The Texas House is considering #HB19, which shifts the costs of tragic wrecks caused by trucking companies onto the victims, and away from insurance companies and trucking companies. This is the latest effort at “tort reform,” which is usually thought of as coming from “conservative” Republicans. In this episode, I explain why there is nothing conservative about this bill, but it is instead a horrible example of #CronyCapitalism. Furthermore, crony capitalism is a gift to socialists who attack capitalism because it lets them compare socialism to crony capitalism instead of free market capitalism. If you compare socialism to crony capitalism, you have a fair fight. But socialism has no chance against true free market capitalism.
Problems can be solved. This episode is all about solving the problems related to the gap between outcomes for black communities as compared to white communities.
Race and racial tensions dominate the headlines. Very little of the news or arguments focus on how to make things better. This episode is all about solutions.
Dr. Richard A Johnson III is the director of the Booker T. Washington Initiative. He has been instrumental in crafting policies to help break the school to prison pipeline, and how to improve public safety, public works, healthcare. and housing.
I had the opportunity to speak to Simon Lester of the Cato Institute. Mr. Lester (@SNLester) is an expert in international trade policy and international trade law. Don’t believe me? Well, he is the associate director of the Herbert A. Stiefel center for trade policy studies at the Cato Institute. He is a lawyer and has practiced law with a focus on international trade law. He has been a legal affairs officer at the appellate body secretariat of the world trade organization. In 2001 Mr. Lester founded the international trade law website worldtradelaw.net. He’s published several law journal articles regarding international trade. So I’d say he’s an expert on international trade policy and international trade law!
A few of the specific topics we discuss:
What is fair trade? We use the phrase a lot, but we should be clear about what we mean.
Are trade deficits good? Bad? Indifferent? Why?
Is China actually abusive in its trade conduct?
Are tariffs the best way to respond to China’s behavior?
What other strategies and tactics does the US have at its disposal?
Are there national security implications to being heavily reliant on a foreign power for our supply chain?
Check out the links below to listen to this episode wherever you listen to podcasts!
Here are some of the articles I read to get ready for this interview:
This episode of the Personal Responsibility Lawyer was especially fun because I got to reconnect with Nathan Balke, one of my favorite economics professors from my undergraduate days at Southern Methodist University.
Unless you’ve been under a rock, you know that a huge part of the US economy has been shut down by shelter in place orders in nearly every state. The idea behind this is to limit human interactions, which then at least theoretically limits the transmission of the novel coronavirus. It makes sense, at least in theory.
But what are the costs? And how do we make fiscal policy–both in Congress and at the Federal Reserve–that minimizes the long term damage of shutting down.
The purpose of this discussion isn’t to debate whether the economy should shut down, how long it should remain shut down, or whether the economic cost is worth the public health benefits. The purpose is to discuss how to anticipate and mitigate the economic damage that the shutdown has caused and will continue to cause.
(Links to this episode of the Personal Responsibility Lawyer podcast below!)
Photos from Unsplash by Edwin Hooper, Brian McGowan, and Thom Mast
We are currently a country obsessed with the novel coronavirus pandemic, and with good reason. Things are shut down and the government has hit the “off” switch on most of the economy. Many of the conversations are some variation on “wow this is crazy.” Some are pointing out that this can’t go on forever. And it can’t.
The daily briefings from President Trump and state
governors focus almost exclusively on where we are now with respect to
infections, deaths, and a few other evolving metrics. Someone must start
planning how the economy reopens. Not only do we need a plan, we need to tell
the American people what the plan is. The anxiety that is building and people
will boil over soon. Closing the economy is more than an economic crisis. It’s
a humanitarian crisis in which depression, addiction, suicide, child abuse, and
literally God-knows-what-else are going to skyrocket. We can emphasize the
danger of the virus all day, and the lives it will take; it’s not wrong to do
so. But we must also recognize that shutting down the economy will also cost
lives.
Too many are casting this as a false choice of either (a)
shutting everything down until the virus is cured or controlled, or (b) going
on as if COVID-19 doesn’t exist. It’s a false choice and we need to think through
complex problems as if we have something above the sixth grade education.
With all of this heavy on my mind, I have developed a
plan to reopen the American economy in a manner that seeks to balance the risks
of the virus running rampant with the risks associated with a total economic
shut down. We must be clear – there are risks involved, and some people are
going to get terribly sick and some people are going to die. I don’t like that.
