Author: sgstofka

A Clearer Vision?

Leave a comment

August 31, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain discuss several  political theories as they try to make sense of current events. 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 said, “I was reading this week that there are now more GenXers than Boomers in the House. The Boomers still control the Senate by a good margin, though (Source).”

Cain poured a bit of syrup on his French toast. “Next year, the first Boomers are going to turn 80. I mean, don’t they have anything else to do? Are they all going to die in their seats like Diane Feinstein?”

Abel shrugged. “I think they get into politics because they want to make a difference and they get addicted to that sense of importance. The office comes to define them. They can’t let go.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, I can understand that, but why do voters keep putting them back in office? Feinstein served about thirty years. Most states have term limits for governors (Source). We have term limits for the President, but none for the House and Senate? Come on, we need a better system.”

Abel replied, “Congress rewards seniority. The oldest members get key assignments. They chair legislative committees that control what legislation gets to the floor of either chamber. Let’s say someone challenges a sitting Senator who chairs the committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Right now, that’s Mike Lee from Utah, a Republican. Through him Utah voters can steer policy. If the challenger wins, he doesn’t get to chair the committee. Utah voters lose that power. Why would they want that?”

Cain stabbed at his French toast. “The problem with that system is that it allows special interests to ‘capture’ a Senator or House member. What do they call it? An Iron Triangle. Special interests, key committee members and some executive agency all work together to steer policy to the benefit of the special interests (Source). For example, ranchers band together as a group to lobby for below market grazing fees for their cattle.”

Abel smirked. “What are you going to do? Stop people from being people? Sure, Senators and House members are supposed to represent a broad constituency but there are a lot of interests within that constituency. Interest groups have to compete with each other for representation. That’s just politics.”

Cain replied, “There’s a guy called David Pinsof who developed what he calls Alliance Theory. Political beliefs are not based on principles or moral maxims but are simply arguments that a coalition uses to cement alliances. His theory helps explain a lot of contradictions.”

Abel asked, “Like what?”

Cain looked up at the ceiling as he searched his memory. “Conservatives say they respect authority but they can disregard authority if they think a regulation is unfair (Source). They champion the free market but actively lobby for subsidies.”

Abel laughed. “Subsidies are in the best interest of their stockholders. Regulations are not.”

Cain smiled. “Exactly. Another example Pinsof gave was a distrust of foreigners but conservatives should trust Putin when he said that he did not interfere in the 2016 election.”

Abel laughed, asking, “Any contradictions on the liberal side?”

Cain thought a second. “Oh, yeah, here’s one. CEOs should not make so much more than their workers but it’s OK for stars in Hollywood to make way more than most working actors. What else? Liberals criticize those who stereotype Mexican immigrants as criminals but hold onto the stereotype that a lot of voters in southern states are racist.”

Abel nodded. “Like I said, it’s what people do. So what’s Pinsof’s theory?”

Cain replied, “Don’t waste time trying to find inconsistencies in political arguments. It’s just spin. The opposition points out those inconsistencies as a way of signaling to their own coalition. No one expects that the other side will change their mind when someone points out a contradiction in their argument.”

Abel frowned. “Trump instinctively knows that its all about alliances. That’s why he will say anything, do anything. He asks, ‘does it strengthen my alliances and weaken those on the other side of the political aisle?’ It’s just so, so…”

Cain asked, “Nihilistic? Is that the word you looking for? Cynical, transactional?”

Abel replied, “Yeah, nihilistic, unanchored to any moral principles.”

Cain nodded. “It’s the morality of me, me, me. I think Pinsof borrows some elements from Skepticism as well as Pragmatism, a philosophy that understands ideas by looking at the effect of those ideas in the world (Source).”

Abel interrupted, “Reminds me of Milton Friedman’s paper saying that an economic model was valid if it made good predictions, not whether it was realistic or consistent (Source).”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “Talking about economics, Trump said that he had fired Lisa Cook, one of the Fed governors.”

Abel frowned. “Yeah, he’s attacking the independence of the central bank. When I read that, I thought, ‘How much has the stock market gone down on that news?’ I glanced at the SP500 index. Nothing. No reaction. What the heck?”

Cain shook his head. “Hard to figure. Traders are betting that there will be a standoff. Trump is pushing. Cook and her lawyer are pushing back.”

Abel asked, “Yeah, but I read that she is off the job for now. The Fed meets again in mid-September to decide interest rates. Has Powell said anything about Cook’s firing?”

Cain replied, “I don’t think so. Anyone that Trump wants to put in her place will need to be approved by the Senate.”

Abel asked, “Has the Supreme Court said anything?”

Cain said, “Cook’s lawyers would need to file something with a district court. If the judge rules against Trump, the lawyers with the Department of Justice would need to file an emergency application with the Supreme Court asking for immediate relief. It’s called the Shadow Docket (Source).”

Abel shook his head. “I think of Trump in control of interest rates. Tariffs are already driving up prices. He said he wants interest rates to be like three percent less. Such a huge drop in rates would increase inflation, a tax on everyone. This guy’s got more ways to tax ordinary people while giving the rich big tax breaks.”

Cain sighed. “Well, the key interest rate, it’s called the Federal Funds Effective Rate, is set by a committee called the FOMC. They have 12 members. There are seven Fed governors, the president of the New York Fed bank, and a rotating panel of four presidents from the regional Fed banks. Even if the Supreme Court said that Trump could fire one of the Fed governors, he can’t fire any of the presidents of the regional banks because they are employees of their banks, not the Federal government (Source).”

Abel asked, “So let’s say Trump gets five governors to do his bidding. You’re saying there are still seven governors who could vote against policies Trump wants.”

Cain nodded. “One of those governors is the Chair, Jerome Powell. Earlier this year, the Court indicated that Trump could not fire the Chair (Source).”

Abel frowned. “Trump pushes boundaries. That’s his brand.”

Cain shook his head. “Trump wants what he wants. He doesn’t recognize the validity of boundaries. That’s his brand.”

Abel sighed. “He is going to provoke a final crisis. I was re-reading Generations by William Strauss and Neil Howe. They wrote that book back in 1991 and predicted a major crisis during this decade.”

Cain squinted. “Didn’t we talk about this a few weeks ago?”

Abel nodded. “Oh yeah. I think I was talking about their second book, The Fourth Turning. This first book goes into the history of the generational cycle. They trace the pattern in America starting in the 17th century.”

Cain interrupted, “I’m skeptical about these grand cyclic theories. There are some stock traders who claim that the stock market works on Fibonacci cycles (Source).”

Abel argued, “Like Friedman said, does the theory make good predictions? If not, it’s not a good theory. Strauss and Howe predicted an inciting event sometime around 2005 that starts this two decade period called the fourth turning. It shakes the foundations of society before a final breaking point.”

Cain asked, “So, 9-11 or the financial crisis might have been those events? I don’t know. Seems like that would be fitting history to the theory.”

Abel replied, “Let me finish. Strauss and Howe thought the breaking point would come this decade. The last three turning points have been the Great Depression, the Civil War and the founding of the United States.”

Cain replied, “Ok, maybe it’s not just fitting data to a theory. A few weeks ago, we talked about legal turning points. I think I mentioned Richard Epstein’s book The Classical Liberal Constitution. He wrote about those turning points in Constitutional interpretation, or jurisprudence, I guess you could call it. Under the Fourteenth Amendment the Bill of Rights protections now applied to the states as well as the federal government.”

Abel interrupted, “Fat good it did down in the south. Jim Crow laws persecuted blacks.”

Cain sighed. “Yeah, these Constitutional protections don’t enforce themselves.”

Abel argued, “It was a failure of the Supreme Court, I think.”

Cain nodded. “Anyway, then there as a turning point Supreme Court decision in 1937 that set a precedent for big government. Helvering v. Davis upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act under the General Welfare clause of the Constitution (Source). A major expansion of the power and scope of the federal government.”

