs from him. Even though dozens had already had the experience of getting stiffed by him. And that was just in the tight little market that was NYC construction. Expand to nationwide, and the absurdity is manifest.

I do like your "it's the government's fault somehow" theory, however. Now all we need is a supposed mechanism. No doubt folks who fund climate change denialism can find someone to do that.

[cleek]

someday, The Market will have legal personhood and mocking it will be a hate crime.

[hairshirthedonist]

Everything must be viewed as a commodity. Doctors or bags of rice - all the same.

[hairshirthedonist]

Just noting what the leftists at the AEI and Reason have to say about tariffs. Take note, regular folks in diners.

http://www.aei.org/publication/tariffs-are-a-regressive-tax-that-impose-the-greatest-burden-on-low-income-americans/

https://reason.com/2018/12/06/trumps-tariffs-42-million-tax-increase/

[cleek]

Priorities of people in diners, where Fox News and Limbaugh are on 24/7:

1. Hating liberals
2. Trump
3. everything else

[Michael Cain]

The EPA says they will make the rule rescinding California's authority to set its own tougher auto emissions standards final tomorrow.

Predictions... The day after, California files suit in the DC Circuit Court and requests an immediate injunction stopping the rule. The grounds for the case will be that California's authority is statutory (Clean Air Act of 1970) and the EPA lacks any authority to override statute. The Supremes hear the case in about 12 months.

[wj]

Looks like the California case will be based on us already having the necessary waiver (specified in the Clean Air Act, and granted in the previous administration). And the EPA lacking the authority to revoke the waiver once granted.

[Michael Cain]

Yeah, I went back and read the statute. It's a waiver (I was wrong about that), but one the EPA must grant unless they can show California's regulation has done one of a short list of bad things (eg, the usual "arbitrary and capricious", and some others). That's the kind of i-dotting and t-crossing this administration has been very bad at so far. Now I'm more eager to see what the EPA publishes tomorrow.

[wj]

I suppose that, if you consider objective reality irrelevant, you can argue that pretty much anything is "arbitrary and capricious." Not that a court is likely to buy it.

[Michael Cain]

I guess I should forecast the Supremes: 6-3 in favor of California. The four liberals, Roberts, and Gorsuch the majority.

[wj]

It's even possible that Alito's fondness for states rights will being him to side with California.

Kavanaugh, of course, will follow his patron, without reference to the merits of the case. Lucky for him it's one of the rare issues where Trump probably won't change his mind a half dozen times a week.

[wj]

being => bring.

[russell]

Why does CA even need a waiver to have regulations that are stronger than, and therefore more than meet, federal regs?

There have to be hundreds or thousands of such cases. Are they all going to be challenged by the feds?

[Snarki, child of Loki]

You never can tell what nonsense the Supremely Deplorable Five ("lawless" Roberts, StripSearch, Token, Kav, and Squi) will line up behind.

[Michael Cain]

Preemption doctrine. If the federal government chooses to regulate a certain activity, states are barred from regulating that same activity unless Congress gives explicit permission. (I'll leave it to the real lawyers to worry about whether the states can regulate so long as they don't conflict with the federal rules, or if they have to stay away from the activity entirely.) The 1970 Clean Air Act provided explicit conditional permission for California to set its own vehicle emission limits and for other states to choose between the California limits and the federal limits.

The feds don't have to challenge the laws themselves. When a state tries to enforce those laws, the defendants will raise the preemption question. Most cases will be clear-cut, ie, the state rule obviously conflicts with a federal rule so is unenforceable.

In the auto emission case, where Congressional permission has been given, the EPA should have to show where California's rules fail to meet the conditions laid out in the CAA. Or to wj's interesting point, whether the EPA has authority to revoke a previously granted waiver.

[Michael Cain]

You never can tell what nonsense the Supremely Deplorable Five ("lawless" Roberts, StripSearch, Token, Kav, and Squi) will line up behind.

True, but hardly an interesting prediction. Roberts will side with California because he acts in what he perceives as large corporations' long-term interests. Gorsuch because he's from a western state with its own air pollution problems and wants to be able to walk in the streets without people spitting at him. wj raises an interesting point about Alito, who may side with California on the principle of moving authority from the feds to the states. Thomas will write a rant that Massachusetts v. EPA was wrongly decided.

