How Does This Make Us Safer?

Yesterday, the Trump administration rounded up 680 probable illegal immigrants from their jobs and is processing them for deportation. It’s likely most of them are guilty of the misdemeanor offense of being in the country illegally. Comparable misdemeanors include public intoxication, simple assault, and reckless driving. So yeah, these are crimes, but the perpetrators are not hardened criminals or risks to society. They were employees–productive tax paying members of society. Many had children, and many of those kids are citizens who have now been effectively orphaned in this country.

Sure, in one sense justice has been done. But in a practical sense what has been gained?

There’s no reason to assume any of these people were a danger to anyone, so we’re not safer.

Unemployment numbers are historically low and these people were working at jobs like deboning chickens. There’s hardly a waiting line of applicants trying to land these positions.

The families left behind have lost most if not all of their income. What happens to them? In some cases this action will likely push citizens onto public assistance. Some of the orphaned kids will become wards of the state. For the government, this is unlikely a financial gain.

The families left behind have also experienced an emotional trauma (especially the kids) and will likely resent the US and its government for this action. How does this aid in the assimilation of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants?

The companies these people worked for, the landlords they rented from, the bodegas they shopped in all benefited from their employment. They will all take a financial hit.

Justice must serve a societal purpose. If meting out justice doesn’t further the well-being of the citizens, then it’s just malice.

I’m not advocating “open borders”, but there is a reality to people who are already here. They’ve built a life here. You can argue that they shouldn’t have, but that’s water under the bridge. These are people who are productive citizens in every respect, excepting the paperwork. This is the citizenship equivalent of common-law marriage. By and large, most of these people worked way harder and sacrificed more to be American than you or I ever will. Are these really people we want to purge from society? Does their absence make us better?

To men still defending Brett Kavanaugh

A few points to ponder:

Sure, it’s possible this is a political shift where all nominations will now be dragged through the mud and slandered by baseless allegations. But consider that since Trump came to office there have been 135 federal judgeships plus Gorsuch’s SCOTUS seat filled with barely a whimper from the left. Maybe this isn’t a sea-change. Maybe it’s just this guy. Maybe Kavanaugh is just a deeply flawed candidate.

Sure, it’s possible #MeToo places every man at risk of being brought down by a sexual assault allegation. But consider that there’s nothing magic about sexual assault. People have been brought down by allegations of bribery, drug use, plagiarism, infidelity, lying, insider trading, theft, and a host of other crimes. In the vast majority of cases, those allegations turn out to be true. Not that false accusations don’t happen, but there’s no historical precedent for them being the norm. If you’re panicked about being accused of sexual assault but unfazed by the prospect of hearing you shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, maybe that says more about you and your past than you’re admitting to yourself.

Sure, it’s possible we should dismiss any sexual assault allegations from the past that didn’t get reported to the police at the time. But… no, wait. That’s not possible, and you’re a colossal ass-hat if you think it is. Sexual assault victims, especially young girls, typically don’t report the abuse. They are humiliated, embarrassed, terrified, and traumatized in ways that leave lifelong scars. There’s a disturbing likelihood that one or more women in your life have been assaulted, maybe more than once. Maybe she hasn’t told you. Maybe she hasn’t told anyone. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, and it doesn’t mean it was no big deal.

And none of this even addresses all the other baggage this guy is hauling on his back including lying to Congress on multiple occasions, trafficking in stolen emails, and other partisan hackery that would ordinarily be disqualifying for a SCOTUS nominee all by itself. It’s not like Kavanaugh is the last conservative justice on Earth. It’s not like if he goes, Trump will nominate an RBG clone next. Is this really the hill you want to die on?

Corporate Tax Cuts Don’t Mean More Jobs

This NYT article is right, but I think the explanation is simpler. Companies don’t hire because they have extra cash. They hire because there is unmet market demand such that hiring in the short term makes them more profit in the longer term. If the demand is there, most businesses would borrow to hire. At present, and for the last many years, consumer demand is low while corporate cash reserves are high. Do the math. Jobs aren’t there because demand isn’t there. Period.

The standard trickle-down argument says that once companies start hiring, they will put cash in workers pockets, who will then drive up demand. And sure, that would work… if lots of companies hired. But this scenario leaves out some crucial detail about how this has to work. To restate the process:

Companies have to hire workers they don’t need.
Enough companies have to do this that the collective new workers’ paychecks stimulate demand across the economy.
Then (and only then) does the demand materialize that justifies having hired the workers in the first place.
And even after all this, each company is risking that demand will materialize in their particular market. Some of them will be wrong.