Abel said, “FDR was threatening to ‘pack’ the court. Increase the number of justices and put his own people in there.”

Cain agreed. “Yeah, FDR was a strongman, just like Trump. Unlike Trump, FDR had a clear electoral mandate from the 1936 election. He whupped the Republican candidate, taking all but a few votes in the electoral college (Source). He had a supermajority in the Senate so he would have been able to get his nominees for the court confirmed (Source).”

Abel asked, “Wasn’t the court all FDR nominees by the time he died?”

Cain nodded. “Yeah. No one should have that much power.”

Abel interrupted, “Trump is trying to expand his personal power under some Unitary Executive theory. The scary part is that some of the conservatives on the court support that theory (Source).”

Cain shook his head. “Hey, I’m all about checks and balances. This administration is all about consolidating power and I’m against that.  In 1945, F.A. Hayek wrote a landmark essay The Use of Knowledge in Society that explained why central planning would fail. Those in control cannot get or process enough information to make successful decisions (Source).”

Abel smirked. “DOGE is a great example of that. Even with sophisticated computers and data tools, they made a mess of things.”

Cain sighed. “The question is how much damage will Trump do. So, why do these turning points come every eighty years or so? Something to do with the human life span?”

Abel replied, “Strauss and Howe separate out four generations within that life span. Each has different characteristics as they move through their life cycle from youth, to rising adult, to middle age and then the final stage as elders. It’s the combination, the sequence of generations that causes the turning point, I think is what they say. There is an idealist generation that precipitates the crisis. This generation has a historical impact late in life.”

Cain shook his head. “What are some examples? It’s hard to follow.”

Abel nodded. “Lincoln, FDR, and Trump were all part of an idealist generation. Strauss and Howe identify several tendencies within each generation. Idealists think their principles are transcendent and they have unyielding opinions (page 11).”

Cain looked skeptical. “I don’t think of Trump as an idealist.”

Abel argued, “Well, he’s been saying the same crazy things for decades about criminals and immigrants.”

Cain interrupted, “Unyielding opinions? The guy changes his mind from day to day. He exaggerates most of the time and doesn’t care. And yes, don’t say it. I voted for him. It wasn’t my idea to have two old-timers run against each other in the 2020 election or the 2024 election. That’s why I want to change the system. The bosses in both parties are hurting the American people.”

Abel nodded. “Yeah, I agree. Most voters get herded into one of two corrals when they would prefer more alternatives. The whole election process is designed to suit the party bosses and the fundraising effort. It’s not about empowering voters.”

Cain laid his napkin on the table and stood up. “We said earlier that no law enforces itself. Principles of governance don’t just happen. The question is how does a system change without a civil war or an absolute economic catastrophe like the 1930s? It’s not a question I like to think too much about.”

Abel looked up. “See you next week.”

Cain turned. “Till then.”

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

Photo by Josh Calabrese on Unsplash

A New Set of Rules

Leave a comment

August 24, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain explore new election rules for electing representatives in the House. 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 opened the conversation. “Did you hear that the Air Canada flight attendants ended their strike?”

Abel shook his head and he unfolded his napkin. “Didn’t know they were on strike. What for?”

Cain replied, “They wanted to be paid for boarding time.”

Abel frowned. “What, they’re not paid until they step on the airplane?”

Cain laughed. “Not them boarding. The passengers.”

Abel tilted his head slightly. “They’re standing there welcoming passengers as they walk on the plane. They’re not paid for that?”

Cain shook his head. “Apparently not. It’s been an ongoing practice for decades. Airlines did not pay flight attendants until the airplane’s doors were closed. A few years back, Delta was the first to pay for boarding time, then American Airlines and Alaska Airlines started similar policies (Source).”

Abel looked incredulous. “How can it be legal to not pay employees when a company requires them to be there?”

Cain sighed. “It’s not. A company I knew got busted for requiring some employees to be at a construction site to unload deliveries but not paying them until the truck showed up and pulled up to the building ready to unload. On a busy site, a delivery truck might have to wait in line.”

Abel asked, “And the employees just stood there waiting and not getting paid?”

Cain nodded. “A state auditor told me he regularly visited companies who shaved time off an employee’s paycheck like that. It’s illegal. The Department of Labor makes two key distinctions based on a 1944 Supreme Court case (Source). There’s a category called ‘engaged to work’ where the employee is under the control of the employer. ”

Abel interrupted, “Flight attendants waiting on a plane while passengers board means they are under the control of the airline, the employer.”

Cain laughed. “Obviously. There’s also the category of ‘waiting to be engaged.’ That’s where the employee is free to do whatever they want.”

Abel smirked. “Let me guess. Airlines have insisted that the flight doesn’t start until the plane’s door is closed. The airlines have paid flight attendants as though the attendants have been waiting to be engaged.”

Cain sighed. “Probably. These past few weeks, we have been talking about changes to election rules. I thought this story was a good example of how often people and companies don’t play by the rules. In a lot of cases, it’s more cost effective to bend the rules, then have your lawyers negotiate a settlement with a regulating agency. We need a new set of rules that encourage people to follow the rules.”

Abel nodded. “Don’t ask permission. A rule we learned as kids.”

Cain continued, “So let’s say all fifty states change their laws to give voters more representation. How likely is that the major political parties will play by the rules? Not likely.”

Abel finished chewing. “Texas is redrawing their districts in mid-decade to get five more seats in the House. Now California is planning to do the same. It’s a race to the bottom that does not represent the will of the people.”

Cain said, “We were talking about that last week. Drawing congressional districts in a straightforward manner. There’s an economics professor at Harvard, Roland Fryer, who suggested making districts as compact as possible while making allowance for county borders (Source). In 2011, he developed an index that measures how much a state’s districts are gerrymandered (Source). A score of 1 is like a benchmark that means that the state has totally compact districts.”

Abel asked, “What does that mean?”

Cain glanced at this phone. “The boundaries of the district have not been tortured to create an advantage for one party. Here’s Fryer: compactness … measures how much voters’ choices can move the scoreboard.’”

Abel nodded. “Like voters actually make a difference.”

Cain replied, “Yeah, parties are spending a lot of money so they want predictable outcomes. They want to minimize competitive races so they redraw district boundaries to move voters around like they are poker chips. A score of three suggests that the districts have been extremely gerrymandered. There are some states with high scores like Tennessee, Texas, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Fryer has a number of state maps so you can see the difference between an ideal and the actual districting in a state (Source).”

Abel sighed. “Trump says he wants to get rid of mail-in ballots. Claims there is massive fraud. No evidence of that, of course. A few isolated cases but not enough to matter. I love the convenience of mail-in voting.”

Cain shook his head. “Yeah, he’s blowing smoke. For Republicans, the problem is that mail-in ballots make it easier to vote in densely populated areas. In less than a decade, the number of polling places has fallen by more than 50% (Source). There are far fewer places to vote in urban areas and minority neighborhoods, where people usually vote Democratic. Georgia closed ten polling places in districts with large black populations (Source). Why? Most black voters pull the lever for Democrats. It’s a game of power.”

Abel sighed. “Reminds me of Garret Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons. The dominant party in each state has an incentive to gerrymander and to make it more difficult for the other side to gain power. What makes sense to each individual state, though, is bad for what we have in common. It’s eroding the public trust in our political process. If the political process is just a game played by party bosses, that only creates more cynicism and alienation.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, that’s what I want to reverse. But the fact is that voting is like war. A vote for A is a vote against B. Voters on one side are firing bullets at voters on the other side.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “Boy, that’s a bleak analogy. Not exactly the rah-rah democracy we learned in school.”

Cain shrugged. “It’s the reality of the voting process. As General Patton said, winning a war is getting the soldiers on the other side to give up their lives for their country (Source).”

Abel smirked. “Voters are not killing each other.”