I’m also clear-eyed enough to recognize and openly acknowledge that it will
happen no matter what we do. That’s
why pandemics are bad – because there are no good, easy, or happy solutions.
So, here’s the plan:
PART 1: Economic shut down. That’s where we are now.
We can sustain this for a while, but not long.
We have to massively ramp up production of PPE
and ventilators, and create temporary hospital space to deal with a spike in
COVID-19 serious illness. There are probably other items that get less media
coverage that are also essential; I don’t claim this list is exhaustive.
While I’m generally against massive government
spending, this is the exception. The government has to hand out money to
businesses that it required to shut down.
I
don’t like this huge spike in government spending, but I consider it the less
bad of the options, which seem to be this huge spike in government spending, or
a very real likelihood of an extended and horrible Depression. Either one will
cause massive increases in the federal debt.
This
doesn’t necessarily remain replace all of the revenue of the closing businesses,
but enough to keep them open and paying their employees and contractors. Businesses
are simply not going to be profitable while shut down, but we have to keep them
from going under so that they cannot resume business when we can reopen the
economy. Congress kind of did this, but they also threw in a lot of stupidity
just so we don’t forget who they really are.
During the shutdown of Part 1 (this really should’ve
started long ago, but where we are where we are) massive investments into
testing capability must occur. In order for the re-opening to be sustainable
when we get to that, we need the testing to help keep things under control.
Testing
for infections, so everyone with symptoms can get tested.
Testing
for antibodies so people can know if they have been infected and develop some
immunity. This is important for later phases to determine who can go out safely
in case of further outbreak. We don’t fully know the level of immunity acquired
by having and overcoming an infection, but this will also help and determine
how much immunity one acquires.
PART 2: Begin reopening the economy. I don’t believe it’s wise to simply flip the switch from “Off” to “on.” In Part 1, only “essential” businesses could operate. In Part 2, the scope of businesses that can operate can and must widen. Frankly, I’m not sure the best way to define the expanded scope – I need to bring in some higher levels of expertise than what I have a loan. I do have some thoughts though
Restaurants should probably be permitted to
reopen on a limited basis, enforcing significantly lower occupancy rates to
maintain greater distances between members of parties not dining together.
People
should probably be encouraged to wear masks. I know there is some debate about
the efficacy of masks. Asian countries have apparently embraced masks for some
time under certain circumstances. At the least, it seems logical that a mask
stops droplets from sneezes or coughs from spreading widely and causing the
spread of infections. Wearing a mask out seems weird to me, but we are all
going to have to get over some things.
Airlines
and other air travel should probably largely reopen while enforcing
greater-than-normal distancing, and perhaps masks.
People
in specific high-risk categories based on age and/or underlying health issues
should be encouraged to stay home to the greatest extent possible. Those who
can reasonably telecommute for their jobs should do so. For those who cannot
perform their jobs without close interactions with others (I’m thinking
primarily of restaurant wait staff here, but I’m sure the list is much longer
than that), we (i.e., the government
should replace their income for them to stay home while the virus remains a
significant threat.
Even
if we view this only as a one-dimensional, money-based decision, the financial
cost of replacing their incomes is probably not a lot greater than the cost of
lengthy hospitalizations.
I
do not believe that people in high-risk category should be forced to stay home
against their will. I’m willing to except that different people have different
risk tolerances, and different people react differently to being cooped up in
their homes without much to do.
Schools: I am torn about when to re-open
schools. There are several issues involved that make this one of the more
complicated decisions in this plan. There are reasons to believe that, since
kids seem mostly unaffected by COVID-19, having them together at school is a
minimal risk. There is also some thought that children, while not affected
directly, can be carriers and therefore opening schools exacerbates the spread.
Aside from the spread of disease, a high percentage of health care workers have
school age children, so when school is closed it’s hard for them to get to work,
and we obviously need all hands on deck in this environment. So, in short, I
need more expert guidance on this issue.
Churches: Because I’m concerned about
government imposition on religious freedom, I’m inclined to permit churches to
gather in Part 2. However, I would encourage large congregations not to hold
normal services. If they insisted, I would encourage requiring several feet
between non-related persons in the pews. Personally, I do not think I would
attend a church during Part 2. I’m just very hesitant to impose my decisions—especially
with respect to religion—on others.
PART 3: As the virus remains controlled, and if it remains controlled, we start to relax distancing requirements and permit all businesses to re-open without distancing requirements. This is a return to normalcy. We start ending programs paying people to stay home.
