Month: July 2025

Packaging Principles

Leave a comment

July 27, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week they discuss how to improve the favorability ratings of both political parties. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Abel dribbled a bit of syrup on his pancake. “A guy at the Liberal Patriot on Substack pointed to a recent survey by SSRS on party favorability (Source). They’ve been conducting these surveys for two decades for CNN and they posted the previous survey results for comparison.”

Cain poured more coffee from the pitcher into his coffee cup.“What questions do they ask?”

Abel replied, “It’s broad. ‘Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people or groups who are in the news?’ That kind of thing. They randomly mix the questions about the two political parties in there. The historical context helped me understand the change in political sentiment over the past two decades.”

Cain asked, “When was the survey taken?”

Abel replied, “Just this month, mid-July. Only 28% of people in the survey rated the Democratic Party favorable. The Republicans didn’t do much better at 33%.”

Cain said, “That helps explain the polarization in this country. Most people are voting against the other party rather than for their own party. It’s still weird that House members get reelected more than 90% of the time (Source). People are voting for House members like they choose their salad dressing. It’s habit, not analytical.”

Abel frowned. “It’s also weird that House members would care if Trump threatens to primary them. There are only a few instances of candidates who unseat an incumbent.”

Cain wiped his lips with his napkin. “And some of those upsets get a lot of attention. Eric Cantor in 2014. He was the Majority Leader, #2, in the House (Source). And then AOC in 2018 took out Joe Crowley, a long time member of the House (Source). So plane crashes are rare but people worry more about the dangers of flying than getting in a car accident, which is far more likely.”

Abel said, “The historical context of these surveys was even more interesting. So they have been asking this question for several decades. The high favorability rating for Democrats was 58% in the early part of 2009, in the depths of the financial crisis. Republicans, on the other hand, have never had a favorable rating higher than 48%, and that was in the fall of 2008.”

Cain frowned. “Republicans run on a law and order platform and being tough. That probably hurts their popularity rating.”

Abel looked astonished. “Come on, Trump flouts rules. McConnell, the former Senate Leader, flouted the rules for Supreme Court vacancies. Republicans don’t give a crap about rules.”

Cain replied, “Laws, not rules. Democrats blew it when they stopped enforcing immigration laws. If they had followed Obama’s stricter enforcement policies, Trump probably would not have won a second term. Democrats have only themselves to blame.”

Abel argued, “They were following the law. People are entitled to asylum if they have a credible threat. That’s the law that Congress passed in 1980. The Senate voted unanimously for the bill, something that rarely happens. Ninety percent of the House voted for the bill, another rarity (Source). That is the law, whether Republicans like it or not. When Republicans and Democrats agreed to revise the law last year, Trump told Republicans to kill it. That’s a fact.”

Cain nodded. “That was unfortunate. Pure political posturing. But it’s also a fact that the cartels have turned refugee status into a lucrative business. They tell economic migrants what lies to tell. Fear of gang violence or fleeing poverty is not a valid claim for asylum, according to the law (Source and Source). Most of these asylum claims are denied but only after many years because of the backlog in the immigration courts. People voted for better immigration enforcement.”

Abel argued, “So Trump gets better enforcement by breaking the law and acting tough. In fact, acting tough is all that the Republican Party has. Anyway, let’s move on. So both parties have fallen out of favor in the past decade but the Democratic Party’s fall is more noticeable because they had further to fall.”

Cain said, “That’s a long way down, from 58% to 28% in like fifteen years. I think the Nazi Liberals have taken over the party.”

Abel laughed. “The Nazi Liberals? What about the Nazi Christians on the right?”

Cain smiled. “That’s why both parties are out of public favor. They’re Nazis. People want freedom. They don’t want to be told what pronouns to use.”

Abel nodded. “Or women be told what choices they can make with their own bodies. Hey, I agree. The Democrats could raise their favorability with the public if they would embrace personal freedom.”

Cain smirked. “Yeah, Dems want personal freedom with abortion but not with pronouns.”

Abel smiled. “You’ve been saving that one up, I bet. I’m serious. Both parties could go in that direction. Both Christians and the liberal left want to impose their beliefs and practices on the rest of us. It’s about time they sit down and shut up.”

Cain asked, “Ok, let’s see how expansive your tolerance of personal freedom is. There’s a group in northern Arkansas that calls itself Return to the Land (RTTL). They advocate “whites-only” communities. They say that people should be free to choose whether to live in multi-racial communities or not.”

Abel frowned. “That’s against the Fair Housing Act passed in 1968 (Source). Like apartment buildings can’t discriminate against people with children unless it’s a senior community.”

Cain shook his head. “But claims of race discrimination are the majority of housing complaints to the Justice Department (Source). People and businesses are doing it indirectly, saying that housing is not available or making it a bit tougher to get a mortgage.”

Abel argued, “During a century of Jim Crow laws in the south, stores like Woolworth said they should be able to discriminate against blacks if they wanted to (Source). Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 which outlawed such discrimination. If a business is open to the public, it can’t exclude someone because of some inherent trait like race or color.”

Cain argued, “It’s not only inherent traits. A business can’t discriminate because of religion. That’s a practice, a behavior. It’s not inherent like color, race or national origin. So, a business in Paris, France can prohibit a customer wearing a burka but a business in New York can’t. To some people that infringes on the freedom of the store owner. It’s like I said last week. Governments can only give to someone by taking from someone else. Only private enterprise can create.”

