Category: presidential election

A Way Forward

Leave a comment

August 10, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel and Cain try to separate facts from evidence and restore trust among the American people. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Abel laid his napkin on his lap. “A recent survey by Pew Research found that 80% of people thought that voters in both political parties can’t agree on basic facts (Source). No wonder there is so much distrust in this country. It got me to wondering what is the distinction between facts and evidence?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abel asked, “What’s the point?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cain smiled. “See you then.”

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

Image by ChatGPT5

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

The Tragedy of the Rational Voter

Leave a comment

September 29, 2024

By Stephen Stofka

This week’s letter is about voting. Many voters believe that their election choices are rational, based on their values, principles and self-interest. Some economists and political scientists think that our rationality is bounded. We make decisions using heuristics – a “good enough” approach that saves us time and effort. Election choices are guided by self-identification, by tradition, by allegiances. We make irrational decisions but in predictable ways because our choices are anchored by our cultural beliefs, our emotional reactions and cognitive assessment (Pindyck & Rubinfeld, 2017, 261).

Some people are single-issue voters, whose vote is guided by one policy or principle. Their choice of political party may rest on a belief in more government or less government, on more or less taxes, on more or less access to abortion, on more or less tolerance of immigration. The political parties do not want to resolve these hot issues because they drive voters to the polls.

A person’s election choice may be guided more by principal than financial self-interest. A lower income voter might pay little federal income tax but thinks the progressive income tax system is unfair. They vote for a party that promises to make the tax system less progressive even if it means that they may have fewer federal benefits or pay higher taxes. A voter’s choice of presidential party may rest on a local issue like property taxes or zoning regulations. National parties do not control zoning regulations, but they do signal a set of attitudes. Those attitudes help build a coalition of voters who share that perspective.

Let’s imagine that you, dear reader, are not the sort to take shortcuts. Election choices have consequences for an individual’s savings. Remove your Republican or Democratic hat and don the hat of a financial manager who has a fiduciary duty to their savings. If you have watched the TV series Clarkson’s Farm, now in its third season on Amazon Prime, you are aware that Jeremy Clarkson, the owner of the farm, has an experimental spirit and an ambitious imagination. Charlie Ireland, the farm’s land agent, offers a sobering contrast to Jeremy’s enthusiasm. Charlie is familiar with the prices of farm commodities and the average costs to produce those commodities. Charlie can do arithmetic in his head. Jeremy uses a hand-held calculator. Charlie presents Jeremy with a forecast of the disappointing (often) profits that will emerge from the many hours of hard work on a farm. Put on Charlie’s hat. Your goal is to present the facts to yourself, the owner of a farm called your portfolio.

Does the party affiliation of the president have an effect on the returns of the SP500 index? A financial forecast relies on historical data and cannot account for future events. The likelihood of more or less portfolio gain might have no consequence but it is helpful to be prepared. During a 4-year term, what are the expected average yearly gains in a stock index like the SP500? I will start with the presidency of Bill Clinton who began his two-term presidency in January 1993. The worth of a portfolio is what it can buy so I will use an inflation-adjusted index.

Two Democratic presidents, Clinton and Obama, had the highest annual gains. Both Obama and Biden began their terms under severe economic duress after a previous Republican administration. Clinton faced an economy with lackluster employment growth less than 1% following a mild recession two years before he took office. Trump had the third highest annual gains, helped by a relief rally at the prospect that his chaotic term was ending. In the three months after the 2020 election, the index gained 8.25%, an annualized gain of 33%. Now remove the accountant hat and don the voter hat. Does any of this information change your mind? Probably not.

Do you vote for the party that will lower your taxes? Don your accountant hat again and look for the average effective income tax rate. That’s the income taxes paid as a percentage of adjusted gross income. As the table below shows, the effective rate is about 15 – 16% in normal years. A crisis year like the invasion of Iraq, the financial crisis and the pandemic cuts the effective rate by 10%. Incomes and capital gains are reduced. All three crises occurred under a Republican president.

Real life is not a Hollywood script. The evidence is not decisive. We should put our accountants’ hat in the file drawer on election day and use our customary shortcuts. Some voters make one of two alternative choices. Out of disinterest or disgust, some don’t vote. In a presidential election, some undervote, choosing candidates down the ticket but leaving their choice for president blank. The Election Audit Commission (pdf here) notes that an election official may have to inspect a ballot in case automated software cannot read a voter’s mark. Here’s a picture showing the many different ways voters have marked their choices (p. 13).

In the 2012 election, 1% of voters left their presidential choice unmarked, according to a USA Today analysis. In 2016, it was almost double that percentage – 1.9%. Recent polls indicate a tight race between Trump and Harris. As happened in 2016, a small number of voters in several key states could decide the election. In the 2000 Presidential election, several hundred Floridian voters mistakenly marked Buchanan for president instead of Gore. Some realized their mistake, crossed out their initial mark and voted for Gore. This resulted in an overvote for two candidates on the same ballot. In many cases, this voided the voter’s choice entirely.

Over $14 billion was spent in the 2020 election campaign, according to Open Secrets. In a nation of millions of voters, it is irrational that a few thousand voters or less should decide an election. Last week, I referred to John Bates Clark, a 19th century economist, who asked why a small surplus of wheat in the northwest should determine the price of the entire wheat harvest. In a “winner-take-all” fashion, 48 states award all their electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes. A few thousand votes may decide all the electoral votes in a state. Why should a person make a rational choice when an idiotic election system neutralizes their careful deliberation?

