A Web of Rules and Interpretations

June 1, 2025May 31, 2025Leave a comment

June 1, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

This is part of a series on 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 said, “What caught my attention this week was an article about some woman from Hong Kong being arrested and jailed prior to deportation (Source).”

Cain frowned. “Small Missouri town, wasn’t it?”

Abel nodded. “I forget the name of the town, but it voted heavily for Trump. Like 80%. This woman had lived in the town for twenty years, had a few kids. She worked as a waitress in the local restaurant and was well-liked by the folks in town. The arrest caught the town off guard. One person said they thought Trump was going to go after gang members and criminals, not mothers.”

Cain shrugged. “If I remember right, she had been in some fake marriage like twenty years ago to get a green card.”

Abel replied, “Yeah. She wasn’t convicted or anything. Back in the 1970s, I knew someone who got paid $10,000 to marry a Hungarian woman. That was a lot of money in those days. Hungary was behind the Iron Curtain, so there were a lot of people anxious to get out.”

Cain asked, “What did they do after they got married?”

Abel replied, “Went their separate ways, although they both had the same address. After a few years, they divorced. I think that was paid for, as well.”

Cain said, “Back to that Hong Kong woman. Almost half of the illegal immigrants in this country came in on visas and simply didn’t leave (Source). DHS reported record estimates of overstays in 2022 under the Biden Administration (Source).”

Abel argued, “Yeah, but a lot of those were from Venezuela. It’s basically a failed state. The UN estimated almost 8 million have left the country since 2014 (Source). That’s more than 25% of the 29 million people in the 2010 census.”

Cain frowned. “And the majority are coming here, it seems.”

Abel shook his head. “No, about 85% have gone to South and Central American countries. It’s a strain on the entire hemisphere. Syria is another country with a refugee crisis, but that was the result of a civil war. Almost half the population had to flee because of Assad’s war against his own people (Source). That doesn’t include all the internally displaced people who had to flee their homes and villages. In Venezuela, Maduro has destroyed his country’s economy. If people can’t eat, they got to leave.”

Cain sighed. “If they can leave. Look at Gaza.”

Abel nodded. “The largest prison in the world. A prison with no food. If we start talking about Gaza, my food will get cold.”

Cain said, “A country has to have rules and procedures for who can come in and how long they can stay. Who is a citizen? Who is not?”

Abel argued, “We didn’t have any rules for 80 years. Not until after the Civil War.”

Cain shook his head. “No way. The 1790 Naturalization Act limited citizenship to free white persons only. The Constitution hadn’t even been ratified yet. It’s the first time that the phrase ‘under the jurisdiction of’ appeared. It also included birthright citizenship (Source).”

Abel frowned. “No, that was the 14^th Amendment.”

Cain smiled. “No, not for kids born here. Birthright citizenship for children born overseas if their parents were U.S. citizens.”

Abel was surprised. “So certain populations could immigrate here and work here but couldn’t become citizens.”

Cain nodded. “No Muslims, no Chinese. In a few decades, Congress added residency requirements for naturalization. People had to show proof when they entered the country. It was never an open door policy. All that ‘give me your tired, your poor’ stuff.”

Abel replied, “An open door for workers, but a lot of workers couldn’t be citizens.”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “Right. So, during the drafting of the 14^th Amendment after the Civil War, the Senators argued over the wording of Section 1. Would the final wording include the children of Chinese immigrants (Source)? They agreed that it would.”

Abel asked, “Why was there a Supreme Court case about it then?”

Cain grunted softly. “This was in 1898, after Congress had passed the Chinese Exclusion Act barring citizenship specifically for all Chinese.”

Abel interrupted, “For like a hundred years, the British and Americans treated China really badly.”

Cain nodded. “And they haven’t forgotten it, either. The case was about Wong Kim Ark. Ark, like Noah’s ark. His parents were legally in the country when he was born but then they returned to China. So, when he was 21, he went back to China to visit them. When he returned to the U.S., authorities claimed that he couldn’t be a citizen and wouldn’t let him back in (Source). The court ruled that the birthright clause in the 14^th Amendment gave Ark citizenship.”

Abel said, “And that’s where it’s stood for more than hundred years. Then Trump issued his executive order a few months ago.”

Cain tilted his head. “Not quite. I’ve heard about the ‘jurisdiction’ argument for some time. In 2010, Peter Schuck, a Yale professor, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times explaining some of the arguments against an outright grant of citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. (Source). He mentioned anchor babies. That’s like where a woman crosses the border …”

Abel interrupted, “or overstays a tourist visa like some Chinese women have done.”

Cain nodded. “That too. But anyhow, has a baby shortly after coming into the country. Did the framers of the 14^th Amendment mean to include those children? Given the history of immigration laws in this country during the 19^th century, that seems unlikely to a lot of people.”

Abel argued, “Even though the parents were here illegally, they were still subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

Cain sighed. “The Ark precedent never settled the question of the parents’ status because Ark’s parents did have a right to live and work in the U.S. at the time their son was born. But what if your parents do not have permission to be here? What does it mean to be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of some country? Sure, some sheriff can arrest you and hold you, but the local district has no legal jurisdiction over you the way they would with an American citizen.”

Abel asked, “But we don’t penalize children for the sins or transgressions of their parents. If my parents owe money to some creditor and they die, that debt does not pass on to me.”

Cain agreed. “Schuck mentioned that. He was discussing the arguments on both sides.”

Abel nodded. “Right. Why should the legal status of my parents matter? If I am born in the U.S., badda-bing, I’m a U.S. citizen.”

Cain shrugged. “Depends on how the court reads the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in Section 1.”

Abel shook his head. “What is a hospital supposed to do when a kid is born? Start checking the status of their parents? It’s a hospital, not an immigration court or the DHS.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, there’s the practical side. Shuck suggested a compromise where a kid would spend so many years in school, perhaps, before they could become a citizen. Establish a connection to the U.S. Some European countries do that.”

Abel laid his fork down. “What about the status of all the kids that have been born in the past few decades. Are they suddenly going to become stateless?”

Cain shook his head. “Don’t ask me. The conservative justices will be looking at history and tradition at the time of the 14^th Amendment.”

Abel’s tone was frustrated. “They’ve overturned Roe. They’ve nullified campaign finance laws in Citizens United. Money is speech! Who knew?”

Cain leaned forward and said in a hushed voice, “I can hear you.”

Abel settled back in his seat. “Right, sorry. Anyway, the court adopted a whole new reading of the First Amendment in that case. Then they reinterpreted the Second Amendment in the Heller and Bruen decisions. Last year, they gave the President the immunity of a king in their reading of Article 2 of the Constitution. What’s next? Why don’t they just rewrite the entire Constitution?”

Cain smiled. “The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. They were the ones who did away with the Senate filibuster rule for judges in 2013. Confirmation required only a majority vote, not the sixty votes required for a filibuster.”

Abel argued, “That was because the Republicans were blocking the appointment of many lower court judges as a matter of tactics, not ideology. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, had no realistic choice.”

Cain replied, “That’s a matter of perception. The Senate is a tit-for-tat institution. When Republicans got the majority, they extended that exclusion from the filibuster to confirmations of Supreme Court justices.”

Abel looked glum. “Then Trump appointed three extremists to the bench during his first administration.”

Cain asked, “Extremists? Anyway, whose fault was that? People had advised Justice Ginsburg to step down while Obama was in office. She was in her eighties, and had multiple health problems, including cancer (Source). Like a lot of politicians in Washington, she tripped on her big ego. I admire Justice Breyer for stepping down a few years ago while he was still in good health.”

Abel replied, “I read his book Reading the Constitution. He claims that a pragmatic interpretation of the law is better than an originalist or textual reading. He wrote, wait a second, I highlighted it. A jurist should ‘appeal more directly to values than a rules-based approach would advise’ (page 140).”

Cain frowned. “If there are several values, how much weight to give each individual value? Maybe freedom in one decision, civic order in another.”

Abel asked, “So you would argue that Scalia’s approach was more consistent?”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, I think a jurist has to ask themselves ‘what was the purpose of this law when it was written?’”

Abel said, “Breyer mentions that Scalia’s chief concern was the original intent of the law” (page 139). The framers of the Constitution argued over every clause. The final language tried to strike a balance between two principles, or two values. I think that’s what Justice Breyer was getting at.”

Cain asked, “So Breyer would have been looking for two values that needed to be balanced?”

Abel shrugged. “He didn’t say that. It’s more my thought based on what Breyer wrote and James Madison’s account of what the framers argued about during the Constitutional Convention (Source). I was trying to come up with a simple rule of constitutional interpretation. I like the balancing of values test.”

Cain nodded. “I like that method because it reminds me of the balance between supply and demand. My rule about limiting exceptions is when making the law, not interpreting the law. I think I agree with Scalia that justices should try to figure out what was the purpose of the law, the original intent, then come up with a simple rule that can be applied in the circumstances of the case before the court.”

Abel frowned. “You said the rule in the Heller decision wasn’t well constructed. Scalia wrote that decision.”

Cain shrugged. “Just because Scalia wrote it doesn’t mean it meets my test for a good rule.”

Abel argued, “Very often, lawmakers do not want to state the intent of a law. What they do is construct a process, a set of procedural rules to achieve a stated purpose. Take, for example, the 1924 Immigration Act. Republicans wanted to maintain a homogenous population of English and those from northern European countries. They already had a quota system in place, so that it allowed more immigration from those favored countries and restricted those from less desirable countries in southern Europe and other parts of the world.”

Cain shook his head. “Maybe the purpose was not stated, particularly in earlier laws. The justices should be able discern the purpose from auxiliary sources. There would have hearings, Congressional notes, commentary from the press that linked to Congressional sources. That kind of stuff.”

Abel nodded. “I understand. My point is that the purpose of a law can be subject to interpretation. Scalia sold the idea of original intent as a more grounded approach, but it can be a complex interpretation that is mostly grounded by the court’s own biases. That’s what we’re seeing the past decade or so. You didn’t like the reasoning in Heller.”

Cain replied. “No, I didn’t. I liked the conclusion they reached, or at least part of it. The contradictions in the reasoning meant that more cases would come to the court because judges in the lower courts would not be able to apply the precedent consistently.”

Abel interrupted, “Yeah. You said that was the sign of a badly constructed rule or precedent.”

Cain nodded. “Right. Scalia wrote the Heller decision (Source) and he had an ego at least as big as Ginsburg’s. In the Heller decision, Scalia took on the role of English professor, analyzing the grammar construction in the Second Amendment.”

Abel asked, “Did Scalia study English before going to law school?”

Cain shrugged. “I don’t know whether he had any formal training in grammatical construction during the 18^th and 19^th century.”

Abel replied, “It does seem like a constitutional scholar would have to become familiar with that kind of construction.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, but a judge would read only a narrow slice of literature from a time period. It hardly makes them an English scholar of that period.”

Abel said, “So back to the Second Amendment.”

Cain continued, “Scalia asserted that the prefatory clause in the Second Amendment, the one about the Militia, does not limit the operative clause stating that individuals have the right to own and bear arms.”

Abel frowned. “Well, a prefatory clause can explain the reasoning for an operative clause. We see that construction in Madison’s notes during the Constitutional Convention (Source). So there’s the original intent of the Second Amendment. End of story. If Scalia was basically going to ignore the prefatory clause about the Militia, then anyone could own a firearm. Convicted felons, crazy people.”

Cain nodded. “In 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified, states did not ban weapons for those kind of people, although a few towns had some rules against it. Scalia claimed to be a champion of rules (Source), but the lack of rules at that time gave him a problem. If his grammatical analysis did not limit the right to bear arms, states could not legally bar people from owning a gun.”

Abel nodded. “A practical problem. Breyer wrote that originalist interpretations like Scalia’s didn’t look to the consequences of an interpretation (page 128), but this time, you’re saying that Scalia did have to look at that.”

Cain replied, “Sure. The 2008 Heller decision was a 5-4 vote. Remember that Scalia is most noted for his dissents, not his majority opinions (Source). A dissenting opinion can lay out bold principles because it doesn’t need to reach a consensus. This time, Scalia couldn’t afford to lose a vote, so he had to step back from a rigid application of his own rules.”

Abel asked, “You would not have done so?”

Cain replied, “First of all, I would have used some sources on English grammar to validate my grammatical analysis. Did a prefatory clause limit the operative clause in general use at that time? Not just in legal texts, but in newspapers, novels, et cetera. You need more than legal citations. ”

Abel asked, “So how did Scalia resolve his practical problem?”

Cain squinted for a moment. “He asserted a natural limit to all rights based on common law. Blackstone’s commentary on English law notes that no right is absolute (Source). The right of one person can interfere with the right of another person, with the body politic (Source).”

Abel nodded. “Competing interests, in other words. That balancing test I mentioned earlier. Balancing values and interests. So why can’t the state limit a person’s right to carry a gun in the interest of keeping civil order?”

Cain replied, “Yep, that’s a problem and Scalia doesn’t really clarify that competing interest thing.”

Abel asked, “You would have clarified it?”

Cain nodded. “Sure. It doesn’t take a genius to know that the issue of competing interests will come to the court again as the lower courts try to resolve cases involving these interests. And they did.”

Abel said, “The 2022 Bruen decision said that local jurisdictions could not require permits for self-defense outside the home. They had to use historical tradition to support their case.”

Cain replied, “Correct. The court gave deference to the right of self-defense over a competing state or local government interest.”

Abel argued, “But you said that there were few historical cases when the Second Amendment was written. So states would have to use 19^th century traditions. What makes the 19^th century so special?”

Cain shrugged. “Like I said. The reasoning is a mess. If there is little historical tradition at the time of the amendment’s ratification, that should be the historic tradition.”

Abel smirked. “So, in your world, we would all go around with six-shooters in holsters just like in the Westerns.”

Cain laughed. “Gimme a break. My reasoning wouldn’t ignore consequences the way Scalia does.”

Abel said, “So you do agree with Breyer. You’re a liberal at heart.”

Cain chuckled. “The price system does not ignore consequences. It is a balancing of interests between suppliers and consumers.”

Abel interrupted, “Consumers who are factors in the supply of what they consume.”

Cain nodded. “As workers. Ok, good point. Anyway, there is no price system in the law.”

Abel asked, “Could you invent one?”

Cain looked puzzled. “Could I? Of course not. But that raises a good question. Why didn’t a price system evolve in a democratic system?”

Abel replied, “That’s easy. Everyone gets one vote.”

Cain smiled. “In a competitive market, some people have more of a surplus than others. Resources and wealth are not distributed evenly. Demand is not distributed evenly. It’s that imbalance that spawns the price system. There’s too much balance in a democratic system for a price system to work. Each party tries to tear away at that balance, to make it unstable so that they can exert their will.”

Abel frowned. “So, what? Sell votes?”

Cam shook his head. “No, votes are like money. A medium of exchange for the transfer of power, for authority, for legitimacy.”

Abel asked, “Allocate votes to each voter based on how much power or authority is at stake?”

Cain smiled and slid out of the booth. “It’s certainly something to think about. I will see you next week.”

Abel laughed. “Next week, another episode of Pinky and the Brain, plotting to take over the world.”

Cain laughed. “Or at least try to understand it. My treat this week. See you then.”

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

Chasing the Why

May 25, 2025May 24, 2025Leave a comment

May 25, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Cain said, “We left off last week talking about the strong correlation between personal income and life expectancy in the U.S.”

Abel looked up to the acoustic ceiling tile as he searched his memory, then looked at Cain. “I think it was .85 across the states.”

Cain glanced down at his phone. “I wondered how strong the correlation was among developed countries. It’s not pretty. Mexico and the U.S. are the only two countries below 80 years life expectancy. Oh wait, and the Slovak Republic, what people call Slovakia.”

