Turning Point Unspun

18Jul19

A Facebook friend posted a meme from Turning Point USA:

65138267_3356818247677580_3849161360101343232_n

Since it wasn’t sourced, I figured I’d do a little fact checking. It turns out that the only accurate parts of it were the photos and logos. Here we go with the sourced data:

Polling

Donald Trump has never topped 50% in polling averages. His disapproval rate has led his approval rate since February 3, 2017 (two weeks into his term). https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

According to Gallup, Barack Obama remained above 50% until December 2019, bottomed out around 40%, before rising above 50% again from October 2012 through June 1013, again bottomed out around 40% again, before March 2016 and finishing his term at 59%. Even while under 50%, his approval rate sometimes led his disapproval rate. https://news.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Unemployment

Under Donald Trump, the unemployment rate hit 3.9% in July 2018, continued to drop a few points, before rising to 4%, then dropping again to 3.6%. In Barack Obama’s tenure, the rate continued its rise from his inauguration to a peak of 10% in October 2019. Then it began a fall that generally continued for the rest of his term, to 4.7%. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Net unemployment rate change for Donald Trump (thus far) has been -1.1 points (-.49 annual rate). Net unemployment rate change for Barack Obama was -3.1 points (-.39 per year on average). Donald Trump’s rate is a bit better, but we must account for the fact that unemployment rates are a trailing indicator and in 2009, the Bush II Recession 2 was in full swing, while in 2017, we’d had seven years of uninterrupted growth. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=eUmi

Jobs

There were a total of 11.5 million jobs added during President Obama’s terms, a rate of 1.44 million a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms  There was no single year in which the -2.9 million number is accurate. 2009 was actually far worse, but every year after saw net growth (and 2011-16 saw growth every year). https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

There have been 5.61 million added during President Trump’s term so far, an annualized rate of 2.32 million a year. There is no one year for which the 3.2 million number is true. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

Once again, you have to account for their starting points, with the economy in the Bush II Recession 2 free-fall when Obama took office, and seven straight years of job growth (over six straight years of monthly job growth) before Trump took office.

January 2009 saw a loss of 783,000 jobs. In January 2017, 252,000 jobs were added, 1.04 million more monthly jobs than at the start of Obama’s presidency. June’s preliminary numbers (the most recent available) show a gain of 224,000 jobs, 28,000 fewer jobs than had been added the month before he took office. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

Deficit

This may be counted as true – if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 was indeed $1.412 trillion, and the deficit for fiscal year 2017 was $0.665 trillion. However, fiscal years run from July of the preceding year through June of the named year, so FY2009 ran from July 2008 through June 2009 (about 7 months Bush and 5 of Obama) and FY 2017 ran from July 2016 through June 2017 (about 7 months Obama and 5 of Trump). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD

Since no President’s policies come into effect on day one, the first budget that is more than 10-20% theirs is actually the one that ends in June of the second year of their presidency. Final figures for FY2019 (the first full fiscal year under the President Trump’s tax cuts) are not in yet, but we can compare their “second year” deficits. Obama’s was $1.294 trillion, $118 billion less than the preceding year and an 8% reduction. Trumps was $0.779 trillion, $114 billion more than the preceding year and a 17% increase. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD

The recession also accounts for a huge part of the 2009 deficit, including stimulus expenditures (and tax cuts) and a loss of revenue because the national losses of income. By the end of his presidency, Obama had reduced the deficit from $1.412 trillion to $0.665 trillion, a 53% decrease. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD

GDP Growth

According the St. Louis Fed, quarterly GDP growth bottomed out at -3.92% in the second quarter of 2009 – the worst trough of Bush II Recession 2. It broke into growth in the fourth quarter of that year and has continued to grow since then. Quarterly growth peaked in the first quarter of 2015, at 3.81%, and has not hit that height since then (second quarter 2019 numbers are still pending). It has not hit 4% on a quarterly basis since the second quarter of 2004. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=eUmi

GDP grew an average of 3.31% per year in President Obama’s term. In the first two years of President Trump’s term it has grown 6.67% per year. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP On the other hand, the economy was in free-fall when Obama took office – his net quarterly rate change was 4.63 points (from -2.75% fourth quarter 2008 to 1.88% fourth quarter 2016) – while Donald Trump entered office after seven years of growth and his quarterly rate net so far has been 1.32 points (from 1.88% to 3.20%).