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

Photo by Giorgio Trovato on Unsplash

Pindyck, R. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2017). Microeconomics. Pearson Education Limited.

Expectations and Elections

Leave a comment

June 23, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

This week’s letter begins a series on the shaping of Americans’ expectations by the election system. The structure of U.S. political institutions and election rules favor a two-party system that channels voter choice and identification. In this system there are unlikely alliances as voters are corralled into one of two political pens. Voters may feel like the patrons of the Olympia Restaurant, whose meal preferences were bluntly diverted by John Belushi to the only meal choice the restaurant served – cheeseburgers, chips and Pepsi (1978 SNL YouTube clip).  Despite an election cycle that is far longer than those in Parliamentary democracies, voters have less choice, and it is no surprise that average turnout in a U.S. Presidential election is only 60%. In a 2001 election in the U.K. that same percentage of turnout was a hundred year low for the Brits (Clark 2021). In America, party platforms and policy aims are as immaterial as the menu items at the Olympia Restaurant.

The U.S. was set up as a republic of thirteen colonies for their mutual benefit as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. It is those colonies, now numbering fifty states, who elect the President through the Electoral College. The College was an arcane compromise between those who favored a popular vote and those who wanted the state legislatures to elect the President. The Federalists at the Constitutional Convention hoped that the Electoral College would act as buffer between public passion and the power of the Presidency. At the Constitutional Convention, the Antifederalists objected to the Electoral College but could not offer a more acceptable alternative (Klarman, 2016, p. 367). They argued that a majority of electors was unlikely in a nation of such diverse interests and most Presidential elections would be decided in the House, effectively sidelining the public voice. Their fears were confirmed in the 1800 and 1824 elections.

In each state, the two parties choose a slate of electors for their Presidential candidate. A vote for a candidate is a vote for that candidate’s electors, not the President. In most states, the candidate that gets the most votes in that state gets awarded all of that state’s electors, a winner-take-all system. A Presidential election is a composite of fifty elections that rewards each party for incremental gains as a path to national power. Each party tries to control a state legislature, which constructs the districts within the state and writes some election rules that exclude certain people from voting. Many voting districts are gerrymandered to ensure victory for the party who draws the electoral map (O’Neil et al., 2018, 114). The party in power partitions the voters to maintain the party’s power in the state. Thus, the two parties curb any but the most incremental changes in political power.

Control of a state legislature gives a party greater power in choosing a President. The Constitution gives each state a lot of discretion in the conduct of their elections for national office. Article 1, Section 4 states:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.

However, the Constitution makes a special provision for a Presidential election. Article II, Section 1 states:

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing[sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The word “may” indicates an optional power for Congress, not the specific duty conveyed by the word “shall.” May appears only 33 times in the Constitution while shall appears 192 times. This careful wording acknowledged a certain degree of state autonomy even in Presidential elections.

The contentious 2000 Presidential election first introduced the terminology red states and blue states to refer to those states which were reliably Republican or Democrat, respectively. The phrase has become so popular and often used that it seems decades if not centuries old. There are twenty reliably red states, twenty reliably blue states and ten states that lean toward one of the parties or are toss ups. The concerns, interests and perspective of a Democrat voter in a red state are effectively silenced. The same for a Republican voter in a blue state. Voters are like the crowd at a football game. They do not control each team’s strategies or the rules of the game. The framers constructed a system that separates political power and fosters incremental policymaking. There are no “Holy Mary” passes, only a grinding ground game to further the progress of one’s policy goals. Only special interest groups have the ear of the leaders on each political team and are able to achieve their objectives (O’Neil et al., 2018, 125). Marginalized by the two parties, many voters become disinterested, and the control of power becomes increasingly consolidated in a small number of political party operatives and special interests.

That undemocratic result is by design. In a long election cycle, a smaller pool of dependable voters makes the marketing of candidates and ideas less expensive. There simply is not enough money to fund many closely contested state elections so the parties try to construct voting districts that minimize those types of elections. In a two-party system that limits choice, each party appeals to alliances of socioeconomic status, alliances of regional interests, alliances by tradition and those by race, or at least a shared history of grievance. The different expectations and anticipations of the voters within those alliances can make those connections fragile. More on that next week.

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

Photo by Erik Mclean on Unsplash

Keywords: Constitution, Electoral College, election, red states, blue states

Clark, D. 2021. “Voter Turnout in the UK 1918-2019.” Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050929/voter-turnout-in-the-uk/ (July 9, 2021).

Klarman, Michael J. 2018. The Framers’ Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

O’Neil, Patrick H., Karl J. Fields, and Donald Share. 2018. Cases in Comparative Politics. 6th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Pocketbook Ratios

Leave a comment

January 21, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

Thanks to an alert reader I corrected an error in the example given in the notes at the end.

This week’s letter is about the cost of necessities, particularly shelter, in terms of personal income. Biden’s term has been one of historic job growth and low unemployment. Inflation-adjusted income per capita has risen a total of 6.1% since December 2019, far more than the four-year gain of 2.9% during the years of the financial crisis. Yet there is a persistent gloom on both mainstream and social media and Biden’s approval rating of 41% is the same as Trump’s average during his four-year term. Even though there are fewer economic facts to support this dour sentiment, a number of voters are focusing on the negatives rather than the positives.