Abel asked, “Is that where Melania Trump comes from?”

Cain shook his head. “No. Her family is from Slovenia, another central European country. Slovakia is the eastern half of what used to be Czechoslovakia. A fun fact. They are not a top producer of automobiles, but for the size of their population, they have the world’s largest auto manufacturing per capita (Source).

Abel asked, “How small is their population?”

Cain replied, “About 5.4 million. So, a little less than Denmark. Well, I started digging into auto production figures for the other two countries with relatively low life expectancy.”

Abel spread some honey on his toast. “What, like there’s a link between auto production and life expectancy?”

Cain shrugged. “I don’t know. Environmental hazards? Just wandering around in the data maze. Never know what I’ll find. I was surprised to find that the U.S. and Mexico have about the same auto production per capita. Not the same overall. Just per capita. Volume wise, the U.S is the number two producer in the world (Source).”

Abel asked, “Who is #1? China?”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, they produce three times what the U.S. does. Of course, they have four times the population. Anyway, I looked at what has happened to auto production in the U.S. We are producing the same amount of vehicles as we did thirty years ago (Source). Meanwhile, the population in this country has grown 30%.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “And Trump is going to restore that imbalance with tariffs somehow?”

Cain smirked. “All presidential candidates overpromise. Trump’s not the only one. In a deep housing and financial crisis, Obama promised to do what was best for working class families like the grandparents who raised him. What a bunch of B.S. that was. He did what was best for the banks and broker bonuses as millions lost their homes and most of their net worth.”

Abel sighed. “I don’t think most presidential candidates understand the forces that control the energy in this country. Trump says it’s the deep state. It’s the deep everything. The deep oil and gas industry, the deep defense industry, finance, healthcare, education and the tech ‘bros.’”

Cain laughed. “Good point. And they all have their lobbyists in Washington. It’s the swamp and its deep.”

Abel smiled. “And each president promises to clean up some part of that swamp. Then the gators in the swamp get a hold of their ankle.”

Cain shook his head. “I think it’s us the gators get a hold of. The politicians always seem to get away somehow.”

Abel grunted. “Too true. Anyway, so get back to life expectancy across developed countries.”

Cain replied, “Oh, yeah. So, the correlation between income and life expectancy across developed countries was not as strong the correlation between states, but it was still a moderately strong .6 (Source). I thought GDP growth would help produce better health outcomes and life expectancy, but no.”

Abel asked, “What if a lot of Americans are not benefitting from that economic growth? Too much inequality? We were comparing the U.S. and Great Britain last week on obesity in school kids. Great Britain has a much lower GINI coefficient than the U.S. so incomes over there are more evenly distributed (Source).”

Cain asked. “That measure includes transfer payments in income, right? Pretax or after tax?”

Abel nodded. “Yeah. It includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and supplemental income. Any income that doesn’t involve an exchange of goods or services (Source). The OECD tracks both before and after tax. England has the same GINI index as the U.S. in pre-tax income, but their tax system reduces inequality more than the U.S.”

Cain shrugged. “What’s the GINI for Mexico?”

Abel flicked a finger across his phone. “Wow. The same as the U.S. after taxes. Boy, I thought we would be better than Mexico. Let’s see, what about Slovakia? No, that breaks the trend. They have an even lower GINI index than Great Britain, so more equality, and a low life expectancy as well.”

Cain smiled. “Every time I think, ‘that’s the key indicator,’ the data throws me a curve.”

Abel said, “So far what we are seeing is that average income has a strong influence on life expectancy but not the distribution of income. Is that the secret sauce to longer life expectancy? Raise average incomes?”

Cain replied, “It’s not that simple. We have a high income but relatively low life expectancy. But comparing the U.S. and Great Britain over time was interesting. Forty years ago the two countries had the same life expectancy. Since then the U.S. has averaged 3.6% real GDP growth (Source). That means that real GDP doubles in 20 years. Great Britain, on the other hand, has had only 2.5% annual growth, so it takes like 28 years for their GDP to double. Yet improvements in U.S. life expectancy have been far lower than Great Britain over that time.”

Abel asked, “What about healthcare spending? Inefficient overspending on healthcare and the military increases GDP. Any insights there?”

Cain sighed. “Well, you have a point there. The U.S. spends the highest amount of developed countries on healthcare, almost double the average (Source).”

Abel replied, “So other countries are spending less and getting better health outcomes. The public-private partnership in U.S. healthcare is not working and is not efficient. Are you ready to endorse universal health care?”

Cain smiled. “Them’s fighting words. Mexico has universal health care and it’s life expectancy is worse than the U.S. The same story for Slovakia.”

Abel argued, “Yeah, but Mexico and Slovakia are both rated poor in healthcare quality and innovation. The U.S. has good quality health care and the highest innovation ranking, but poor access and a fiscally unsustainable system (Source). Quality healthcare has to be accompanied by easy access to care. Will you agree with that?”

Cain frowned. “On the face of it, yes, but there are all these other factors we’ve looked at. This is a big country.”

Abel asked, “Ok, what about population density? There was a .5 correlation between life expectancy and density among the states.”

Cain nodded. “That was weird. It was the same between countries, so density has some effect on life expectancy, but the stronger factor was income.”

Abel frowned. “That’s surprising. In many European countries, the government provides healthcare so income should be a weaker factor.”

Cain replied, “The contradictions in these indicators drives me nuts. That’s why I say it’s too complicated to point to one or even two factors and say, ‘fix these and you’ll fix the problem.’”

Abel argued, “Well, we can’t sacrifice the good for the perfect.”

Cain studied the pancake on his fork for a moment. “I want simplicity. I dream of a society where we make clear rules, a society where people play by the rules.”

Abel laughed. “I was reading a book by David Graeber this week called The Utopia of Rules. He says it’s a wish that many of us have. You know, everybody knows and plays by the rules and those who play by the rules can win.”

Cain lifted his eyebrows. “Yeah, it seems like it’s the cheaters who win. That was the bitter truth that many of us learned during the financial crisis. No accountability for the cheaters.”

Abel argued, “Even before that. No accountability for actions in the Iraq war. Abu Ghraib. Hollywood had constructed a noble portrayal of American soldiers in combat. John Wayne. Gregory Peck and the like. Torturing prisoners was something the North Koreans and Chinese did. Not American soldiers.”

Cain sighed. “A reminder of Vietnam? Something’s happened in the past few decades. I’m still trying to get my head around it.”

Abel replied. “Graeber talks about sovereignty, something we normally associate with countries. In the post-Watergate consensus, Congress put constraints on the president. That’s changed in recent decades after 9-11, when Congress began to defer to the president. As Graeber notes, presidents can now order people assassinated, extradite prisoners of war to places where they can be tortured. They can conduct surveillance on ordinary citizens with flimsy pretext and sporadic oversight.”

Cain leaned back in his seat. “In Trump v. United States (Source) last year, the court conferred legal sovereignty on a president. A former president has absolute immunity for ‘official acts,’ although the court declined to define those. They used a previous 5-4 decision in Nixon v Fitzgerald holding that a former president had absolute immunity against civil litigation for damages.”

Abel argued, “But Trump v. United States was a criminal matter, not civil. The court just expanded the scope of the previous decision. I mean, this court has overruled previous court precedents about abortion and gun rights made during the 1970s. Then they base their ruling on a closely decided case in 1982?”

Cain nodded. “They created a radical expansion of presidential immunity, then didn’t have the backbone to establish any limits on official acts. I mean, Fitzgerald was a civil case about back pay and wrongful employment termination, not trying to overturn an election. To use that as a basis for their decision indicates just how arbitrary the conservative justices have become.”

Abel argued, “They might say that it is incremental jurisprudence.”

Cain smirked. “Incremental policymaking is a hallmark of our political system. That’s what these conservative justices have become. Activist politicians.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “Why did you vote for him?”

Cain took a deep breath. “You keep asking me that. The better of two bad alternatives. Why did you vote for Harris?”

Abel laughed. “The better of two bad alternatives.”

Cain replied, “I thought that there was still a Republican Party that would restrain Trump’s impulses. The party is gone. Only the nationalist radicals and hesitant members remain. The name is an empty shell.”

Abel said, “Last week, you mentioned activist courts and an activist executive branch. I don’t attach much meaning to the word. If people don’t like certain policies they attach the word “activist” to whoever made the policy.”

Cain shook his head. “You’re right. A lot of people do that. I mean it in the sense that some political actor makes a rule that makes it likely there will be more rules to refine that first rule.”

Abel argued, “We’ve got a complex society managed by a big bureaucracy. The proliferation of rules is inevitable.”

Cain took a sip of coffee. “Those are procedural rules. What I’m talking about is something different. ‘Principle’ would be better rule. Like sailors back in the old days using the north star as a guiding rule. Then they had a bunch of procedural rules to help them keep to that guiding rule.”

Abel interrupted, “You said political actors made the rule. So you’re not talking about some rule made at an office meeting.”

Cain nodded. “Right. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision in 2008 established an individual right to have a gun (Source). Since then there have two more decisions. McDonald in 2010 extended that right to include the states. The Bruen decision in 2022 ruled that gun laws could no longer use state interests as a balancing test. They had to be consistent with historic tradition. Three cases in fourteen years made it to the Supreme Court? That indicates that the Heller decision was not a well constructed principle. Of course, that applies to a lot of laws.”

Abel replied, “So compare that to Roe, the abortion decision in 1973. The Casey decision in 1992, then Gonzalez in 2007. That’s 34 years for two refinements.”

Cain nodded. “Someone could argue with the reasoning in Roe, but the length of time between refinements of the rule indicates that it was a well constructed rule, as rules go.”

Abel continued, “Maybe I’m not clear on the distinction. If the precedent or outcome of a rule is flawed, how can it be a good rule?”

Cain smiled. “A rule should be clear. It should have as few exceptions as possible.”

Abel looked doubtful. “That’s unreasonable. Take, for example, the rule against killing. There are lots of exceptions. War, self-defense. Is abortion an act of killing? Depends on your definition. Hunting animals? Isn’t that killing? This is the real world. It’s complicated.”

Cain smirked. “Of course it is. I said, ‘as few exceptions as possible.’ I didn’t say ‘no exceptions.’ When lawmakers make rules, they should ask themselves, ‘Does this rule invite a lot of exceptions? How can I change the wording of the rule to reduce exceptions?’ It’s just a principle to keep in mind.”

Abel asked, “So give me an example of a rule that you like as a rule, even though you might disagree with the reasoning.”

Cain barely paused. “The DOGE cuts. The rule was simple. Cut anyone who had less than a year’s employment, I believe. While the rule was clear, it produced undesirable outcomes. They had to hire some critical people back. We won’t know the full impact of the DOGE cuts for a while.”

Abel nodded. “They will cover up the mistakes. That decision was more a programming rule. Code in a criteria and get a list of employee names, then give them notice. Can you think of a law, like something that a legislature deliberated over?”

Cain stared into his coffee cup as though it held the answer. “How about a so-called bathroom bill? They are clear. Only people of a particular sex as listed on their birth certificate can use a single sex bathroom (Source). I might sympathize with people who are struggling with their gender identity. But the language of the bill is clear.”

Abel shook his head. “That, to you, is a good rule? How many of us carry our birth certificates with us when we use the bathroom? It has an impractical condition.”

Cain nodded. “But that’s not what I’m talking about. That’s the distinction. The language of the bill itself is clear. Take for instance the 1972 Clean Water Act. It gave the EPA regulatory power over the ‘waters of the United States.’ Courts and agencies have been fighting over that term and its, let’s see, boundaries for decades. What does that term include and exclude? A clear rule has terms in it with good boundaries.”

Abel frowned. “The Supreme Court often asks what is the limiting principle.”

Cain replied, “Yeah, a good defining characteristic.”

Abel asked, “So you don’t like the term ‘general welfare’ in the Constitution.”

Cain smiled. “You’re right. I don’t. The anti-Federalists at the Constitutional Convention didn’t like it either.”

Abel nodded. “Right. Yeah, Michael Klarman discussed that in his book ‘The Framers’ Coup.’ Did you ever think that politicians might purposely choose a term that has no clear boundaries? It’s the only way that lawmakers can agree on something. The astronomer Carl Sagan once said that people find agreement when they use a broad term like ‘God,’ which encompasses a lot of different concepts (Source).”

Cain nodded. “Good point. It’s a way of kicking the can down the road. It signals that lawmakers wanted to complete some law, to claim an accomplishment when there were still parts not done. So they take the undone stuff, the stuff they can not agree on, and slap a label on it, like ‘general welfare’ or ‘waters of the united states.’”

Abel set his glass of water down. “Those conservative justices who use a textualist approach to analyze a case may be looking at text that was written using ill-defined terms, terms without clear boundaries, to use your term. The textualists claim that their approach is grounded in empirical evidence, but the evidence itself, the text of the law, lacks definition.”

Cain smiled. “I like that connection. It shows the limits of any judicial interpretation.”

Abel replied, “So let’s get back to activist policies. You sounded fed up last week.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, Democrats are activist. That’s their brand. A hallmark of the Republican Party used to be a certain policy restraint, a prudent caution. No more. It’s so disappointing and it leaves a lot of voters like me in a political limbo. Neither party represents our approach to governing. You know, quit meddling. This tariff business is meddling in the extreme.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “It was a Republican president and strongly Republican House and Senate that initiated the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930. They imposed tariffs on more than 20,000 goods.”

Cain interrupted, “And imposed no tariff or low rates on a lot of goods. As I said, the hallmark of a badly constructed rule is a lot of exceptions.”

Abel continued, “Ok, the tariffs were activist policymaking by Republicans who held the Presidency and strong majorities in the House and Senate. The Republicans are all about restraint. They restrain free trade, individual choice, government support of child care, to name a few.”

Cain smirked, “Like the Democrats don’t do the same. Restrict guns, oil and gas drilling, dictate to automakers the kinds of cars they can produce. I mean, it’s the Democrats who created the bureaucratic state. All that rule-making limits choices.”

Abel laughed as he slid out of the booth. “Ironic. In his book, David Graeber writes about a paradox. He calls it the Iron Law of Liberalism. When a government tries to promote the free market, it often creates even more regulations. In their own way, both parties are guilty of making too many rules, of creating bureaucratic tangles.”

Cain looked up at Abel. “I wish we could change that somehow. See you next week.”

Abel gave a short wave. “I’ll pick up the check. Till next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT

A Triangle of Income, Health and Education

May 18, 2025May 16, 2025Leave a comment

May 18, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Abel scooped some egg on his waffle. “We’ve talked about the many responsibilities that schools carry and then I was reading a BBC article about clinics in Britain that treat severely obese kids. Since they started these clinics in 2021, they’ve treated almost 5000 kids (Source).”

Cain interrupted. “How many kids are in school over there?”

Abel replied, “Almost 8 million (Source). So this is a small percentage of the school population, but these are the kids referred by their family or school physician. The problem is probably a lot bigger.”

Cain glanced up from his coffee cup. “I always think of obesity as an American problem. I wonder how Britain compares to the U.S.?”

Abel nodded. “A few years back, New York City estimated that over 6% of K-8 kids were severely obese, but they use a slightly different methodology than Britain to classify kids (Source).”

Cain interrupted. “You mean if I walk into a New York City classroom of 16 students, one of them will be severely or morbidly obese?”

Abel shrugged. “They might not even be there. A lot more absences among those kids. They struggle academically.”

Cain frowned. “I expect more obese kids in towns that are car dependent. I always figured New York kids would walk a lot. Anyhow, how do they determine severely obese?”