Abel frowned. “Well, to a lot of people who have been raised with a set of religious beliefs, that religion feels like an inherent trait.”

Cain asked, “So you wouldn’t go that far with personal freedom? Where would you stop? All this DEI stuff. As an institution serving the public, a university has an obligation to accommodate people of different religious beliefs. What should the university do when those beliefs clash like with the pro-Palestinian protests?”

Abel sighed. “I see what you’re getting at. There’s a conflict between the First Amendment’s right to free speech and the responsibility of an institution to provide a safe space for students. That’s the ‘life, liberty, and property’ part of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. So, how to resolve those contradictions?”

Cain nodded. “As much as I criticize the Supreme Court, they have a tough job to do. The Constitution itself is contradictory and Congress adds to the confusion when they pass laws that contradict each other. The court has to balance all these opposing principles.”

Abel looked thoughtful. “I would start with the simple stuff. Like pronouns.”

Cain shrugged. “Not so easy. What if a woman says that the use of male pronouns in the employee manual threatens her? It’s exclusive and implies that there is less chance for advancement in the company. The rules were written by men and for men.”

Abel frowned and asked, “You’ve experienced that?”

Cain sighed. “Yeah, it was a while ago and I kicked it over to the legal department. But people resent that kind of thing. Businesses are vulnerable to multi-million dollar lawsuits because of someone’s perceived discrimination. Despite the cooperative language from a company’s PR department, business managers feel an inner sense of combativeness, or resentment.”

Abel laughed. “Oh, come on, stop with the sob stories for multi-billion dollar companies. They take advantage of employees. Personal freedom should include the right to form a union without going through a bunch of legal hoops. A corporation is a union of capital that gives it more power in the marketplace. Labor should have the same freedom.”

Cain argued, “In principle, I agree. I disagree with the tactics that labor unions use to bargain. Strikes that shut down businesses, for instance.”

Abel smirked. “It’s the main bargaining tool they have. One person quitting a job has little impact on a business unless it only has a few employees. Capital in isolation is not enough to start a business. Both labor and capital are more effective when they are allowed to combine.”

Cain sighed. “We are getting no closer to a compromise on personal freedom. If I’m a restaurant owner, I can hang a sign that says ‘No shoes, no shirt, no service’ but I can’t refuse to serve someone with a burka? Maybe I don’t want them in my restaurant because I am worried about a political fight that does damage to both my customers and my restaurant. I can’t act on my prudent judgment? People left Europe and came to America because they wanted more freedom, not less.”

Abel nodded. “I agree with you in principle. Unfortunately, the practice in this country has been just blatant prejudice. Stores that had a policy of not serving blacks, for instance. Elite universities like Princeton that limited admission for Jews (Source). Acting with prejudice attacks the personal freedom of others. Police manage the frictions between people living together.”

Cain argued, “Agreed, but the police can’t be the only ones responsible for keeping order. There is an element of self-policing in a society. The closer that people live together, the more likely their interests will clash. People and businesses have navigated those conflicts by excluding some people. It’s like an informal form of policing. Is it fair? Maybe not, but it helps to keep the peace. Which principle is more important? Freedom or fairness? More of one can mean less of another.”

Abel looked into the distance as he thought. “Democrats have run on a platform of fairness and its not popular. Why is that?”

Cain interrupted, “Fair is like beauty. It’s in the eye of the beholder. Anyway, governments cannot be fair to someone without being unfair to someone else. It’s a principle of government.”

Abel shrugged. “It’s your principle of government. I don’t agree with that. I’m just wondering how Democrats can improve the public’s perception of the party’s goals.”

Cain replied, “Maybe it’s not the goals but the practices. The party leaders weren’t fair to Bernie in 2016 primary race. They covered up for Biden, which wasn’t fair to other presidential hopefuls in the party. All their grand policies have done little to improve the lot of many Americans in the public’s eye. Maybe people just don’t trust them. I mean, Dems have had the presidency for 12 years out of the past 16. Eight with Obama, four with Biden. Why did Trump freak out the Dems so bad?”

Abel thought a moment, then said, “If Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio been the candidate in 2016, the loss would have hurt, for sure, but the Dems would have taken it as part of the political game. Trump was a newcomer and a figurehead, the erratic leader of what was now a reactionary party. Republicans mouthed platitudes about tax cuts improving economic growth without any evidence (Source). Tax cuts were little more than a branding mechanism to distinguish Republicans from Democrats. The 2017 tax cut package was traditional pork barrel politics where the pork goes to the rich. They were against Obamacare because the Dems proposed it. They’re an opposition party with few ideas of their own and that’s why the party has never had majority support in these surveys.”

Cain argued, “Surveys may capture idle sentiments but elections are the real surveys. Since 2008, the Republicans have controlled the House far more than Democrats, ten years to six years. In the Senate, the Dems have had control for ten of those sixteen years.”

Abel interrupted, “Barely had control.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, barely, but it has allowed Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Leader, to control the agenda of the Senate, what issues got voted on (Source).”

Abel sighed. “It seemed like most of the time, the House Republicans controlled the Senate’s agenda. They voted to repeal Obamacare more than fifty times but could never get it through the Democratic controlled Senate. When Republicans took back the Senate and passed a repeal, they didn’t have enough votes to override Obama’s veto (Source).”