Two notes on the GDP data:

  1. Like the Fed, I use “real” (inflation-adjusted) growth, because only growth beyond the rate of inflation really counts. (Just like a raise that doesn’t keep pace with inflation doesn’t really count.) That means some of these upper 3 figures may be over 4, unadjusted — for whatever that’s worth.
  2. I can’t find monthly data, but I do remember that both presidents have had months GDP growth rates over 4%. If someone has that information, it would be handy to include.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

On Borders

18Jan19

Lately — perhaps because of the border wall arguments here in the U.S. and the Brexit controversies in the U.K., I’ve been thinking about the Anglo-Scottish border.

If you take the LNER from London to Edinburgh now, and you pay close attention, you might notice when you cross the border. If not, you may notice a gradual change of scenery between the English Northeast and the Scottish Borders, the change becoming more obvious the closer you get to East Lothian. It was not always thus.

The Anglo-Scottish border evolved from Roman Britain to 1707 — as did (what would become) England and (what would become) Scotland. The Romans, thinking defensively, built walls, first Hadrian’s Wall (entirely in what became England), then the Antonine Wall (across what is now Scotland’s Central Belt, from the Firth of Clyde to the Firth of Forth). The Roman departure from Britain had many causes, including over-reach in other parts of the Empire and implosion within, but the Roman walls could not secure southern Britain for Rome — certainly not without security elsewhere.

As Scotland and England came into being, the border both shifted and changed. The border reached south of Berwick at times (Berwick Rangers still play in the Scottish association football leagues), and at one point was far enough north that Lothian (including Edinburgh) was in English hands. Thoughts on the shifting border also must take into account the times, notably during the reign of Edward I and during the Commonwealth, that Scotland was either a vassal of or incorporated into England.

Wherever the border lay, it was porous. Families spanned the border. Family allegiances shifted from north to south and back again. Men in trouble with the law on one side of the border would escape to family on the other side until the trouble abated — or was overshadowed by new trouble on the other side.

This seems a common situation for border territories. Think of Alsace-Lorraine, which was a bone of contention between France and Germany for fifty years; or of the Czech Sudetenland, which Nazi Germany claimed because of the presence of ethnic Germans (taking Czechoslovakia’s border fortifications with them). More recently, think of the ethnic Russians protesting (or more) in the Ukraine. Think of the southern border of the U.S., in its largely open period before World War I — the basis for many a Western movie. More positively, think of the Canadians who cross regularly to shop in Point Roberts, or of the international interdependence of El Paso–Juárez.

In the end, what settled the Anglo-Scottish border (in both location and in individuals’ cross-border ‘adventuring’)? Unification. The Union of the Crowns in 1603 meant that England would no longer turn a blind eye to Scottish reivers, nor would Scotland to English reivers. Trade between the two countries opened under their shared monarch, making the borders more a place to trade openly, and less a place to smuggle and evade the law. Parliamentary Union in 1707 sealed the deal, guaranteeing extradition, tariff-free trade, and the free movement of peoples.

What does this tell us about borders? Perhaps the most important lesson is that just because you have a line on a map doesn’t mean that the people near that line recognize it as significant. The Roman and Czech examples also indicate that walls don’t work — at least not on their own, and not without internal stability and security. (Experience at the U.S. border with Mexico, and at the border between Gaza and Egypt, also shows that walls can be defeated with a shovel.) What does seem to work, judging by the history of the Anglo-Scottish border (and of the border between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom) is creating a multi-national region with mutual support between governments, an interdependent economy, free trade, free movement of peoples, and with easy extradition between jurisdictions. It’s not an easy solution — especially as questions of sovereignty arise, and it’s difficult to navigate the demands of the different sovereign nations while protecting the peoples of each country. But it’s the only one that seems to work.