I will look at three key ratios of spending to income – shelter, food and transportation – to see if they give any clues to an incumbent President’s re-election success (a link to these series and an example is in the notes). Despite an unpopular war in Iraq, George Bush won re-election in 2004 when those ratios were either falling, a good sign, or stable. Obama won re-election in 2012 when the shelter ratio was at a historic low. However, the food and transportation ratios were uncomfortably near historic highs. These ratios cannot be used as stand-alone predictors of an election but perhaps they can give us a glimpse into voter sentiments as we count down toward the election in November.

A mid-year 2023 Gallup poll found that almost half of Democrats were becoming more hopeful about their personal finances. Republicans and self-identified Independents expressed little confidence at that time. As inflation eased in the second half of 2023, December’s monthly survey of consumer sentiment conducted by the U. of Michigan indicated an improving sentiment among Republicans. The surprise is that there was little change in the expectations of Independents, who now comprise 41% of voters, according to Gallup. There is a stark 30 point difference in consumer sentiment between Democrats and the other two groups. A recent paper presents  evidence that the economic expectations of voters shift according to their political affiliations. A Republican might have low expectations when a Democrat is in office, then quickly do an about face as soon as a Republican President comes into office.

Shelter is the largest expense in a household budget. Prudential money management uses personal income as a yardstick. According to the National Foundation for Credit Counseling, the cost of shelter should be no more than 30% of your gross income. Shelter costs include utilities, property taxes or fees like parking or HOA charges. Let’s look at an example in the Denver metro area where the median monthly rate for a 2BR apartment is $1900. Using the 30% guideline, a household would need to gross $76,000 a year. In 2022 the median household income in Denver was $84,000, above the national average of $75,000. At least in Denver, median incomes are outpacing the rising cost of shelter. What about the rest of the country?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates an Employment Cost Index that includes wages, taxes, pension plan contributions and health care insurance associated with employment. I will use that as a yardstick of income. The BLS also builds an index of shelter costs. Comparing the change in the ratio of shelter costs to income can help us understand why households might feel pinched despite a softening of general inflation in 2023. In the graph below, a rise of .02 or 2% might mean a “pinch” of $40 a month to a median household, as I show in the notes.

Biden and Trump began their terms with similar ratios, although Biden’s was slightly higher. Until the pandemic in early 2020, housing costs outpaced income growth. Throughout Biden’s first year, the ratio stalled. Some states froze rent increases and most states did not lift their eviction bans until the end of July 2021. In 2022, rent, mortgage payments and utility costs increased at a far faster pace than incomes. Look at the jump in the graph below.

An economy is broader than any presidential administration yet voters hold a president accountable for changes in key economic areas of their lives. Food is the third highest category of spending and those costs rose sharply in relation to income.

Transportation costs represent the second highest category of spending. These costs have risen far less than income but what people notice are changes in price, particularly if those changes happen over a short period of time. In the first months of the pandemic during the Trump administration, refineries around the world shut down or reduced production. A surge in demand in 2021 caused gas prices to rise. Despite the rise, transportation costs are still less of a burden than they were during the Bush or Obama presidencies.

Neither Biden nor Trump were responsible for increased fuel costs but it happened on Biden’s “watch” and voters tend to hold their leaders responsible for the price of housing, gas and food. In the quest for votes, a presidential candidate will often imply that they can control the price of a global commodity like oil. The opening of national monument land in Utah to oil drilling has a negligible effect on the price of oil but a president can claim to be doing something. Our political system has survived because it encourages political posturing but requires compromise and cooperation to get anything done. This limits the damage that can be done by 535 overconfident politicians in Congress.

Voters have such a low trust of Congress that they naturally pin their hopes and fears on a president. Some are single-issue voters for whom economic indicators have little influence. For some voters party affiliation is integrated with their personal identity and they will ignore economic indicators that don’t confirm their identity. Some voters are less dogmatic and more pragmatic, but respond only to a worsening in their economic circumstances. Such voters will reject an incumbent or party in the hope that a change of regime will improve circumstances. Even though economic indicators are not direct predictors of re-election success they do indicate voter enthusiasm for and against an incumbent. They can help explain voter turnout in an election year. A decrease in these ratios in the next three quarters will mean an increase in the economic well-being of Biden supporters and give them a reason to come out in November.

///////////

Photo by Money Knack on Unsplash

Keywords: food, transportation, housing, shelter, income, election

You can view all three ratios here at the Federal Reserve’s database
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1ejaY

Example: A household grosses $80,000 income including employer taxes and insurance. They pay $24,000 in rent, or 30% of their total gross compensation. Over a short period of time, their income goes up 8% and their rent goes up 10%. The ratio of the shelter index to the income index has gone up from 1 to 1.0185 (1.10 / 1.08). The increase in income has been $6400; the increase in annual rent has been $2400. $2400 / $6400 = 37.5% of the increase in income is now being spent on rent, up from the 30% before the increase. Had the rent and income increased the same 8%, the rent increase would have been only $1920 annually, not the $2400 in our example. That extra $480 in annual rent is $40 a month that a family has to squeeze from somewhere. They feel the pinch.    

