Category: Uncategorized

Due to the fact that my vote in Massachusetts doesn’t count and due to having predicted Hillary’s victory back in April 2015, I haven’t been paying too much attention to election news. Has anyone bothered to sift through the clutter to figure out what the practical policy differences might be between the two main candidates? Let me try to make an outline and then readers can fill in details.

Sources: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/and https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Taxes

Trump wants to cut rates, bringing them down closer to Singapore’s, Ireland’s, etc. Hillary wants to raise tax rates, bringing them closer to what France charges.

(Federal Reserve shows that actual collections as a percentage of GDP haven’t varied much since the mid-1950s, despite wildly different headline rates, which suggests that the only way for the government to get more money is via Americans becoming wealthier (per-capita GDP growth) or by expanding population (more people to tax).)

Immigration

Trump wants to cut back on illegal immigration and redesign legal immigration to favor those who are likely to earn a lot and therefore pay a lot in taxes? Hillary wants to continue the expansion of immigration, especially from non-Western countries, that began under JFK. Essentially everyone who is currently in the U.S. illegally will be able to become a citizen, perhaps without paying a fee? (“Hillary will work to expand fee waivers to alleviate naturalization costs”)

Foreign Policy

Trump wants to stop poking Russia with a stick. Hillary thinks that we are clever enough to use our military and economic power to bend foreigners to our will.

Nation of Victims

Hillary promises to assist Americans with disabilities (but we’re already the world leaders in collecting disability benefits).

Hillary promises to assist Americans who are victimized by their self-identification as “women”: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-opportunity/ says women will get paid more when they work, will get paid when they don’t work, and won’t have to divert any of this increased pay to contraceptives or abortions (which will be subsidized by taxpayers? But aren’t about half of them women?). [If identifying as a “woman” triggers the requirement for so much government assistance, wouldn’t an intelligent citizen simply identify as a “man”? Hillary promises to make changing your gender easier.]

Trump makes no corresponding promises.

Getting Taxpayers to Fund Your Kids

Trump says that anyone who can create or obtain custody of an additional child will pay less in taxes (see also Donald Trump’s child care tax deduction idea). He also promises some Federal money so that poor families can enjoy “school choice” (private schools, charter schools, magnet schools).

Hillary promises to pay parents for not working and the money will come from “making the wealthy pay their fair share–not by increasing taxes on working families.” (so a wealthy person can escape the higher taxes by having a W-2 job and being in a multi-person household? Or is that still not a “working family”?) Hillary promises free daycare (“preschool”) for all American kids starting at age 4. Child care will be limited to less than “10 percent of [family] income” (so a family with zero income can have 8 kids and park them in daycare 24/7 at taxpayer expense?)

Hillary leads with “no child should ever have to grow up in poverty” and then provides details. If we take her at her word, anyone can escape poverty by having a child since (a) the government doesn’t want to take kids away from parents, or at least not the mother, and (b) the child cannot be lifted out of poverty without giving the parent(s) an above-poverty-line lifestyle. Another implication of this philosophy is that people without jobs can have an unlimited number of children, assured that taxpayers will take care of these kids through adulthood (and beyond?).

Summary: Trump wants people with jobs to have more kids; Hillary wants people without jobs to have more kids.

Related: The Son Also Rises: economics history with everyday applications (successful people tend to have successful children, but not because of inherited wealth)

Appointing Judges

Hillary will find liberal judges to bless everything that the Great Mother in Washington does for her children? Trump will let his sister (a Federal appeals court judge) pick boring, but competent, people?

Gun Nuts (subsection of “Appointing Judges”?)

Hillary promises to torture gun nuts with paperwork and regulation. Men who’ve been defendants in custody or child support lawsuits won’t be able to own guns because it is conventional for female plaintiffs to accuse them of domestic violence and Hillary says she will “stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns.”

Trump says that he will appoint Supreme Court justices who will continue with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment (i.e., that ordinary citizens can have guns).

Health

Hillary will cure Alzheimer’s, Autism, and HIV/AIDS (see the top-level issues page), but mental health problems are too tough to be erased with Federal dollars? And cancer has already been beaten by Obama’s “moonshot”? (Not to be confused with Nixon’s “War on Cancer”)

Trump doesn’t promise any advances in medicine or science.

Business and Trade

Hillary will make it illegal for an American to get a job paying less than $15/hour (Labor). She will “say no to trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership…” Hillary will help small businesses (but not if they want to hire anyone at less than $15/hour) and radically change the American legal system for handling contract disputes, at least when it is a big company and a small company fighting (her plan). [Hillary doesn’t explain why a big company wouldn’t then just try to avoid contracting with small companies. Or perhaps have an overseas division contract with a small company overseas rather than subjecting themselves to the new tilted playing field.]