[russell]

If the federal government chooses to regulate a certain activity, states are barred from regulating that same activity unless Congress gives explicit permission.

So... the feds require some level of background check to buy a firearm. In MA, you have to have the background check, plus take a firearm safety course, plus provide personal references, and then the local cops can deny the license anyway if they think you are a knucklehead who shouldn't be running around with a firearm.

All of which I find reasonable, FWIW.

Can somebody who wants a firearm license challenge that based on pre-emption?

[cleek]

interesting question.

here's The Giffords Law Center on the issue:

Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution, a federal law is binding on all state and local governments so long as Congress duly enacted the law pursuant to one of its limited powers. Federal preemption of state law is uncommon in the area of firearms regulation, however.

Congress may make its intention to preempt an area of state law clear by expressly stating its intent in the language of a statute. Absent such a statement, when considering a challenge to a state or local law based on the claim that regulation of the subject has been preempted by Congress, courts presume that the federal government does not intend to preempt state and local authority.[4]

Congress has not expressly preempted the broad field of firearms or ammunition regulation. Furthermore, courts have held that congressional regulation of firearms does not create a scheme so pervasive that it leaves no room for state and local law.[5] Thus, absent a specific, irreconcilable conflict between a challenged state or local firearms or ammunition law and a federal enactment, there is no federal preemption of that state or local law.

[Michael Cain]

Can somebody who wants a firearm license challenge that based on pre-emption?

No, federal gun control statutes contain an explicit "out" that allows states to add their own regulations, so long as they don't directly conflict with federal regulations. And the federal regulations are of a form that allows states to be more strict (until they run into 2nd Amendment issues, of course). That is, the federal requirement is "If you don't pass the check you can't buy a gun" rather than "Anyone who passes the check can buy a gun."

[Michael Cain]

My bad, it's not in the gun statutes themselves, it's in another place and more general. The form of the regulation that I mentioned is key, as the state can add regulations that don't conflict with the federal one.

[Michael Cain]

As an aside on preemption, one of the things that keep state legislative staff busy is bills whose sole purpose is to remove conflicts in the state law with federal regulations when the feds change a rule. Sometimes those are broad changes; sometimes they're seemingly tiny. I spent a week futzing with language in a budget bill to make all of the federal Dept of Labor (who had tweaked a rule regarding how certain moneys sent to the states could be spent), the state Dept of Labor (who wanted the maximum funding flexibility they could get under the modified rule), and the legislative legal staff (who wanted the language to be bullet-proof in court) happy. Then got to sit in front of the Joint Budget Committee and explain why the changes had been made in a specific way. I was never so glad to hear one of the committee members say, "Move the committee accept staff's recommendation" and get a majority vote.

[wj]

The 1970 Clean Air Act provided explicit conditional permission for California to set its own vehicle emission limits and for other states to choose between the California limits and the federal limits.

For which you can thank then-Governor Reagan and the fact that President Nixon was a Californian as well. (Both were all too familiar with LA smog.) Damn big-government Republicans!

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Both Nixon and Reagan are "good Republicans".

That is, DEAD.

[wj]

This one, however, is still alive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-cant-erase-a-decade-of-clean-air-progress-with-a-sharpie/2019/09/08/8d6393de-d248-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html

(So am *I*, for that matter.)

[cleek]

Cough if you love Trump

[cleek]

Trump got his demand! a rate cut!

$10 says he knew it was coming and made noise to make it look like it was all his idea.

[wj]

Sorry, cleek. You're not winning any sucker bets today.

[sapient]

I know that some folks here think it's hugely inappropriate to bring it up, but, I think there's a problem with Trump's relationship with some other foreign leaders.

No reason to worry about Russian trolls and bots. No reason at all.

[Nous]

New Opeth album out at the end of the month:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcMdA7Xs8jE

I'm liking what I have heard so far. Out in both Swedish and English language versions. Jag tycker om den svensk versionen.