Filed under: Politics   |  Leave a Comment

Why the Millennials Kill

06Aug18

The generation slightly younger than I am (the millennials, or adults currently under 40) have been blamed for ‘killing’ a number of industries or service providers, including:

It’s become such a common theme in news reports that some sources have reported on number of things that millennials have ‘killed’:

There was an unusual article recently that credited the millennial generation for creating a boom in an industry: Millennials are driving a re-sale clothing boom (Christian Science Monitor). It occurred to me to note the underlying economics of the trend, and ‘correct’ the headline so that it emphasizes the economics, instead of treating it as a cultural trend, “Four decades of wage stagnation drives adults under 40 to buy more clothes second-hand.”

I knew that many of these trends had an economic root (e.g.: when you’re drowning in student loans, you’re in no position to buy a house). For some reason that re-written headline made me realize something significant about first the Millennial Generation and then my own (Gen-X): we’ve never really experienced an economy in which wages kept up with productivity.

You may be familiar with a chart like this one:

Source: Economic Policy Institute

I took the version from the Peterson Institute for International Economics and overlaid the earliest and latest birth date spans for the Millennial Generation, and the results were stark:

Millennials’ Birth Dates Compared to the Productivity-Wage Gap

This means that not only has the Millennial Generation in the US never known fair wages as adults, they have never lived in an America with fair wages. Even Generation X (usually starting 1965 — with occasional start dates as early as 1956 — through at least 1977, possibly as late as 1980) barely remembers an America with fair wages, and have never known fair wages as adults (turning 18 perhaps as early as 1974, and possibly as late as 1998, but more likely 1983-1995).

Is it any wonder that first Generation X, and now the Millennial Generation have been portrayed as taking a pass on over-priced goods and services? Of course, Gen-X was never large enough to take the ‘blame’ for killing any of those industries. Big business just kept marketing the same old junk to boomers — until the next big generation started spending money, and the boomers started retiring and slowed their spending. If you want to see what is killing these industries, perhaps looking at the underlying causes — not blaming the culture of a demographic group — would give an honest answer to the question.

 


Filed under: Politics   |  Leave a Comment

What the NRA Delivers

24Feb18

In the wake of mass shootings, it’s not uncommon to see articles like this one come out discussing the number and size of the donations the National Rifle Association makes to various politicians. While these articles are informative, they don’t really reach why the NRA is so effective.

After the Sandy Hook Massacre, universal background checks were supported by 92% of Americans, but opposed by the NRA. The legislation to require them failed in the Senate, with a 54-46 majority in favor, but needing 60 votes for cloture. How can something so popular fail to be passed? It’s easy to say that it’s campaign contributions, but while the NRA’s nearly $1,000,000 in campaign contributions in 2016 is far from chump change, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to other donors, like beer wholesalers and defense contractors. Its true strength lies elsewhere.

The NRA likes to present itself as a membership organization, and while corporations are banned from donating to its PAC, much of its operating budget comes from gun manufacturers (and Russian oligarchs, allegedly). As the manufacturers provide the budget, they also set the agenda. Membership plays an important role for the NRA, though. First, they fund the PAC. More importantly, they are map pins.

When the NRA meets with a lawmaker, they know — and make sure the lawmaker knows — how many members are in the lawmaker’s constituency. The lobbyist assures the lawmaker that every one of those members has paid their $40 indicating their commitment to the NRA’s cause. The lobbyist claims (explicitly or implicitly) that every one of those members will cast their ballot largely based on the “Second Amendment issues” as framed by the NRA. The NRA trusts that most of their members are single-issue voters, and that for those who are not, a significant part, if not all, of the voters’ decisions will be based on the NRA’s grade of each candidate. Whether or not a voter supports universal background checks, a vote for them will bring down the NRA’s grade of a candidate, an idea that strikes fear into the hearts of many legislators. Though the NRA delivers lawmakers a significant amount of cash, what they promise to deliver is actually voters — voters who are passionate about the “gun rights” cause, and who arm themselves with as little information as the NRA can get away with supplying them.