Presidential Predictabilities

Leave a comment

March 27, 2022

by Stephen Stofka

The 2024 presidential election is still far away but a 75 year political trend is surprisingly predictive of election results. Add in one economic indicator and the results are even more predictable. An incumbent president won re-election 8 out of 12 times, or 67%. Those who lost failed to jump the hurdle of unemployment. When there is not an incumbent president, voters have changed parties in 6 out of 7 elections. America spends billions of dollars on election campaigning but voters have busy lives full of many choices. As with many decisions, we follow a few simple guidelines. Here’s a guide to winning the next election.  

American voters like change but they usually play fair. When the annual (year-over-year) change in unemployment is falling (UNRATE note below), incumbent presidents are assured of a second term. I’ll refer to that change as ΔU. If that change is falling, then employment is improving and voters don’t kick someone out of office. Let’s look at some recent history to understand the trend and those few times when political issues overshadowed economic trends. At the end of this article is an earlier history for Boomers and political history buffs.

In 1992, the ΔU did not favor incumbent Republican President H.W. Bush in the long stuttering recovery after the 1990 recession. In the 18 months after the end of the first Gulf War ended in early 1991, his approval numbers sank from very high levels. A third party candidate Independent Ross Perot focused on economic issues and diverted a lot of moderate and conservative votes away from Bush, helping to put Democratic candidate Bill Clinton in the White House with only 43% of the popular vote. Unemployment numbers favored Clinton in his 1996 re-election bid and voters awarded him a second term.

By 2000, the great internet bull market was wheezing. Unemployment was rising and did not favor Democratic VP Al Gore as he sought to succeed Clinton. A few hundred votes in Florida separated Gore and his opponent, former Texas Governor George Bush. A partisan Supreme Court made a radical decision to overrule the Florida Supreme Court and award the election to Bush, switching party choice yet again. If the employment numbers had been more favorable to Gore, voters might have been inclined to keep him at the tiller.

Bush’s approval soared after the 9-11 attack but controversy erupted when he decided to attack Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on the pretext that the country had weapons of mass destruction. When no weapons were found, his ratings sank. The economy had stumbled after the short recession of 2001 but tax cuts in 2003 helped employment numbers recover. Bush avoided the fate of his father and won re-election.

As the housing crisis grew in the spring of 2008, the unemployment numbers turned ugly. Again voters changed parties and elected the Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Despite Obama’s unpopularity over health care reform, the unemployment numbers helped Obama to a second term over challenger Mitt Romney. After two terms of a Democratic president and knowing voters like change, a gambler would put their money on a Republican candidate in the 2016 election. The employment numbers favored the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote. A few thousand votes in key states turned the tide in Donald Trump’s favor. Again, we learned the lesson that employment numbers assure victory for an incumbent president but not the incumbent political party.

In 2020, the pandemic drove the change in unemployment to stratospheric levels, rising 9.3% from 2019 levels. Both parties responded with legislation to stem the shock and economic pain to American households. Despite those historically unfavorable unemployment numbers, Trump increased the Republican vote count but could not overcome a larger surge in Democratic votes. The unemployment numbers in the quarters before the pandemic favored Trump. Had the pandemic not struck, it is likely that he would have won re-election.

Memo to incumbent presidents: If unemployment is rising you won’t win re-election.

Given that history, an incumbent Party should enact fiscal policy that keeps or lowers unemployment in an election year. An opposition party should try to block any such legislation. After the 2008 election, the country was suffering the worst recession since the Great Depression and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that his goal was to make newly elected Democratic candidate Barack Obama a one-term president. McConnell was vilified for his partisan remark during a time of crisis but he stated the political reality that elections are a zero sum game. At the time of the August 2011 budget crisis between Republicans and the White House, the ΔU was a solid ½% negative. Falling unemployment hurts the election chances of the opposition party. The realities of democratic elections are uglier than many voters can stomach but we are carried along on those currents.

If unemployment is rising toward the end of 2023, look for Democrats to enact fiscal spending that will put people to work. To improve their own chances, watch for Republican strategies that will block any such measures.

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

Photo by Gene Devine on Unsplash

UNRATE Note: Unemployment is the headline number, averaged over each quarter. The year-over-year change is taken in the 2nd quarter of an election year (April – June) before each political party conducts its convention to choose their candidate.

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

For interested Boomers and history buffs:

Near the end of WW2, 4-term Democratic President Roosevelt died and his VP Harry Truman assumed the Presidency. In 1948, the unemployment numbers looked grim as the economy tried to absorb millions of soldiers returning from war. Pre-election polls had favored Truman’s opponent, Thomas Dewey, and one newspaper printed out a headline on election night that Dewey had won but that announcement was premature. Truman’s victory is the only time an incumbent has won re-election when unemployment numbers were unfavorable. When the final results were announced, Truman famously pointed to the newspaper’s false headline. Perhaps that is the first time when a politician called out “fake news.”