Trump also will bail out on “the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been ratified.” (Trade) He promises to harass China and Mexico (but not Canada?). He complains about Mexico having a value-added tax (but the U.S. will need one soon too given how we spend!).

Is that it?

Readers: Are the above the main substantive differences between what the candidates propose to do? If not, please add some more sections via comments below.

[Note that I’m specifically ignoring statements about K-12 education because there isn’t much that a federal politician can do about state-run schools. I’m also ignoring the questions about personal character that have been raised, e.g., Trump’s comments about what American women will do for guys who are rich and/or famous and the Clinton dynasty’s billion-dollar revenue stream from selling access and influence. The question is what these two would do as part of the job of President assuming that (a) one of them wins, and (b) whoever wins delivers on promises made to voters.]

Full post, including comments

The local (suburban Boston) McDonald’s restaurants are begging for job applicants with prominent signs promising $12/hour in starting pay. As this is substantially above both the state ($9/hour) and Federal ($7.25) minimum wages it would appear that at least Eastern Massachusetts is effectively operating without a statutory minimum wage (like a bunch of countries). Yet people here are passionate supporters of anything proposed by Hillary Clinton, including a $12/hour minimum wage (this politician seems to have flip-flopped on the exact amount that central planners in D.C. would impose via regulation). Why the passion for a minimum wage that would have no effect here? I’m wondering if the answer is competitive advantage. New England has suffered a lot of job losses from factories moving to lower-wage union-rejecting areas in the Carolinas. If we can get central planners in Washington to make it more expensive to do business in the South and in rural parts of the U.S., won’t that boost the economy here in a crowded urban area?

Full post, including comments

Massachusetts has a handful of charter schools, but most poor people have to send their kids to whatever school the local government chooses to supply them. Rich people here get to choose a school, of course. A ballot question would gradually raise the cap on charter schools, enabling some additional poor families to behave like the rich.

If you haven’t seen a unionized schoolteacher working past 2:50 pm you haven’t been to Massachusetts lately. Public school teachers, whose total compensation is at least double the market-clearing wage (as demonstrated by what private and charter schools pay), turn out to various evening events educating citizens regarding the damage that will be inflicted on their children if more charter schools are allowed. See saveourpublicschoolsma.com:

In 2017, charter schools will siphon off more than $450 million in funds that would otherwise stay in public schools. if Question 2 passes, that amount can increase by $100 million a year.

[the site notes that “Save Our Public Schools is a grassroots organization of families, parents, educators and students” but I have never seen anyone other that a union schoolteacher working at one of the events]

Most voters send their children to government-run schools. Most voters live in towns where government-run schools are, in fact, the only option for families that can’t afford, or don’t want to afford, a private school. The unionized teachers fighting this measure stick to one message: when a child switches to a charter school, the local public school will receive less funding and this lack of funding will result in a lower quality education for your children. The evening events explain the complex way in which even a district with no charter schools available might receive less money from the state.

I’ll be interested to see what happens, but if this works I think it will be the blueprint for the rest of the country. As long as the majority of kids are in public school, unionized teachers need only say “public school kids will do worse due to having less funding” and any initiative relating to charter schools will die.

From my (rich and charter school-free) suburb’s mailing list:

The Happy Valley Committee has weighed in with a clear and convincing argument for why we should vote “No on Question 2”. I will certainly follow their lead- voting no on 2!

———————————————

I am no fan of the “Common Core” Curriculum, and feel that we have yet to develop adequate reforms to ensure our schools remain competitive and beneficial, especially for students who are less privileged (by virtue of economics, race, native language, etc).

That being said, I agree with the School Committee: Question #2, if passed, would pull money away from our public schools and there would be a worrisome lack of accountability for the use of that money. This is deeply concerning.

As I see it; Question #2, even though well-intended, is not a recipe for reform but an abandonment of our responsibility to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity for a good education.

So, I will be voting “No” on Question #2.

[In other words, the “reform” process started 50+ years ago needs a little more time. Maybe we will catch up to the world leaders if we save the budget from predation by charter schools, except that our suburb has never had one!]

——————————

I too am voting no. I understand and agree that children need the best possible education. I am a former teacher.

If #2 had come with funding it would be a different story. But I cannot vote for charter schools that decrease the overall budget for inner city public schools (schools that already are suffering from inadequate budgets) in order to allow for more charter schools.