So, if a 92% majority of the population (and even a majority of the NRA membership) supports universal background checks, the NRA still opposes checks, because the manufacturers who provide most of their funding do. Their promise to the legislators is that their members are too stupid to think for themselves or to look beyond a one-letter summary, and the legislators believe them and vote for the NRA’s (and gun manufacturers’) position — no matter what the members or the general public think about background checks.

I suppose that the NRA is a membership organization. They give their membership to legislators on behalf of the firearms manufactures.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

The “Alt-Left”, Antifa, and Anti-Fascism

17Aug17

“Anti-fascist” is being conflated with the offensively violent wing of the ‘antifa’ movement, and that other opposition to fascism (including the rest of the ‘antifa’ movement) is ignored. The fact that anti-fascism does not have an obvious identity — except as ‘American’, an identity the fascists seem to think is just people who agree with them but are cowed by “political correctness” — does not help distinguish between them. Nor does the fact that as a largely anarchist movement there is no internal control to keep the violent offense from the attack, and there are not spokespeople to say that antifa are also the people who research the groups to know when they will be gathering in advance, or (like Yes, You’re Racist) who attended. https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/2017/08/16/who-are-the-a…/… There is also no distinction made between those antifa who charge into the start of the hatefests and those who save peaceful protesters’ lives by counterattacking. While I don’t condone those on the attack — and hope that the broader antifa movement will find a way to restrain them (not least because violent confrontation is exactly what the fascists are looking for), I won’t condemn the guys who come prepared to meet violence with violence. Perhaps with more of those guys around, they could have stopped the near-murder of Deandre Harris. I also won’t condemn those calling out those who attended for being racist (and in some cases for being yet-to-be-convicted felons). And when the media conflates being anti-fascist as being part of the violent attacking fringe of the antifa movement, not just the broader antifa movement, it falls on us to remind our fellow citizens that we have a diverse country where most of us oppose bigotry, and we will fight (figuratively — if not literally) to defend it.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

Historic Headlines Re-Written for the “Modern Free Speech” Movement

15Aug17

“Violent SJWs Celebrate Oppressing Local Liberation Movement”

 

“Violent Anti-Fas Harass Far-Right Spokesman to Suicide”

 

“Anti-Fa Extremists Celebrate Oppressing Right-Wing Activists”

 

 “Free Speech Rights of Right-Wing Activist Suppressed on Orders of Liberal Snowflake”


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

A proposal for a representative Senate 

06Apr17

The filibuster now only remains for legislation. While it is an internally undemocratic extra-legal remnant that deserves to die. On the other hand, the first 43 Senators to sign on to the filibuster represented 53 percent of the population, illustrating how undemocratic the structure of the Senate is (and meaning that the Senate’s minority stood for the majority). Any situation where representation is on a per-state basis, with such a glaring disparity in state populations (the ratio between California and Wyoming is 66:1) is inherently anti-democratic (and ultimately, I think, untenable). The filibuster deserved to die, but the Senate is *well* overdue for structural reform. I propose ten regional, multi-state Senate districts of ten Senators each, elected through a proportional representation system, and redistributed by national non-partisan commission after alternate censuses (every 20 years). The six-year terms would remain, with three elected for each district in each of two biennial election cycles, and four in the third cycle. With 12% of the national population, California would be its own district; Texas, New York, and Florida would probably need only one partner each. Should any state reach over 15% of the population, it would combine with a neighboring state to form a super district with 20 Senators, elected 6, 7, 7 (or, if their combined population put them at or near 30% of the population, 30 Senators, elected ten per biennial election cycle).