Having spent the last 3 decades working in management for and with many companies, I can assure you that very few businesses would take this risk absent some significant exogenous incentive. It’s just not going to happen.

An Open Letter to Trump Supporters

Last night, a majority of you, through your action or inaction, elected Trump. I don’t fully understand why, but it kinda doesn’t matter now. That’s done. Water under the proverbial bridge. No backsies. Besides, whatever your motivation, the reality is that you elected Trump’s policies and visions. Further, you swept in a single party to control the White House, Congress, and in short order, the Supreme Court. So there’s little to hinder Trump delivering on what he’s promised… and soon. After all, Trump has been very plain about how much will change on Day 1 or in the First 100 Days. Maybe that’s a bit of hyperbole, but he’s easily got 2 years of pretty unchecked reign to get his agenda on track. He’s got no excuses, so buckle up.

I admit, I don’t really get how a lot of the tactics he’s proposed achieve his goals. Granted, his plans are bit thin on details, but it’s early. And besides, what the hell do I know? I thought I’d be waking up to President-elect Clinton this morning. But in broad strokes, in terms of end objectives, I really do hope he achieves what he’s said.

I’m looking forward to the return of high-paying blue-collar manufacturing jobs, the demise of ISIS and terrorism in general, a better way to keep Iran from nuclear tech, less foreign military deployments, 5% GDP, healthcare that will be so much better than Obamacare, lower taxes, no federal deficits, reductions in violent crime, better educations for our kids, having the VA fixed and providing for our vets, restructuring all our international trade deals and alliances to our benefit, saving Social Security, and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. It’s ambitious, but if Trump can make even a dent in a significant part of that list without cratering the economy or the environment, sowing civil unrest, or disenfranchising any segments of US citizens, then I’ll be first in line to eat crow.

Conversely, if Trump’s plan for America leads to some substantive combination of a tanking economy, spiraling debt, cuts to essential government services, debilitating trade wars, actual wars, civil unrest, higher unemployment, increased terrorism, loss of personal freedoms, or runaway environmental crises, then that’s on you. You own that. History will make you accountable.

Meanwhile, I’m gonna sit back and let this play out. Just try to keep in mind that this is what you wanted. And remember, I’m pulling for you. We’re all in this together now. Don’t fuck it up.

Does Voting Third-Party Send a Message?

One of the discussions started by my previous post was on the value of third-party Presidential votes as a means to send a message to the major parties and influence their future platforms. The thinking being that if Gary Johnson gets 20% of the vote, that the Republicans would recognize that Libertarian ideals were more popular than they thought and realign to capture more of those voters in the next cycle. Presumably a similar showing by Jill Stein might heavily influence Democrats.

While I can see the logic in this, it’s unclear to me there’s a lot of evidence for this strategy working in the past. But then rarely do third-party tickets attract more than noise, so there’s not much data here. Still, I think the evidence for the efficacy of Berners or the Tea Party influencing their party’s platforms from within is far stronger than the case for exogenous forces. So even if the third-party approach works, it’s unclear it’s the most effective strategy to achieve change.

Regardless, the unique structure of this year’s election cycle makes the likelihood of either party being influenced by a third-party’s performance negligible. Specifically, both parties are aware they are running very unique candidates. Clinton is toting a ridiculous amount of baggage and is vying to be both the first woman and first Presidential spouse ever elected. Trump is a generational anomaly almost defying description. He is reviled by many in his own party and most of the GOP establishment would jettison him in a heartbeat if they could do it without sending the party into a death spiral.

In this environment, if either or even both major candidates have their ass handed to them in November by Johnson or Stein, it won’t be attributed to the strength of the Libertarian or Green party platforms. It will be attributed to the weakness and uniqueness of the party’s own nominee. Even Johnson’s own campaign is trying to exploit this by emphasizing that voting for him is a vote against both Trump and Clinton (as opposed to a vote for the Libertarian platform). Regardless of the outcome, I think both parties are already trying to figure out how they can never have anything like this election cycle happen again. The third-parties are irrelevant (at least in 2016).

I stand by my initial assertion. Third-party votes are functionally equivalent to abstentions. Still, I suppose if they get you to the booth to vote the down-ticket races, then that’s a good thing. But before abstaining, you should be damned sure you’re prepared to live with either outcome, because you will live with one of them.

Remember the Brexit. Don’t wake up on November 9th with regrets because what you assumed was going to happen despite your (in)actions did not.