Cain frowned. “In their quest for fairness, the lefties in the Democratic Party are too bossy,  telling everyone how to talk and behave. They’ve become a party of scolds. Elizabeth Warren, for one. AOC and the other members of the House Squad, for another. Adults don’t want to be scolded.”

Abel argued, “Republicans were the party of scolds during the Jim Crow era when it was Democrats who engaged in reprehensible behavior. People need to be called out when they commit heinous acts.”

Cain smirked. “So Republicans heaped moral outrage on Democrats back in those days. Did that stop the lynching of blacks in the southern states? No. In the 1930s, Democrats in the North joined with Republicans in the House to pass anti-lynching legislation. Democratic Senators filibustered the legislation (Source). Moral outrage is rarely effective. When Hilary Clinton called Republican voters a ‘basket of deplorables,’ that hurt her campaign (Source). Moral outrage inspires resentment and opposition, not a desire to be more fair.”

Abel pushed his plate to the side. “Ok, good point. So, you’re saying that Democratic messaging has been equally reactionary.”

Cain nodded. “Neither party has been able to package one principle and sell it to the American public. That’s why neither party is popular. All that’s left is electoral and political strategies.”

Abel slid out of his seat and stood up. “Fairness is a difficult principle to package. You’re helping me realize that. I think economic fairness is more important to people than social fairness.”

Cain made a gun with his forefinger and thumb. “You hit the target, pardner. Dems need to turn down the dial on the identity politics and stay focused on pocketbook issues.”

Abel nodded. “Like James Carville said during Clinton’s 1992 campaign. ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ Hey, I will see you next week.”

/////////////////////

Image by ChatGPT

Different Views

Leave a comment

July 20, 2025

by Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys as they discuss world events and persistent problems. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Abel stirred an ice chip into his coffee. “Last week you were criticizing the childish behavior of this administration. This week we saw another example of petty vindictiveness when Trump pushed Congress to claw back $8 billion from foreign aid and $1 billion from PBS and NPR. I mean, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the spending and deficits in the Big Bogus bill passed two weeks ago.”

Cain nodded. “I was reading that there hasn’t been a rescission bill passed since 2000 (Source). Anyway, conservatives have complained about public funding of liberal media for decades. In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration ended the fairness doctrine so that radio and TV stations did not have to present both sides of a political issue. Rush Limbaugh started a nationally syndicated AM radio talk show and used to complain that public radio and TV stations were funded by taxpayer money.”

Abel argued, “I always thought public radio tried to be objective in its presentation.”

Cain laughed. “Objective is a matter of political perspective, I suppose. Rush was the angry white guy protesting the liberal policies passed during the sixties and seventies. He got a lot of mileage out of anger and protest. In a sense, he’s the spiritual father of Donald Trump.”

Abel looked surprised. “You keep using the word ‘was.’ Did he die or is he off the air?”

Cain replied, “He died a month after the January 6th protests. His audience hated Democratic policies and liked conspiracies, so he promoted them. He questioned Obama’s birth as an American citizen. He promoted Trump’s election conspiracies. He made a lot of money and won a lot of converts to the Republican Party (Source).

Abel waited as their server laid the plates of food on the table. “So that was Rush. Kind of a shock jock for the conservative media. I take it he wasn’t alone.”

Cain asked, “You ever listen to AM talk radio?”

Abel shook his head. “Not in a long time. Sometimes when I’m on the road, that’s the only thing on the radio. Bible preachers and such. Too many commercials.”

Cain shrugged. “Well, there  you go. Lefties like NPR get funded by taxpayer dollars. Righties have to sell advertising. Is that fair?”

Abel smirked. “Like I said, NPR seems fairly neutral to me, like the news is supposed to be.”

Cain asked, “You think so? The attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi just before the 2012 election. How much coverage did NPR and the mainstream media give that? Conservative media gave it a lot of air time (Source). A House Intelligence Report found that there were a number of administrative failures to recognize the risks and provide resources to protect embassy personnel (Source).”

Abel argued, “But there was no intentional coverup by Clinton, Obama or Susan Rice. I mean this was mostly a partisan political attack on a Democratic administration. It wasn’t objective news reporting. It was a smear job by Fox News and other conservative media.”

Cain argued, “Look, everyone’s trying to direct the narrative. That includes the political parties, the media, think tanks, you name it. When a media channel like NPR says they are objective, they are helping to direct the narrative. When NPR claims to be objective or neutral, they want to raise doubts about the reputation of another outlet. Of course, the other outlet does the same.”

Abel argued, “Oh, come on. This all started with alternative media outlets like Fox News disparaging mainstream news channels like NBC, ABC, CBS and PBS. They were the new guy in town who criticized the established players.”

Cain shook his head, “The major players were an oligopoly created by lawmakers. It wasn’t until the early 1960s that Congress mandated that manufacturers of TV sets include a receiver capable of receiving UHF signals (Source). Until then, people could only get the ‘Big Three’ on their TV sets in most markets. It was a public private partnership in which the government controlled access to news. Sure, Fox News had to distinguish themselves to compete with that oligopoly.”

Abel asked, “Ok, so when did Fox News start?”

Cain replied, “About the same time as Rush Limbaugh. Mid to late 1980s or so.”

Abel said, “So that’s the birth of conservative media. When Reagan ended the fairness doctrine.”