I volunteer in a class in a public school in Roxbury that has awesome teachers and interested students and definitely needs more resources.

[She’s writing about the Boston Public Schools, which the U.S. Census Bureau says has the highest per-pupil spending of any large school district in the U.S. (and therefore perhaps the highest in the world?). Note that the headline $20,502/student number for 2013 doesn’t include capital expenses such as actually building schools.]

---

The [officials who run a high school jointly with another town] Committee also voted unanimously in early October to oppose question 2 after a long, good discussion about equity and finances.

The Committee concluded that while the concept of Charters was not necessarily at issue, the funding, fundamental lack of local control over the governance of MA Charters, selective nature for admission and retention of students, and impact of outside (out-of-state) corporate interests in this campaign were all of great concern.

[Charter schools in Massachusetts are regulated by the state, apparently, so a local committee like this would lose influence.]

---

Voting “no” on that question would leave the funding with the public schools, for newer equipment, more supplies, and fewer children per classroom. Opportunity to provide more attention to a struggling or special needs child, as well as to provide supplemental and thought provoking materials for the curious child. Let’s work to improve the neighborhood schools so every child can receive a good education, with the proper $$ and materials available to the teachers.

[I.e., if we work together we can reverse the 50-year process that left us where we are today.]

I do have to admire the optimism of the Millionaires for Obama regarding this issue. If the world’s most lavishly funded government hasn’t accomplished something after 50 or 100 years then surely it hasn’t been given a fair chance.

Full post, including comments

A virtuous Hillary-supporting friend on Facebook posted a link about helping out at a Black Girls Code event. This generated a huge number of “likes” of course. I’m wondering why this works out as virtuous, though. I’m a volunteer tutor for children in our small suburb (currently working on 8th grade math and so far I’ve learned that nobody of average intelligence could possibly stay awake and motivated through public school 8th grade math). If I posted on the town email list “I am happy to tutor, but only if the child is of Race X and Gender Identification Y” (and if they change gender ID halfway through the school year, or through a tutoring session, what then?), I have a feeling that this would not put me into the virtue category. If it doesn’t work in the 1:1 context, why does it work to create an organization that sorts out and excludes children by race/gender?

Full post, including comments

From my inbox… November is Transgender Awareness Month.

Full post, including comments

In a world with more government regulation and government consuming a larger percentage of GDP, you’d think that it become increasingly sensible for an individual to work for the government or a big company that can lobby the government. Starting your own company would go from dumb to dumber. Inc. magazine gives us some numbers:

49.7 percent of World War II vets went on to own or operate a business, according to Syracuse University’s Institute for Veterans and Military Families. Some 40 percent of Korean War veterans did the same–creating millions of jobs along the way. … only 4.5 percent of the more than 3.6 million people who have served in the U.S. military since September 11, 2001, have launched a company, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The government sorting potential contractors by race and sex may distort the statistics:

Government contracting preferences have recently made it more attractive for a company to be woman-owned, so some of the numbers may reflect paperwork changes (such as dropping a husband from a co-owner title) rather than broad-based demographic shifts.

But it is tough to see how this can explain a drop from 50 percent down to less than 5 percent.

Related:

• Bloomberg article showing shift since 1988 of workers from small enterprises to larger ones

Full post, including comments

During America’s period of highest per capita GDP growth, recreational drugs were entirely legal. On the other hand the government wouldn’t give you a free house, free health care, free food, and a free smartphone. My entire lifetime has coincided with a War on Drugs and also a War on Poverty that has made being a jobless drug addict more comfortable. While the War on Poverty continues unabated (and Hillary proposes to expand it substantially; see Book Review: The Redistribution Recession for the effects of the Obama Administration expansion of this war), there are some ballot questions in various states this year proposing to end at least the state-run war on marijuana. There haven’t been any explicit arguments against marijuana legalization in the New York Times, but I’m wondering if “Millions of Men Are Missing From the Job Market” is an implicit argument against ending the war. The Times editorial says, essentially, that Americans are too busy taking prescription opioids to be bothered with a job. If this is indeed the source of the U.S.’s shrinking labor force participation rate compared to, e.g., Singapore, then wouldn’t legal and readily available marijuana further shrink the number of Americans who want to work?

One good thing about the proposed Massachusetts law is that citizens can “grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences”. A citizen who has been blessed with free public housing can thus sit on the sofa playing Xbox while taxpayers pay for the electricity supply to the grow lamps.

Milton Friedman said that we couldn’t have a welfare state and open borders at the same time. I’m wondering if he were alive whether he would say that we couldn’t have, simultaneously, (1) a welfare state, (2) legal recreational drugs, and (3) a high rate of labor force participation.