Abel replied, “Britain uses a BMI over 40. They’ve been referred by a doctor. Some kids have BMIs over 50, like morbidly obese. Thirty percent of the kids who come to the clinics already showed signs of liver disease.”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “Liver disease at that age? Oh, wow. Did they say what the problem was? Does Britain have a program where poor kids get free lunches? Are the schools feeding these kids too much junk food?”

Abel glanced at his phone. “Hold on. I took notes. So, 40% of them came from poor neighborhoods and the schools in Britain do provide free meals for disadvantaged children. FSM they call it. Free school meals.”

Cain asked, “So how many school kids, fat or not, come from disadvantaged homes?”

Abel glanced at his phone again. “Yeah, what’s the baseline? Twenty-seven percent of all kids qualify for the free meal program (Source), but 40% of the severely obese come from disadvantaged neighborhoods. So, that’s a disproportionate amount of severe obesity among poor kids in Britain. New York City found that the percent of children with severe obesity has stayed about the same among all school kids during the past decade, but it has grown among minority students.”

Cain frowned. “My first instinct is to put some blame on the schools for the crap they serve in the cafeteria.”

Abel laughed. “Well, kids are not terribly fond of fruit and veggies. You can’t blame the cafeteria for that.”

Cain was equivocal. “Yeah, but all the white bread, the corn oil, the hot dogs and other prepared foods.”

Abel shook his head. “The kids who come from higher income homes are eating in the cafeteria as well. The only difference is their parents have to pay for it. If the school cafeteria were the chief culprit, there would a growing effect among the whole school population, not just minorities. Overall, though, that report showed a general decline among the entire student population during that decade. Obesity among disadvantaged students ran counter to the trend. So, what’s your next theory, Mr. Einstein?”

Cain smiled. “Hey, I’m improvising. How do they fatten up cattle? Feed them corn. Since the 1960s, we’ve been eating more processed food, more take-out food. What do those foods use? A lot of corn oil. It’s got a neutral flavor and a high smoke point. Great for deep fat fries. Too many Americans eat like it’s the state fair in July. Pass the grease, please.”

Abel argued, “That explains a growing obesity in the general population, but it doesn’t explain why obesity is growing even faster in disadvantaged communities, particularly among minority populations. A lot of those communities are food deserts. The big grocery store chains have moved out. The independent grocery chains struggle because they cannot get competitive pricing from their distributors. What’s left? Convenience stores. Packaged foods. Fried foods, ready to eat.”

Cain smiled. “Like the school cafeteria. Can families use food stamps for hot dogs at the convenience store?”

Abel shook his head. “Nope. Food stamps, or SNAP benefits, can’t be used for ready-to-eat meals.”

Cain argued, “But families can pay for a ready-to-eat hot dog and get a bottled soda with food stamps. Sugar, salt, and mystery meat with a bunch of chemicals, all in one convenient package, aided by taxpayer dollars.”

Abel frowned. “The amount a person gets on the SNAP program is relatively small, a bit over $6 a day (Source). RFK Jr. and his buddies want to ban the purchases of soda or candy with food stamps (Source).”

Cain scoffed. “Money is fungible. Like I said, they’ll just pay for the candy and use food stamps for something else. As we discussed last week, we’ve got an activist court. Now we’ve got an activist executive branch and an impotent Congress.”

Abel smirked. “This is who you voted for.”

Cain laid his hands in his lap. “What I voted for was what I thought was the better of two bad choices. Gallup reported that Biden and Trump have the two lowest average poll ratings in the modern era (Source).”

Abel asked, “Can I guess who has the lowest? Trump?”

Cain smiled. “Yeah. I was surprised. I thought it would be Bush and Trump. Bush had the worst Presidency, in my opinion. He kicked away a budget surplus, lied to the American people…”

Abel interrupted. “Lied to themselves as well. Johnson lied about Vietnam, but he knew he was lying. He’d only been in office a few months after Kennedy was shot and he thought Vietnam was going to be a boondoggle. He was worried that people would say he was weak, that he was an accidental president (Source).”

Cain nodded. “He lied to Congress about the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to get authorization for an undeclared war (Source). Did the Democratic House impeach him? No. Nixon lies about Watergate and the Democrats impeach him. Noble principles? That’s the lie they tell themselves and the public to cover up the viciousness, deceit and self-dealing that is at the heart of everyday politics.”

Abel replied, “I hate when you get so cynical.”

Cain shook his head. “It’s realism, not cynicism. Look, politics brings out the worst in people. We see it at City Council meetings, in state legislatures, in the White House and Congress. Lions and hyenas fight over a kill. It’s visible. People fight over invisible things like power and principles, but the carnage is just as ugly as a carcass on the African plain.”

Abel sighed. “So what’s your solution?”

Cain replied, “Make as few rules as possible. The smaller the carcass, the less incentive for politicians to fight over.”

Abel nodded. “Incentives. I was reading a book this week called “Hell To Pay” by Michael Lind. He writes about all the ways that companies suppress workers’ bargaining power. Non-compete clauses, legal and illegal immigration, salary bands.”

Cain asked, “What are salary bands?”

Abel replied, “It’s a way that companies in a sector can collude on wage levels.”

Cain interjected, “Price fixing, in other words.”

Abel nodded. “Yeah. It’s illegal so companies hire a third party HR consultant that tells them what other companies in that sector and area are paying.”

Cain smiled. “Regulatory compliance is a game of cat and mouse.”

Abel continued, “Lind recommends allowing collective bargaining by sector for some industries. Railroads and airlines do it. For small businesses, he suggests a regional or local wage board that would set wages and working conditions.”

Cain looked doubtful. “Let me make this more concrete. Instead of Amazon workers at one facility bargaining for wage increases, all warehouse workers in the entire country would bargain collectively with all employers in warehousing. So all the pay structures are the same throughout an industry?”

Abel nodded. “I suppose so.”

Cain asked, “But there are both large and small employers in the warehouse sector. Are small businesses and their workers subject to a wage board or are they included in the collective bargaining with Amazon and its employees?”

Abel lifted his shoulders. “I have no idea. Lind didn’t get into those kind of details.”

Cain winced. “And if they can’t agree on wages or benefits? Do all warehouse workers go on strike? This scheme complicates contractual relationships.”

Abel replied, “I don’t know. He suggested an independent commission like the FCC that would oversee the whole process. I suppose it could step in and act as a final arbiter and prevent strikes.”

Cain asked, “Almost like a guild system, don’t you think? The merchant guilds protected the interests of shopkeepers and artisan guilds protected some workers in skilled trades, I think.”

Abel smiled. “I hadn’t made that connection. I thought you would like the idea because it allows private parties to resolve things. Lind suggested eliminating non-compete agreements as well. They disembowel workers as a prerequisite for employment. They should be illegal anyway.”

Cain replied, “You’re basically for any regulation that will give workers more pricing power. Companies markup any increase in wages, so workers might make more money, but everyone will be paying higher prices. In response to rising prices, the Fed will raise interest rates. That will make homes and cars less affordable because of the higher loan payments.”

Abel interrupted, “People will be less dependent on government charity. They will eat better. They will live longer. There is a strong correlation between life expectancy and per capita personal income in each state.”

Cain asked, “Will they? Higher rates means less investment growth, fewer jobs added, maybe some job losses. Some workers are making more money, some people are out of jobs, and everyone is paying higher prices. It’s not so simple.”

Abel argued, “The existing system is demeaning for some people. Wal-Mart employees often don’t make enough to provide for their families. They rely on various government programs to supplement their income (Source). That is an indirect subsidy from the government to Wal-Mart. That subsidy goes into the pockets of the Walton family that owns almost half of the stock (Source). If Wal-Mart employees belonged to a retail union, their representatives would be bargaining with Wal-Mart and Kroger and Target and Home Depot.”

Cain shook his head. “It’s too big, too broad. A person with plumbing knowledge working in Home Depot is going to paid the same amount as someone scanning groceries in a checkout lane?”

Abel argued, “Obviously, there would be different classifications of retail employees. However, a plumbing guy working in Home Depot for a certain number of years would get paid the same as a plumbing guy in Ace Hardware or Lowe’s.”

Cain asked, “Who is going to mandate these classifications?”

Abel replied, “No mandates. The stores and employee union will probably agree on some distinctions. They can resolve that in negotiations, I suppose.”

Cain asked, “What about small businesses? Would employees get the same pay and benefits as large businesses? If so, a company like Home Depot would be able to offer employees health care at a lower cost than small businesses. Would there be a law mandating that a small business get the same insurance rates as a big company? What about different living standards in different states? There would have to be an adjustment for that.”

Abel rolled his eyes. “Questions I can’t answer. I don’t know. The private sector would have to work that out. I thought you liked that.”

Cain nodded. “Benefits complicate any solutions. They introduce factors that are outside of the industrial sector that a company operates in. Health insurance, for one. Retirement plans involve the financial industry, also a different sector. Mandated taxes like Social Security and Unemployment insurance involve other government programs. The politicians will be eager to meddle.”

Abel replied, “Ok, so what if there were no benefit package for employees? Start there.”

Cain said, “In 1960, Ronald Coase wrote The Problem of Social Cost (Source). He pointed out that when government imposes a regulation on a firm, the government acts as a super-firm in the sense that it controls a factor of production for each firm subject to the regulation.”

Abel interrupted, “What? That’s like saying that the umpire is a super-team. The government is just there to make sure everyone plays by the rules.”

Cain smirked. “Umpires don’t write the rules. Coase’s point was that private firms must make production decisions within the constraints of the market. They have to adjust to changing market conditions. A government agency has no such constraints. Laws and regulations do not respond to changing conditions. That’s why I favor as few government rules as possible.”

Abel sighed. “Well, we can’t live in an ideal world. I thought this was a realistic solution. I liked the empowerment of workers. Lind gave a lot of examples of how businesses weaken the power of workers to command a living wage. Temporary work visas, for one.”

Cain nodded. “What a racket that is. People with highly specialized skills and there are no American workers to fill the positions? The software company pays visa holders relatively low wages for all these specialized skills. Why is that? Oh, and that knowledgeable visa holder needs to be trained by the same person they will replace. It’s a scam.”

Abel laughed. “You’re familiar with some of the things that Lind talks about in the book. He also mentions the fact that most of those H-1b visas are given to workers from India. It’s almost three-quarters (Source). No other software engineers or computer scientists in the rest of the world? Only in India?”

Cain smirked. “A scam to cut costs by paying workers less. Another persistent problem in Washington is illegal immigration. It increases the labor supply and lowers wages, which benefits employers.”

Abel interrupted, “More demand for housing which increases housing costs and hurts workers. Lind writes about that too. So, if companies can combine to lobby for policies that enhance their power with workers, why can’t workers do the same?”

Cain shook his head. “I have so little faith in politicians to promote self-reliance. They need the public to depend on them. It gives them a sense of purpose and bargaining power.”

Abel argued, “Well, we need an alternative to the current system. Too many workers cannot earn a living wage and have to rely on government programs to get by. Growing obesity in kids from poor families is an indicator of a diseased system.”

Cain sighed. “Now comes the rant against capitalism?”

Abel smirked. “No, no rant. Lind mentions Adam Smith’s comment that a worker should have enough to maintain himself, and extra to raise his family and deal with emergencies. That’s not a recommendation from some socialist economist, but someone who advocated a minimum of regulations. Implementing sectoral bargaining for workers has the promise of lightening government’s role in the marketplace while correcting some of the abuses that our political system has enabled.”

Cain said, “The promise of a lighter role for government? This commission. Is it composed of political appointees?”

Abel shook his head. “Lind, the author, suggested an independent commission.”

Cain asked, “Like the Fed?”

Abel nodded. “Lind gave the FCC as an example, I think, but the idea is the same. I prefer a model along the lines of the Fed, I think. Staggered terms that are longer than four years, so the members of the commission are less subject to the political whims of one party.”

Cain argued, “That’s too much power concentrated in one commission.”

Abel replied, “Look how much power the Fed has. For more than a hundred years, it has given our economy more stability than in the hundred years before the Fed. That stableness attracts capital from the rest of the world.”

Cain looked doubtful. “Talking about the Fed. As I said before, higher incomes will lead to higher prices, higher interest rates. It’s something we could talk about at another time. You said life expectancy had a strong correlation with income. What’s strong?”

Abel replied, “.85. That was based on 2021 figures.”

Cain looked thoughtful. “I wonder what the correlation is in Canada or Britain. I want to check on that. Maybe read that book. Hey, I need to get going. An interesting discussion this week. ”

Abel nodded. “Yeah. See you next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT.

Conflicting Principles

May 11, 2025May 10, 2025Leave a comment

May 11, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Abel looked across the restaurant at a family seated around several tables. “I wonder why the kid is dressed in white.”

Cain turned to look. “Oh, yeah. First Communion, maybe? I think it’s that time of year.”

Abel spread some honey on his toast. “Last week, we were talking about charter schools. A few days later, I was listening to a Supreme Court case about a charter school in Oklahoma” (Source).

Cain asked, “What do you mean listen to?”

Abel replied, “Lawyers for both sides argue their case in front of the Supreme Court and the justices ask them questions. ‘Oral arguments,’ it’s called (Source).”

Cain nodded. “I know about oral arguments. I didn’t know they were broadcast.”

Abel finished chewing. “They started that in the pandemic, I think. If you subscribe to the Oyez podcast, you can listen to it a day or two after the argument. Their web site has a lot on past court cases (Source). There’s also a link on the Supreme Court’s web site where we can listen to them live (Source).”

Cain asked, “So what was the case about?”

Abel said, “Oklahoma has a state charter board that approves or denies applications to become charter schools. A few years ago, the state board approved an application for a Catholic charter school named St. Isidore, allowing them to freely follow their religious beliefs.”

Cain interrupted, “Wait. I thought charter schools were publicly funded by taxpayer dollars. What about separation of church and state?’

Abel nodded. “That’s what the state attorney general wondered.”

Cain asked, “A Democrat? I thought Oklahoma was fairly red.”

Abel shook his head. “No, a Republican. The AG’s office brought the case to the state’s Supreme Court, arguing that the charter should be nullified. The court agreed. Both the school and the state’s chartering board brought the case before the federal Supreme Court, where the two cases got joined together.”

Cain raised his eyebrows in mock drama. “So one state agency, the AG, is pitted against another state agency, the charter board.”

Abel laughed. “And there’s some political machinations on the court.”

Cain twirled an imaginary moustache. “Politics on the Supreme Court? Surely, you jest, my man!”

Abel smiled. “Justice Barrett, one of the conservative justices, recused herself from the case so there are just eight justices, a five to three split between conservatives and liberals. If the three liberal justices can bring Chief Justice Roberts to their side, the decision would result in a 4-4 tie, which would let the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision stand.”

Cain asked, “So what are the issues both sides are fighting over?”

Abel put his coffee cup down. “Before I get to that, let me get back to the politics. So the justices direct their questions to the lawyers for either side, but the questions are designed to bring up points that the conservatives and liberals think are important to their argument.”

Cain replied, “Indirectly steering the debate as the justices hope to sway Roberts.”

Abel smiled. “Yeah. So the liberals focus on the establishment clause in the First Amendment that prevents the government from favoring one religion over another.”

Cain looked puzzled. “I thought charter schools were private.”

Abel replied, “They are, but they are publicly funded, and they have to follow the same rules as other public schools. They can’t choose which students they admit.”

Cain interrupted, “We talked about that last week. The schools are not supposed to do that. Some states are rather lax in how they enforce that rule.”

Abel nodded. “Good reminder. The school has to get approval for their curriculum, and the state closely monitors the school to make sure that it meets the state’s requirements. The state may even have a representative on the charter school’s board. Plus, the state can close the school down. Even though the school is private, the state has a lot of control.”

