Tag Archives: politics

Banned books, promoted books, basically no oversight

Leave a reply

For better or worse, the folks who run for library board and school board are a bizarre lot of political weirdos. It takes a lot of work and time and money to run for these boards, and you have to endure endless insults. For what? If you win, there’s no pay, and you get to sit through long, boring meetings. Because of this, almost everyone, who choses to run for these positions is a weirdo with a bering desire to either ban some book or idea, or to promote them. The rest are little better: developers who want to expand buildings and grounds. I don’t think this problem is unique to the US, or new. That’s just the way it is, and has always been. Noah Webster complained about this in the early 1800s. The net result is large schools – larger than they have to be – and many banned books, plus a preponderance of really perverted books.

In terms of teaching, I find myself on the side of classic books that are fairly non-sexual. That’s because I read them. Many people find them dull. I suspect that the students would prefer more modern and racier fare, or no books at all, but what do I know. In terms of library purchase, I like variety, but virtually no library works that way, either the board are a band of perverts pushing weird sex on under-age kids, or they are blue-noses who want to keep Shakespeare from the shelves. I also claim to prefer a diversity of opinions both in the classroom and in the library, but I suspect that, I’m likely to favor my own opinions over others. Below is the selection of banned books that the “don’t censor” organization wants on all shelves, all gay or transgender, as best I can tell. .

These books are banned in some counties K-12 public schools all are gay or transgender. While I’m not a fan of banning, I’m doubt these are the books to push. Pecksniffs on every side.

Sometimes very good books get banned, for no reason, or modified. This was done with Bowdlerized Shakespeare, for example. Once banned, it’s a lot harder to un-ban a book than it is to ban it. You’d have to get an unbanning committee together, almost impossible, and get them to read all the books. They’d have to make a coherent argument for their merits, and then have some vote. It would help to have balanced boards, but I fear that’s not likely/ possible. If nothing else, I’d like a time limit to banning: any banned book stays banned for only 12 years, or so.

I ran for school-board one year, by the way, and lost. I campaigned on math and science education, and less money for ever larger buildings and grounds. Against AI teaching of math and reading, claiming that math education suffers,. I also like cursive handwriting, something I consider an art form. I lost. You can find my Ballotopedia page if you’re interested.

Robert E. Buxbaum, November 28, 2025

Rich folks aren’t taxed because they have no income; you can do some of this too.

Leave a reply

Two tax questions: (1) How do the top rich people manage to pay such low taxes, e.g. Warren Buffett paying at 0.1%. and (2) why do these rich folks campaign for higher taxes. Warren Buffett has campaigned for higher taxes for 50 years. These questions seem perhaps related.

I got my tax data from a public tax advocacy group, ProPublica. In 2021 they received the tax filings for many important people including the 25 US richest from the years 2014 to 2018. They find that these individuals paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income tax while their wealth rose a collective $401 billion, go here for more. Dividing the numbers, we see an average income tax rate of only 3.4%, with Warren Buffett paying the least, 0.1%. This is far less than the “half of the rate that my secretary pays,” that Buffett likes to claim.

The reason these people pay so little tax is that their taxable income is zero. They use a very wide variety techniques to do this. Among these are charitable foundations, including those that lobby for higher taxes and against climate change. The foundations buy private planes and send the founders (and their families) to climate change events in the South of France or Davos, Switzerland. “Pro-tax” foundations hire tax accountants to research ways that the rich avoid taxes, often the founders then use these methods while speaking out against others who do the same. Bezos was so successful at avoiding income that he got welfare payments in two of the five years, ProPublica found. Soros and his son got $2,400 in COVID payments. They had almost no income. The one tax all these folks hate is tariffs because it is almost impossible to buy new, expensive things from abroad while avoiding them. See my essay, “Tariffs are inflationary, but not on you.”

Another advantage of a charitable foundation is that 74% of your donation can offset capital gains. You have to itemize your donations, but If you give $1 million to your foundation, you can use it to offset $740,000 of stock appreciation earnings. Not a bad deal. You can also use any stock losses against gains. Thus, it’s a good idea, if you itemize, to sell some losing stocks when you sell gainers (while holding on to other gainers, of course.) All of this is only available to those who itemize, and it’s only the rich who benefit by itemizing.