[Note that, other than paying taxes to support prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and the prison industry, I don’t have a personal dog in this fight. See my 2011 post regarding random drug testing for pilots.]

Full post, including comments

The Cirrus Jet is certified as of today and will be delivered in December. I think this qualifies as the first legitimate personal/family turbojet-powered aircraft. One-engine-plus-parachute and a service ceiling of FL280 (about 28,000′) are not so exciting if you have a two-pilot crew who fly a couple of times per week. But what about the regular private pilot who wants to take the family to the beach? The pilot who doesn’t want to spend two weeks every year maintaining proficiency at managing various emergencies, especially the failure of one engine while in instrument conditions? The Cirrus Jet is the first turbojet that could be as simple as a four-seat piston-powered plane. (The rest of the very light jets are about as difficult to operate as larger jets and therefore haven’t caught on as expected; if you’re going to do all of that training why not tow 8 seats behind the pilots instead of 4?.

Anyway, I’m grateful to Cirrus for bringing this to market and especially grateful to the Chinese owners of Cirrus who were willing to fund it!

[Oh yes, and what about the price? I think the paperwork says $2 million but, as is typical in aviation, that might be in 1946 dollars that have to be adjusted for inflation. Then there are mandatory options. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual wire transfer is about $3 million, which is one reason people will be saying “I can get a used twin-engine plane that goes to FL410 for half that.”]

Related:

• “Pipistrel Plans 19-Seat Hydrogen Hybrid”: Slovenia-based Pipistrel has signed a $550 million deal with Sino GA Group Co. of China to build its Alpha Electro electric trainer and hybrid-powered Pantera high-performance aircraft in China. And while that’s significant in itself, it’s Pipistrel’s plans for the money it will earn in the project that is bound to raise eyebrows. “Pipistrel will use a part of the mentioned amount also for the development of a new, very innovative zero emission 19-seat aircraft, powered by hybrid electric technology and hydrogen low temperature PEM fuel cells…

Full post, including comments

A week before Halloween I learned that it is not just 6-year-olds who spend at least a week thinking about what to wear for Halloween. Here are some photos taken in Harvard Yard of a kiosk staffed by a couple of Harvard administrators from the HappierHarvard campaign. (The handout says that the staffed kiosk was operated for “two weeks leading up to Halloween.”)

One question raised by the above is whether the woman at the lower left is wearing a geisha outfit or a Noh costume. Either way, wouldn’t it be safe to say that she was wearing Japanese dress? And yet the students surrounding her don’t look Japanese. Did someone preparing the poster go out and find assorted “Orientals” to photograph? Does that imply that all Asian cultures are pretty much the same? And that’s not racist?

More:

• #MyCostumeIsNotConsent
• #MyCultureIsNotaCostume
• #MyIdentityIsNotaCostume

Full post, including comments

A friend reported on the early voting here in the western suburbs of Boston. “There aren’t any Republicans on the ballot except for Trump,” she said. “And most of the races are uncontested though there are some independent candidates running for a handful of them.” She said that the ballots go into a box to be kept by town officials until Election Day. Presumably at that point they are fed into the same scanner that is used for same-day votes? Certainly it would be possible for a town official to correct any mistakes on the ballot, e.g., voting for Ballot Question 2, which would reduce town officials’ budgets and authority by authorizing more state-supervised charter schools.

Separately, I recently agreed to be part of a climate change panel discussion in Cambridge where they wanted one panelist from each political party. I agreed to be a “small-L libertarian” so that I didn’t have to defend current Libertarian candidates. They couldn’t find anyone willing to show up identifying as a Republican. Some more items from the panel:

• a woman said that she had complained to a Cambridge city councilor about exterior lighting on some office buildings being (a) bothersome to her sleep, and (b) a waste of energy. She said that the councilor had threatened her with eviction from “affordable housing” (controlled by a city-run housing ministry)
• the moderator said that a few previous panels had been all-female, which was okay, but this one happened to be all-male, at least in his opinion. He said that the lack of gender balance was unacceptable and would any woman in the audience be willing to come up to the table and sit with the panel. No qualifications were sought other than being a woman. This idea of last-minute token female presence was seconded by the organizer of the event. (Of course I promptly scolded him for the cisgender-normative assumption that panelists named “David”, “Larry”, etc. actually did identify as “men”.)
• at the end of the discussion, the moderator said that this showed that people with different political points of view could be civil. I reminded him that this might have been because they’d excluded Republicans from the room.

Full post, including comments