Cain said, “Reminds me of the debate over independent contractor status. If XYZ company hires someone to do a job, and XYZ has substantial direction and control of how that person performs the work, then that person is an employee, not an independent contractor. XYZ company has to pay employer taxes for whatever money they pay that person.”

Abel nodded. “That’s a good point. It’s the familiar ‘if it quacks like a duck’ argument. So the plaintiffs for the state chartering board and St. Isidore, the charter school, stressed the private ownership of the school, religious freedom and free expression. The respondents, the AG’s office, focused on the control that the state has over St. Isidore and that control makes them an extension of state legitimacy and power.”

Cain looked surprised. “I agree with the AG’s office.”

Abel replied, “I think it’s a case of which precedent do you think should carry the most weight. The conservative justices focused on the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment (Source). A charter school must meet minimum curriculum requirements. One of the lawyers said the state even specifies that dangling participles must be taught in English class. But the school can have a focus like science, the arts, or on Chinese language skills, offering some language immersion classes.

Cain interrupted, “That shows how much control the state has. So what was the counter argument from the conservative justices?

Abel replied, “I think it was Kavanaugh who expressed concern about equal treatment. Each charter school can have a different focus, but if a school has a religious focus, that’s unconstitutional?”

Cain tilted his head slightly. “Ok, good point. An American history teacher at St. Isidore could stress Christian principles as fundamental ideas to the founders who wrote the Constitution. If that teacher cited some Bible verses to illustrate those principles, is that legal? The teacher is paid with public taxpayer dollars. Is the government promoting one religion over another?”

Abel argued, “Michael Klarman wrote a book on the founding called Framer’s Coup. At the beginning of the introduction, he cites Madison and Benjamin Rush referring to an ‘Almighty hand’ or the ‘hand of God’ (Source).”

Cain looked skeptical. “Yeah, but they weren’t referring to a specific religion, or even a broad category like Christianity.”

Abel said, “Should a school teacher in a publicly funded institution cite any religion? If the Supreme Court decides that the state can charter religious schools, where does it stop? What if a teacher cited the Koran as embodying the founding principles of the American Constitution?”

Cain smirked. “Not a lot of Muslims in Oklahoma. I could see where Catholics and Protestants would get into a war over this issue. Catholic teaching would stress the Federalist view of government at the founding. More centralized and authoritarian, the one championed by Hamilton. Protestant teaching would stress the anti-Federalist view associated with Jefferson. Decentralized power, more autonomy at the local level.”

Abel argued, “But both of those views could be taught without referencing back to the Bible or the Koran. Religious traditions provoke too much dissent and violence. The founders wanted to stress constitutional principles that bound the thirteen colonies together, not tore them apart. The European powers were already trying to do that. In Federalist #10, Madison noted the conflict of political factions with differing regional interests (Source). He hoped that the Constitution would balance the tension between national and local interests.”

Cain nodded. “Getting back to the issues involved, you’re saying it’s the First against the Fourteenth? The conservative justices and the Catholic charter school use the 14^th Amendment to justify their opinion. Liberal justices and the state’s AG office base their arguments on the 1^st Amendment.”

Abel smiled. “It’s more complicated. The conservative justices also focused on the free exercise clause in the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has long struggled with the balance between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause (Source). An individual’s free exercise cannot conflict with state interests like public safety and health. As long as a school meets the curriculum requirements, it has satisfied other state interests. Is it not entitled to express its views? If other charter schools can focus on climate change and environmental science, why can’t a school express its religious views?”

Cain sighed. “So the First and the Fourteenth Amendments are bound together in a way.”

Abel nodded. “Remember that in 2015’s Obergefell case, a conservative court decided that same sex couples had a right to marry (Source). Equal protection. That decision angered some conservative religious groups. The conservative justices seem to favor that combination of equal protection and free exercise over a state’s interest in remaining religiously neutral. I think Alito mentioned the Masterpiece Cake Shop case.”

Cain replied, “Yeah, the owner of the shop didn’t want to make a custom cake for a gay couple’s wedding. Against his religious beliefs, he said. The state said he had to serve the public and couldn’t discriminate against a customer because of his religious beliefs. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed. The federal Supreme Court overruled and said that a custom made cake was a form of expression protected under the First Amendment (Source).”

Abel argued, “Yeah, but the state did not fund the cake shop with taxpayer dollars. Alito sees only the context that will support his judicial instincts. He wrote the Dobbs decision overturning Roe, reasoning that the Constitution did not give a woman a right to an abortion because it was not deeply rooted in American tradition (Source). His ‘reasoning’ conveniently left out the fact that the Constitution as written in the 18^th and 19^th centuries gave women few rights. They were subservient to men. That’s the bubble of reason that Alito lives in.”

Cain sighed. “Well, remember that he’s writing the majority opinion, so its not just his reasoning.”

Abel shook his head. “Basing decisions on ‘history and tradition’ is flawed. It invites the justices to pick and choose only the history and tradition that supports their biases.”

Cain laughed. “Boy, we could spend a few days on that topic. I do think that the conservative justices are opening a can of worms on this one. If they are going to allow states to charter publicly funded religious schools, some state charter board is going to discriminate against a particular religion. The board will cover their tracks for sure, claiming that the applicant did not meet the state’s curriculum requirements. The applicant will file a lawsuit, claiming religious discrimination. This is an activist court issuing decisions based on unclear reasoning.”

Abel interrupted, “Unclear reasoning. You are being generous.”

Cain shrugged. “The lower courts don’t know how to apply that reasoning. Inevitably, more cases will come to the court, and it will clarify its reasoning.”

Abel smirked. “This court will be dominated by this kind of thinking for decades to come. Anyway, let’s move on from court stuff. Last week, we were talking about problems in education. One of the problems we didn’t discuss is the expectations of parents. Mom and dad might expect school instruction for their child to have the same elements as when they went to school. Like multiplication tables in grammar school or some in high school who had to memorize a poem by Shakespeare.”

Cain nodded. “Well, I thought it was reassuring that they are still teaching dangling participles. There was much more focus on rote learning when we were going to school.”

Abel continued, “That rote learning helped kids learn some basic job skills, like how to make change. Today, some might argue that kids rely on the cash register or the computer to do the math for them so why should kids learn basic math skills? I’d argue that, without those basic skills like percentages and such, kids will become easy prey when they grow up. People can dazzle them with fancy figures that they can’t follow and sell them financial products that hurt rather than help them.”

Cain laughed. “They will ask ChatGPT for financial advice, I suppose. They’ll become like the society in the movie ‘Wall-E’ where they are totally reliant on machines for everything. But what kid thinks about investments? That’s far in the future.”

Abel argued, “Maybe at a very young age, you’re right. A month from now is a long time in a young kid’s mind. But there have been good experiments with high schoolers managing stock portfolios.”

Cain replied, “Goes to show that incentives matter. In the search for YouTube subscribers, a kid will rip a favorite album and upload it to YouTube, complete with notes and navigation to each track in the album. The kid will see little money for all that effort because the recording artist will monetize any ad revenue, but just the prospect of getting more subscribers gets the kid to spend that time and effort. We need to apply those lessons to school learning.”

Abel looked doubtful. “Look, there’s stages in brain development. At the risk of herding kids to learn the same thing at the same time, we can’t be teaching calculus to sixth graders.”

Cain argued, “We had our daughter in Montessori school for a few years. She was in a classroom with kids of different ages. She was about seven and heard about fractions, told the teacher she wanted to learn about them and the teacher had one of the older girls show her fractions. We need more innovative teaching methods, not rigid curriculum.”

Abel shook his head. “Some kids really struggle with fractions and decimals and need to be taught by someone with more experience. You know, someone who knows different approaches to help them understand. The fault of ‘new math’ when it was taught in the 1970s and 80s was trying to teach kids about rules and how they affect relationships between numbers. It was too abstract for a lot of kids.”

Cain was equivocal. “Well, there were also kids who were good at memorizing. They had memorized that three-eighths was less than a half without really understanding the concept. I remember one kid in fourth grade, I think. To add two fractions, he cross multiplied them even when they had the same base.”

Abel cocked his head. “What do you mean?”

Cain replied, “Like two-fourths plus one-fourth. He didn’t need to find a common denominator and cross multiply because the two fractions already have the same base, which is four. The kid had found that the cross-multiplication procedure got the right answer, so he used that all the time.”

Abel looked puzzled. “What if the problem involved adding a whole number and a fraction, like four plus a half.”

Cain smiled. “He would convert the whole number to a fraction, like make four into a fraction of four over 1, then go through his procedure. He was so resistant when I tried to show him any method that was quicker. ‘I might get the wrong answer,’ he told me.”

Abel lifted an eyebrow. “You know, I’ll bet a lot of people carry that approach into their adulthood. They resist change, new methods of doing things, or new arguments. If we looked closely, we’d probably see that same rigid approach at parent-teacher conferences and city council meetings.”

Cain laughed. “Or on the Supreme Court. Using the same kind of reasoning in two cases that have critical differences. Some justices ignore the different principles involved, brushing the differences aside as unimportant.”

Abel smiled. “Different species of animal tend to follow a well-worn path in the forest, even if there has been some change to the landscape and there is an easier path down to the river, for instance. Do they take the easier path? No. They use the same rule.”

Cain asked, “How do we teach kids that different rules apply in different circumstances? That’s what English and math are all about. That’s the importance of learning a foreign language. We become aware that other languages have different rules than our native language. It makes us more aware of the rules that structure our native language.”

Abel asked, “So what about a public school teaching comparative religions? The kids would learn that each religion has different beliefs, customs and rules for interpreting our relationship with the infinite, our own mortality, and the society around us. Could a public school teach both Islam and Catholicism?”

Cain looked puzzled. “What about the Jewish faith? Or Evangelical beliefs? A good background in comparative religions is a lot to ask of a 4th grade teacher. I still think that the state needs to steer clear of funding religious instruction.”

Abel sighed. “I think this decision will be important. Last week, you mentioned that a third of Rochester’s public schools are charter. One of the lawyers arguing at the Supreme Court mentioned that all of New Orleans public schools are charter (Source). The state, as a whole, has only 11% charter schools, but it’s a growing constituency (Source).”

Cain laid his napkin on the table next to his plate. “Sometimes I think that these problems persist because we hold onto conflicting principles. We want schools to be like a Swiss army knife, a multi-tool that addresses several problems and we can’t agree on priorities. We want people to be housed but we want to preserve the character of our neighborhoods and that makes it difficult to build affordable housing. We want the state to stay out of religion, but we want to preserve free speech and religious freedom.”

Abel nodded. “Maybe that’s the most persistent problem of all. It’s like we’re sitting on a wagon being pulled by two horses and we have no reins to guide the horses. Hey, I see you’re ready to go. Maybe we could talk about that next week.”

Cain laughed as he stood. “I like that horse analogy. My treat this week. See you next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT in response to the prompt: “draw an image of two ghosts styled like Casper the Ghost getting ready to have a boxing match.”

It’s Complicated

May 4, 2025May 3, 2025Leave a comment

May 4, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Cain said, “A little thing I appreciate about this place is they serve melted butter, not frozen butter packets.”

Abel nodded. “A little extra time and care.”

Cain asked, “You need to wash up before you eat?”

Abel turned his right hand over. “Oh, that’s just dirt under my fingernails. Getting the flower beds ready and weeding. What about you? Anything interesting this week?”

Cain spread a small amount of butter on his waffle. “We were talking about common problems like homelessness, and I thought we could talk about education this week. K-12, primarily.”

Abel put his coffee cup down. “Oops. That reminds me. Last week I mentioned that the Feds had helped fund the capital portion of Denver’s homeless program. This past week the city council learned that FEMA has canceled a $32 million grant because Denver is a sanctuary city (Source). The agency had already received $8 million of that grant.”

Cain frowned. “Can the Feds take the money back?”

Abel shook his head. “I don’t know. I don’t think the City Council knows. There’s no rules. The Trump administration is just doing stuff. Anyway, education is even more complicated than homelessness. What got you interested in education this week?”

Cain sighed. “An argument with my daughter.”

Abel frowned. “She teaches sixth grade, right?”

Cain replied, “Fifth. She says that kids are still kids at that age. Then they turn into discipline problems.”

Abel smiled. “The stages of child development. The terrible twos, the argumentative fours and then middle school.”

Cain laughed. “Then teenager. I used to think, ‘Was I like this when I was growing up?’ It gave me a new appreciation for my parents.”

Abel said, “So, go on. What was the argument about?”

Cain pursed his lips. “Oh, we got into one of those equity, equality discussions. I should know better. I said that a kid who can barely read is not going to do as well in life. Society should accept that and devote more of their resources to the more gifted kids. They are the ones who will do the most for society.”

Abel nodded. “A Pareto improvement in the long run. It would benefit the more gifted without materially harming outcomes for those with learning disabilities (Source).”

Cain replied, “I actually called it that. She said that such a shift in resources would harm struggling students. I said that the current condition already harms the more gifted and her perspective was too myopic. I might have characterized her position as Marxist.”

Abel gave a skeptical look as he lifted his coffee cup. “Rawlsian, maybe. The Difference Principle. The whole idea that we should reduce inequality so that the least of us benefit the most (Source). But, Marxist?”

Cain sighed. “Not my best moment. Anyway, she accused me of being uncharitable and I took offense. After helping her out so many times, she calls me uncharitable?”

Abel frowned. “Sorry that happened. I hate when arguments turn from an exploration of different claims to throwing word darts at each other.”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “Then she said I didn’t know what I was talking about. All opinion and little evidence.”

Abel winced. “Ouch. This is a topic you two should not discuss.”

Cain smiled. “Usually we don’t and this is why. Anyway, she started describing some education metrics that, I’ll admit, I was unfamiliar with. We didn’t have all this stuff when she was a kid in school. She mentioned all the pressure that teachers are under, and I didn’t appreciate her contribution or her sacrifice.”

Abel interrupted, “She took it personal. You were a stand-in for society as a whole.”

Cain bit his lip. “Looking back, yeah, I guess you’re right. I reassured her that I respected her choice of career and apologized for hurting her feelings.”

Abel clapped softly. “Smart dad.”

Cain smirked. “I’m either getting soft or wiser in my old age. Anyway, I went to look up some data.”

Abel leaned forward. “So her evidence comment had some effect on you. What are some of these new metrics?”

Cain said, “My daughter mentioned an iReady score so I watched a video on iReady tests (Source). Their scores indicate whether a child is performing at or below grade level. I think that would be easier for parents to understand than a percentile rank. When they summarize an entire school district, educators, politicians and parents can get a simple but clear picture of academic progress across several grades (Example). In the spring of 2024, only a quarter of students in the Rochester School District were performing at or above grade level. A third were three or more grades behind (Source).”

Abel frowned. “Oomph. I’ll bet that stirs up a lot of political disagreements and accusations.”

Cain nodded. “You bet. They are spending like $30,000 per student (Source), but that’s below the state average of $36,000 (Source). New York has some of the highest spending in the nation.”

Abel shrugged. “Childcare alone can run $20,000. We expect a lot more from schools. What’s the poverty level in Rochester? Do you know?”

Cain stared at his coffee cup as though it held the answer. “It was about 25% (Source). Yeah, a huge problem. That city is a cautionary tale in the benefits of economic diversification.”

Abel asked, “What got you interested in Rochester?”

Cain smiled. “I was looking up information on test scores and somehow wound up reading some article about Rochester. I’ve been through there a few times. It’s just north of the Finger Lakes in New York State. Beautiful in the spring. Brutal in the winter because it’s on Lake Ontario.”