Cain laughed. “Voters aren’t, but their votes are. It’s a war of attrition. My vote cancels out your vote. That type of thing. We have a winner-take-all system in this country. Voting is about winning, not representation. Just like war. I want to change that. That guy Fryer said that we should have almost 600 House seats to keep up the growth in population over the past century.”

Abel asked, “Yeah, when were the number of House seats capped at 435? I don’t remember that in the Constitution.”

Cain shook his head. “It’s not there in the Constitution. There’s a minimum of 30,000 voters for a representative but there’s no maximum. Congress couldn’t agree on reapportionment after the 1920 census, then capped the number of House seats in 1929 (Source). Today each House seat represents like 750,000 people. There’s 174 million registered voters so that’s about 400,000 voters per House district (Source).”

Abel asked, “What about Great Britain? How many voters does a seat in the House of Commons represent?”

Cain fished in his shirt pocket and withdrew a small piece of paper. “Yeah, get this. The U.K. has less than a third of registered voters, like 48 million. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons, England’s equivalent to our House (Source). That’s about 75,000 voters per seat, less than a fifth of the constituency size in the U.S. Canada has a little over 80,000 per seat. We need a new set of rules. Voters in this country get poor representation because there are too many people per House seat. If there were 600 House seats, that would lower each constituency to about 300,000 voters. It’s better, but not great.”

Abel said, “Voters would get better representation if we had proportional representation. Make the districts bigger and have multi-member districts where several House members represent the district in proportion to the number of votes they receive. This past January, the New York Times had an article comparing what the House would look like under both a single member system like we have now and a multi-member system (Source). Under a proportional representation system, the House would look at lot more like the voters and their political preferences.”

Cain grunted. “Well, you’d have to overturn a 1970s law that made single member districts mandatory for House elections. For the past thirty years, various members have introduced bills to allow multi-member voting. They’ve gone nowhere (Source).”

Abel argued, “Hey, it’s not an amendment to the Constitution. It’s doable.”

Cain asked, “And you’d need a Constitutional Amendment to change that 30,000 minimum. I mean, what if a Libertarian candidate gets a percentage of the vote that represents only 20,000 people? The Constitution says that person cannot be seated, I think. Heck, I’m not a Constitutional scholar.”

Abel shook his head. “Those votes could be apportioned according to the votes the other candidates received. The states could implement that on their own.”

Cain frowned. “Ok, like ranked choice voting does. I like that but, again, the problem is that all the states would need to implement that strategy.”

Abel sighed. “Yeah, that’s a problem. But let’s look at a purple state like Colorado, which has eight House seats split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. The cities along the Front Range vote Democratic but that vote is split among conservative Democrats, what used to be called Blue Dog Democrats, and then there’s liberals, socialists, communists, whatever. A Liberal Party or Socialist Party candidate cannot win a seat under our current system. That stifles the growth of alternative parties that voters might identify with.”

Cain laughed. “That may be a good thing. There are die-hard Communists on the left and staunch John Birchers on the right.”

Abel pushed back his seat and stood. “Yeah, but there’s the 30,000 minimum population rule in the Constitution. A John Birch candidate that represents less than that would have their votes spread around to the other candidates. The system would encourage alternative parties but not fringe parties.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, I like that. I think both of us are aiming for a multi-party system. Even if two parties dominate, other parties have a voice in governance. Australia, Canada, France and Germany have such systems. We fought a war against the British over representation. The system we have now is disempowering voters, making them less engaged.”

Abel laughed as he turned to leave. “Hey, we agree on something. A date that will go down in history.”

Cain smiled. “See you next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT

A Balance of Power

Leave a comment

August 17, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain continue to explore a different way to elect a president. 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.

After the waitress left with their order, Abel asked, “Remember that idea we were talking about last week? A new way of electing presidents.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, by congressional district. No popular vote, I think I suggested.”

Abel continued, “This week I compared a winner take all state and one that allots its electors by Congressional district.”

Cain showed interest. “Really. It’s something I’ve been meaning to do. Family stuff has kept me busy. So what did you come up with?”

Abel said, “Well, Nebraska votes by district. They call it the Congressional District Method, which they adopted in 1994 (Source). Each congressional elector is required to vote for the presidential candidate who received the most votes in their district. At-large electors representing the senators vote for the candidate that receives the most votes in the state (Source, page 46, 47).”

Cain frowned. “I was looking to eliminate the popular vote for president entirely. If a Republican House Member is elected, then that vote goes to the Republican presidential candidate. If a Republican Senator is elected …”

Abel interrupted, “Senators are elected every six years. A Senator might not be up for election in that year. What do you do then?”

Cain laughed. “Drop back five and punt. I forgot about that. The class system ensures that there is always one senator from each state up for election every four years, but not both senators (Source).”

Abel stared out the window for a moment as their food arrived. “What if that at-large elector voted according to the majority vote of the districts in the state? Like, if Colorado has eight districts and there was a tie, then the senator who was not up for election would become the tie breaker.”

Cain nodded. “I like that. It’s the same role that the Vice-President plays in the Senate, so it’s in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Even better would be a system where the party of the senator who was elected that year determined a tie vote. It would get a lot more voters out to the polls, I think. ”

Abel finished chewing, then asked, “Is that your intent? Get people more engaged in voting?”

Cain replied, “There were two things I was trying to accomplish with this idea. A balance of power between political parties and the people they are supposed to represent. Under the current system, the electoral count distorts the will of the people. For instance, we have a closely divided House, indicating that the will of the people is fairly split. But the electoral count in the 2024 election was 312 to 226 (Source). Sounds like a mandate, doesn’t it? Trump claimed it was a mandate. The guy is a blowhard, but he is not the first presidential winner to claim a mandate based on the electoral count.”

Abel asked, “Are you hoping to restrain politicians? Trump could win by a few electoral votes and he would still claim a mandate. He reports his fantasies about what should be, not any objective reality. He claimed DOGE found $52 billion in savings. An analysis by Politico found that the savings were less than $2 billion (Source).”

Cain shook his head. “I don’t know how much of what Trump says is dementia and how much is braggadocio.”

Abel interrupted. “He opens his mouth and blows thought bubbles like we did as kids with bubble soap and a wand.”

Cain smiled at the thought. “Anyway, the second point of my idea was to give voters more of a sense that they had a voice, give them a greater sense of engagement. Like I said last week, too many voters feel disenfranchised in this winner-take-all system and don’t bother to vote.”

Abel nodded. “That’s what I liked about Nebraska. It’s a red state, but the voters in Omaha vote Democratic and their electoral vote is recorded as such because Nebraska splits its vote.”

Cain frowned. “The Nebraska legislature is talking about ending that system before the next presidential election. Party leaders care only about power, not the will of the people. It’s like Machiavelli said 500 years ago. The majority always wants to persecute the minority. This country was supposed to be different.”

Abel sighed. “The problem is that the U.S. Constitution was written without a thought to political parties. In the House and Senate, party leaders marginalize their rank and file members. Most of them act like ducklings following their mother.”

Cain laughed. “Ducklings? No, they are soldiers following their generals into legislative battle to protect the principles of the American people.”

Abel joined in the laugh. “Get out the flag. Play some patriotic music. Ok, so Kansas is also a red state but they have a winner-take-all system like most states. In 2024, there were only three counties that voted Democrat (Source). Each of those three counties are in different congressional districts and the Democratic vote would not be enough to carry a majority in the district (Source). So, in Kansas, their four district specific electors would have still gone to Republicans.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, but Colorado has eight districts and four districts elected Republican House members. Colorado has winner take all, so those eight electors were pledged to Harris. Why? Because Harris got 54% of the vote in the state (Source). In Kansas, my proposed system would not affect the results. In Colorado, it would have a big effect. Four electors for Trump, four for Harris. Using your idea about the tie breaker, two at-large electoral votes representing the senate seats would have gone to Harris. In the end, Trump would have gotten four votes, Harris six. The point is that the electoral count would reflect the will of the people, not this prejudicial system we have now.”