Filed under: Politics   |  Leave a Comment

Upholding McConnell Standard for Supreme Court Nominees

01Feb17

When President Obama was preparing to nominate a Supreme Court justice, Mitch McConnell said that the people should have a voice; the people said they’d rather have Hillary Clinton choose, but the Electoral College elected President Trump.

By the McConnell standard, the Senate should refuse to consider any nominee put forward by a President elected with a minority of the popular vote.


Filed under: Politics   |  Leave a Comment

An Open Letter to the International Students I Work With

02Dec16

Dear Students,

I write this unofficially, as really I have no official ‘voice’ either for the department or the university, but there are some things coming from the recent election that really need to be said. Frankly, if I were many of you, I’d be feeling a bit scared right now. The President Presumptive (amazingly, Mr. Trump has not actually been elected yet; the Electoral College, which elects the President, will vote on December 19, and almost certainly elect him then) made some statements in his campaign that sound like radical changes in immigration policy. There has also been a reaction to his victory that has been, well to put it mildly, unsavory.

Policy Proposals

Early in the campaign, Mr. Trump called for the elimination of a couple of visa categories, the H-1B (skilled worker) visa and the J visas that allow for people to work on exchange. This is worrying, if you hope to apply for an H-1B visa at some point after graduating, but the change could not happen without Congressional action, and there’s big money behind keeping the program. Still, it’s something to watch for the future. More concerning is the vagueness surrounding his J visa proposals, as he does not define which J categories he would eliminate, or if he would eliminate them all — which would include our exchange students and exchange scholars. Again, it’s something to watch, and would probably only affect future students and scholars.

One of the more disturbing proposals was his call for a complete ban on Muslims entering the US  “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” There are a lot of reasons to think that this wouldn’t actually happen — the need for Congressional action, the likelihood that the Supreme Court would overturn it — but the implications if it were to happen would be severe. Not only would it mean that Muslim immigrants would be turned away, but so would refugees, Permanent Residents, and citizens traveling (or serving) abroad. Needless to say, F-1 and J-1 students would be included. On the other hand, this could not be implemented until after Mr. Trump’s inauguration day on January 20, so there’s no reason to panic. You can still enjoy your Winter Break. But after February, if you’re overseas and start to hear about immigration restrictions being debated in Congress, you should probably plan to return before they might be passed or implemented.

As a candidate, Mr. Trump said that he would strengthen immigration security with ‘extreme vetting’ of those arriving from other countries, to screen out radicals who might decide to attack the US or its citizens. This sounds serious, but we don’t really know what he means by that. It is possible that you will need additional documentation, face additional questions, or require references at a visa interview, or on entry. Even if done by executive order, this would take some time to implement, but keep an eye out for news about changes and be prepared for them should they happen.

Generally, international students are off the radar of the President Presumptive and his party. When they do discuss international students, though, Mr. Trump and both parties are generally supportive. In short, international students are an export — you bring money into the country in exchange for education.

The President Presumptive’s signature proposal is to “build a wall” between the United States and Mexico to cut off illegal immigration. This proposal, combined with his proposal for mass deportation, will not directly affect students here on F- or J- visas. The students most affected will be those students who do not have legal status, including those with pseudo-legal status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Students with temporary DACA protection may find their status terminated, and that they have to return to living as they did before 2011. Given the slow working of government, and that their DACA status implies that they have demonstrated that they have been law-abiding citizens after their arrival, I suspect that it is more likely that the incoming administration will simply stop taking new applicants and put the brakes on renewals, allowing the program to phase out as cards expire. There is no guarantee of that, though, and it will not require any Congressional action to make whatever changes will be made. Because the program was established by executive order, it can be undone by executive order.