In the spring of 1952, incumbent Democrat President Truman’s ratings were falling. The ΔU was neutral but the trend was against Truman. When he lost the New Hampshire primary to another Democratic candidate, he retired to his home in Missouri. Republican Dwight Eisenhower won the election. In 1956, the unemployment numbers favored “Ike” and voters gave him another term. In 1960, the ΔU had turned against Ike’s aspiring successor, VP Richard Nixon. Voters switched parties, choosing JFK, a Democrat, in a close and contentious election.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the unemployment numbers were strongly in favor of President and former VP Lyndon Johnson, who rode the wave of favorable sentiment to the White House. In the spring of 1968, the ΔU still favored Johnson but voter sentiment was more focused on the Vietnam War and Johnson decided not to run for re-election just as Truman had chosen 16 years earlier. Richard Nixon’s political fortunes resurrected on his promise to end the war with dignity and voters changed parties.

In 1972, unemployment favored Nixon who regained the White House, only to leave a few years later to avoid impeachment and ejection from office. In 1976, unemployment numbers looked good for Gerald Ford, who had assumed the presidency. However, he could not overcome voter hostility after he pardoned Nixon for the crimes revealed during the Watergate hearings. Incumbency and favorable employment numbers are powerful persuaders but there are a few times when voters concentrate on political matters more than economic considerations.  

Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, took the White House but couldn’t keep it as both unemployment and inflation were rising in 1980. Republican winner Ronald Reagan had often asked “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” In 1984, unemployment was still high but falling by 2.7% and Reagan won in a landslide. 1988 is the only election in which the voters did not change parties after two terms. Unemployment was falling and voters turned to VP H.W. Bush for his turn in the top job. Unemployment is a decisive factor in re-electing an incumbent but not enough to overcome the American inclination to political change every decade.

The history continues in the main part of the article.

The Lion’s Roar

Leave a comment

January 17, 2021

by Steve Stofka

After encouraging a rush on the Capitol building, the man whom the Russians helped get elected in 2016 is stepping down. 25,000 troops have been deployed to protect the area around the seat of power during Inauguration week, turning Washington, D.C. into a green zone like that of Baghdad in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Around the country, governors have deployed troops to protect state capitols against threats of violence. At a news conference this week, Ohio’s governor was asked how many groups had applied for permits to peacefully demonstrate. His answer – none.  He promised an aggressive response from troops stationed around the capitol in Columbus.

On the C-Span call-in show Washington Journal some callers made an equivalence between BLM protestors defacing statues and breaking into stores with the assault on Congress. Fox News posted a graphic comparing the summation of hundreds of summer protests with one event on January 6th, pointing out that Jan. 6th wasn’t so bad. Hundreds equals one.

The Russians had a small influence in Mr. Trump’s 2016 election. The media – mainstream and not so mainstream – gave him the megaphone, the broadcast time and let him roar. Anderson Cooper of CNN explained that he was available when other presidential candidates were not. Media channels need to fill airtime and retain viewers. That’s the way it is.

Mr. Trump’s entire presidency has been a media feast. He likens himself to a lion, paying particular attention to his mane. He spent four years roaring his thoughts and emotions on social media, then watched them echoed on Fox News an hour later. He surrounded himself with sycophants seduced by the chance to pull the strings of the nation’s dancing puppets. He gloried in his power to dominate but lamented the fact that his pride of supporters were so low class. A great lion deserves a good pride.

By his own account, he was the greatest president. He was certainly a president without precedent. Being impeached twice in one term earns him a place in the history books. He inherited a low unemployment rate of 4.6% from the previous administration and, before the Covid crisis, helped lower it to 3.6%. Presidents have far less influence over the broad economy, but they are the ones that wear the crown of roses when the economy is good, and the dunce cap when it is not so good.

During the four years of the Trump administration, the country will likely come close to the $6.8T deficits that it accumulated under eight years of President Obama. Mr. Trump inherited a healthy economy from his predecessor but wanted robust growth, besting some of the growth during the Reagan years. He gambled that big tax cuts for the wealthy would induce them to invest in more domestic manufacturing, that the economic growth would compensate for the loss of tax revenue. It didn’t.  

Christian Nationalists applauded him for moving the capital of Israel to Jerusalem and appointing a roster of right-wing judges to the courts. Their project is to turn the U.S. into a theocracy like Israel, Iran, and Iraq, ruled by leaders of one religious sect. Mr. Trump was a warrior king, like David, and like that ancient Biblical figure, was driven by his character flaws. Instead of white KKK bedsheets, his followers donned horns and capes and grabbed pitchforks as they stormed the castle of Congress, determined to turn the Capitol into the cathedral of a white Christian nation, the New Jerusalem.

Mr. Trump certainly got our attention. Americans are a hard-working bunch, yet we found time to jab him with rancor or praise his pitchfork rhetoric. He was either a menace or mensch. His was not a neighborly disposition; he shoveled coal into the flames that power the engine of American politics.

After touching the snarling beast that hides within our body politic, we now turn to a more measured man, Mr. Biden, in the hopes that there is some sense of cooperation left in our soul.  We see our Capitol surrounded by barriers and remember the words that Mr. Rogers sang, “Won’t you be my neighbor?”

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

Photo by Catherine Merlin on Unsplash

A Man and his Kingdom

1 Comment

November 22, 2020

by Steve Stofka

In Shakespeare’s tragedy, King Richard III offers his kingdom for a horse after his is struck down in battle. Mr. Trump echoes the reverse sentiment, bargaining and plotting to retain his kingdom.  