[wj]

I think it's more accurate to say that there are problems with Trump's relationships with ALL foreign leaders. Different problems, depending on which foreign leader. But the only foreign leaders who have any use for him are those who think they have a use for him . . . and think they can cozen him into it.

[Donald]

“I know that some folks here think it's hugely inappropriate to bring it up, but, I think there's a problem with Trump's relationship with some other foreign leaders.”

He’s been way too close to bonesaw and Bibi. We might end up in a war with Iran because of it.

[Donald]

Plus there’s that whole complicity in genocide in Yemen thing.

So yeah, problems.

[CharlesWT]

Bolton is pissed that Trump wouldn't let him play with the military toys.

"Politico reports that Bolton, during a private lunch on Wednesday hosted by a neoconservative think tank, openly stewed about his inability to convince Trump to bomb Iran. In particular, Bolton claimed the United States should have attacked Iran in June, after the Islamic Republic was blamed for shooting down a U.S. drone.

'During Wednesday's luncheon, Bolton said the planned response had gone through the full process and everybody in the White House had agreed on the retaliatory strike,' Politico's Daniel Lippman writes. 'But 'a high authority, at the very last minute,' without telling anyone, decided not to do it, Bolton complained.'"
John Bolton Is Mad That Trump Wouldn't Let Him Bomb Iran: Trump's recently fired national security adviser fumed about the president's unwillingness to launch another half-cocked war and says U.S. should stay in Afghanistan basically forever.

[wj]

On balance, I'd rather that the National Security Advisor was just another vacuous syncophant. Better that than he be a chickenhawk like Bolton. So, a step in a better (although I can't justify calling it "the right") direction.

[russell]

He’s been way too close to bonesaw and Bibi. We might end up in a war with Iran because of it.

"Let's you and him fight".

[cleek]

New Opeth album out at the end of the month:

i've had it pre-ordered for weeks!

[cleek]

there's a problem with Trump's relationship with some other foreign leaders.

wouldn't it be swell if that whistleblower was Bolton? like, he is so mad that Trump wouldn't bomb bomb bomb bombbomb Iran that Bolton decided to rat him out over something...

[Nigel]

Scroll down the the bottom of this link:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-win-an-election/

That is (approximately) Trump’s platform. And yet he got nearly as many votes as Clinton....

[JanieM]

I know that some folks here think it's hugely inappropriate to bring it up, but, I think there's a problem with Trump's relationship with some other foreign leaders.

No reason to worry about Russian trolls and bots. No reason at all.

If you can cite an example of someone suggesting that it's "hugely inappropriate to bring up Trump's relationship with some other foreign leaders," have at it.

If you can't, and what you're actually doing is conflating an objection to that topic with an objection to accusations that a longtime commenter is a Russian troll and bot (as here), then at the very least, your logic is a little faulty.

From the link:

My guess is that nombrilisme vide was one of them. We need to ask questions, and reject them.

I actually had a conversation with nv (when I was open-minded about the bot)

NV comments often read like a badly translated Russian novel.

[Nous]

i've had it pre-ordered for weeks!

Swedish or English or both?

I'm wondering which language Mikael will choose to sing in on tour. I'm hoping he sticks to his guns and sings in Swedish. It is, after all, the secret occult language of the Social Democrat. \m/

[cleek]

just English. my Swedish begins and ends with "bork bork bork"

[hairshirthedonist]

Everything I know about Sweden comes from this:

Let me see, you would be from Austria. Am I right?

No, I am Inga from Sweden.

Sweden?

But you're wearing Lederhosen.

Je, for sure, from Sweden.

And all knowledge of Australia from Mad Max movies. I hear Austria and Australia are different countries.

[Girl from the North Country]

And if I remember correctly your knowledge about Yorkshire (the moors) may all have come from An American Werewolf in London.

Coincidentally, if I've never mentioned it before, the Warren Zevon song Werewolves of London lays out, to an eerily accurate extent, a complete itinerary of exactly the places my friends and I used to hang out at in London in the 70s...

[hairshirthedonist]

Good memory! That's really cool, the Zevon thing.

[Girl from the North Country]

I know, cracks me up every time I hear it.