Abel said, “I thought it was a booming city in the 1950s. Wasn’t Eastman Kodak headquartered there?”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “Yeah, that whole corridor along I-90 was booming in the post-war period. Kodak was a big employer. So was Xerox, the copier company. Bausch and Lomb, the eyeglass manufacturer. Less than two hours away to the east was Syracuse, another prosperous town at that time. General Electric had a plant there. So did Carrier, the air conditioner company. To the west was Buffalo. Bethlehem Steel was near there and some other manufacturers as well.”

Abel replied, “So this was the industrial Promised Land that Trump talks about. Like Moses, he will lead the MAGA tribe to that Golden Age.”

Cain smiled. “Yeah. There were similar industrial corridors like that in other states. Relatively high unionization rates. During that time, more than a third of workers in New York State were unionized. Workers earned middle-class incomes.”

Abel interrupted, “Mostly white?”

Cain’s eyes widened. “Yeah, almost 100% until the late 1950s (Source). As the workforce expanded, blacks moved to the area to take lower skilled jobs (Source).”

Abel interrupted again, “Companies were importing workers to cut costs. Eventually, those companies would export those jobs to other countries. So, what’s the unionization rate now?”

Cain put his coffee cup down. “New York still has a relatively high unionization rate, but it’s now just under 25%. In Rochester, it’s half that rate (Source).”

Abel asked, “A lot of homeless, I imagine.”

Cain nodded. “After the pandemic moratoriums on evictions ended, the number of unsheltered homeless almost doubled in Rochester (Source). I was surprised to find that Oregon and New York State have the highest rates of homelessness in the country, but New York finds shelter for most of their homeless. Oregon doesn’t (Source).”

Abel frowned. “That surprises me. I think of Oregon as a rather progressive state. They have voted for the Democratic candidate in past presidential elections.”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “California and Oregon have higher rates of unsheltered homeless than some warm southern states like Florida, Alabama and Georgia (Source).”

Abel looked puzzled. “We started talking about problems in education, which took us to issues with poverty and now we are at the homeless problem that we discussed the past few weeks. In 2002, Stephen Wolfram published a book called ‘A New Kind of Science.’ In it he showed how a simple rule could produce complex visual patterns or a bland uniformity of color.”

Cain interrupted, “And this is leading to…?”

Abel gave a short laugh. “I’m thinking out loud. So, we recognize a problem in education, for instance. It’s related to poverty. That’s related to an industrial downturn over several decades. That’s related to too much reliance on related industries, you said. Maybe that’s related to Rochester’s role in industrial production during World War 2. I think we long to discover that one simple rule that produced such a complex set of problems. Someone like Trump comes along and claims to know the rule and how to fix it. ‘Vote for me,’ they say. People do.”

Cain smiled. “You know I like simple rules.”

Abel grinned. “I know you do. Republican voters in general like simple answers. Tax cuts, for instance. Republican politicians promise, ‘Tax cuts will increase investment and boost jobs, and the benefits will trickle down to the larger population.’ In theory, it sounds plausible. We’ve had tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2017. There’s no evidence that they increased investment and boosted job growth.”

Cain argued, “Democrats are guilty of the same simplistic thinking. They say, ‘give government more money by taxing the rich. Government experts will fix it.’ Do those experts fix it? No. Experts are good at research and crafting a lot of rules. Not so good at implementing solutions.”

Abel nodded. “Proves my point. We like to believe in simple rules. Although, when given a simple rule, we don’t like to follow it. Jesus had just two rules. ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’ was the second.”

Cain smirked. “That’s a simple rule to state, and a deceptively hard rule to follow. We could spend hours on the contradictions that such a rule generates.”

Abel snapped his fingers. “Eureka! Let’s call it ‘Cain’s Theorem.’ Simple rules can generate complex contradictions.”

Cain laughed. “When simple rules involve public policy. Maybe that’s what Wolfram’s complex visual patterns described. An intricate set of contradictions.”

Abel replied, “That’s good. Getting back to education, I think one of the problems is that the task of public education has gradually expanded. Their stated role is to educate our kids, but they are also babysitters. They provide at least some structured time and a place for kids to develop companionship.”

Cain interrupted, “For some kids, school is a food pantry and a security blanket. Special needs kids might need medical assistance.”

Abel nodded. “Good point. Then we fault the schools when the kids get low test scores. We give the schools all these tasks but measure only the test scores.”

Cain smirked. “What, like a babysitter score?”

Abel replied, “Well they could measure the diameter of each kid’s arm to test for malnutrition (Source). What about gains in productivity? While the school is babysitting children, the parents are more productive. That benefits society but who counts that?”

Cain frowned. “Hard to measure, but ok, I’ll give you that. So, your point is that school scores should reflect all the roles that society imposes on them? What, a composite score?”

Abel nodded. “Yeah, call it an iSchool score like that iReady score for students that you talked about.”

Cain shook his head. “Schools in middle-class and higher income neighborhoods would score well on those other measures with little effort. Schools in low-income districts would struggle.”

Abel argued, “But at least their efforts would be recognized.”

Cain shrugged. “What benefit is a good nutrition score if that doesn’t lead to higher test scores? The schools may have multiple responsibilities, but their main purpose is education.”

Abel frowned. “I don’t like the way the system treats kids like machines. Inputs and outputs.”

Cain replied, “Incentives are the key.”

Abel sighed. “Your answer to everything.”

Cain laughed. “Gimme a break. Look, test scores are important to some kids. Others, not so much. Social media apps like TikTok have been very successful at getting kids to spend a lot of time on their phones.”

Abel scoffed. “That’s not learning like school.”

Cain argued, “It’s engagement. Learning is an outcome of engagement. Look at those computer games where kids work their butts off to acquire some magical power token in the game.”

Abel agreed, “Kids are magical thinkers. What are you suggesting? There are no magical tokens in real life.”

Cain shook his head. “Sure, there are. Kids don’t recognize them. Language and math skills. Develop their memory, visualization and analytical skills. Hand-eye coordination. Manual skills. We give these kids numerical scores for their accomplishments, maybe a trophy or two. That’s not enough incentive for many students. They cry out for recognition and status.”

Abel said, “I worked with a guy who grew up in Detroit. A lot of kids planned on working the assembly line in an auto plant. School accomplishments weren’t all that important.”

Cain nodded. “Same thing in a mining town or any town where a single industry dominates the local economy. Like in West Virginia, dad works in a mine. The sons follow in his footsteps. Not much else to do in an economy like that. No policy solution can fit every circumstance.”

Abel replied, “Minority kids can get discouraged if they think that being a minority is a handicap in the job market. Resentment will interfere with any motivation they have to develop job skills. How many black students in Rochester public schools? Do you know?”

Cain replied, “Almost half. Less than 10% of students are white (Source).”

Abel whistled softly. “White flight. Another complication. Remember all the controversy in the 1970s over busing students to integrate schools after the Supreme Court decision? (Source)”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, and that reduces property values and property tax collections. That makes Rochester dependent on the state for a lot of it’s school funding (Source).”

Abel replied, “Reinforces my point. A simple solution like ‘incentives’ won’t work. Elements of the problem are interwoven throughout the society and the economy. As far as incentives go, what matters to kids changes as they grow up. That’s a relatively short time. We try to teach them what’s important when they become adults.”

Cain sighed. “In twenty years, what’s important in the job market can change. Kids need to be adaptable.”

Abel interrupted, “That supports my argument that school is about more than job skills. Developing values, a sense of history and past conflicts and learning about the society that kids were born into. I’ll grant you, these are not all marketable skills, but they help children become more complete human beings.”

Cain asked, “Is that the role of schools? Too many kids graduate high school and are little more than functional readers. How is a kid going to fully develop if they can barely read?”

Abel argued, “The answer is not to force all the marginal students on public schools, and allow charter schools to discourage children with learning disabilities. Anyway, how do these new metrics help students?”

Cain replied, “They indicate where the student is weak, particularly in math and reading skills. That helps the parents and student focus on those key areas. Teachers can form groups within a classroom, matching students who have similar areas that they need to focus on.”

Abel nodded. “A lot more work for the teachers. That’s what your daughter was talking about.”

Cain sighed. “Yeah. More work for the same pay.”

Abel asked, “How does a card carrying libertarian have a daughter teaching public school?”

Cain smirked. “Classical liberal, not libertarian. Don’t ask me. She has wanted to be a teacher since she was eight, I think. She would make tests for her mother and me.”

Abel gave a silent whistle. “She made you take tests?”

Cain laughed. “Yep. We had to keep our eyes on our own test paper. Very serious. I’ve come to believe that teaching is a passion. It’s like people who have to play music. It’s who they are.”

Abel nodded. “For a lot of musicians and teachers, it’s certainly not about the money. Have you suggested she teach at a charter school?”

Cain replied, “I did. She said she couldn’t afford to. A few years ago, teachers at charter schools in Denver were making about 60% of what public school teachers make (Source). I was shocked to learn that the average salary of about $44,000 is a little bit more than what a retail clerk earns (Source).”

Abel frowned. “That’s for nine or ten months of work, though.”

Cain’s jaw tightened. “My daughter informed me in a firm tone of voice that a lot of teachers squeeze a full year’s time working during that period.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “School boards respond to shifts in cultural values, then impose those burdens on teachers. Why would a teacher work for that kind of money? It doesn’t exactly fit your favorite theory about how prices allocate resources.”

Cain replied, “Like I said, it’s a passion. But I still think that prices allocate resources. Just because there are black holes in space, we don’t say that the theory of gravity is wrong. There are limits to any theory.”

Abel set his fork down. “Is there a big move to charter schools in Rochester? An effort to cut costs?”

Cain replied, “More than a third of students in Rochester are in charter schools already (Source). For New York State as a whole, less than 10% of students are in charter school (Source). In Colorado, it’s 15% (Source).”

Abel frowned. “I thought the charter school movement was primarily about autonomy. It’s as much about costs.”

Cain looked up at the clock above Abel’s head. “I’m a firm believer in adaptability, a variety of solutions. That’s what the private marketplace is all about. Government institutions ignore varying circumstances when they impose a rigid standard on all communities.”

Abel interrupted, “There have to be some basic rules, civil rights and liberties that apply to all individuals. That spirit is at the heart of the Constitution.”

Cain nodded and stood, laying his napkin on the table. “You’re right, but I think the Feds should leave it to the states to craft solutions that protect those liberties. I grant you it’s not easy.”

Abel looked up. “I’ll talk to you next week.”

Cain turned to go. “Yeah. The time got away from me. I’ll see you next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT in response to the prompt “draw an image of a cat’s cradle.”

Delmont, M., & Theoharis, J. (2017). Introduction: Rethinking the Boston “Busing Crisis”. Journal of Urban History, 43(2), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144216688276

Priorities and Problem Bundles

April 27, 2025April 26, 2025Leave a comment

April 27, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Abel said, “After last week’s conversation on the homeless problem, I wondered about the strategies cities have devised to tackle the problem. I thought Denver and Aurora provided a good contrast. Here are two cities in the metro Denver area that have adopted policies with a different emphasis. They share a common border so imagine you’re standing on one side of a border street. Homeless people on that side of the street get treated one way. Homeless on the other side of the street get dealt with under a different policy.”

Cain smiled, “Well, you had a more productive week than I did. I spent Monday worrying about the consequences if Trump tried to fire Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve. On Tuesday, Trump said the media made too big a deal out of things he said.”

Abel asked, “What did Trump say?”

Cain replied, “That he wanted to fire Powell. Trump’s exact words were ‘his termination cannot come fast enough’ (Source).”

Abel smirked. “Naturally, it’s the media’s fault for broadcasting what Trump says. Anyway, to get back to the homeless problem. Yeah, the mayor of Denver, his name’s Mike Johnston, ran on a campaign of reducing homelessness and took office in July 2023. He immediately announced his administration’s ‘All In Mile High’ program. By the end of that year, the city had bought a hotel and turned it into a shelter for 205 families. Tamarac Shelter it’s called (Source).”

Cain whistled. “A government that got something done in six months. Good for them.”

Abel continued, “By the end of last year, the city had moved 2500 homeless people into housing of some sort (Source). The cost was about $155 million in the 17 months ending in December 2024 (Source). Much of the expense was startup costs, funded by federal grants for the purchase and repair of buildings to house homeless people (Source). The city expects to spend almost $58 million in fiscal year 2025 as ongoing costs to provide housing and support programs for 2000 homeless.”

Cain asked, “How many homeless people does Denver have?”

Abel replied, “A few years ago, they estimated 9000 (Source). That’s less than the 11,000 estimated homeless in 2012 (Source).”

Cain frowned. “So, the city hopes to resolve the problem in the next two years?”

Abel sighed. “Resolve? No. Reduce? Yeah. They estimate that people will spend six to twelve months in the program so I suppose the goal is to show a strong response in the hopes that the problem will ease.”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “Housing is not getting cheaper. That’s going to put some pressure on poorer families who are just one or two paychecks from homelessness. How many of the homeless are these immigrants that got bused up from Texas?”

Abel shook his head. “I don’t know but migrants were the main component of the surge in homelessness in 2022 and 2023.”

Cain nodded. “You said the city estimated a cost of $58 million a year to provide shelter and support services for 2000 homeless people. Napkin math tells me that’s about $30,000 per person. That’s the same amount the federal government spends to house someone in a standard federal prison (Source). That says something about our priorities and values. In essence, we pay people not to work, whether they commit a federal crime or become homeless.

Abel scoffed. “Well, that’s not exactly giving them money.”

Cain argued, “It’s giving someone money. One man’s expense is another man’s income. That’s the underlying problem. The prison industrial complex naturally promotes more prison time as a solution to crime.”

Abel showed surprise. “You would support more rehab services instead of prison?”

Cain shrugged. “Depends on what the crime is. I don’t think rehab works well with violent people. They have seen violence as a solution to their problems for a long time.”

Abel asked, “That’s not true. Given an opportunity and the right emotional circumstances, an abused wife might kill her husband. Maybe there was not an immediate threat when she killed him, so a jury doesn’t buy her plea of self-defense. She killed him to avoid the likely chance of mortal injury because of her past experiences with her husband.”

Cain nodded. “Maybe you’re right. There’s not a cut and dried rule. Given that each individual’s circumstances are a bit different, I wonder if AI could be used to guide sentencing? An AI could scan through a gazillion histories of court cases involving violent crime, look for patterns that promise a greater chance of success with rehab.”

Abel wiped his mouth with his napkin. “I like that. A more individualistic approach.”

Cain continued, “These damn politicians just don’t think of the long-term consequences of their spending policies. They adopt a ‘tough on crime’ political posture to get re-elected. They support privatization of prisons because private corporations don’t have to be as accountable to the public. Core Civic runs 61 prisons (Source). The GEO Group has 50 facilities in the U.S. that house prisoners and detained migrants for ICE (Source). These are big businesses that are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. GEO had a drop in profit last year because they spent money to build additional capacity for detained migrants.”

Abel’s eyes widened. “Border crossings are at historic lows (Source). GEO can’t be happy about that.”

Cain nodded. “Sure. They’ve invested money. They want to fill those detention facilities. You can bet their lobbyists are bending ears in the White House and Congress. I’m just afraid that cities like Denver are going to promote a similar constituency of companies that provide services for the homeless. Those companies do not want a reduction in homelessness. OK, so what’s Aurora’s approach? You said it was different.”

Abel nodded. “Denver emphasizes a stable home as a priority. Aurora takes a “tough-love” approach that emphasizes work. They have three tiers of assistance. At Tier 1, which is an emergency level, the homeless have shelter but no privacy. They need to work at improving their lives through rehab, volunteer and paid work to earn a spot in Tier 2 housing, which is semi-private, and Tier 3, which is private (Source).