Cain shrugged. “Well, the networks were glad to see it end. They had trouble following the policy. Broadcasters were supposed to present a balanced view on controversial subject. Advocacy groups claimed that they were not given enough time, blah, blah, blah.”

Abel asked, “How did the fairness doctrine ever survive a First Amendment challenge?”

Cain smiled. “In 1969, the Supreme Court decided that the broadcast spectrum was a limited resource and the free speech rights of listeners were more important than the rights of broadcasters (Source). It was a unanimous decision too. It’s kind of ironic that the decision came down in the same year that Nixon hid a lot of information from the press and public as he prepared to invade Cambodia (Source).

Abel put his coffee cup down. “I just see this rescission bill as part of a broader attempt to undo all the compassionate reforms of the past decades.”

Cain smiled. “You mean liberal reforms, right?”

Abel argued, “They were liberal and compassionate. Why take away funding for global health initiatives?”

Cain replied, “Trump wanted to loosen pandemic restrictions a few weeks after his own administration initiated them in March 2020. He claimed that the pandemic was over and he didn’t like some of the criticisms from international health organizations, including the CDC. He halted funding the WHO (Source).”

Abel sighed, “And Trump is like the elephant that never forgets. I just think he’s coming after every other program that he thinks are Democratic policies. Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, whatever. He has little if any compassion for people.”

Cain nodded. “In this second term, he’s surrounded himself with people who believe that Democrats have controlled the narrative for too long. They believe they are taking back the country, so to speak.”

Abel smirked. “When Republicans enact legislation, they claim it is a public mandate. When Democrats pass legislation, Republicans claim that these are party priorities rather than the will of the people. You can’t have it both ways.”  

Cain argued, “You’re missing the point. We talked about this last week. Yes, the Democrats had public support when they passed all that legislation. But the entitlement programs they passed were designed to enact Democratic priorities even when the party no longer had public support. This is not how a democracy works. The Democrats constructed a legislative monarchy, and a core group of Republicans have wanted to overthrow that monarchy for decades.”

Abel shook his head. “Come on, gimme a break. Republicans were the driving force of some of the Great Society legislation. Less than 10% of Democratic Congressional members in the southern states voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964 (Source). An equal number of Democrats and Republican House members voted for the Fair Housing Act in 1968 (Source).”

Cain replied, “Ok, I’ll give you that. Most of the southern Democrats were a bunch of racists.”

Abel nodded. “Yeah, that’s the legacy of the civil war we’ve talked about. Anyway, Democrats had a big majority when they passed Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. But the Democrats had overwhelming support for these programs. In sixty years, the elderly population had grown from three million to almost eighteen million and many were unable to get proper health care (Source). The yes votes on that legislation represented three-quarters of the country’s population (Source). In the House, half of Republicans voted for the bill (Source). That’s a convincing mandate. Compare that mandate with the recent passage of the Big Bogus Bill.”

Cain argued, “Let me go back to the southern states. The no votes on civil rights legislation came from the deep south, the former confederate states. My point is that the Civil War was not over in the 1960s and it is not over now. After the 1960s, the Republicans adopted a Southern Strategy to appeal to that opposition and today they control both chambers in most of those states (Source). Since the founding, this has been a divided country. The Jeffersonian view of decentralized power versus the Hamiltonian view of a strong central government. The Civil War unified the country’s political and legal structure, but not its sentiments or allegiances.”

Abel asked, “So this version of the Republican Party headed by Donald Trump is going to try and undo all the social programs of the past sixty years? Is that the goal? To eradicate compassion?”

Cain replied, “Does that legislation really care about people? No. In the case of Medicare, it takes from the young and gives to the old. In the case of Medicaid, it takes from families with private insurance in the form of higher premiums and gives to families who don’t have private insurance. That’s not caring. It’s a political strategy. You want caring? Set up a charity to fund Medicaid. Maybe offer a tax break. Help out your neighbor kind of thing.”

Abel smirked. “That’s not practical. Medicaid’s budget is a trillion dollars. I don’t think that a charity would attract enough funding.”

Cain agreed. “You may be right. But it will demonstrate whether people do care about their less fortunate neighbors.”

Abel argued, “If people did care enough, we wouldn’t need these programs in the first place. After the tax cut legislation in 2017, charitable giving declined by a third, according to the Tax Policy Center (Source). The truth is that people are more inclined to buy something for their own family than some family they don’t know.”

Cain shrugged. “See, that’s the heart of the debate. It’s Democrats who have a cynical attitude toward the human spirit. They believe that people are selfish, mean and nasty at heart so government needs to force people to be charitable.”

Abel rolled his eyes. “It’s not a cynical attitude toward the human spirit, as you called it. Geez, when we live in densely populated areas, most people that we encounter in a day are strangers. Yes, it’s harder to feel the same compassion for a stranger as it is a family member or strong acquaintance. Your favorite author, Adam Smith, made that point. Democrats recognize that government is a coordinating mechanism. It facilitates the general welfare by shifting resources within a dense group of people who are strangers.”

Cain sighed. “Now we are coming back to this eternal disagreement on the distinction between the common welfare and the general welfare. Look, I have no problems with New York City acting as a government charity. I object to the federal government doing that.”

Abel argued, “I know we’ve talked about this general welfare thing before but I noticed that the first lines of the Constitution mention the ‘common defense’ and ‘general welfare.’ You always argue that the founders meant the common welfare, matters that were common to all the states. But the founders didn’t use the word ‘common’ next to welfare. They wrote ‘general.’ Clearly, they meant a welfare that was more expansive than what you and other libertarians think it should be.”