At any point – during Parts 2 or 3 – we may have to go back a step or even two if the virus starts spreading again.
Permit mass gatherings like sporting events, concerts, etc., i.e., things where you can’t really enforce social distancing rules.
I anticipate several objections to this plan, so I will
address a few:
This plan may not save lives.
Yes. Sadly. It’s possible it will cost lives. Show me someone with a plan that has much certainty embedded, and I’ll tell you the one who devised the plan is some combination of dishonest and misguided.
To anyone who says we should shut down everything “if it just saves one life!” I say, well, what about the lives it costs? That’s a real question that should be somberly considered if we think seriously about difficult problems.
A lot of the things you tell us we should do are weird and they make us uncomfortable.
Absolutely. I agree.
Risk of government programs becoming permanent.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this concern. We need political will on this issue when the crisis passes.
It’s rare for a government program to ever be truly temporary. It’s almost as rare for a government program to do anything but get bigger.
Government budget.
The budgetary issue troubles me greatly, to say the least. It was a huge problem before COVID-19, and this is making it a lot worse.
This is exactly why we shouldn’t already have been spending like drunk-for-decades sailors.
But for right now, we have a choice between two bad options – (1) spend a lot, or (2) likely economic Depression. Under either one of these scenarios, the budget will spin further out of control than it already is.
There also some caveats worth mentioning. The first caveat,
referenced above, is that this is not a plan that makes everything better. We
are dealing with a terrible, horrible, very bad situation. You don’t just take
those and make everything nice and neat. You deal with problem. Everyone is
going to suffer to some extent as a result of this whole thing. Please don’t
take anything that I say—or that anyone says—as some sort of realistic
Messianic promise. Also, please don’t take the fact that I put forward a plan
Second, this plan has LOTS of holes to be filled. It is
the beginning of a plan, really. I devised it myself without consultation with
experts, or even with other people thinking through the question (other than a
couple of brief conversations). That means this is a good starting point, but
not yet a well thought out and implementable plan. Putting more meat on the
bones of this skeletal plan requires a lot more expertise needed than what I
can access immediately.
Finally, my point in creating a plan—as someone who holds neither elected nor appointed office nor any position of authority to implement a plan to reopen the economy—is to try to get people thinking about solutions. Fortunately, I’m not the only one, and I’m far from the biggest voice thinking seriously about this. While I was putting pen to paper (literally, but I’m a bit old school), I stumbled across the plan published by the American Enterprise Institute a few days ago. You can find it here. It’s much more comprehensive than mine, but very similar. I haven’t yet gone through it with a fine tooth comb to determine if there are parts on which I disagree, but I have read enough to recommend it to you.
I eagerly anticipate feedback on what I’ve put together. Tell me where it’s wrong. Tell me what it’s missing. Help me refine it. If enough of us demand that the politicians start planning for this, they’ll start planning for it, and also announcing the plans so we can plan our lives accordingly.
We have never had such a huge part of the American economy shut down immediately, without warning, and without an end in sight. What do we do now? How do we get ready to re-open? How do we limit the damage to the economy without risking excessive coronavirus carnage? Has Congress’s relief package provided much relief? Rob Henneke of the Texas Public Policy Foundation and I dive into these questions and more.
The first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights is the freedom of religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” First Liberty is a public interest law firm based in Texas that helps people live out that freedom. I had the opportunity to sit down with Jeremy Dys (@JeremyDys) to talk about a recent landmark decision that First Liberty won at the United States Supreme Court.
The case is often referred to as the Bladensburg Cross case, but its formal style is American Legion v. American Humanist Association. You can read the official opinion here.
The basic facts are that there is a large cross in Maryland, in the county adjacent to Washington, DC. The cross is a memorial to soldiers who fought and died in World War I. It is now part of a larger set of memorials that is maintained by the government. The American Humanist Association decided that the government maintaining a war memorial with a cross means that the government has established a religion.
First Liberty stepped in and took on the fight. It went all the way to the Supreme Court. Listen as Jeremy Dys tells the story behind the case, discusses some of the legal doctrines, and tells how First Liberty fights for religious freedom for all religions–not just Christianity.
In a rare departure from law and public policy discussions, I tackle what I think it means–or should mean–when a Christian declares “I’m not going to live in fear.” Jesus rebuked his disciples for being afraid and not having faith. He did not rebuke them because they were wrong about being in a dangerous situation. What does this story and some related Bible passages tell us about how we should live?