Abel argued, “Ok, take Colorado. They have already changed their laws to go in the opposite direction. In 2020, they voted to join the National Popular Vote Movement (Source). In other words, Colorado would cast its electoral votes according to the popular vote in the entire country (Source).”

Cain replied, “I think they are going in the wrong direction but that movement shows how much people don’t like the winner-take-all system.”

Abel smirked. “Well, according to Gallup, 58% of people favor a popular vote over the Electoral College (Source). Democrats favor the popular vote. Republicans the Electoral College system.”

Cain asked, “But how many like the winner-take-all system? A bunch of legal scholars wrote a brief presenting a legal challenge to the constitutionality of a winner take all system under the 12th Amendment (Source). Contrary to the spirit of the Twelfth, winner take all disrespects and disregards the will of the people. They noted that, in the 2016 election, almost all of the campaign events occurred in 12 key battleground states. In the 2012 election, almost 100% of TV ads were in a small number of states.”

Abel argued, “And those battleground states want to keep it like that. Lots of advertising revenue every presidential cycle.”

Cain sighed. “Yeah, that too. Anyway, the text of the Twelfth states that the electors should “transmit” the votes of the people (page 24). A winner-take-all system does not do that. The authors made a good case in questioning the constitutionality of these systems.”

Abel argued, “Your idea would eliminate the vote for president and award the vote to the Presidential candidate of that party that won the vote in each congressional district. What if a member of the Communist party won a district and there was no presidential candidate from that party?

Cain replied, “Then the vote would go to the candidate who won the most districts in the state. As we discussed before, ties would be broken as we discussed before.”

Abel sighed. “There’s still a coordination problem. All fifty states would have to change their election laws. Democrats in Colorado wouldn’t want to give up four electors unless the other states enacted a similar scheme.”

Cain frowned. “An amendment to the Constitution is a high bar. We’re back to what we just talked about, a violation of the 12th Amendment. Also, what about the 14th Amendment? I think I brought up that possibility last week.”

Abel said, “A few weeks ago, I had suggested that each party could choose a candidate from each of four regions, then choose a candidate at their nominating convention. I found that there is also a scheme with eight regions (Source). I liked that one. They split the western region into Pacific and Mountain states, which makes more sense.”

Cain nodded as he laid his napkin on the table. “The reason I liked the scheme with four regions is that the electoral votes were more evenly split. Each region had about 130 votes or so. How evenly are votes using the eight region scheme?”

Abel sighed. “Good point. New England, the Great Plains and the Mountain states have far less representation than the other five regions.”

Cain stood up. “The whole idea of the Constitution was a balance of power among political institutions and between those institutions and the will of the people. I think any reforms should incorporate that principle. I like the way we put our heads together on this idea. I got to run and meet my daughter.”

Abel nodded. “Hey, good talk. I’ll see you next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT

A Way Forward

Leave a comment

August 10, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain try to separate facts from evidence and restore trust among the American people. 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 laid his napkin on his lap. “A recent survey by Pew Research found that 80% of people thought that voters in both political parties can’t agree on basic facts (Source). No wonder there is so much distrust in this country. It got me to wondering what is the distinction between facts and evidence?”

Cain stirred his coffee. “Good question. We often treat the two words as synonyms. Evidence supports facts. I think of a fact as something that is verified by evidence.”

Abel interrupted, “Yeah, but eyewitness testimony is evidence and that is often unreliable (Source).”

Cain smiled. “The witness, though, regards their testimony as fact. Raises the question, if evidence is not reliable, how truthful are facts? If I am inclined to accept something as fact, I don’t need much evidence. If I am skeptical, then no amount of evidence is enough to convince me of a fact.”

Abel looked at his phone. “On that point, here’s Dirk Nies, a director of a research institute in Virginia who wrote into the British Medical Journal a few years back. He made an interesting distinction between facts and evidence. He said, ‘Facts have no purpose or agenda associated with them. Evidence always does.’ And further on he says that we select evidence as a subset of available facts (Source).”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “But politics is all about agenda. If you use that distinction, then there are few facts. Everything is just evidence.”

Abel argued, “Well, not really. ‘Donald Trump is president right now.’ That’s a fact with no agenda. It’s just a statement. ‘It’s hotter than average this summer.’ Another fact.”

Cain nodded. “Right, but if I use the fact that it’s hotter than normal to support a claim that climate change is real, then that fact is evidence to support my claim. The distinction between facts and evidence is not so clear. No wonder we use those two words interchangeably.”

Abel sighed. “The worst fear I have is another civil war.”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “You’re that worried? I guess it wouldn’t be unusual. Then whoever wins the war writes the history (Source).”

Abel said, “If I present a piece of evidence to support my claim, you might disregard it. Let’s say I claim that Trump is making inflation worse, the exact opposite of what he campaigned on. For instance, the average price of eggs was $2.60 in the first half of last year. I picked up a dozen brown eggs this week and it was $5.29. Those are facts.”

Cain shook his head. “Is last year’s average price a fact or evidence? How were those prices gathered? Lawyers try to discredit evidence or witnesses that hurts their client’s case. A Trump supporter might question the data.”

Abel interrupted, “Like tobacco companies who tried every trick in the book to discredit research showing smoking was dangerous.”

Cain nodded. “Good point. A tobacco company is trying to protect its profits. What is a political partisan trying to protect? Their beliefs, preference and opinions. That can lead people to question anything that challenges those beliefs. So, who figured up last year’s average price of eggs? Was their methodology valid? Was there some political agenda?”

Abel sighed. “It was the BLS, the same agency that produced the employment figures that Trump didn’t like so he fired the head of the agency. An agency, I might add, that Republicans have praised for its objectivity and methodology until a week ago when Trump didn’t like their figures.”

Cain shrugged. “Look, I agree with you. I’m just saying that we all become lawyers when we get into political discussions with people who don’t agree with us. We try to filter out or discredit evidence that attacks our beliefs and opinions. They are like our clients or children. We are protecting them from attack.”

Abel laughed. “So how do we manage to have these discussions? We keep it reasonable, I think.”

Cain smiled. “We’ve known each other a long time. We agree to disagree. I was listening to the Hasan Minhaj podcast a few weeks ago and he was having a conversation with Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Source).  He asked Neil, ‘Is the glass half empty or half full?’ Neil answered that if you are filling up the glass, then it is half full. If you are emptying the glass, it’s half empty.”

Abel asked, “Yeah, but what if an observer comes along on a glass that has water up to the halfway mark? There is no one else around. Half empty or half full?”

Cain smiled. “Good point. Neil assumed that we know the process, but we don’t. If Democrats are in power, Democrats see the glass as half full because they think they are filling the glass. Republicans, however, see the Democrats as making things less so they see the glass as half empty. It’s the same phenomenon when Republicans are in power.”

Abel nodded. “So the process is the context. Nies, that guy we discussed earlier, said that relevance is a characteristic of evidence, not facts.”

Cain looked hesitant. “Yeah, but we can only understand things in context. Einstein’s thought experiment of the man in a closed elevator who doesn’t know whether the elevator is resting on earth or accelerating out in the depths of space (Source).”

Abel shook his head. “But imagine we’re all in the elevator together and arguing over which is true. If we all decide we’re on earth, there’s a hope that someone may come and open the elevator door. If we’re in space, we’re doomed. We may begin tearing each other apart.”

Cain frowned. “Reminds me of William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies. I hope they still assign that book in high school.”

Abel laughed. “I don’t know. There’s a cool interview with Golding and how the novel got rescued from the reject pile (Source). Anyway, last week, I was proposing that the Democratic Party choose a presidential candidate from each of four regions in the country. The winning candidate for each party would be chosen at a national convention. I thought it might attract more moderate candidates and a consensus within the party.”

Cain replied, “I thought it was a good idea. Grouping people by regions has its problems but its as good a way to divide up various interests as any. Better than the identity politics that has taken over the Democratic Party. How did those four regions vote in the last election? Last week, you said the southern states were all red and the western states voted blue. What about the other regions?”