I also do the werewolf howls with great enthusiasm, much to the astonishment of people in other cars if I'm held up in traffic!

[wj]

"When life hands you a lemon, make lemonade!"

It seems that Trump has found a good use for the EPA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/19/they-have-clean-it-up-trump-threatens-san-francisco-with-environmental-violations-over-homelessness/

Homelessness as pollution. Gotta admit, it's inventive. Wonder who in his administration came up with the idea.

[Hartmut]

Usually homelessness is referred to as an infestation (as with rats, roaches and the like). Or as blight/disfigurement of the scenery. But the proposed solution tends to be same anyway.

[wj]

I discover this:

The White House is temporarily exempting more than 400 Chinese products from tariffs activated last year as part of the U.S.'s ongoing economic sparring with Beijing. “The exclusions cover a wide range of goods, including plastic straws,...."

Naturally something that causes pollution would make the exception list. (/cynicism)

[Girl from the North Country]

OMG, our Supremes! Parliament sits again tomorrow from 11.30!

[russell]

IMO the UK is a stronger democracy, with stronger traditions of individual rights, than the US.

Start with - the number of people represented by an MP, compared to the number represented by a US House rep. Follow up with - the range of political positions, traditions, and interests represented therein.

I discount the royals in all of this. As far as I can tell, they are just a sort of expensive historical petting zoo, King/Queen being the exception. And the King/Queen seem to earn their keep by being more or less a chaperone keeping a lid on the more partisan infighting.

That's how it looks from here. Fight me.

[wj]

I discount the royals in all of this. As far as I can tell, they are just a sort of expensive historical petting zoo

But they're why the Brits aren't afflicted with the Kardashians. (Higher quality human beings, too, for all their foibles. As far as I can tell.)

[JanieM]

@russell: agree about the representation; it's been on my mind for a long time.

Based on #s quickly plucked from Wikipedia, in 1790 a member of Congress represented 37,421 people. Now it's 20 times that many, at 742,870. Even if you count senators, the # is 604,016.

An MP stands for about 101,538, somewhere in between but much closer to our early numbers than our present numbers.

It's unwieldy. I sometimes find myself thinking that the country is just too damned big, but human nature being what it is, I'm pretty sure the fault lines would survive a break-up, and fractally propagate themselves in the fragments.

[wj]

As a first step, we could take the population of the smallest (population-wise) state, and make half that the number for 1 Representative. Works out to around 300,000 people. We'd have to rebuild the Capital to accomodate the increased headcount, but it would be worth it.

[wj]

GftNC, I notice that your Supremes were unanimous. Was it that blatant on Johnson's part? Or are you just behind us when it comes to ideological court packing?

[Girl from the North Country]

Certainly less (purposely) ideologically packed, although still immensely privilege-of-many-strands-wise unrepresentative (hence an old cartoon I loved: Prisoner before the bench: Mercy your honour, I'm a product of my environment! Judge: So am I, hang him!)

But it is certainly my impression (and not just mine, as I have mentioned before) that many of the US Supremes have no scruples about making purely party-political ideological decisions, whereas I think our Supremes still see that as a) bad for the rule of law, and anyway b) completely dishonourable and contrary to their oaths.

[Girl from the North Country]

And the King/Queen seem to earn their keep by being more or less a chaperone keeping a lid on the more partisan infighting.

...

Higher quality human beings, too, for all their foibles. As far as I can tell.

Hard to say how accurate the first is but so far, even if true, this has been good enough.

As regards the second quote, I think this is very true, certainly regarding the current monarch, who is by common consent fairly intelligent, enormously experienced and absolutely devoted to doing what she considers her duty, which is serving the interests of the UK despite the fact that (as in the case of her father) people who know her say she would almost certainly have been much happier being a conventional upper class countrywoman, devoted to her horses and dogs.

[Girl from the North Country]

her duty, which is serving the interests of the UK

Oh, and I should have said also serving the interests of the Commonwealth, which she apparently takes extremely seriously.

[wj]

Having a chief of state who cares about the country is a great fail-safe. Especially when you have a head of government who cares nothing but himself. Too bad we combine the two positions, so we don't have that additional check.