I have posted my notes that I used to record this podcast. This is not well-developed prose. It’s just notes. If you’re looking for H.L. Mencken quality, you’ve come to the wrong place!
I am aggressively belligerently ambivalent about the impeachment of Donald J Trump. There are two reasons for my aggressive belligerent ambivalence.
First
both sides of the impeachment debate have rational arguments.
Second
both sides are motivated by the quest to get and keep power and not by rational
arguments.
Let’s
start with the rational arguments. First of all,
Impeach and remove: Trump used the power of the presidency to get a foreign power to investigate his political opponent, or at least he tried to
Even if you contend that there was/is corruption in Ukraine, no one really believes that Trump is an anti-corruption crusader. Only the most partisanly blind observer truly thinks that Trump was deeply concerned about the corruption in Ukraine and—as luck would have it—it just so happens that the greatest political threat at the time to Trump’s reelection was at the center of the corruption.
This is one of the biggest problems with having an untrustworthy character in the oval office: we can never trust his motivations. I can live with a leader who gets it wrong sometimes. Our leaders are human and fallible.
What is a lot harder to stomach is that, when a leader gets it wrong, I can’t give that leader the benefit of the doubt. The safer assumption is that the wrong decision was made because the leader was looking out for himself and no one else.
Do not impeach/do not remove: it is entirely reasonable to say that Trump has the absolute right under current law to investigate corruption wherever he believes it exists, and if it just so happens that the investigation helps him politically.
Consider the contrary: should we prohibit all investigations that are incidentally to the president’s political advantage? Is that not a blank check to the party out of power to engage in corrupt behavior?
And why limit the principle to the power to investigate? Should we also for example prohibit a president from say bombing Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20, 1998—as, of course, a randomly selected hypothetical example—if that bombing would distract the public from a breaking scandal involving the president himself?
It is also reasonable to say that, while the president shouldn’t have done what he did with respect to Ukraine it doesn’t warrant impeachment and removal. Look if we impeach and remove every time a president does something a bit over the line, we’re going to just have everyone running for vice president and picking a running mate who will be at the top of the ticket as the sacrificial impeachment lamb.
JFK, through his brother and attorney general Robert, sent out FBI agents to invade reporters’ homes in the middle of the night to get information about the steel industry raising prices. He threatened to sic the IRS on them to audit personal and government accounts if they didn’t comply with his demands. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/jfks-dangerous-playbook-for-trump-214547
And one can respond to all of the abuses of power that were NOT met with impeachment and say that they SHOULD have resulted in impeachment. And I’m not going to fight you over that because I think that may be right. But why are we suddenly so concerned about abuses of power?
I think the real reason is: because it’s Donald Trump and Donald Trump is bad. And I agree that Trump is bad in many ways. He’s an abusive bully and proud philanderer utterly bereft of dignity. I want my son not to be like him. I want my daughters to find husbands who are not like him.
But the President we don’t like should get treated in the same way as all of the other abusers of power UNLESS we somehow reach some sort of agreement among ourselves that we have a new standard for impeachment over abuse of power and we will mutually agree to apply this new standard to the next president. And if the new standard is “we have enough votes to impeach,” then at least say so.
I don’t mean an agreement that we have changed the constitutional standard of what is impeachable, but that we change the political standard.
To be impeached, the president’s conduct should meet the definition of an impeachable offense under the constitution—which we can argue about, but it doesn’t change without a constitutional amendment, AND the president’s conduct must be bad enough that there is the political will to impeach and remove him over it.
The “political will” prong is inherently changeable, but it shouldn’t change willy nilly, certainly not to the point where we impeach one president for an offense when we would not impeach another president for the same offense.
Want to impeach? Fine. Just impeach for the reason you’re saying you’re impeaching. In other words, be honest. Crazy, I know.
There is a bit of “whataboutism” in this argument. But it’s really an equal treatment argument, and I think it’s rational.
I just don’t think it’s actually motivating opponents of impeaching and removing Trump.
How utterly nauseating to hear Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff talk about how sad they are, how this is such a somber and solemn duty that they undertake with such great reluctance. Oh spare me.
Never nicotine-stained fingers: Here’s the statement Pelosi should have read
“I told you so! From the minute we knew Donald J Trump was going to be president, we said he’s unfit for office.