Cain replied, “Yeah, I like that. A program with incentives. In fact, I’d like to see an incentive program for prisoners. They would get basic gruel, a crude bed and a minimum of yard time when they first got into the facility. They would have to prove themselves to get better food, board and time outside their cell.”

Abel frowned. “The prison would need to segregate prisoners by level of accomplishment. The prison kitchen would need to cook separate meals. Housing facilities would need to be segregated. I’ll bet a lot of prisons just don’t have the resources for that. Raise taxes? There would be a lot of pushback from voters for an ‘incentive’ program like that.”

Cain shook his head. “Goes to prove my point. The prison industrial complex wants high recidivism rates. Most of the guys in prison need to have goals set for them. They are there in prison because they wanted something they didn’t deserve. They need to be broken of that habit.”

Abel scoffed. “Robbery, I get your point. Murder? How is that taking something you don’t deserve?”

Cain replied, “Murder is the quintessential example of taking something you don’t deserve. Someone else’s life.”

Abel argued, “That’s an overly simplistic perspective. The abused wife example I gave earlier. What does that have to do with how they are treated in prison?”

Cain put his coffee cup down. “The prison gives them something they haven’t worked to deserve. Food and shelter. That just reinforces the behavior they developed outside of the pen. They are treated better than some prisoners of war who have to build roads or bust rocks for their keep. So, these guys go to war against their society and society rewards them for it by giving them free room and board. No wonder there is such a high rate of recidivism.”

Abel cocked his head. “I don’t see people lining up to get into prison.”

Cain nodded. “Most people don’t like to be caged up like animals in a zoo.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “The Romans let slaves work their way to freedom (Source). Is that part of your program?”

Cain shook his head. “I think a lot of states have policies that reduce prison time for good behavior. This could be an adjunct to those programs, I suppose.”

Abel asked, “No, I mean could a prisoner work to have their conviction wiped clean? It would help people looking for a job.”

Cain looked puzzled. “That’s an interesting proposal, but maybe too much of a change? Could a child sex offender get his conviction erased? Would society want that? I don’t know.”

Abel said, “Let’s get back to the homeless. I favor getting them settled into housing first, forming a daily routine, developing a sense of safety before they try various steps to rehabilitation.”

Cain replied, “I like the work first model that Aurora has adopted. Step 13, now called Step Denver, has been using that model with addicts since the early 1980s (Source). They have been dependent on government services for many years. Step provides group housing, but the emphasis is on sobriety and getting a full-time job to break that cycle of dependence (Source). Some of these people have not had a regular job for years. They need to relearn the routines of daily life. Get a paycheck, budget money, go shopping, pay bills.”

Abel argued, “But that program was designed for men only. Women, especially those with kids, need a stable home life. If they have pre-school children, getting a job is a second priority after taking care of their kids. A decade ago, the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless estimated that women made up 45% of the homeless population (Source). You like simple rules, principles that you can apply in all circumstances. That approach doesn’t work in the real world.”

Cain shook his head. “Maybe not but it’s a starting place. In a country with 350 million people, we can’t apply the law based on individual circumstances. The Trump administration is trying a simpler approach in order to expedite immigration policy. Inevitably, the liberal media finds an instance where the application of the law seems unjust because of an individual’s circumstances. Hey, I have a heart. I feel bad for some of those individuals. But student visas and green cards come with restrictions. Sure, those restrictions have often been ignored, but they are there.”

Abel frowned. “There was a dad from Indonesia with a student visa and a pending green card application who was deported because he was convicted of a misdemeanor for spraying graffiti on a semi-truck trailer (Source). The Trump people are treating people like computer programs. They probably search a bunch of databases for immigrants and visa holders who have broken any rule, no matter how slight. A programmer can write a rule and feed that rule into a computer.”

Cain admitted, “Yeah, it’s not perfect, I’ll admit. The DOGE team used a similar methodology. They fired recent hires who have fewer job protections. It didn’t matter what those people did or how critical their jobs were. No matter what method people use to streamline government or any large organization, there are going to be mistakes and injustices.”

Abel asked, “So what are our choices? On the one hand, we can have an incompetent government that can’t get anything done because it tiptoes through a lot of hurdles put up by advocacy groups. On the other hand, we can have a government willing to make some casualties as it enacts policy and hope that we don’t become the victims.”

Cain argued, “You said I was too simplistic. I’d say your alternatives are too simplistic. Look, we invented this complex system of government about a hundred years ago. Each decade, we bolted on policies and procedures until government has become a series of Rube Goldberg machines that are way too complex for the task they must accomplish. Trump is trying to undo some of those machines. It’s not pretty.”

Abel shook his head. “His administration keeps taking things apart before they studied how they were put together. When mistakes come to light, they blame it on ‘politics’ or ‘improper classification of employees.’ Like Trump, DOGE never makes a mistake. It’s always someone else’s fault.”

Cain sighed. “We started out talking about policy solutions for the homeless and now we are discussing problems with redesigning federal government practices. What’s the point?”

Abel’s tone was exasperated. “Governments can’t conduct policy using simple rules because many of the problems that government handles are complex.”

Cain interrupted, “The private marketplace handles complex problems as well. Remember Milton Friedman’s video ‘I, Pencil’(Source)? The manufacturing of a simple pencil uses materials sourced from all over the world. The price system helps coordinate the work of thousands of people and a lot of capital to produce a simple pencil.”

Abel resumed, “That is a good example of a complex problem involving an exchange of goods and services. The buyer of the pencil has one problem to solve. Writing. Government handles problem bundles, where one problem is a container of many, call them sub-problems. What if the pencil had to be used as the rod in a Tinkertoy set as well? The pencil design would have to be more complicated. The lead tip of the pencil would be good for writing but weak for making a connection in a Tinkertoy structure.”

Cain smiled. “I like that.”

Abel continued, “Each problem in the bundle interacts and interferes with other problems in the bundle. It’s like a whack-a-mole game. Solving one problem makes another problem worse. It’s like walking with a bowl full of water. We fall forward to walk. That interferes with keeping the water level in the bowl, so it doesn’t spill. Which is more important? Getting the bowl across the room or spilling as little water as possible? Choosing a priority is a policy decision.”

Cain interrupted, “Ok, I get it. So, Aurora has chosen to get the bowl across the room, to get the homeless working in a productive job, even if that strains the homeless person’s mental or character resources. Denver’s priority is to spill as little water as possible, to keep the homeless person’s personal life stable and level. A go slow approach.”

Abel laughed. “I hadn’t made the connection but OK. It’s like I enjoy the shade tree in my front yard because it blocks the sun during the summer and keeps the house cooler. But it’s messy in the spring when it spreads its seeds and in the fall when it sheds its leaves. The tree’s solution to my need for shade creates other problems. My priority is shade. A lot of government problems are like that, only ten times more complex. That’s why we hand these problems to politicians.”

Cain sighed. “Unfortunately, people vote for politicians who say they have a magic wand that can fix these problems.”

Abel smirked. “Like Trump. He promised to bring prices down, to resolve the war in Ukraine and Gaza. People who don’t pay a lot of attention to politics voted for that illusion. Prices are up and the wars continue. The chaos grows.”

Cain nodded. “We secretly long for simple rules. They help us navigate our personal lives. Why can’t they work for society’s problems?”

Abel looked up. “Jesus thought two rules were sufficient. He was a preacher, not a politician.”

Cain placed his napkin on the table and stood. “A preacher who was put to death by politicians. That’s depressing. Hey, I’ll see you next week.”

Abel smiled. “First week of May. Flower planting time. See you next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT in response to the prompt “draw an image of a whack-a-mole box.”

Homeless

April 20, 2025April 18, 2025Leave a comment

April 20, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Abel waited until the waiter had finished pouring the coffee, then said, “This week, Trump is threatening to take away Harvard’s tax-exempt status. This country is becoming a banana republic where those in power use the state to go after their political rivals.”

Cain dribbled a small amount of sugar into his coffee then set the sugar packet on the table. “In his first administration, Trump put an excise tax on the biggest universities (Source). Certainly, there are a lot of religious conservatives who resent the denial of tax-exempt status to religious universities like Bob Jones University.”

Abel argued, “That was a long time ago and the issue was whether Bob Jones was a non-profit institution, not that it was religious. Colorado Christian University in Denver is tax-exempt, for example (Source).”

Cain replied, “Last week you talked about Make America Fair Again. One group of people perceive something as unfair, and that grievance helps bind them together. Another group of people faults the first group for being unreasonable, and the first group circles their wagons, convinced that they are being picked on. Remember when a lot of Tea Party groups were denied tax-exempt status?”

Abel nodded. “The IRS didn’t deny their applications, but put them on hold. Any applications with the words Tea Party or patriots in the name (Source). The agency was overwhelmed with 501(c)(4) applications for the 2010 midterms. One of the reasons they were overwhelmed was that Republicans had cut funding to the agency while they were in power.”

Cain set his cup down. “Perfectly rational explanations. Or a conspiracy? Rebutting a grievance with logical arguments is fruitless, yet we continue to do it. Expressing a grievance is a form of signaling to others. Political parties are built on shared grievances as well as shared principles, perspectives and values.”

Abel smiled. “Good point. This country was founded on shared grievances. ‘Abuses and usurpations’ the Declaration of Independence called them, and most of that declaration is filled with grievances, not the noble sentiments about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Source).

Cain waited as the waiter set the food on the table, then said, “So we were going to talk about collective action problems, something other than the latest abuse by the mad king.”

Abel laughed. “That describes him well. His niece, Mary Trump, warned us in Too Much and Never Enough, the book she wrote about her Uncle Donald.”

Cain sighed. “In his second administration, we are discovering how rash he can be. He’s worse than any Democratic president I can recall for his interference in the economy and the market.”

Abel asked, “Worse than a President Bernie Sanders?”

Cain nodded. “Sure. Bernie has some respect for institutional rules. Trump couldn’t care less. Hey, we were going to talk about something other than Trump this week.”

Abel replied, “Right. I’ve been thinking about homelessness. You are always championing the role of incentives. I thought of a policy that would align incentives to allow more permissive zoning.”

Cain reached for his back pocket. “Let me hold onto my wallet.”

Abel laughed. “There are several characteristics of collective action problems and dealing with the homeless has several of those. People resist multi-family development for fear that it will lower the value of their home. Zoning that permits only single-family housing reduces the opportunities for developers to build more housing. A shortage of housing causes home prices and rents to rise, increasing homelessness.”

Cain interrupted, “Less supply, higher housing costs. Classic supply demand response. But rising home prices are a good thing for an existing homeowner. Naturally, they want policies that preserve the value of their asset.”

Abel nodded. “That’s my point. What’s good for each individual homeowner may not be good for society as a whole. Individual benefit, group loss. Garret Hardin pointed that out in his essay Tragedy of the Commons (Source). Each herder has an incentive to graze their animals on common land, land that no one owns. Together, they overgraze the area and there is no grass for anyone.”

Cain frowned. “Residential land is privately owned.”

Abel argued, “But the zoning is like a common resource. Also, homeowners in single-family zoning are contributing to the homeless problem but paying nothing for the extra city resources needed to deal with the problem. So, they are free riding in a sense, another characteristic of collective action problems.”

Cain finished chewing. Wait. Homeless people are the biggest free riders, but you chose to focus on the hard-working homeowners.”

Abel shook his head. “I’m just pointing out the free-riding aspect of the zoning problem.”

Cain argued, “I hate when liberals say the homeless problem is a zoning problem. Zoning is a relatively small part of the problem.”

Abel replied, “Well, let me finish. Third, there’s the public goods aspect. Presumably, everyone in the city benefits from less homelessness and no one can be excluded from those benefits. Less communicable disease. What else? A sense of pride in the city? And fourth, the homeless detract from people’s enjoyment of public parks, so there’s that aspect of the collective action problem.”

Cain put down his fork. “That’s a nice analysis. Let me come at it from a different angle. Incentives. Look at the incentives to be homeless.”

Abel scoffed, “What? Like free rent?”

Cain argued, “Why do homeless people gather in cities? They like the anonymity. It gives them a sense of independence. They rely on medical services far more than the general population (Source). There are outreach programs available to supply them with food, shelter and clothing. In some cases, inexpensive tents (Source). All of that charity makes homelessness at least more tolerable. One part of the solution is to make it less tolerable.”

Abel interrupted, “What? Put them in jail? Refuse them medical service and let them die? Last week, you said that we should build policies around price incentives. This week, you’re saying let’s build policy on a framework of cruelty?”

Cain smirked. “Give me a break. Last week I said that the price system is thousands of experiments in opportunity costs. Give up this to get that.”

Abel nodded. “The trade-offs act as a counterbalancing mechanism. Homeless people are often beyond the bargaining of trade-offs. In the case of addiction, they’ve already traded their family, their job, their stability for the hamster cage of drug addiction. Those with mental health issues may not be capable of recognizing the choices involved in a trade-off. They may hear voices and imagine conspiracies. Then there are those who are working but are too poor to afford rent in an expensive area. They didn’t voluntarily make a choice to become homeless. Circumstances boxed them in.”

Cain shook his head. “Or there own choices boxed them in.”

Abel argued, “So you’re going to punish them for making bad choices? Isn’t homelessness punishment enough?”

Cain frowned. “Why do homeless people tend to congregate in one area? The police allow it. It attracts more advocates for the homeless who bring food and clothes, the support system that enables their homelessness. The city should prevent such encampments. Why doesn’t it? Policy decisions from liberal politicians who follow Marx’s rule of distributing stuff according to need, not ability. They sacrifice the well-being of their hard-working citizens to tolerate homelessness.”

Abel shook his head. “How many cops want to get involved in restraining and removing people who are not right in the head or on some kind of drug? Cops are likely to quit one police force and join one in a neighboring district where the homeless problem is less acute. It’s a complex problem.”

Cain asked, “So what’s your policy solution?”

Abel shrugged. “Not a solution, but something that would address the zoning aspect of the problem. What if there were a property tax charge for every subdistrict in a city that had single-family zoning? People would then be paying annually for a zoning regulation that they think preserves the value of their property. I would call it an equity insurance fee rather than a tax.”

Cain replied, “I live in a neighborhood that is zoned for single-family homes only. So, I would see a separate charge on my property tax bill for that zoning?”

Abel nodded. “Yes. Connecting the annual cost to the benefit you receive from the zoning.”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “How I would react would depend on the percentage change in my property taxes. If it was another $100 a year, I might not object. But you want to make it cost enough that it would encourage homeowners in a single-family zone to lower their resistance to multi-family development.”

Abel nodded. “That’s the point. I don’t know what percentage increase would do that.”

Cain replied, “Essentially, single-family zoning would become a privilege that only those with higher incomes could afford to pay. Last week, you talked about Make America Fair Again. How fair is that policy to homeowners in older, more established neighborhoods? They are more likely to be retired and on fixed incomes. Already, they resent the increase in their property taxes from higher assessed valuations. Now the city is going to impose yet another fee on them.”

Abel sat back in his seat. “No policy can be fair to everyone.”

Cain objected, “What if there is no visible sign of homelessness in a neighborhood? Homeowners may not see the necessity of such a policy. They will be motivated to vote against it. I like the analysis, though. Shows the complexity of these problems. A viable solution would address all four of those aspects.”

Abel agreed, “You always emphasize the relation between prices and incentives. Homeowners are not incentivized to adopt policies that will increase the supply of housing if it will make the value of their property decline.”

Cain replied, “Exactly. Any policy you put in place will act against that natural tendency. You call it an insurance fee, but since it applies to all homeowners in a district, it acts like a tax. Unlike a price, a tax does not obey the natural forces of supply and demand.”

Abel argued, “A tax raises the price and higher prices reduce demand.”