Cain nodded. “Maybe. They might have regarded the two words as synonyms.”

Abel shook his head. “No, we know that they argued about it. Madison thought that the general welfare clause was antithetical to the clearly defined responsibilities specified in Article 1, Section 8.”

Cain argued, “That’s my point. Governments can do no more than take from some and give to others. The states were adamant that they be treated equally when the Constitution was written. That’s why they compromised on the two different forms of representation in the House and Senate. Under these Democratic social programs, the states are not treated equally. The federal government takes a lot from the wealthier states and gives it to the poor states. That is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.”

Abel replied, “Look, programs of compassion need a central administration. Otherwise people will more likely move to states with better social programs. Let’s say that New York offered universal health care and New Jersey didn’t. A lot of people might move to New York when they had serious health problems and it would overwhelm the system. Health care needs to be a federal program.”

Cain shook his head. “All these big social programs give too much power to the federal government. For that reason alone, they have to be dismantled no matter how much good they do.”

Abel sighed as he laid his napkin on the table. “I don’t understand this obsession you have with central power. In a dynamic society like ours with a growing population there needs to be a large coordinating agency like the federal government.”

Cain argued, “The reason why we have a dynamic economy is because there is no central coordinating agency. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the slow growth of European countries demonstrates that central planning does not work.”

Abel slid out of his seat. “We keep getting stuck on this point, I think. I’ve got to get going.”

Cain looked up at Abel. “Like I said before, the argument between centralized and distributed power and responsibility has been going on since the founding.”

Abel nodded. “Maybe something to discuss next week. I’ll see you then.”

/////////////////

Image by ChatGPT

Politics and Principles

Leave a comment

July 13, 2025

by Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys as they discuss world events and persistent problems. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Abel sat back in his seat as the busser poured some coffee. “I wonder how much Trump’s tariffs on Brazil will raise coffee prices.”

Cain waited a moment until the busser left. “I wish Senate Republicans would challenge him on that. I mean, we export more to Brazil than we import. Congress just cowers in the corner while Trump engages in all these petty political vendettas.”

As soon as the busser left, the waitress arrived to take their orders. Abel tucked his table napkin into his belt. “A few weeks ago, we were talking about inequality before and after taxes. Last week, Paul Krugman wrote about the growing inequality since  the 1980s. He mentioned a paper where the authors recommended a 73% top marginal income tax rate, more like the rates this country had in the period after World War 2 (Source). There was more equality, and we paid down the war debt.”

Cain tilted his head slightly. “An accountant will tell you that it’s the effective tax rate that counts more than the marginal rate. That’s the bottom line. So, in the 1950s and 1960s, there were high marginal tax rates, but the rich had so many tax write-offs available to them that it reduced their effective tax rate to about 30 – 35% (Source).”

Abel argued, “Well, that’s still higher than the current effective rate, about 25% (Source). I mean, back in 1980, the top 1% got about 10% of all the income in the country. Now, they get like 20% (Source, Slide 11).”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “And how much has their share of taxes gone up? The Tax Foundation analyzed income tax data from the IRS for 2022. The top 1% had 22% of adjusted gross income but paid 40% of income taxes. The bottom 50% had 10% of the income but paid only 3% of the tax (Source). So, the top half are paying almost all of the income tax burden but liberals like AOC and Bernie Sanders don’t think they are paying their ‘fair share.’”

Abel argued, “Well, the earned income tax is a refund of taxes to those families in the bottom 10%. That distorts the figure for the lower half of incomes. I’ll bet if the earned income tax credit were excluded the bottom half pay a lot more than 3%.”

Cain shook his head. “The credit is about 2% of income taxes collected (Source). That will make only a slight difference in the percentages. The fact remains that the top half are carrying all of the burden already. And another thing. The federal government collected 20% of GDP in 2022. That’s already more than 10% above the long-term average. The government is already taking a big chunk of taxpayer money and still running up big deficits. The problem is spending, not taxes.”

Abel rolled his eyes. “The problem is inequality. Higher taxes help tackle that problem.”

Cain shook his head. “Economic growth and higher productivity helps tackle the problem. Hey, change of subject. I wanted to ask you about the abortion decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court a few weeks ago. Did you have a chance to dig into that?”

Abel looked into the distance as he tried to recall. “Oh, yeah. That state’s Supreme Court held that an 1849 law banning abortion had been implicitly repealed by subsequent laws. I had never heard of ‘implied repeal’ of a law. It’s when a legislature doesn’t expressly repeal a law but passes a number of laws afterward that can only be valid if the first law is assumed to be void. Therefore, an implicit repeal.”

Cain smirked. “Declaring a law void seems to me like the judiciary was overstepping its bounds.”

Abel nodded. “It was a 4-3 decision and boy, the dissent from the conservative minority made that point very passionately. The majority used a 1941 decision from that same court and, wait, I’ve got it here. Back in 1941, the court said that it had a duty to treat conflicts in separate laws as though both were operative, ‘if possible.’ Note the ‘if possible’ part. So that court stressed that implied repeals should only be recognized, another quote, ‘when the intent of the legislature clearly appears’ (Source).”

Cain sighed. “Let me guess. The conservatives didn’t think that the subsequent laws demonstrated the clear intent of the legislature.”