The White House has archived a Heritage Foundation sampling of election fraud (Heritage Foundation, n.d.) Most of them are for local and state elections because fraud has some degree of potency in smaller elections. In a Presidential race, an attempt at fraud is like pouring a cup of water in a lake. Some of the cases are sad. A son is convicted for submitting a ballot for his mother who has just died. Some vote twice in an election even after being warned not to by election officials. Some cheat to get their friend or their boss elected to city council.

Conspiracy theorists claim that this is just the tip of the iceberg. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” they claim. Christians explained that objects fell to the ground because angels pushed them. They used the same reasoning, evidence of absence, to counter Newton’s claim that it was a force called gravity. Newton’s theory was more predictive, but I dare anyone to show me that angels are not making things fall to the ground.

Why won’t President Trump concede the election? Trump’s efforts have been dismissed by courts, including one state Supreme Court. Some on the right point to the 2000 election and the lawsuits brought by Democrats in the Florida count as a justification for Trump. The 2000 Presidential election was decided by 537 votes out of 6 million in the state. That is a small probability multiplied by the small probability that such a result would matter in the Electoral College. Perhaps 2 in a 1,000,000; it had never happened before in U.S. history. The probabilities indicate that it has never happened before in human history. Are Mr. Trump’s election numbers as close as the 2000 election? Hardly.

Katherine Harris, Florida’s Secretary of State, may have committed fraud in the 2000 election; it makes sense to risk fraud when the vote difference is that narrow. A difference of 10,000 votes – the smallest difference in any of the states that Trump is contesting – is not narrow.

Mr. Trump claims fraud before every contest. When he picked one wrestler in the 1988 WBF wrestling championship that he sponsored, he claimed that the other side was cheating. His guy won despite the cheating. Huzzah! He is a promoter. If accusations of cheating arouse the crowd, let’s do it.

After the 2008 election, Mr. Trump led the “birther” movement, claiming that Mr. Obama had cheated because he was not born in the U.S. Before – not after – the 2016 face off with Ms. Clinton in 2016, he claimed that Democrats were stealing the election (Zeitz, 2016). What works in wrestling works in elections, doesn’t it? Get the crowd’s attention. Play to the 5-year old in each of us.

Supporters of Mr. Trump point to the 1960 Presidential election as evidence for fraud. JFK (this is the anniversary of his assassination) won Illinois’ electoral votes by a slim margin of almost 9,000 votes in Cook County, where the mayor was a supporter of JFK and a family friend (Zeitz, 2016). Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

Did Nixon throw the 1968 election? Just before the election, President Johnson called a halt to bombing in South Vietnam to give Vice-President and candidate Humphrey a boost in the polls. The Nixon campaign countered by promising a better deal to the other side if Nixon was elected. Aiding and abetting a foreign enemy? (Kilgore, 2018).

To distinguish this from election fraud, let’s call it election rigging; a campaign conducts a strategy which will help win them the election without altering votes per se. The Watergate scandal in advance of the 1972 election was an attempt by the Nixon campaign to get intel on the other side’s campaign. If Nixon had admitted to it early on, the press might have made a big brouhaha for a few months and it would have blown over. The public might have regarded it as corporate espionage – an attempt to discover the competition’s secrets. Nixon kept it within the American family.

That was not the case in the 1980 election; like the 1968 Nixon campaign, the Reagan campaign sought help from a foreign power, Iran. The Carter Administration had negotiated through Algiers a release of American hostages who had been in captivity for a year. The Reagan camp promised better terms to Iran if they would delay the release of American hostages until after the 1980 election and the swearing in of Ronald Reagan. The drawn-out hostage crisis was one of several key events that cost President Carter re-election, and Reagan handily defeated Carter. Iran released the hostages the day that Reagan took the Presidential oath (U.S. Dept. of State, n.d.). Americans spent an additional 90 days in prison so that Reagan could win an election. Election strategy, not election fraud.

Voting is essential to a democracy. So is free speech. Unless one can control speech as they do in Russia and China, the best offense is to add more speech to dilute authentic opinion. When Mr. Trump claims that more “illegal” votes were added to dilute the votes of true American opinion, he is taking a page out of the playbook that the KGB and Communist Party use.

He has cozied up to Vladimir Putin, to Kim Jong-un, and Xi Jinping, all Communist dictatorships. That is the America that Mr. Trump wants – a private kingdom of his own just like those guys have. He is jealous of their power and their control of the media. He wants his own kingdom for just four more years. How many Republicans will help him achieve his dream?

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

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Heritage Foundation. (n.d.). A Sampling of Election Fraud Cases from Across the Country. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf. (Notice that this report by a private foundation has been archived at the White House).

Kilgore, E. (2018, October 16). The Ghosts of the ’68 Election Still Haunt Our Politics. Retrieved November 21, 2020, from https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/1968-election-won-by-nixon-still-haunts-our-politics.html

U.S. Dept. of State. (n.d.). An End to the Crisis. Retrieved November 21, 2020, from https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/hostageend

Zeitz, J. (2016, October 27). Worried About a Rigged Election? Here’s One Way to Handle It. Retrieved November 21, 2020, from https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-rigged-nixon-kennedy-1960-214395

What’s In the Mirror

1 Comment

November 8, 2020

by Steve Stofka

Every hour of the day, Mr. Trump issues a barrage of tweets about massive voter fraud. No evidence. He began his four-year term with the ridiculous claim that he had larger inauguration crowds than former President Obama. The overhead photos clearly showed that not to be the case. He claimed the photos were doctored.