Cain shook his head. “Yeah, but prices react to something real. They react.”

Abel shrugged. “Can’t see the difference. A tax reacts to something real. In this case, it’s homelessness.”

Cain argued, “The tax you are proposing is an incentive, not a reaction. It is a stimulus you hope will get homeowners to adopt a more lenient attitude toward permissive zoning. Take this, for comparison. A city does not impose a sales tax because they hope it will dissuade people from buying goods. The tax is a reaction to city’s need for revenue to fund the services it provides.”

Abel replied, “So called sin taxes are meant as incentives to get people to buy less.”

Cain laughed. “Don’t try to sell your insurance fee as a sin tax. Owning a home isn’t a sin in anyone’s playbook.”

Abel moved his plate aside. “So, Trump’s tariffs are meant as incentives or punishments and they distort the market.”

Cain nodded. “Before the 16^th Amendment, tariffs were the chief source of revenue for the federal government. They served other purposes, yes, but they generated much needed revenue. Today, any tariff revenue would be a drop in the bucket. Trump’s tariffs act as carrots and sticks. That may be the extent of all of Trump’s policies. Carrots and sticks.”

Abel frowned. “There are a lot of carrots and sticks in the income tax code. Tax deductions for college expenses, health insurance, retirement contributions. These are all attempts to get people to do more of something that they would naturally. So how can saving for retirement or going to college distort the market?”

Cain replied, “Tax-advantaged plans were introduced in the 1970s (Source). The financial sector manages trillions of dollars in retirement accounts. That gives it more market share and political power.”

Abel asked, “I take it you’re opposed to any tax whose primary purpose is to influence behavior, not collect revenue?”

Cain drew a deep breath. “I do, but I’m a realist. People get into politics because they want to exert their values, their sense of justice on other people. Now we’ve got someone in the White House who takes that to the limit. I worry for the free market system. I worry for democracy.”

Abel raised an eyebrow. “You weren’t worried last November?”

Cain smirked. “You are more of an institutionalist, but I think I trusted in the institutions that have kept this country together for more than two hundred years. The institutional rules as well as the laws. Seeing long-standing practices fall so quickly has made me question the strength of those institutions. In a political sense, I feel homeless.”

Abel asked, “You think there was insider trading going on while Trump flip-flopped on tariff policy?”

Cain nodded. “Sure. The SEC is not going to investigate. It seems like most of the government is being run by acting commissioners without Senate confirmation. Those of us who complained about the complexity of government are getting a chance to see what it is like when a bunch of loyalists run the government.”

Abel stood up. “I am afraid that we are losing the world’s confidence in American institutions, particularly its currency. I’ll see you next week.”

Cain seemed lost in thought for a minute. “Yeah, next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT in response to the prompt, “draw an image of a tent with a disheveled person poking his head out of the opening of the tent.”

Make America Fair Again

April 13, 2025April 12, 2025Leave a comment

April 13, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

This is part of a series on centralized power. The debates 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 tucked a table napkin into his belt. “Another uneventful week.”

Cain smirked as he cut a bite from his stack of pancakes. “Will the country last four years?”

Abel sighed. “Sometimes I dream that the voting public turns the House and Senate over to the Democrats so they can impeach him.”

Cain laughed. “There would be another January 6^th when the new members took their oath of office.”

Abel frowned. “That’s what I worry about. Trump has too many of the same characteristics as other autocrats. Maduro in Venezuela, Erdogan in Türkiye come to mind. They freeze out the opposition party. Laura Gamboa had a piece in Foreign Affairs this month about past incidents (Source). In 2003, Erdogan and his party began a campaign that either crippled or took over parts of the bureaucracy in Türkiye. Although the opposition stopped some legislation, in the first four years, Erdogan was able to totally seize power in 2007.

Cain gave a soft whistle. “Yeah, in any kind of governing, it’s ‘process over substance.’ I remember some Congressman saying something like, ‘I’ll let you write the substance … you let me write the procedure, and I’ll screw you every time.’” (Source)

Abel smiled. “Yeah, that was John Dingell. Served in Congress for fifty years! Anyway, a good example of that. Trump has extended his powers by declaring an emergency. What’s the emergency? Not a pandemic, or a war, an attack from China. No, it’s the trade deficit. Under the National Emergencies Act, Congress can pass a joint resolution declaring an end to the emergency (Source).”

Cain interrupted, “Yeah, but Trump could still veto the resolution.”

Abel nodded. “True. A higher hurdle to formally end an emergency. The House has a Rules Committee that decides on how legislation is brought to the floor. So, Congress can initiate a declaration ending an emergency declared by the President. It would send a word of caution to the White House.”

Cain raised his eyebrows. “You know, there’s no definition of emergency under the IEEPA, the law that Trump is using [Source].”

Abel nodded. “The IEEPA is another of those laws passed in the 1970s with no definitions. Another example is ‘waters of the United States.’ What does that mean? Courts, including the Supreme Court, have been arguing about it for 50 years (Source). Today, all serious legislation contains definitions.”

Cain replied, “So I didn’t know Congress could undo that. Go ahead.”

Abel continued, “So the Rules Committee just wrote a rule a few weeks ago that prevents any member from raising an objection that lead to a vote to declare an end to the emergency (Source). That tweak of the rules gets little attention but curtails any effective opposition in the House to Trump’s expansion of powers. Republicans in the House don’t want to go on the record opposing Trump. It was that kind of stuff that Gamboa was writing about.”

Cain said, “The slim Republican majority in the House weakens any checks and balances. Like I said last week, Trump has gone rogue.”

Abel argued, “He’s put together a team of rogues. Yes men and yes women. Sycophants who suck up to power and those who cower in the corner, hoping not to attract anger from Trump or Musk. The nominee to head the Bureau of Land Management just withdrew her nomination after it was revealed that she had written a memo criticizing Trump after the 2020 election (Source).”

Cain put down his fork. “I think there are some independent voices, but they are reluctant to come forward. Rumor is that Trump paused the reciprocal tariffs, the really high ones, because some people warned him that the bond market was starting to crack. At first, investors started moving into Treasuries as expected but then the rate on 10-year Treasuries started to rise, indicating that the nosebleed tariffs were causing investors to lose confidence in Treasuries (Source). US debt is like the Titanic was thought to be. Unsinkable.”

Abel frowned. “That’s why mortgage rates shot up half a percent, back up to 6.90% (Source). The mortgage market tends to move with the long-term Treasuries.”

Cain asked, “Just yesterday, mortgage rates broke the 7% threshold. Can the President of the United States cause a financial crisis? Maybe.”

Abel put set his coffee cup down. “Trump’s had several bankruptcies. His dad helped to bail him out of his brash bets on the casino industry in Atlantic City (Source). He was having trouble getting financing, so he ran for President to boost his name recognition.”

Cain sighed. “I think a lot of us voted for someone who could get things done, even he was a little bit crazy and impulsive.”

Abel said, “This last election, Trump attracted people outside of his core MAGA supporters. What does ‘great’ mean? Different things to different people. Some thought Trump would bring down prices. He promised to do that on ‘day one’ of his presidency. Some thought he would end the war in Ukraine because he promised to do that. Some thought he would be pro-business and curb the regulatory state.”

Cain replied, “Yeah, Trump’s a promoter. That’s what politicians do. Different people have different levels of gullibility. Even a skeptic can be convinced if the promises confirm their beliefs and desires. I think a lot of pro-business types bought into Trump’s promise to cut back on regulations. These tariffs are just a different type of big government imposing its will on the market. This is as heavy-handed as the Democrats get, only in a different way. It makes for a lot of uncertainty.”

Abel nodded. “Exactly. You know, AOC and Bernie Sanders have been going around the country to build opposition to Trump. They actually got over 30,000 people in Denver a week or so ago. I was thinking that there is a constituency in the Democratic Party that is like MAFA, Make America Fair Again.”

Cain interrupted, “I like that, but what do you mean ‘again.’ Has America ever been fair?”

Abel replied, “Well, some Democrats look back to the post-war period as an example of more fairness. Sure, there was a lot of prejudice. Jim Crow laws in the south, for example. But union membership was strong, wages grew faster than inflation and taxes were like 70% on the top 1%. Kind of a ‘Father Knows Best’ or ‘Leave It To Beaver’ moment. What’s weird about that is that the MAGA crowd on the right also looks back to that time as an ideal as well. The U.S. was the leading manufacturing country in the world and the supply chain helped support businesses in small and medium sized towns. There were good paying jobs and people could afford to buy a home. So, the MAGA crowd on the right and the MAFA crowd on the left are looking to the same post-war period as their ‘Golden Age.’”

Cain replied, “I like that idea. What’s ‘great?’ What’s ‘fair?’ It can be anything. They are promotional, not substantive words. What’s fair to me might not be fair to you. Let’s say you and I pick apples for a living. We both have the same size ladder, but I get assigned a section of trees where the apples are easier to reach than the trees in your section. I think it’s fair because we both have the same tool, the same length ladder. You don’t think it’s fair because picking apples is more of a challenge for you than it is for me. When we are done, I think I am more productive than you and I deserve the extra money I made. You feel cheated. I think you are just lazy. If you don’t know that my apples were easier to pick, you might become convinced that there is something wrong with you. Some character flaw. You might start believing that you are lazy or dumb or something.”

Abel said, “I remember seeing a cartoon about that once. It was trying to show the difference between equality and equity. Two people might have equal means, but not equal opportunity because one person’s environment is more advantageous. They are more likely to succeed.”

Cain frowned. “Fixing that problem only makes the problem worse. That’s what’s wrong with liberal politicians. They focus on outcomes and reason backwards. If outcomes are not equal, then the environment must be different, so they change some aspect of the environment. Outcomes are still unequal. Why? Because people anticipate policy changes. People are not machines or rats in a lab. There is a field of economics where researchers introduce policy changes into a community and test the effect. Some women in a rural farming community in India are given ducks. It’s random so the researchers can publish their study. The women will be able to raise the ducks so they can feed their families (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011). A neighbor, jealous because they didn’t get ducks, poisons the ducks. Social scientists can’t conduct experiments on people the way that researchers in the hard sciences can. We are sentient beings, not dumb guinea pigs.”

Abel nodded. “At least researchers are trying to develop some empirical data. It’s better than the approach that Aristotle and other philosophers used. Make up shit based on my perspective and declare it so.”

Cain laughed. “Hey, I’ll grant you it’s not easy. The beauty of the price system is that prices are the result of thousands of experiments testing the value of something. The magic of the price system is that it involves trade-offs, some opportunity cost. I need to give up ‘x’ dollars to get ‘y’ good or service. I could spend my dollars on something else or nothing else and save it. A gigantic set of experiments in opportunity costs. That needs to be a fundamental characteristic of policy design. Often, it isn’t.”

Abel argued, “Yeah, but that bottom-up approach doesn’t work for collective action problems. Spend more money on national defense or health care? Public education or more police? People can’t agree on the value of each and the opportunity costs.”

Cain interrupted, “Agreed, but a top-down approach doesn’t work either.”

Abel stood up. “So, we are left with irresolvable problems, it seems. Maybe that is something we can talk about next week. Please, God, something other than the latest Trump fiasco.”

Cain waved. “That would be nice. See you next week.”

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

Image by ChatGPT in response to the prompt, “draw a blue baseball cap with the words ‘Make America Fair Again’ stenciled in white letters.”

Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

A Carousel of Surprises

April 6, 2025April 5, 20252 Comments

April 6, 2025

by Stephen Stofka

Abel set his water glass on the table. “I’ve been looking forward to our breakfast this week. I want to hear how you are going to normalize the tariffs that Trump enacted this week.”

Cain shook his head. “Sorry to disappoint you. It’s hard to make sense of the layers of tariffs. 10% base tariff in addition to some previous tariffs except where excluded blah-blah-blah. A company that does international compliance had a table and explanation that helped (Source).”

Abel frowned. “We are on a carousel of weekly announcements and executive orders from the White House. A lot of uncertainty. J.P. Morgan estimates the probability of a global recession at 60% (Source). A few days ago, before the tariff rates were announced, the bank was putting the probability at 40% (Source). That’s quite a jump. Shows how surprised even the analysts at the bank were when the actual tariffs were announced.”

Cain stirred his coffee thoughtfully. “Did you see Trump’s press conference Wednesday? The one where he announced the tariffs? He had a chart, I’ll call it the tariff chart, showing the tariffs that other countries impose on U.S. goods, and I realized that someone in his administration had pulled those numbers out of their ass.”

Abel laughed. “Well, the U.S. Trade Representative has an explainer of how they calculated the rates (Source). Basically, they think that the U.S. should have a net trade balance of zero for each of its trading partners. Anything other than that means that country has enacted trade barriers and/or is engaged in some kind of currency manipulation. It’s nuts.”

Cain nodded. “Good point. International trade is not a zero-sum game. Anyway, the U.S. has the third-lowest tariffs in the world, just behind Japan and Switzerland. As of 2023, it was 2.2% (Source). The EU has an average of less than 3%. Trump’s chart showed that the EU has a 39% tariff rate. Trump exaggerates a lot, but this was excessive even for him.”

Abel wiped syrup off his finger with a napkin. “Well, there probably is some currency manipulation, don’t you think?”

Cain swallowed hurriedly before replying, “Some, but not to the extent shown on that chart. The Congressional Research Service just did a report, a one-pager, answering some of the concerns of House members about currency manipulation (Source). Only Switzerland, Taiwan and Vietnam met the 2015 criteria for currency manipulation.”

Abel asked, “What’s the criteria?”

Cain replied, “First is that the country has a trade surplus greater than $20 billion.”

Abel interrupted, “They sold us $20 billion more than we sold them.”

Cain replied, “Right. The second was that their current account surplus…”

Abel interrupted again, “That’s mostly the trade surplus.”

Cain replied, “Yeah. That’s shouldn’t be more than 2% of that country’s GDP. The third and last criteria is if that country buys dollars in the FX, or foreign exchange, market that is more than 2% of their GDP (Source). That shows their intention to drive up the price of dollars relative to their own currency.”

Abel made a soft clapping sound. “You’ve done your homework.”

Cain laughed. “I’ll bet there are a lot of people trying to understand or refresh their limited understanding of international trade. It’s a WTF moment like when the Twin Towers collapsed on 9-11.”

Abel interrupted, “Except there is even more misinformation now than there was 25 years ago.”

Cain continued, “So, look past the hocus-pocus on the tariff chart and look at the movement in exchange rates between countries. China’s yuan is trading at 86 cents today, the same as it was in 2011 (Source). Is China actively suppressing the value of the yuan? Probably. How much? 20%? 40%?”

Abel asked, “Yeah, but that’s not a tariff.”

Cain nodded. “But it’s an advantage for China’s exporters and a disadvantage for U.S. exporters.”

Abel replied, “So Trump equates ‘advantage’ with ‘tariff.’”

Cain sighed. “I think so.”

Abel argued, “But the advantage for China’s exporters is also an advantage for American consumers who get lower prices. I mean, I bought a cordless pruner, like for cutting tree limbs. It was made in China, well built and cost me less than $100. It’s a good deal.”

Cain frowned. “Yeah, a good deal for you but a bad deal for any American company that might want to make a cordless pruner. At least that’s the way Trump thinks. An American made tool employs an American worker who pays income taxes, Social Security taxes and local taxes. The more that American workers are employed, the less dependent they are on government.”

Abel replied, “So, let’s say that an American-made pruner had cost me $150. That’s a 50% tax on my income.”

Cain interrupted, “And now that pruner will cost you $150 because Trump is charging a 54% tariff on Chinese goods (Source).”

Abel frowned. “So, I would be paying more for an American-made pruner, but another American is less dependent on government welfare because they have a job. Is that what Trump is thinking?”