Abel shrugged. “Right. Those subsequent laws were passed after Roe v Wade. So, of course, the legislature treated the 1849 law as moot because the Roe decision said those abortion laws were unconstitutional. Would those laws have been passed if the Roe decision had not been handed down? Like so many things in this life, it’s not so clear.”

Cain frowned. “The Roe decision sparked a resistance movement among conservatives. A decade later, John Leo founded the Federalist Society (Source). To the conservative justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe basically invalidated, or lessened the significance of those laws passed after Roe.”

Abel said, “The majority quoted a Pro Publica article that sepsis cases were up 50% since Texas outlawed abortion after Dobbs. Maternal deaths were up by a third (Source). So the majority was also considering the consequences of their decision. A few weeks ago, I was talking about Justice Breyer’s book Reading the Constitution. He wrote about the struggle in judicial interpretation. Rules or values. Breyer chose values. Conservatives prefer rules. Breyer would consider whether the consequences of a decision undermined the values a law protected. Conservatives preferred rules with less regard for consequences. Breyer and Scalia would often debate in public on these types of interpretation.”

Cain smirked. “In last year’s presidential immunity cases, the conservatives were all about consequences. In oral arguments, Gorsuch said he was looking past the actions of Trump because the court was writing ‘a rule for the ages’ (Source). What pomposity. Like they were handing down the Ten Commandments.”

Abel rolled his eyes. “Yes, but only conservative decisions are rules for the ages. Apparently not the Roe or Casey decisions that validated a right to have an abortion. Not guns laws or campaign finance laws. These conservative justices demonstrate such a lack of consistency and clarity in their decisions. Anyway, I wanted to get your feedback on the Big Bogus Bill, as you call it.”

 Cain replied, “Well, I hate this kind of legislation no matter which party pushes it through. Reconciliation bills are a grab bag of legislative candy. Who invented the reconciliation process? Democrats, of course. My biggest objection is that the bill increases the deficit when the economy is good.”

Abel interrupted, “The federal debt gets larger every year, the rich buy that debt, and the federal government pays those rich people interest on the money it didn’t tax them. It’s a reverse tax, like an unearned income tax credit for rich people.”

Cain smiled. “That’s one way of looking at it. But remember that, when Trump left office in 2020, the interest on the debt was 15 cents for every dollar the federal government collected. When Biden left in 2024, it was 22 cents of every dollar (Source).”

Abel argued, “Well, the interest on the debt was relatively a lot worse under Reagan, Bush and most of Clinton’s term. What’s happened since then? Twenty years ago, Republicans started giving away tax cuts to rich people.”

Cain replied, “Whoa, there, pardner. All the entitlement programs that liberals passed have been the main contributor to the debt, if you ask me. We talked about this last week. Medicaid spending is up to a trillion by now. That’s more than 3% of the country’s GDP. In 1990, we spent five times as much on defense as on Medicaid. Now they are almost equal (Source). This country needs to have a conversation about our priorities.”

Abel sighed. “Health care is an implied right. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not possible without health care.”

Cain argued, “Defense is an explicit right. The founders stated that in the first sentence of the Constitution (Source).”

Abel interrupted, “And the general welfare was in that same sentence. Health care is a key component of the general welfare.”

Cain shook his head. “They meant the common welfare, the welfare common to everyone.”

Abel showed exasperation. “We argued about this last week and how many times before that? What does ‘general welfare’ mean? So, didn’t you like about the bill?”

Cain replied, “I thought it was dumb that they are cutting back on incentives for wind and solar energy. I’m an ‘all of the above’ guy when it comes to energy. So is Texas, a red state.”

Abel rolled his eyes. “The White House says that they are reducing energy costs by expanding fossil fuel production (Source).”

Cain smirked. “Fine, but why hobble wind and solar production? It’s stupid. It’s just vindictive politics. I’m sick of this childish shit from people who are supposed to be the leaders of this country. This is the kind of stuff kids in middle school do.”

Abel replied, “Seniors get an extra tax break. An older couple can deduct almost $48,000 (Source). According to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, 14% of seniors were poor, so this might help reduce that. Help them pay for medical expenses (Source).”

Cain shook his head. “I liked the simpler deduction in the 2017 so I’m glad they kept that. The extra deduction for seniors won’t help poorer seniors much. This deduction basically eliminates income taxes for seniors in the bottom 50% who barely pay income taxes as it is (Source). Poor seniors won’t get a refund if their taxable income is negative. It’s seniors in the top half who will benefit most from the extra deduction. This government already gives plenty to seniors. Too much, if you ask me.”

Abel asked, “Did you see anything you liked?”

Cain replied, “I like the ability to fully expense short-term capital investment. Better allowances for depreciation which is pretty high in tech industries. The Tax Foundation has an article and video explaining some of the good, bad and ugly in the bill (Source).”

Abel asked, “What about the work requirement? Like half the people who are aged 50-64 and on Medicaid are disabled (Source). Ok, maybe some can work. Can they work 20 hours a week to stay on the program? Who knows?”

Cain nodded. “I liked the discipline of it, but they went overboard. Do the states have the resources to monitor all these requirements? No. Does the law give the states some flexibility or specific funding to carry out the law? No. This is another one of those unfunded federal mandates. It’s sad to see Republicans using the Democrats’ playbook.”