Some families are unfortunate to have a crazy uncle that no one wants to invite for Thanksgiving. Mr. Trump is our crazy uncle President. Chris Christie, his former campaign and transition manager in 2016, has challenged the President to show the evidence.  There is none. There are a few isolated irregularities as always but no evidence of massive voter fraud.

I grew up a few miles from our wonder boy President. In our neighborhood, his whining and sniveling would have earned him a “put on your big boy pants, peckerhead.” He never had big boy pants, because his daddy kept him in diapers, buying him whatever he wanted, covering up for his stupidity and recklessness. 

Where I grew up you learned to fight your own battles. Our daddies didn’t coddle us. We didn’t have an army of lawyers to protect us, or doctors to get us out of the draft. We didn’t have the money to buy women. We had to earn our own way.

During the Cold War years, Americans trained their paranoia on the Communists. They were everywhere in America. At mid-century, people lost their jobs and had their careers cut short in a Republican witch hunt to rout out the Communists. Whenever Republicans want to rouse up their base, they complain of Socialists and Communists trying to take over the country. From the 20th Century playbook the older people are passing on their hate and paranoia to their kids who will carry on the tradition through this century.

Our culture thrives on conflict, and our media and politics profits from turbulence. Like our judicial system, we have an adversarial political system. Competition rather than cooperation is the default strategy. Both sides of an issue try to obscure rather than clarify issues. Our conflicts become our entertainment.

During the First Battle of Manassas in July 1861, congressmen and wealthy families from Washington picnicked at an observation point while young men slaughtered each other. They didn’t have TV then. Their picnic turned to panic when they were caught in the rout and retreat of Union soldiers.

America is a congregation of the world’s refugees. Persecuted or disadvantaged in their home country, many of our ancestors came to America to create a space for themselves. They brought their hopes and their hatreds. The first civil war was the American Revolution, when thousands of colonial citizens fled to Canada to avoid death at the hands of their countrymen.

In the 19th century immigrants from other European nations came streaming in through the ports and borders of America. Thousands of Irish farmers fled during the potato famine in their country at the mid-century. Chinese workers helped build the railroads during and after the Civil War. Shortly thereafter, in 1882, they became the first nationality to be excluded.

Expanding industrial businesses in America needed workers at dirt cheap wages. America opened the door to Europeans from north and south. They carried with them their hopes of a better life and decades or centuries of prejudices they had been taught since childhood.

One of those was a German young man fleeing obligatory military service. He was Donald Trump’s grandfather, Friedrich Trump (Frost, 2018). His son and grandson, our President, would disavow their German heritage in later years. Like his grandfather, Donald Trump evaded military service when his daddy paid a doctor to falsify medical records. Some traditions are important in the Trump family.

After World War I, America closed its borders to all but a few European nations. Antipathy to Germans ran high after the war. Returning servicemen still clung to their belief that the only good German was a dead German. Still, the nation was not among the excluded countries in the immigration act of 1924.

In 1965, a new immigration act reopened borders; now refugees from Asia and Latin American countries came to America. Like the Europeans, they brought their peculiar prejudices and a centuries long history of slaughter and civil war.

This country is founded on hope, prejudice, and tolerance. People of other nations have despised their neighbors because of religion, culture, ancestry, and history. America is the melting pot of that ugliness brought here by people from around the world. The torch held aloft at the top of the Statue of Liberty burns bright with the starshine of our ideals and the burnt cinders of our hatreds. People in other countries look to America and the millions of guns stashed in homes throughout our country; they wonder how is anyone still alive in America? If we can tolerate each other, there is hope for the rest of the world.

We are a tolerant people, civilized savages in a nation of laws. We go to church on Sunday and throw rocks at 6-year old Ruby Bridges, a black girl walking to school (Hilbert College, n.d.). That was sixty years ago this coming week. We pour out our sympathies and open our pocketbooks to help those whose lives have been torn apart by disasters around the world. We swear on our bibles, then tuck them away, pick up our torches and light Vietnamese children on fire. Love, charity and the darkness within.

Mr. Trump tapped into the power of our hatred and will continue to be a force in American politics. With millions of Americans following his Twitter feed, he delights in the conspiracies that feed the flames of righteous anger and justified hatred. As Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us.  

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

Photo by Erik Eastman on Unsplash

Frost, N. (2018, July 13). The Trump Family’s Immigrant Story. Retrieved November 08, 2020, from https://www.history.com/news/donald-trump-father-mother-ancestry

Hilbert College. (n.d.). Social Justice Activists: Ruby Bridges. Retrieved November 08, 2020, from https://www.hilbert.edu/social-justice-activists/ruby-bridges

America Thirsts

Leave a comment

October 18, 2020

By Steve Stofka

“America First” was a rallying cry of the 2016 Trump campaign but the isolationist sentiment and the name go deep into our country’s past. It is more fundamentalist than conservative, gathering its supporters from the far right. An America First Committee formed in 1940 as an opposition movement to America’s involvement in World War 2. After Pearl Harbor, it was disbanded, but an America First Party fielded a fundamentalist candidate in the 1944 election.