Abel replied, “Southern states voted all red except for Virginia. Northeastern states were mostly blue except for Pennsylvania. The midwestern states were mostly red except for Illinois and Minnesota (Source). The four states with the most electoral votes are fairly predictable. California and New York are 82 electoral votes for Democrats. That’s almost a third of the votes needed to win the presidency. Texas and Florida are 70 votes for the Republicans, more than a quarter of the votes needed. It’s the states like Arizona, Pennsylvania and Nevada that decide these elections. They went for Biden in 2020, then Trump in 2024. Arizona and Pennsylvania went for Trump in 2016.”

Cain grunted with displeasure. “That’s what I don’t like. A relatively small number of people in a few key states decide a presidential election. The results depend on people who usually only vote in presidential elections. We’ve got to figure out a better system.”

Abel was puzzled. “You just said that you liked that regional system.”

Cain replied, “I liked that but your suggestion was within a political party. You know, a way that the party would choose a national candidate. I’m thinking of a change in the way that we elect presidents. I don’t like the way that each party has essentially captured the electoral votes in each state. They override the will of the people, the whole purpose of voting. Each House district should be able to have their vote counted for president. One vote per house district and senate seat.”

Abel argued, “But we would still need an Electoral College or else we would need to amend the Constitution. I was surprised to learn that the Electoral College has been consistently unpopular over the past 200 years. The public doesn’t like it and Congress has submitted over 700 proposals to amend or abolish the Electoral College (Source). I don’t think we can devise a representative system without an amendment.”

Cain shook his head. “Maybe there’s a way. Currently, the legislature in each state decides how the electoral votes for the state will be awarded (Source). In most states, electoral votes are awarded on a ‘winner-take-all’ basis. Whichever candidate gets the most votes, gets all the electoral votes. I think Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions.”

Abel frowned. “So you are proposing that if the voters of District 1 in Iowa choose a presidential candidate, then the elector for that district would cast their vote for that candidate. The problem is that the Constitution gives each state control of their electoral process.”

Cain interrupted, “Right but with exceptions for practices that discriminate against voters.”

Abel sighed. “Your system would involve all 50 states changing their election laws. Forget about that. The only alternative is a Constitutional amendment.”

Cain squinted. “Maybe not. If the Supreme Court ruled that the current practice of choosing electors was discriminatory in some way, then there would be no amendment needed.”

Abel rolled his eyes. “Congress might just pass an amendment to overrule that decision to preserve party power under the current system.”

Cain shook his head. “I don’t think so. I think voters would prefer that their district has a direct say in choosing the president. As it is now, voters in a rural district in a blue state like Colorado have no voice. The electoral vote that represents their district goes to a party and a candidate that they don’t like. Likewise, big city voters who vote blue in a red state suffer the same abuse. It’s perverse. It’s discriminatory.”

Abel nodded. “Ok, let’s say that electoral votes are cast according to the votes for House and Senate. There’s even more incentive for state legislatures to gerrymander house districts and that further marginalizes the minority.”

Cain winced. “Yeah, you might be right. The party system is so corrupt. I hate the idea of party elites having a voice in choosing a party’s presidential candidate. In 2016, ‘superdelegates’ represented 15% of the Democratic Party’s delegates at their nominating convention (Source). Republicans have about half that percentage and they have less discretion in how they vote but it’s still a problem (Source). Gives me a bad taste in my mouth.”

Abel argued, “Any alternative has to appear neutral to the two dominant parties. It’s hard to do. There would have to be an amendment that restricts gerrymandering. A computer could do the redistricting every decade that the Constitution requires. A simple rule like each district should have the smallest perimeter that encloses the representative population.”

Cain sighed. “Ok, let’s say that were to happen. Each party would propose a candidate chosen from each of the four regions in the country. A nominating convention for each party would choose a candidate. Electoral votes are cast by the House and Senate members who are elected.”

Abel asked, “So no more popular vote for President?”

Cain nodded. “Not directly. What’s the point? Yale University analyzed 2020 election data and found that less than 2% of voters split their ticket (Source).”

Abel asked, “So most Republican voters rarely vote for a Democratic president?”

Cain nodded. “And vice-versa. And this system I’m thinking of is not a radical change. A Republican candidate would have been elected in 2024 anyway because Republicans won more House and Senate seats. Democrats would have won in 2020 and Republicans in 2016 (Source). Nothing would have changed.”

Abel asked, “What’s the point?”

Cain replied, “More moderate candidates under the regional system you proposed. Then, using the new system for electing the president, voters in each district would have their vote counted. It’s transparent. No more guessing voters’ choices like what happened in Florida in the 2000 election.”

Abel smirked. “Yeah, one person on the Supreme Court cast the deciding vote for George Bush.”

Cain looked into the distance over Abel’s shoulder. “Whether you favored Bush or Gore, the Supreme Court should not get to decide the President. That decision was like a blot on this country’s soul, like a skin necrosis that grows until it eventually destroys a person.”

Abel’s eyes widened. “That’s a bit Shakespearian, don’t you think?”

Cain nodded. “Maybe a bit dramatic but what is happening to the people of this country is dramatic. Since that election, people don’t trust each other. Then the lies that got us into the Iraq war. Then the financial crisis and the elites in Washington bailed out the banks while hardworking homeowners lost their houses. Social media came along and amplified that distrust. Then the pandemic. The distrust is gnawing at our public spirit. We’ve got to have more transparency. I’m not saying that will fix things but it’s a step in that direction.”

Abel frowned as he pushed his chair back and laid his napkin on the table.. “One more thought. In every election, there are always several undecided House seats. The results of a presidential election could hinge on those.”

Cain shrugged. “Throw the undecided races out. In 2024, the deadline was December 11th (Source). If a House or Senate race is undecided by then, it doesn’t count for either party.”

Abel stood up. “Let me think about that. I agree with you. We’ve got to do something to restore the public trust. Look, I’ll see you next week.”

Cain smiled. “See you then.”

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

Image by ChatGPT5

Note: here is the text of the 12th Amendment (Source) and the history and interpretation of the 12th at the Constitution Center (Source).

A New Turning

Leave a comment

August 3, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel tries out a new political scheme and a rebranding for the Democratic Party. 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 set a small plate on his coffee cup to keep it warm. “It seemed like a lot of familiar names passed away these last two weeks. Some too young.”

Cain unfolded his napkin. “Yeah, Hulk Hogan’s death surprised me. I didn’t know he had leukemia (Source). And then Jamal-Warner’s drowning in Costa Rica (Source). The guy was swimming with his daughter and then boom, gets caught in an undercurrent. No lifeguards (Source).”

Abel replied, “They passed away before their time but it reminded me that the first of the Boomer generation turns 80 next year. Our president is old. The Congress is old. The average age in the Senate is 64 (Source). The average age of the founders was only 45 (Source). It just seems like we need some fresh perspectives and different alliances.”

Cain argued, “Yeah, but they didn’t live as long back in the 18th century.”

Abel shook his head. “No, that was life expectancy at birth. About half of kids died before age five. Those who reached the age of 20 could expect to live to 65 or so (Source). A Boomer born in 1950 would be 20 in 1970. A guy could expect to live to age 70, according to the CDC (Source). That’s only a few years longer.”

Cain looked surprised. “Well, it would take an amendment to specify an upper age limit to run for Congress. I suppose the amendment could exclude re-election age requirements so that current members are grandfathered in. Congress might go for that.”

Abel argued, “A political party could institute a rule like that. An informal rule, of course. The Democrats should adopt that as part of their brand. In 1960, JFK appealed to younger voters. He was in his early forties and attracted voters in their twenties and thirties. Democrats need to reenergize and rebrand. Make the Republicans look like the party of stodgy old men that they are.”

Cain smiled. “I think both parties have become long in the tooth. You’re right. We need new blood.”