Abel said, “I wish Murkowski had not buckled to pressure and just voted no on that bill. She said she didn’t like the bill but hoped that the House would change some provisions. What kind of spineless response is that? The Tax Foundation estimated that continuing these tax cuts will add $4.5 trillion to the debt over a ten-year window (Source). A bunch of old people in Congress passing laws that benefit the rich and the old, then sticking our kids with the bill.”

Cain smiled as he glanced at his watch. “That reminds me. I can’t remember whose turn it is. I got to go help my daughter with something.”

Abel replied, “Yours. Hey, I hear people like the new Superman movie. A story about someone who acts on principle rather than political expediency.”

Cain laughed as he slid out of his seat. “Most of us try to live up to our principles. Yet we have leaders who pay more attention to political expediency than principles.”

Abel looked up at Cain. “The saying goes, ‘you can’t govern if you don’t win.’ Unfortunately, our political system and news cycle focuses on the contest, the winning, rather than the principles.”

Cain nodded as he turned to leave. “Hmmm, something to think about. I’ll see you next week.”

//////////////

Image by ChatGPT

A Divided Country

Leave a comment

July 6, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Happy 4th to everyone. Despite the holiday weekend, the boys squeeze in a Sunday morning breakfast. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Cain settled into his seat as the busser set two glasses of water on the table. “We need another system of government.”

Abel gave him a questioning look. “They haven’t even brought the coffee yet, and you are rewriting the Constitution? I need to fasten my seat belt for this discussion.”

Cain laughed. “I’m disgusted with the corruption that is embedded in Senate rules. This monstrosity of a bill, what I call the ‘Big Bogus Bill.’ Senate Republicans bought Senator Murkowski’s vote, the critical vote, by exempting Alaska from some of the provisions in the bill (Source).”

Abel smiled. “This is the party you voted for. There are only  a few, like Rand Paul, Murkowski and Collins in Maine that are independent. The rest are automatons playing follow the leader. They are supposed to represent the interests of the people in their state, not the interests of their party leaders.”

Cain frowned. “Democratic leaders did the same thing in 2010 as they tried to get the Obamacare bill across the finish line.”

Abel interrupted, “That’s what this whole thing is about. Trump and the Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare in Trump’s first term. The House tried like fifty times. The repeal got so close, then John McCain gave his own party the thumbs down in the Senate vote on the repeal (Source). Now  Trump and the MAGA crowd are determined to undo as much of the ACA as they can.”

Cain frowned. “It’s a long standing grievance. Republicans have never had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate since the 17th Amendment instituted popular voting for Senate seats.”

Abel interrupted, “Well, it needed reform. Having the state legislatures elect their senators invited too much corruption. Senators were basically buying their seats.”

Cain nodded. “Good point. But it also allowed the states to check a President. I think we have lost that. We saw it this week when Trump threatened to primary Senator Tillis from North Carolina if he didn’t vote for the bill.”

Abel replied, “And Tillis told him to take a hike, basically. He said he wasn’t going to run again anyway. He’s disgusted by his own party acting like the President’s obedient pets. Trump was born with a silver spoon and yet he wants to take Medicaid away from a lot of people, including those in North Carolina. Tillis works for the people of North Carolina, not the spoiled brat in the White House.”

Cain sighed. “Too many wealthy people in the halls of power if you ask me. What was I, oh yeah, the filibuster. Every time that the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority, they pass a huge intergenerational social program that is not subject to the regular appropriations process. When people vote Republicans into power, Republicans have one hand tied. That’s not fair to the people who voted them into power. It’s like playing a game and the other player gets to make all the important rules.”

Abel argued, “Republicans have fought every one of those programs all the way up to the Supreme Court and lost every time.”

Cain nodded. “Republicans are still angry that John Roberts, the Chief Justice, voted with the liberals that the ACA was constitutional. A few months later, Obama defeated Romney, one of the old guard in the Republican Party. A few years later, Donald Trump appeared as the avenging angel (Source). He took on primary candidates from every faction of the party and won.”

Abel looked skyward. “Come on, this is not a Die Hard movie.”

Cain laughed. “That’s where you’re wrong. To some voters, Trump was like the tip of the spear, the leader of a resistance movement against big government.”

Abel frowned. “An agent of chaos who will destroy the Republican Party and the conservative values it has stood for. Is helping people that bad to so many Republicans?”

Cain smirked. “Democrats design programs that are not effective at helping the poor. We talked about that last week. The data supports my claim. These programs cost far more than the projected costs and the Democrats want to raise taxes on successful people to mask Democrat incompetence.”

Abel chuckled. “Yeah, right. Republicans promised that the Iraq war would pay for itself.”

Cain interrupted, “They expected that the revenue from more efficient oil production would defray a lot of costs, but they never promised that the war would pay for itself (Source).”

Abel replied, “Ok, you want to torture this like a lawyer? A lot of the American public was led to believe that the costs would be far less. How’s that?”

Cain argued, “Goes to prove my point. Policymakers and politicians have difficulty making projections. The Iraq war cost more than anticipated. That’s the nature of war. The war lasted like eight years. Look at the schemes the Democrats cook up. The programs have an infinite time horizon, so it’s impossible to project future costs with any accuracy. Democrats passed Medicare in 1965. Their leaders in the House Ways and Means Committee projected that the program would cost $9 billion a year by 1990. The actual cost was $67 billion (Source). So, either they were incompetent or lying. I suspect it was both.”