He’s corrupt and rotten to the core and it’s just a matter of time until he does something impeachable
I knew it, you knew it, and the American people knew it.
And now it’s happened. I cannot tell you my unspeakable joy that we are finally removing this cancer and stain on our nation from the oval office.
And so I am proud—VERY proud—to announce that we are filing articles of impeachment against Donald J Trump.
We will hold a vote shortly. And then we will see if our GOP colleagues in the Senate have the courage to stand on their own 2 feet and fearlessly vote against the bully who currently occupies the White House. Frankly I doubt they will.
But the fact that they are feckless will not affect us.
We will do our job.”
And then McConnell should’ve made the following statement:
“we have received the articles of impeachment. The constitution says we must have a trial. It says nothing about what must occur in the trial. It says nothing about witnesses or how long it had hast to take. We all know that impeachment is political, so no court gets to tell us how to run this trial. So this is going to be very short trial. The over-under on witnesses is 1/2, and I’m taking the under.
We think we know what we need to know, so why should we waste time we could use to confirm more judges?
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle protest that we are operating in a partisan political manner.
[here there is a quote from Tommie Lee Jones playing Thaddeus Stevens in the great movie Lincoln]
Why are we handling it this way? Because this is political, and we have the political power deal with it. Remember when Democrats love to say elections have consequences? Well that cuts both ways.
If Pelosi and McConnell had made those statements, they would’ve earned no love from their opponents, but they would have at least earned the grudging respect that one gets from telling the truth.
But – and this is important – neither Pelosi nor McConnell ever said anything remotely close to that.
The Democrats kept talking about how sad they were and how somber impeachment is, and how important this constitutional duty is.
From the Republicans it was constant outrage at how partisan this was. A witch hunt.
[here there is a quote from Tommie Lee Jones playing Thaddeus Stevens in the great movie Lincoln]
Maybe the weirdest thing about the whole charade to me is that we all know they’re being totally disingenuous and the main actors—Pelosi, Schiff, McConnell, etc. have to know that we all know they’re full of bull. Why is no one saying it?
Where is the intrepid soul who will step up and simply say “you’re all lying!”?
Am I the only one who’s not in on the joke?
was there some meeting where everyone agreed to pretend these people are serious?
Am I stuck in the Truman show and everyone is watching to see how long it takes for me to lose my mind?
If we took the people on either side of this debate seriously, we would be convinced that this—like everything else—is a Constitutional crisis. The immediate viability of our nation hinged on the outcome of this impeachment process, just as it hinges on every other controversy du jour.
For the Democrats, failure to remove Trump from office will automatically create a tyrannical king with unchecked power to do anything he wants without limits, which is a Constitutional crisis.
For the GOP, removing Trump from office creates a Constitutional crisis because it would render the president incapable of conducting foreign policy, leaving us without an effective executive branch. If the House is held by the party opposite the President, then all we will do is impeach and the nation will grind to a halt.
Well I’m calling bull on both sides.
Our nation is on a bad path politically right now.
The economy is doing well, and that’s great, but that can change dramatically and quickly.
But our civic culture is on a bad path because the loudest mouths in our system are so stinking self-righteous that the very notion that they may be wrong on any particular issue is an attack on their very humanity.
And if your value as a human hinges on your rightness on a political issue, then anyone who disagrees with you MUST be attacked as a vile, inhuman animal who hates American and has apocalyptic intentions and is bringing about a Constitutional crisis.
And that is exactly the framework in which this impeachment drama played out.
Both sides have to pretend that everything is a Constitutional crisis.
Disagree with me and you bring the apocalyptic Constitutional crisis
Agree with me and enjoy utopia.
They’re both false and I’m not playing that game.
The bottom line is this I will default to ambivalence so long as I view the leaders at the top of both parties as generally lacking in character, and statesmanship.
And this is the constitutional crisis we truly face. This – the lack of integrity and leadership-–is the apocalyptic threat to our republic. We will continue to slide downward as a republic, as a culture, and as a force for good in the world until we the people demand leaders who are trustworthy, people who we can trust at least to struggle to be motivated by our better angels.
People who can humbly recognize their own corruptibility and willingly submit in word and deed to a constitutional structure that limits their power to fall prey to their own selfish ambitions.
You can reasonably go either way on the issue of whether Donald John Trump should’ve been removed from office. But you cannot make me think that agreeing with you will save our republic. And you cannot make me think that disagreeing with you will destroy our republic.