Abel paused as their food arrived, then said, “Back in 1997, William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote a book called The Fourth Turning (Amazon). They said that there was a cycle of four generations that lasted eighty to a hundred years. So this was before the Y2K scare in 2000 and 9-11. The authors predicted that the fourth cycle since the American Revolution would start like in 2015 or so. They predicted the start of a Crisis generation starting in 2005, reaching a climax in 2020 and a resolution in 2026 (page 299).”

Cain asked, “Like Trump in 2016 was the start of the fourth cycle? Wow. In 2014, Richard Epstein published The Classical Liberal Constitution (Amazon). He wrote about three stages of governance and constitutional interpretation. The first was from 1789 when they wrote the Constitution to 1865 or so when they passed the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War.”

Abel nodded. “Yeah, that was a major upgrade to the Constitution. Before the Fourteenth the protections contained in the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not the states.”

Cain continued, “Then the last ‘age’ was around 1937, when a few key decisions by the Supreme Court established a larger role for the federal government. Epstein is a libertarian who thinks the courts misused the Commerce and General Welfare clauses in the Constitution to expand federal powers.”

Abel asked, “Do you think Trump and the 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court are going to undo the entitlement programs of the past eighty years? Is that the project of the Fourth Turning?”

Cain sighed. “Something has to be done. The country’s debt was huge at the end of WW2, a debt to GDP ratio of 120%. After WW2, politicians could use Cold War rhetoric about fighting Communism to force high marginal tax rates on rich people. Today that debt-to-GDP ratio is the same but I don’t think Congress can reenact 70% tax rates in the current political environment.”

Abel shook his head as he stabbed at a sausage link on his plate. “That’s what I didn’t like about the big bogus bill they just passed. During the financial crisis and the pandemic, tax cuts could be appropriate. Today, the country has low employment and relatively low inflation. Tax cuts are just fuel for inflation. Instead of taxing rich people, the country will go into more debt and sell bonds to rich people. The federal government pays interest on the debt to the rich people. It’s exactly backwards.”

Cain smirked. “The haves get. The have-nots don’t get. Epstein wrote that this country was founded on a grand bargain, the redistribution of wealth from states with more population to those with smaller populations.”

Abel nodded. “Based on equal representation in the Senate.”

Cain agreed. “So, among the 13 original states there were two regions, the northern and southern states. The seven northern states were more populous and their economies were based on cottage industries and manufacturing. The economy of the five slave states was based on agriculture and was less populous. They were like two separate countries who came together for common defense and mutual economic gain.”

Abel asked, “Do you know which were the original southern states?”

Cain groaned as he covered his eyes with both hands. “I’m trying to channel my younger self. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Maryland was a slave state but they didn’t secede, if I remember right (Source).”

Abel lifted his eyebrows in surprise. “Better memory than me. But by the time of the civil war, the country had expanded into a 3rd region, the Midwest. Indiana became a state after the country fought the British in the War of 1812. Iowa was around 1850.”

Cain replied, “Right. And the south was expanding westward as well to keep the balance between slave and non-slave states. Like I said, two countries.”

Abel continued, “Then, after the civil war, the country grew into four regions. There are eleven western states, excluding Hawaii and Alaska. Today, there are four regions, the Northeast, Midwest, West and South (Source).”

Cain looked puzzled. “Ok, good point. So, let’s tie this regional perspective to the ages thing. There were two regions when the Constitution was written. By the time of the Civil War, there were three regions including the Midwest. Then the Civil War amendments. When the Depression started in the 1930s, there were four regions with the western states. Then the role of government expanded. Another big shift. So what’s your idea?”

Abel stirred the little bit of syrup on his plate. “Something big has to change but I’d start small, within a political party. The Democrats could nominate a Presidential candidate from each of the four regions. A candidate from the south would be more conservative. More liberal from the northeast. At a primary convention, the four regions would vote on a candidate.”

Cain asked, “How would they break a tie?”

Abel replied, “Right. Some kind of tie-break rule. It would incentivize the regional factions within the party to bargain with other regions. Democrats would be recognizing the different cultures and interests in each region.”

Cain frowned. “That’s kind of a Parliamentary system within the party.”

Abel nodded. “I think Democrats would put out a more centrist candidate, someone who would have a broad appeal.”

Cain said, “In other words, national politics played at a regional level.”

Abel replied, “Exactly. I was looking at an electoral map the other day. The blue western states, including Alaska and Hawaii, had 130 electoral votes. That’s about a quarter of the 530 electoral votes. Democrats won 83 of those votes in this last election (Source).”

Cain frowned, “That surprises me. I always think of the western states as mostly red.”

Abel nodded. “On the map it looks that way but most of that is empty country and a small number of electoral votes in each state.”

Cain asked, “How many of those 83 votes came from California?”

Abel nodded. “Big impact. Fifty-four votes. They have the most in the country. The western states have some political balance. Not in the south. All Republican. Like I said, a candidate from the southern region within the Democratic Party would probably be more conservative. Someone who could compete in a region with strong Republican sympathies.”

Cain frowned. “So, younger candidates for state and local offices. A different nomination convention for Presidential candidate. Would there still be primaries?”

Abel shrugged. “I don’t know. What do you think? The modern primary system developed after World War 2 (Source). It consumes a lot of time and money. It’s like an ordeal by fire that screens out some otherwise good candidates that don’t want to expose themselves and their families to that ordeal.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, I like that. So what, maybe regional primaries? The downside is that candidates wouldn’t be able to spend much time in rural areas of each state.”

Abel replied, “No system is foolproof. Trump conducted both of his campaigns from the side of a plane. He flies in, holds a rally, and flies out.”

Cain laid his napkin on the table. “Well, I think you’re onto something. The party needs a new brand, new blood.”

Abel sighed. “So does the Republican Party. Unfortunately, that something new was Donald Trump, an extremist who has taken over the party’s dynamics. I hope that the Democrats can avoid the same situation or this country will be crippled.”

Cain slid out of his seat. “Let me think on this. I agree that the primary system is not working. It’s attracting special interests and fringe candidates. If your idea can help solve that, I’m for it.”

Abel looked. “See you next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT

Keywords: primary, election, regions

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

The Haves and Have-Nots

Leave a comment

June 29, 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.

Cain smiled as he asked Abel, “You used to live in New York. So, are they getting ready to elect their first socialist mayor?”

Abel chuckled as he spread the linen napkin across his lap. “Mamdani is the Trump of the left. Knows how to work social media and promises he’ll make food and housing affordable again. Just like Trump. Neither one of them has a workable plan. Maybe that’s the age we live in. The age of blowhards on social media. Anyway, I wanted to ask you what you thought about the court’s decision this week. Can lower level courts issue nationwide injunctions? What’s the verdict, Mr. Court Watcher?”

Cain stared into his coffee cup then looked at Abel. “Well, I liked that part. Last year, Reuters did a study (Source). There have been almost 130 injunctions issued in the past sixty years. So, during the 1960s and 1970s, there were two injunctions. Two! Then it got political. Sixty injunctions during Trump’s first term. California judges were a go-to for Democrats.  Maybe twenty injunctions during Biden’s term. Republicans running to Texas judges. Now the Democrats have started again in Trump’s second term. It’s abusive tit-for-tat.”

Abel asked, “So you like the decision? How did it stand up to the famous Cain consequentialist rule?”

Cain held up his right hand, thumb down. “Failed. It confuses more issues than it clarifies. The court stayed Trump’s executive order for thirty days. Not a whole lot of time to get a class certification and a whole bunch of procedures (Source). A district judge can issue an injunction on the likelihood of class certification, but it only applies to the parties named in the suit (Source). Meanwhile there will be confusion everywhere. Confusion equals bad court decision in my book.”

Abel lifted his eyebrows. “A ‘Keep It Simple, Stupid’ approach. But this decision permits the White House to keep drafting unconstitutional orders then enforce them wherever there is no applicable injunction. I mean, this is a case where you can’t separate legal rules and procedures from the merits of the case, the Constitutional right to citizenship at birth.”