[cleek]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to announce a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, a dramatic turnaround by the Democratic leader that sets up a constitutional and political clash pitting the Congress against the nation’s chief executive.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) is slated to make her announcement later on Tuesday after a closed-door meeting with her caucus, according to Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely describe private deliberations.

Boom.

[Nigel]

Here is the Supreme Court judgment in full:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

It is a model of conciseness and clarity, to the extent that even I can easily read and understand it. And compellingly argued from first principles.

The key bit is this:
For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such an exceptional course.

Admirable.

[Nigel]

The monarch herself is no real failsafe, since they will act invariably on the advice of ministers, as in this case.

The real benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that we have a head of state almost entirely outside the political process other than as a rubber stamp, and as an observer.

[Nigel]

This judgment quite readily demonstrates the relation between government and monarch, as it rules the ‘advice’ given to the monarch as outside of the government’s power to exercise the prerogative, and so null and void - and therefore as a result of that the prorogation fails.

It’s not that the queen was fooled into making a mistake - rather that since she was from the point of view of the law given no advice with legal force, she was unable to take any action to prorogue.

[Nigel]

Hang on, weren’t there supposed to be several phone calls ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-confirms-he-withheld-military-aid-from-ukraine-says-he-wants-other-countries-to-help-pay/2019/09/24/42bdf66c-ded2-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

[cleek]

Hang on, weren’t there supposed to be several phone calls ?

and somewhere out there is the actual whistleblower complaint, which we still don't know much about.

methinks maybe the Dems got themselves overly attached to the "show us the phone call" thing and Trump might be trying to pull a fast one.

[Donald Trump]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to announce a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, ...

Bring it on.

[cleek]

it's on, fucko.

https://www.apnews.com/e0d125d737be4a21a81bec3d9f1dffd8

[sapient]

The stars, are they aligned?

I hope so!

[wj]

In case you missed it, the Senate passed unanimously a call for the whistleblower complain to be released.
https://www.theweek.com/speedreads/867423/senate-votes-1000-release-trump-whistleblower-complaint

When McConnell stops stonewalling for Trump, Trump is in serious trouble. So yeah, stars look to be aligning.

[JanieM]

When McConnell stops stonewalling for Trump, Trump is in serious trouble.

It's a non-binding resolution, so who cares? Not McConnell, I bet.

I can't believe he doesn't have seven layers of agendas that he's manipulating.

[wj]

I can't believe he doesn't have seven layers of agendas that he's manipulating.

Most plausible theory I've heard: what's in there is sufficiently damning that McConnell is starting his prep for a Pence presidency.

[Tony P.]

Random thoughts:

Three cheers for the SCOTUK!

It has always seemed likely that He, Trump would get re-"elected" with the Dems holding on to the House. Did Pelosi ever consider how much harder impeachment would be after 2020? I bet she did, and that the pants-wetting faction of the Dem caucus only just now thought about it.

The "transcript" of a single phone call would be like the script of Springtime for Hitler: a trap for the unwary, with the Democrats playing the role of Bialystock and Blum. Live public testimony from the whistleblower or bust!

Come to think of it, toy whistles would be a great gimmick for Democrats to heckle Republicans with. (Remember Kerry being taunted with giant foam flip-flops and purple-heart band-aids by Dubya worshipers?) Toy whistles all being Chinese imports, look for extra-high tariffs on them if my suggestion goes viral.

Moscow Mitch is still a snake.

--TP

[russell]

Daily dose of schadenfreude - counting the seconds until Rudy gets thrown under the bus.

It would be funny if it wasn't so not-funny.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"counting the seconds until Rudy gets thrown under the bus."

Needz moar actual "bus".

[cleek]

OMG, the transcript: https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20883325/transcript-trump-ukraine-president-impeachment

nearly all Trump talks about is conspiracy theories about Biden and Clinton and Mueller.

all this time i kinda thought all that stuff was mostly him playing for the base. but no, even when talking on a call that would normally never be revealed to the public, it's all he talks about. the guy is truly deranged.

[Girl from the North Country]

It would be funny if it wasn't so not-funny.

A perfect description for our times.