Cain nodded. “I can’t look inside his head but I’m guessing that is the reasoning underlying the direction of these policies. The problem is that it will take years to build a factory that makes a cordless pruner at a competitive price and the supply chain that supplies the parts for that pruner. A piston in an American-made car starts off in Tennessee as raw aluminum powder, goes to Pennsylvania, then to Canada, then to Mexico and finally to Detroit (Source). The 21st century supply chain is no longer confined to one region or one country. Trump will be out of office by the time a new supply chain is built.”

Abel had a faraway look in his eyes. “When I was a kid, I heard on a talk show that telephone customers who lived in urban areas had a fee tacked onto their monthly bill to support the customers in rural areas. I told mother that I didn’t think that was fair. She explained that it cost more to provide telephone service in a rural area where she grew up. She had lived in both worlds, rural and urban. Because costs were shared, telephone service was more affordable in rural areas, and she could talk to her family. She had that sense of a broad community. Maybe we have lost that. We live in our siloed worlds, absorbed in a perspective that we agree on and share with others.”

Cain replied, “It’s like what happened to music when FM radio started in the 60s and 70s. Large AM radio stations like WABC used to play a variety of music to appeal to a broad consumer base so they could sell advertising. As FM stations proliferated, each station’s choice of music narrowed to a particular taste. In fact, I think it was called ‘narrowcasting,’ not ‘broadcasting’ (Source). A hard rock fan could listen to only hard rock, not soft or pop rock. A country music fan who preferred traditional Nashville style music over Bluegrass could listen to a station that catered to their tastes.”

Abel laughed. “Specialization, the secret to progress, according to Adam Smith. Now we have specialized perspectives and opinions.”

Cain interrupted, “And tailor-made facts, carefully selected to support our opinions. That’s how those tariff rates wound up on Trump’s chart.”

Abel replied, “There’s no consensus.”

Cain nodded. “Divide and conquer. It’s a winning strategy in politics.”

Abel asked, “You’ve studied this recently. Why do you think they chose 10% as a base tariff rate?”

Cain replied, “Exchange rates, I think. Like we discussed before, a strong dollar helps the American consumer buy foreign-made goods at a discount.”

Abel interrupted, “And buy more local services with the money they saved.”

Cain replied, “Right. That’s what Trump’s team doesn’t get. It’s goods and services, not just goods. I can’t buy a haircut from China. Last year, a Federal Reserve study estimated that private services added 72% of economic value in the U.S. (Source). That $50 you saved on the cordless pruner might have been spent at a restaurant or some other service business. That business hires workers who pay federal and local taxes. The business itself supports the local economy with sales, use and property taxes.”

Abel sighed. “Now the $50 will be a tariff charge that goes to the federal government directly. That will hurt service businesses, service workers and local governments.”

Cain shook his head. “More likely is that you decide not to buy the cordless pruner for $150. There is less economic activity. You trim your trees and bushes by hand and save the money. Now someone on Trump’s team might say that the money you saved will be invested in the American economy, but investors are less willing to invest those savings because there is less economic activity. Interest rates go down because there is less demand for loans. The money you saved earns less interest. Consumer or saver, you’re getting screwed.”

Abel nodded. “It’s an endless carousel of cause and effect. Trump wants to return to some imagined idyllic age maybe in the 1950s when he was growing up. That world is out of reach and Trump will destroy this world in his effort to get back to that world.”

Cain shrugged. “Destroy might be an exaggeration. But he will definitely hurt this economy in his pursuit of that dream, I think.”

Abel asked, “Back to the 10% base tariff. Where do you think they came up with that?”

Cain nodded. “Oh yeah. So, if I am going to take a vacation in Europe, I can look up the euro-to-dollar exchange rate to see how many euros my money will buy. Then there’s several indexes that construct a type of average of several currencies against the dollar. There’s a traditional dollar index called DXY that’s often cited in financial markets, but it’s heavily weighted toward the Euro and doesn’t include the Chinese yuan. China is our third largest trading partner (Source) so the Federal Reserve maintains a broad trade-weighted index that includes the Chinese yuan. It is up 20% in the past decade (Source).”

Abel asked, “So that could be used to justify even a 20% base tariff rate?”

Cain sighed. “Like Trump said, the U.S. was being wonderful not charging more.”

Abel asked, “So, we’ve been talking about broad movements of money and goods but most of us stay focused on the prices we pay each week for gas, groceries and other necessities. Next week, we are going to encounter these tariff rates when we go to the grocery store. We get a lot of produce from Mexico and other Central American countries.”

Cain argued, “There are no additional tariffs on those imports from Mexico that were included under the USMCA that Trump negotiated in 2017 (Source).”

Abel replied, “Yeah, but that doesn’t include bananas from Guatemala, for example. During the winter, we get fruits and veggies from Australia and South America. Kennedy wants us to eat healthier, but the tariffs will make healthy foods more expensive.”

Cain nodded. “In the next few weeks, I’m guessing that consumers are going to get very angry. People who were thinking of buying a new car with their tax refund will be heartbroken when they see the increase in prices at the dealership.”

Abel replied, “I heard that some people were trying to lock in deals before the tariffs took hold.”

Cain nodded. “There’s that rush to buy phenomenon but we really notice persistently higher prices in the goods we buy regularly. Members of Congress are going to see their phones blow up with complaints.”

Abel argued, “The Congress has been pretty passive. You think public sentiment will have much effect?”

Cain sighed. “Who knows? Trump has gone rogue.”

Abel asked, “Not what his supporters expected? His poll numbers have declined, and his approval rating is below the average of U.S. Presidents (Source).

Cain replied, “He’s a lame duck president. I don’t know if he cares. Like I said, I think he’s gone rogue.”

Abel stood up. “A rogue president. Unsettling. Look, I’ll see you next week when prices are up on everything. I wonder how much the restaurant will charge for our meal next week? I think I’ll keep a copy of our tab to compare.”

Cain waved. “See you later.”

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

Image by ChatGPT in response to the prompt “draw an image of a carousel with people sitting on the animals”

Notes: 1) In the U.S. Trade Representative’s explainer of the tariff calculations there is an in-text citation to Cavallo et al. without a corresponding reference. The reference is:
Cavallo, Alberto, Gita Gopinath, Brent Neiman, and Jenny Tang. “Tariff Passthrough at the Border and at the Store: Evidence from U.S. Trade Policy.” (pdf) American Economic Review: Insights 3, no. 1 (March 2021). See the lead author’s page.
2) The title of the first reference is incorrect. The title should read: The long and short (run) of trade elasticities.
3) Because of the values assigned to epsilon and phi in the denominator of the formula, the calculation of the tariff change is essentially (exports – imports) / -imports. A more appropriate measure would be a difference-sum ratio, as in (exports – imports) / (exports + imports).

Capacity Without Legitimacy

March 30, 2025March 29, 2025Leave a comment

March 30, 2025

by Stephen Stofka

Cain looked around the restaurant. There was only one empty table. “Busy here this morning.”

Abel nodded. “Even when they are busy, they bring out water, coffee and a menu. To me, that’s a mark of good organization. Good service.”

Cain added half a packet of sugar to his coffee. “Yeah, that initiates the process. Like saying, ‘We see you. We are going to take care of your needs.’ I think that’s what the Trump administration has done these first two months. Tried to fulfill some campaign promises from the start.”

Abel rolled his eyes. “Like a waiter who brings a pitcher of water to the table and forgets the glasses, then blames the mistake on the dishwasher.”

Cain laughed. “Oh sure, just like that. Look, they’re trying to fix stuff that’s been broken for decades. Stuff like illegal immigration. Both parties promise to fix it but it’s a hard problem. Unlike past presidents, Trump is making an effort to fulfill his campaign promises.”

Abel interrupted, “Yeah, forget about human rights and due process. That’s a heck of a way to fix problems.”

Cain asked, “When does due process become excess process? We are a nation of laws, the saying goes, but we’ve become a country of lawyers who profit from creating red tape. We’re tangled in it. We’ve got plenty of process but few outcomes. We’re like a sailing ship stuck in the horse latitudes. Trump is trying to steer this ship toward land.”

Abel laughed. “That is a poetic description of this administration’s efforts.”

Cain asked, “This country has the capacity to fix problems but the processes that have evolved cripple the legitimacy of government. Trump is reasserting executive capacity.”

Abel objected, “But the way he is doing it weakens the legitimacy of his actions.”

Cain argued, “In the eyes of some. Anyway, you think some of these Venezuela gang members have any respect for human rights?”

Abel frowned. “How did they determine they were gang members? Because they had a tattoo. Is there a tattoo that distinguishes the gang? No. Any tattoo will do. That kind of arbitrariness is typical of the way this administration acts.”

Cain sat back in his seat as the waitress set his order in front of him. After serving Abel, Cain replied, “There’s what, a few hundred gang members? Could there have been a rush to judgment on one or two individuals? Maybe. So, should the government let two hundred criminals loose to save one person who maybe doesn’t belong to the gang? Reminds me of the old argument that it’s better that a lot of guilty people should go free rather than one innocent person should suffer.”

Abel nodded as he set his coffee cup down. “Yeah, you’re talking about Blackstone’s ratio. The need for firm proof before convicting an innocent person. It’s taught to law students as a foundational principle and Ben Franklin cited the ratio (Source). It alarms me that this administration would throw out a traditional principle of fairness just to look like they are accomplishing something.”

Cain replied, “There are so many issues in the 24-hour news cycle. How long will people be concerned about this? In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people worried about two American gangs, the Bloods and the Crips (Source). The drug epidemic was crack cocaine, not fentanyl. The two gangs killed each other to claim territorial rights to sell crack. There were innocent kids killed in drive-by shootings. The public wanted politicians to get tough on crime and they passed laws to get tough on crack dealers and users. One of the leaders in that effort was none other than Joe Biden. So now when Trump gets tough on criminal gangs, it’s bad? Come on.”

Abel said, “You’re talking about the 1994 crime bill that Biden sponsored. He was criticized later by people in his own party for sponsoring that bill. They said it unfairly targeted black people. But, there were a lot of leaders in the black community who supported that bill because the gangs and the drugs were tearing apart black families and communities (Source).”

Cain nodded. “So, this time the scourge is fentanyl, not crack. Strung out homeless people camped out on downtown sidewalks. It’s turned the downtown areas of many cities into graveyards of drug zombies. There’s a video that Peter Santenello shot in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia and the druggies are walking around slumped over like the zombies on that TV show ‘The Walking Dead’ (Source). And where is the fentanyl coming from? Gangs from Latin America and suppliers in China. The drug problem is worse now than it was when Biden introduced the 1994 crime bill. Voters wanted action and Trump is delivering.”

Abel shook his head. “In the ‘90s, Biden went through the legislative process of building a coalition and forging compromises with other members of Congress. That’s the democratic way of creating policy. Trump is disregarding any procedural safeguards. Immigration officials are targeting people who have green cards (Source). They are in the country legally. This isn’t just about drugs. They’re targeting ideas that the administration doesn’t like. This is an arbitrary purge, an attack on free speech.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, I don’t agree with that. But some of those protestors did more than just talk.”

Abel argued, “Is there any evidence of violence? They arrested Khalil Mahmoud for leading protests in support of Palestinians. He’s a grad student at Columbia and he wanted the university to divest from Israel (Source). In the 1980s, there was a similar campaign to get U.S. universities to divest from South Africa to protest their apartheid policies (Source).”

Cain interrupted, “Yeah, that campaign was successful. There is not a powerful South African lobby in this country to pull political strings. On the other hand, the Israeli lobby might be more powerful than the gun lobby, if that’s possible. They don’t like any protests against Israel’s policies or actions and the Trump administration bows to any pressure from that lobby.”

Abel nodded. “Good point. So, Khalil was born in a Palestinian refugee camp (Source). Naturally, he is going to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. He’s got a green card, for God’s sake, not just a student visa. The folks at ICE didn’t know that. It’s all power and no preparedness. Totally arbitrary. So, the Trump administration interprets Khalil’s humanitarian concern for the suffering of innocent civilians as support for Hamas, a terrorist organization (Source). They’s making it up as they go along.”

Cain shook his head. “Ok, so there are excesses and mistakes. It’s the same with any administration. Does an injustice done to one foreign student…”

Abel interrupted. “There are others, as well.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, several foreign students. Does it get voters riled up enough? I don’t think so. We can argue whether it should or not, but the plight of a few people is far away from most people’s lives.”

Abel argued, “What about the plight of students marching in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963? Public sentiment shifted when they saw water cannons turned on kids protesting Jim Crow policies in the south (Source).”

Cain nodded. “Sure, but there wasn’t enough momentum to pass any legislation on that issue until after Kennedy was shot later that year. The Civil Right Act in 1964 is almost a memorial tribute to Kennedy, an appeasement for the death of a president in a southern state. It takes several events to arouse public sympathy to the point of action.”

Abel agreed. “Usually there’s some event that gets the public’s attention. People became more sympathetic to campus protest against the Vietnam War after the Kent State Massacre. The national guard troops killed four student protestors. Killed them! That’s when a lot of people said, ‘Hey, this is a step too far.’”

Cain interrupted, “Yeah, I don’t think the arrest of a few student protestors has pushed public sentiment to that point yet.”

Abel asked, “Every week, there’s more examples of bullying by this administration. Republicans in Congress are afraid to speak up publicly. Musk has threatened to primary any Republican opposition to Trump’s policies (Source). Congressional Republicans are approaching the administration privately, hoping to carve out exemptions for those policies that are hurting their constituents (Source). Trump has already cowed the legislative branch of his own party. Now his supporters are going after federal judges who rule against Trump’s policies (Source). A showdown is coming with the Supreme Court. They are rewriting the Constitution, eliminating the other two branches of government. That’s the world they want. No accountability for their actions.”

Cain sat back in his chair. “Whoa! A few excesses and you’re ready to declare the end of democracy. As Adam Smith once said, ‘there is a great deal of ruin in a nation’ (Source). You’re alarmed at the excesses of one party but less sensitive to excesses committed by a party that you voted for.”

Abel shook his head. “No, what I am concerned about is the pursuit of a dream that Donald Trump has had for many years. To be accountable to no one. To do whatever strikes his fancy at the moment and have no one to check him.”

Cain smiled as he pushed his plate to the side. “That’s probably a secret dream of many people.”

Abel frowned. “Yeah, but most of us develop some impulse control. Social, political and economic circumstances may put limits on our impulses, or we learn to develop that control as part of our character. Trump has not developed it. He goes around fondling women’s privates in public and says, ‘they let you do it’ (Source). No, they are frightened and don’t know how to respond. Why? Because most normal people do not do that unless they are drunk or high on drugs. Now Trump has put together a team of people to carry out his impulses.”

Cain shrugged. “You’re talking about the Hollywood Access tape before the 2016 election. Voters knew about it. They voted for him anyway. In 2024, they voted for him a second time.”

Abel sighed. “That’s what I don’t understand. Are people so loyal to their party that they are willing to disregard a candidate’s character? That’s what worries me.”

Cain stood. “That’s a discussion for another day. Which do you worry about more? Trump or the majority of American voters who voted for him?”

Abel lifted his eyebrows. “Good question. I’ll see you next week.”

Cain said, “I’ll pick up the tab. Next week, then.”

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

Image by ChatGPT in response to the prompt “draw an image of an angry elephant.”

Innocent Investor

A helpful understanding

Author: sgstofka

A Web of Rules and Interpretations

Chasing the Why

A Triangle of Income, Health and Education

Conflicting Principles

It’s Complicated

Priorities and Problem Bundles

Homeless

Make America Fair Again

A Carousel of Surprises

Capacity Without Legitimacy