Cain frowned, then settled back as their food arrived. “Justice Sotomayor basically made that point in her dissent. The consequence of the court’s ruling is that the burden of protecting our constitutional rights falls on ‘we, the people.’”

Abel pursed his lips. “That’s expensive.”

Cain sighed. “It’s also depressing. Anyway, change of subject. We were talking last week about the One Big Beautiful Bill, the cuts to Medicaid.”

Able interrupted, “Oh yeah, why people vote against their best interests. What was that book?  What’s the Matter With Kansas? Thomas Frank.”

Cain nodded. “So you said you didn’t understand how Republican representatives could propose cuts to Medicaid that would hurt their constituents. I said that it was the principle of the thing and the huge costs to the states even after the cost-sharing with the federal government.. So, I was reading this week that some of the Republican members are concerned about the blowback from voters in the midterms (Source). “

Abel glanced at his phone. “Boy, I love this thing. My personal librarian. Last week, you made me aware of how much the states were spending on Medicaid. I did some digging this past week and I was surprised at how dependent we all are on Medicaid. It’s red states, blue states. Did you know that Medicaid finances 42% of all births (Source)?”

Cain shook his head. “Wow, I didn’t know it was that much. Now I’m remembering Romney’s remark about the 47% dependent on federal programs. He might have lost the 2012 election over that but maybe that’s what he was talking about.”

Abel frowned. “You know, when I think of poor rural states, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama come to mind. They have high percentages of  children who are covered by Medicaid. Like more than 60% in some cases. North Dakota is up there at 63%. Kansas and Iowa are above 50%. But there’s also blue states in that category. In Minnesota, it’s more than 60% and in Colorado it’s more than 50% (Source).”

Cain asked, “Colorado is a blue state? I thought it was purple.”

Abel shook his head. “Nah, they have a trifecta now. Governor, state House and Senate. All Democrat. In fact, most of the states have trifectas now, like almost 40 states (Source). Shows how polarized we are in this country. Forget about what happened to Kansas. What happened to divided government?”

Cain smiled. “For many years, that’s how I voted. I was against the Democrat, Republican duopoly. If Republicans held a lot of seats, I voted Democrat just to keep a balance of power. Groups get crazy when they have all the power. What did you call it? The monster in us. We start to uncage the monster. We want to enact revenge. We want what we want just to enjoy the power of getting what we want.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “Wow, talk about dark. Well, you weren’t alone. I was reading that, in the 1970s, voters split their ticket like 30% of the time. That started to decline in the 1980s. Now, it’s less than 5% (Source).

Cain nodded. “Like I said last week, we’re in our silos. We got our political clubhouses with big signs that say, ‘Keep Out!’ That’s why I believe in the price system, supply and demand. Keeps people from getting their own way.”

Abel frowned. “You’ve talked about that before. I mean, how does a price system work in a democracy?”

Cain smiled. “I’ll talk about it another time. It’s simple. Most of us have social security numbers. Everybody living in a state votes, whether they cast a vote or not.”

Abel looked puzzled. “How would that work?”

Cain gave a Cheshire grin. “Not this week. Anyhow, back to Medicaid. So, I said last week that a lot of Republicans don’t respect dependency. It’s a bad word. That’s why they are against these big federal programs.”

Abel interrupted, “That’s  you.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, but I’m not against dependency as such. We’re all dependent on each other in a lot of ways that we take for granted. That was Adam Smith’s point. My eggs here. Someone had to grow them, spread feed, and muck out the chicken coops. I appreciate that when I eat eggs. I’m connected to those farmers.”

Abel interrupted, “An illegal immigrant probably mucked out those chicken coops.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, or the farmer’s kids before they went to school that morning. People who work hard. Eggs are under $3 a dozen now after the industry has recovered from the mass killing of chickens to stop the virus (Source). So, it’s like 25 cents an egg. That’s less than a minute of someone’s hourly wage, let’s say. So the farmer, the kids, or the illegal immigrant, as you point out, work their butts off and I get to buy an egg for less than a minute of work. A great deal.”

Abel set his water glass down on the table. “You put it like that, and I can understand the two different worlds perspective.”

Cain mopped up some egg yoke with his toast. “What were the two groups in the Time Machine story? The Eloi and I forget the name of the other group. In Wells’ book, they represented the working class of England (Source).”

Abel smiled. “The Morlocks. So, you’re saying that the Eloi are urban dwellers and rural people are Morlocks? That’s kind of stretching an analogy.”

Cain laughed. “No, not exactly. The Eloi are the ‘haves’ and the Morlocks are the ‘have-nots.’ That’s what I’m thinking. In any society, there are those two groups. That was Machiavelli’s point in the Republic. He thought the haves were the more dangerous group because they fought harder to keep what they had.”

Abel whistled softly. “Whoa. From Medicaid to political philosophy. Let me buckle my seat belt. Although, now that I think about it, that was a big cause of the Civil War. The plantation owners in the South wanted to keep on expanding. I was reading Alan Taylor’s book American Civil Wars and I was shocked to learn that Lincoln agreed to let the southern states keep slavery legal. This was even before the war started. His red line was no more expansion into federal territories or any new states. If the slave owners had agreed to that, would we have avoided a civil war? Anyway, the slave owners needed to expand to keep up the value of their slaves. New markets, new demand.”

Cain smirked. “A rich man’s war, for sure. Can you imagine paying a substitute to fight instead of your own son? (Source)”

Abel shrugged. “Reading that book, I could understand why we don’t learn a lot of that stuff in grade school. Too dark for grade school kids.”

Cain interrupted, “It’s the monster inside. So, you think the Republicans who vote for Trump’s big, beautiful bill are heartless?”

Abel replied, “No, I think that Trump is gambling that he won’t lose that much support from blue-collar workers even if those voters lose some or all of their Medicaid. These rural states showed strong support for Trump in the 2024 election (Source). They elect far more Republicans than Democrats to Congress (Source). It’s a political gamble. He’ll blame Democrats if he’s wrong.”

Cain frowned. “Yeah, but if that gives Democrats enough support to flip the House, they will try and block his agenda in the last two years.”

Abel shook his head. “He’s a gambler. He ran for President in 2016 to boost his brand. His businesses were failing, and he had trouble getting financing (Source). He didn’t think he had a chance to win the Presidency (Source). He admitted he didn’t know what he was doing his first term in office. He’s rolling the dice this term.”

Cain sighed. “Talk about the Time Machine. I wish I could get in a time machine and go to four years from now. Trump, Trump, Trump all the time. I kind of miss the days when we talked about who shot J.R. on the TV show Dallas, or something like that.”

Abel laughed. “I think there will be someone like Trump after Trump. Someone who knows how to maximize social media. Kyla Scanlon on Substack used the word ‘virality’ (Source). Someone who knows how to go viral. We talked about Mamdani earlier. He’s the same. Maybe that’s the new vanguard in the political arena. We will only elect people who get and keep our attention.”

Cain shook his head. “God, I hope not. So, we were talking about two groups, the haves and have-nots. I accept the fact that there will always be inequality in society. Life is multi-dimensional so it’s impossible to have equality. Each of us is like a soap bubble on an ocean wave. We’re all at different locations and elevations, different times in our lives.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “That’s a good point, but I think a lot of us would like to reduce the growing economic inequality in this country. You think that these big government programs just aren’t very effective. That’s what you said last week.”

Cain nodded. “I think the data backs me up. The best way to reduce inequality is more economic growth. More jobs, more opportunities, more income. Democrats just focus on redistributing the profits. It’s like someone who spends all their time adjusting the heat vents in a home so that everyone feels comfortable. The problem is that Democrats don’t do maintenance on the furnace itself. Then the furnace breaks and no one has any heat.”