Backlash

In my opinion, the worst part of the outcome of the election has been the huge spike in hate crimes against racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities, and against women. In the ten days after the election, there were 867 recorded incidents of election-related violence (including 23 anti-Trump incidents). When pressed, Mr. Trump disavowed the attacks and asked the people perpetrating them to “stop it.” (Weakly, and late in my opinion, especially as he had ginned up the attitudes that led to this reaction during the campaign — clearly this group of violent extremists thought that he had endorsed their actions.)

Our office is made of a large number of individuals, who will have cast their ballots for any number of people. (In addition to the two major party candidates, there were candidates representing the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and two socialist parties on the Washington ballot.) I am also certain that if you were to come to anyone in our office because you had a concern for your safety, they would do everything they could to help you out. If there is only one thing that I trust our college’s president about, it is that the safety and security of all students is one of his highest priorities, and I think that priority is reflected throughout the university. If you had an issue to report to any of us, to the campus police, the diversity office, or any of your professors, I am sure your concern would be taken seriously and whoever you talked with would help you deal with it as much as they could. Still, in the famous line from the TV program Barney Miller, “… be careful out there.”867 attacks in 10 days is a scary number, and were I not a white, straight, cis-male citizen, I would be concerned for my safety. As is, I have the luxury of being able to concerned for others. As terrorism, this works. On the other hand, in a country of over 300,000,000 people, this works out to less than three incidents per million people over the course of ten days. (The US is the third largest country in the world by population, but 179th in population density, so it doesn’t feel like there are that many people in this country..) Despite the spike in violence, you are still relatively safe.

Between the changes in policy and the reactions of an extremist subset of his supporters, it’s clear why some international students would fear the result of the recent election. I recommend a position of caution and optimism. You’re students, so you have decades ahead of you, so you have plenty to be optimistic about. On the other hand, do keep track to see what laws and executive orders might be proposed that would affect you. Be aware and be prepared, but don’t worry unless and until something is about to happen. And remember, that you have a community on your side.


Filed under: Politics, Presidential Elections   |  Leave a Comment

To My Fellow Liberals and Progressives:

12Nov16

I think we do need to take some time to mourn, and some time to assess the results. What appears to be a popular vote majority does make a statement, even if it doesn’t have any effect on the balance of power in DC.

After a short period of mourning, we must organize and prepare the resistance. However, we cannot allow ourselves to take the route that regressives have taken since 2008 — opposing everything and hoping for failure that will bring them to power.

  • Where proposals are made that are good for America, we must support.
  • Where proposals can be made good for America, we must make them so.
  • Where intolerable proposals are made, we must steadfastly block.
    (The Senate Democrats need to make the filibuster a living thing again — no blue slips, no warning, just vote against cloture, start talking, and don’t stop until yielding the floor to another Democrat who is willing to keep it going.)

One thing that this election has emphasized is the extent to which tinkle-down economics and the shifting economy have left behind large sections of our country. We must do better to help people in those areas, communicate how to help people in those areas, and be seen to be helping people in those areas.

We must develop a strong bench. We must fight and win in states, counties, and cities. We must fight for Greens, and Socialists, and Democrats, whoever will stand up for the oppressed; we must all stand up in alliance for workers, women, people of color, the LGBTQIA community, and religious and ethnic minorities. The Republicans usually are the party to nominate the runner-up for the previous nomination, this time the Democrats did (and hardly anyone noticed that Santorum was even running this year). The Republicans had a wide bench. The Democrats had an inspiring septuagenarian who would be nearly 80 were he to run next time.

We must show in our governance, where our allies govern, that progressive and liberal ideals can succeed. We must point out failures by our own allies, so that our allies can correct them. We must point out failures by our opponents, also so that our allies can correct them.

We must stand, shoulder-to-shoulder, and let the people know that we stand for them. The republic stands for them. This republic, which withstood Buchanan and Nixon, will not fall, but will need to heal. We will prevent it from fracturing as much as we can, and will stand ready to help with healing when it is ready to be healed.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment
« Older posts