Abel asked, “So, what would you do? Cancel Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs? While you are at it, why don’t you cancel the income tax amendment?”

Cain sighed. “Obviously, it’s not practical, but it’s not right that one party has dominated spending priorities for so many decades. It’s been sixty years since Medicare began. A lot of seniors think that payroll taxes and Medicare premiums pay for their care, but that’s not the case. Over a third of the costs are paid for by taxpayers out of general tax revenues. In 2023, that was $360 billion.”

Abel argued, “Those costs skyrocketed after the Republicans added Medicare Advantage and Prescription benefits to the program. Those two parts, Part C and D, cost more than half of Medicare spending. And why were those added? To help Bush win re-election in 2004. So I don’t want to listen to Republican sob stories about Democratic social programs. These programs mostly help people in red states who are older and poorer.”

Cain argued, “Look, you talk about Trump destroying the Republican Party? It was Bush and the old guard Republicans like Cheney who destroyed the party. They started acting like Democrats, passing legislation to get votes.”

Abel smirked. “Did it ever occur to you that it might actually be about helping people?”

Cain nodded. “Yes, it occurred to me. This is a country of many countries, too diverse for some one-size-fits-all program designed in Washington. The Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for the general welfare, not particular benefits given out to some individuals and not others. Only those programs, like national defense, the courts and the Post Office, which benefit everyone.”

Abel replied, “There’s always been a disagreement about what the general welfare clause in the Constitution means. In 1937, the Supreme Court noted as much when they found that the Social Security Act was constitutional. The court did not think it was their place to overrule the reasonable judgment of the legislature (Source). That is a prominent feature of the current court’s conservative majority. That the court should stay within its bounds.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, I’ll grant you that last point.. However, there are many of us who disagree with that broad interpretation of the general welfare clause. The fact that ‘common Defense’ and ‘general welfare’ are linked together in the same phrase is evidence that a narrow interpretation is appropriate.”

Abel asked, “Do you think this 6-3 conservative majority will overturn precedent and find the Social Security Act unconstitutional? They already overturned centuries of gun law with the Heller decision. They overturned decades of campaign finance law with the Citizens United decision. They overturned decades of abortion law with the Dobbs decision. I mean, why not go after Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?”

Cain replied, “I think they would be mindful of both precedent and the consequences.”

Abel argued, “They didn’t care about the consequences in the Dobbs case with abortion. They didn’t care about the consequences of giving blanket immunity to Trump in last year’s decision (Source). The conservative justices are like politicians in any majority. It’s hard to see past their own principles and prejudices. In the Dred Scott decision that provoked the Civil War, Chief Justice Taney adopted a narrow originalist interpretation of the words ‘citizen’ and ‘territory’ in the Constitution. That led him to conclude that Negroes could not be citizens and that Congress had no authority to make laws for the Missouri Territory (Source).”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “Oh, I forgot that. He declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.”

Abel asked, “Grade school test. When was the Missouri Compromise?”

Cain laughed as he raised his hand. “1820.”

Abel smiled. “Very good! You get a gold star.”

Cain sighed. “So much memorization back in those days.”

Abel replied, “Before we had librarians in our pockets. Anyway, the Missouri Compromise avoided secession and civil war in 1820. So, it should have been a good guess that voiding that compromise would aggravate tensions and lead to civil war, but Taney didn’t see it. He thought the court had resolved the issue once and for all. That’s my point. The logical application of our principles can lead us to disregard the consequences of our thinking. I’m afraid this court will follow a path of reasoning that will tear this nation apart, just like Taney did with the Dred Scott decision.”

Cain stared into his coffee cup, then looked at Abel. “That’s dark. You know, I wanted to get your feedback on the abortion ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court this week, but I promised my daughter I would join them on a picnic at the lake.”

Abel nodded. “And the Big, Beautiful Bill that passed this week.”

Cain smiled. “I’m still working through that bloated bill, but I thought it was clever the way Republicans had structured the bill so that the tax cuts happen in 2025 and 2026. The benefit cuts happen after the midterm election next year.”

Abel shook his head. “There are about 79 million people on Medicaid (Source). The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cause 12 million to lose their coverage (Source).”

Cain argued, “Yeah, but Medicaid enrollment already dropped 12 million after the expiration of the pandemic entitlements (Source). The world didn’t come to an end. So let’s say that Medicaid enrollment falls to 67 million. That’s still 20% above the levels of 2013 just before Obamacare kicked in (Source).”

Abel sighed. “It seems like so little gain for all the political upheaval it has caused.”

Cain shrugged. “Democrats probably could have accomplished that with small tweaks to the system. But no. As always, they wanted to completely rewrite policy in this country.”

Abel frowned. “So the tax goodies happen right away? People are going to be doing their 2025 taxes next spring and will see all these goodies. Manipulating public opinion just before the primaries start (Source).”

Cain slid out of his seat. “That’s politics. By stalling the benefit cuts, they avoid any repercussions before the election.”

Abel shook his head. “Seems so corrupt.”

Cain nodded as he turned to go. “It’s a game of power. That’s a big flaw in democratic systems. I still think we should have government by small tribunals.”

Abel laughed. “That’s basically how the Constitution was written. Anyway, see you next week. I think it’s my turn to pick up the check.”

///////////////////

Image by ChatGPT