Abel chuckled. “Yet, economic growth is stronger under Democratic administrations. More job growth, lower unemployment, higher GDP growth (Source). Using your analogy, it’s the Republicans who don’t maintain the furnace. They make sure the gas valve is wide open. Low taxes, big investment. Republicans expect that the furnace will just keep running. Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. The will of God, or something.”

Cain laughed. “Ok, you ran away with my analogy. You are watching too much Democratic propaganda. Under eight years of Obama, real per capita economic growth increased 11%. In Trump’s four years, it increased almost 7%. On an annualized basis, that’s better than Obama. Under Biden’s four years, it increased 8%. The big winners were Reagan and Clinton with 20% growth during their two terms (Source).”

Abel tapped notes in his phone. “You’re using per capita growth?”

Cain nodded. “Sure, that’s what people care about. If there is a bigger population, there will be higher overall growth. You have to divide by the population to get a sense of what people are experiencing in their daily lives.”

Abel nodded. “Ok, makes sense. The thing is, there was a lot illegal immigration during the Reagan administration. That’s why he agreed to grant amnesty in 1986 (Source). There was still high growth.”

Cain smirked. “And high deficits, don’t forget. Reagan had to work with a big spending Democratic Congress. And he needed to rebuild the military after the Carter administration.”

Abel laughed. “Sure, it was all the Democrats fault. For the first six years Reagan had a Republican Senate, don’t forget. Clinton raised taxes and there were actual budget surpluses and big growth. So Republicans are against illegal immigration and taxes but neither of those interfered with economic growth during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. So, what’s the secret sauce, professor?”

Cain grunted. “I’m just saying that Democrats need to focus on economic growth more than income inequality.”

Abel sighed. “You’re using per capita economic growth but that doesn’t capture the real effect of inequality on households since the start of Reagan’s first term.”

Cain shook his head. “No, remember we talked a little bit about this. The official measure of inequality doesn’t capture a lot of the income and benefits that lower households receive. In 2016, a Congressional Budget Office found a much lower GINI coefficient than the Census Bureau reported (Source). That lower figure was after taxes and government transfers were accounted for. The World Bank also computes a GINI coefficient that is closer to the CBO estimate (Source).”

Abel asked, “Does that include Medicaid or food stamps?”

Cain shook his head. “No. There is a lot of what’s called ‘in-kind’ support for lower income households that is not included in these inequality measures. Section 8 housing vouchers. The Census Bureau lists all the different types of income streams and which are counted (Source). Yet Democrats just throw these inequality figures around without acknowledging the subtleties.”

Abel interrupted, “Ok, I’ll admit that housing support can be sizeable. I had customers who paid maybe $300 for an apartment that normally rented for like $1500. Ok, go on.”

Glancing at this phone, Cain continued,  “Yeah, so that’s like almost $15,000 in after-tax income and it’s not counted. Food stamps or SNAP, they call it now, are not included and neither are school lunches. Medicaid, Medicare and employer health insurance are not counted (Source).”

Abel said, “So, I’ve been reading about all the horrible things Americans did to each other during the Civil War, and you’ve been digging up data. Ok, so how much was it before and after all these in-kind transfers?”

Cain replied, “Well, the GINI coefficient before those was .42. Lower numbers mean more equality of incomes.”

Abel interrupted, “What’s Mexico and Canada?”

Cain looked up at the ceiling, searching his memory. “Mexico is about the same as the U.S. Canada is low. Like 30 or so.”

Abel nodded. “Ok, so what was the GINI coefficient after including in-kind transfers?”

Cain shook his head. “I couldn’t find a GINI number for that. I mean, there are so many income measures. Before tax, after tax, with transfers, without, with capital gains and without. Survey data like the Census Bureau or figures from IRS tax records.”

Abel smiled. “Like you said, it’s complicated.”

Cain sighed. “Yeah. Some researchers have developed an ‘augmented’ income measure that adjusts a conventional measure called the ’90/10 ratio.’  You know, they compare the top 10% to the bottom 10%. One paper estimated a 30% reduction in that ratio in 2012 (Source).”

Abel smiled. “That sounds like a Bernie Sanders measure, comparing the very top and very bottom. What was the top compared to the middle? I’ve read that top incomes have been growing a lot faster than median household incomes.”

Cain squinted at his phone. “Geez, I need new glasses, I think. Hold on. Ok, that 90/10 ratio grew by a third between 1980 and 2018 (Source).”

Abel interrupted, “No taxes figured in?”

Cain shook his head. “No, just cash income. They do subtract capital gains. You know, they are trying to measure current year income (Source).”

Abel asked, “Ok, so do they compare the top and the middle?”

Cain expanded his screen with a flick of two fingers. “Yeah, it’s called a 90/50 ratio. So the top 10% has grown a lot. From 1979 to 2012, their incomes grew like 30%. The middle only grew by 7% (Source).

Abel nodded. “So that shows what I was talking about. The top has grown four times as fast as the middle in the past few decades. They are doing way better than the middle and yet the Republicans want to keep cutting taxes on the top. You’re saying that these inequality measures don’t include food stamps and housing vouchers and stuff like that. Well, the middle is mostly not getting those, so there’s no confusion. I mean, you can see the inequality in the data.”

Cain argued, “It’s a lot more complicated than that because the top 1% skew the comparison so much. If you dig into the income data for 2012, you find that the top 1% had 40% of the income in the top 10%. An income measure used by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the top 1% now have almost 14% of total income. That’s almost tripled (Note).”

Abel argued, “Ok, so what’s the 99/50 ratio, I guess it would be called. What’s that?”

Cain sighed. “The BEA didn’t have that.”

Abel sighed. “You seem skeptical about the accuracy of the measures themselves.”

Cain replied, “I am. The GINI coefficient jumped up like 6% in two years during a slight recession in 1990 and 1991. That tells me there was some change in the categorization of incomes, some anomaly in those years. During the Great Recession, that coefficient only dropped 2%. Like I said, there’s something doesn’t make sense about that jump in 1990.”

Abel said, “I want to do some research on poverty, but I suspect I’m going to run into the same problem. A lot of different income streams and measures of poverty?”

Cain nodded. “Exactly. The Census Bureau uses self-reported income, and several studies have found that lower income households underreport their income. One study compared self-reported income to actual Social Security checks sent to the people in the study and found that their reported income was lower than what they actually received (Source).”

Abel asked, “How much lower?”

Cain shrugged. “Well, it wasn’t a lot, like 7-8%.”

Abel replied, “So, slight underreporting of lower incomes. That’s not going to change the picture all that much. Income inequality is still a problem. Maybe a little bit less, but not a whole lot.”

Cain smiled. “I can see that I haven’t convinced you to focus on economic growth.”

Abel argued, “I think you are taking some slight imperfections in measurement and using that to cast doubt on the whole idea that inequality is a big problem in this country. During the Clinton years, taxes were raised on higher income families and that basically stopped the growth of inequality under Reagan and H.W. Bush (Source). Republicans just keep fighting any Democratic effort to reduce inequality through higher taxation.”

Cain shook his head. “Clinton was an anomaly. A lot of investment poured into the tech sector and stock prices tripled during Clinton’s eight years (Source). The result of that was a lot of capital gains taxes. It was an anomaly. Normally, higher taxes hurt economic growth. End of story.”

Abel let his head fall. “If we can’t resolve the disagreements in this country with the available data, what hope is there? I think of the story of the blind men touching different parts of an elephant and trying to identify it. If one person is convinced it’s a snake they will just keep searching the animal for a trunk then reason that the snake ate a big meal and is lying on a table with four stout legs.”

Cain laughed. “It’s like our brains are tuned to specific types of information. You know, the way our eyes see the world differently than birds or dogs.”

Abel said, “Well, nice data hunt this week. I just wish you would look at things the correct way. You bought last week. I’ll pick it up this week.”

Cain smiled. “Well, if you are buying, then I totally agree with you. See you next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT

Note: Clarke, C., & Kopczuk, W. (2025). Measuring Income and Income Inequality. https://doi.org/10.3386/w33678