Was Mr. Trump the first to adopt the slogan for an election campaign? No. Both Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding used the phrase a century ago. The journalist and 2000 Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan ran under the banner of the Reform Party. Known for his isolationist stance even when he worked in the Nixon administration, he famously – or infamously – cost Al Gore the election in the 2000 election. Because of his placement on the ballot next to Al Gore’s name, many voters who had voted Democratic incorrectly marked Buchanan on their ticket.

Russia and China would prefer that America stay out of world affairs. Our intelligence agencies have confirmed that Russia is actively working to re-elect Trump. When pulled the U.S. out of the Iran treaty, that left Vladimir Putin holding the major foreign influence in that country.

While China has had its difficulties with Mr. Trump’s erratic trade policies, they prefer someone who pays more attention to his poll numbers and the daily fluctuations in the stock market. Both countries needed an American president with little experience of international politics; someone who does not read his intelligence briefing book; someone who uses a large sharpie to sign his name because he doesn’t write much but his name. While Mr. Trump stumps around on the stage of American politics, Russia and China gain more influence daily. He has become America’s vulnerable spot in global affairs.

Mr. Trump’s business philosophy is not isolationist; he owes hundreds of millions to Deutsche Bank. He owns a golf resort in Scotland and has tried to build a hotel in Russia. This week he joked – I think it was a joke – that he might have to leave the country if he loses the election. He might do so to avoid the many legal proceedings against him for election fraud, financial fraud, and securities fraud. Perhaps he will build a golf course or a hotel in Russia, where Mr. Putin will protect him from extradition.

Americans thirst as they line up at early voting polling places. They thirst for someone less headstrong, someone more mannered and less combative, someone who reads, someone who prepares, someone who takes the job of President seriously. Americans thirst.

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

Notes:

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

The Bargain

Leave a comment

August 2, 2020

by Steve Stofka

Deep below the U.S. Capitol Building, several men stand guard outside a door. Inside the room are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. With each of them is an aide.

“If you can arrange a voice vote to impeach on Monday, my members can deliver the needed two-thirds majority to convict,” the Senator says. “Vice-President Pence will serve out the term. Utah Senator Mitt Romney has agreed to accept the party’s nomination this August.”

Ms. Pelosi eyes McConnell warily. “We like our chances against Trump. Romney’s a moderate that a lot of Republican voters – maybe even some Democratic voters – will welcome. I need more.”

McConnell clears his throat. “I’ll reduce the liability protections for big businesses, but my members will not budge on lawsuit protections for smaller businesses. This is something your own members can get behind. Who doesn’t like small business in America?”

Pelosi motions to her aide who hands her a summary of the second relief bill that the House passed in May. She glances at it. McConnell fights the smile that tugs at the left corner of his mouth. Pelosi is not fooling him. The paper is a sham. She’s got her demands memorized.

“Revoke the SALT provision in the tax bill,” Pelosi says. McConnell shakes his head. “We’re in the middle of a pandemic, for God’s sake, Mitch. We can argue it out in the next Congress. One year of relief. One year only.”

“You agree to the one trillion package we passed this week,” McConnell says.

“We passed a three trillion dollar bill back in May and your members and the White House couldn’t agree on how much the American people should suffer,” Pelosi accuses him.

“Unlike your coalition, Nancy, ours comes from a lot of diverse areas from all over the country,” McConnell argues. “They have a wide range of concerns and perspectives.”

“White concerns, white perspectives,” Pelosi shoots back. “I need more help for state and local governments.”

“States like Illinois and New Jersey have underfunded their public pension plans for years,” McConnell says. “We’re not using the Covid crisis to bail out corrupt state politicians with no fiscal discipline.”

“We’ll set up a joint oversight committee to monitor how the states and cities spend the money,” Pelosi offers.

“Money is fungible,” McConnell says. “No way to properly monitor it. I’ve got too many members from small states who have struggled for years to attract good talent for city and state government. They couldn’t offer fancy pension packages. They were responsible. Their pension funds are not badly underfunded like Illinois. They just won’t go for it.”

“I’ll take SALT off the table and meet you two-thirds of the way on aid to the states and cities. You’ll look like a tough negotiator, but I’ll have to go back to my members and tell them that I gave away $1.5 trillion in aid that they voted for in May. You want to build fighter jets that the Air Force doesn’t want and yet you’re taking money away from students and teachers? That will be a good campaign ad this fall.”

“Not negotiable, Nancy. My members will take their chances with Trump if I give in on the military aid. Too many communities depend on that production. I’ll go halfway on aid to state and local governments.”

Pelosi turns to her aide. “How much is the final package?” McConnell knows that she has calculated exactly what the figure is. The aide says $1.6 trillion. Pelosi holds out her hand and they shake. “I’ll make the announcement at 9 A.M. on Monday.” She and the aide leave the room.

“Stop, stop, stop,” my wife says as she shakes me awake. “You’re yelling ‘you won’t believe it!’ over and over.”

It’s still dark out but the first half-light of early dawn is in the sky. Boy, it seemed so real. I sit up.

“This is not like you,” she says. “What won’t I believe?”

I give her a hug. “Never mind. Sorry I woke you.” I lay down and go back to sleep.

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

Photo by Austin Kehmeier on Unsplash