Borrowing money against your assets is another popular tax avoidance scheme, one that ordinary folks could use (but don’t over-do it*). The scheme is often called “Borrow, Buy, Die.” You borrow a large sum against your assets (your home, your stocks, or options –Musk has lots of Tesla options, etc). You then use the borrowed money to purchase property, typically: a vacation home, rental properties, a hotel, or a car. If you structure the purchase right, the interest can be deducted from any other earnings you have including rents. You then have no taxable income, or a lower income while the property appreciates. You can often structure the purchase so that depreciation can be deducted against income as well. Meanwhile, you get to drive the car, live at the vacation home, or rent it as an Air B&B, or stay at the hotel for free.

You live this way until you die. When you die, your heirs get the asset, but they are not taxed on the appreciation. The asset is transferred at its value at the time of death. You’ve avoided paying all the income tax you’d have to pay if you were to sell before death. Most home-owners do this on a small scale: They borrow to buy their home or the building where their business is. Or borrow to buy a vacation home or income property. They use through their life-time, deducting the interest, then leave it to their kids. There is no inheritance tax on most homes or small businesses, and the asset appreciates year to year. Both Nixon and Obama proposed eliminating this loophole by taxing appreciation at death. This would be a lot fairer than the current inheritance tax that is full of loopholes, and unfair when it works. If your parent bought a $10,000,000 item with taxable income, and it remains at that value, why should it be taxed a second time at death?

For a small businessman like me, it made sense to borrow to buy the building that my business operates out of and pay myself a normal rent. It’s income, as real as salary, but taxed at a lower rate, Besides there is no payroll tax on rental income. Another advantage of renting to myself is I can be trusted to fix the building and pay the rent, and I will not throw myself out if there is a downturn, nor will I raise the rents exorbitantly. My car is owned by my business, another plus. I pay a fee for personal use, but this is cheaper than using my own taxed income. When I die, the building (and car) will go to my heirs, tax free.

One last change I’d like to see is in the payroll tax. I’d like to see it tax the entire taxable income, but at a lower percent than the current 15.2 or 7.6. Currently the first $150,000 of income is payroll taxed at 15.2% for a self-employed individual, a plumber or office cleane, even before he/she pays income tax. An office worker is taxes at half this rate, 7.6% before income tax, with the company making up the other 7.6%. A CEO making $10 million pays this rate too, but only on the first $150,000. This amounts to $11,400 in payroll tax, or less than 0.11% of salary. I consider this disparity a bigger scandal than the fact that the richest 25 Americans paid only 3.4% in income tax.

Robert Buxbaum, November 25, 2025. *Trump presents a cautionary tale about property investing; if you invest at the wrong time, you can lose your shirt. In the late 80s, the property market in NY collapsed briefly, and he really was less than penniless. Don’t over-extend. The property market doesn’t collapse often, but you don’t want to be wiped out if it does.

The shutdown will drag; we will win

1 Reply

In theory, both US parties are committed to a balanced budget. Both claim they’ll tax as much as they spend, and we’ll pay our debts. In practice, both parties overspend wildly, year after year. The growth in non-defense spending (pork) is particularly egregious, see graph. For fiscal 2024, the 12 month period ending Sept. 30 2024, the government spent $6.75 trillion ($6750 billion), over 20% of GDP and 37% more than the $4.92 trillion we took in in taxes ($4,920 Billion). The difference, $1830 billion, was added to the national debt, already at $34 trillion, pushing it to $36 trillion, that’s more than 100% of our GDP. The interest cost alone is $1.22 trillion per year, 1/4 of our tax income.

Trump campaigned claiming he was going to balance the budget, but he has not (yet). There were some attempts via DOGE, saving about $214 billion, but the DOGE boys were outed, attacked, and gave up. And now the Democrats have forced a shutdown, using their power to prevent additional borrowing. This leaves Trump with a choice, either balance the budget or accept their spending demands. The expectation is that Trump will fold: there is no way he can find $1830 billion/year. Otherwise, many of the governments 4.2 million workers will go without pay, and many important services will stop.

So far, three weeks in, Trump seems fairly successful at keeping most things running while trying to balance the budget. Even if he fails, as seems likely, we will benefit from the attempt, I think.

Some government services are guaranteed to continue despite the shutdown: Social security and the post office because they are funded separately. Similarly, the patent office, the ports, and the airports. In the past some had to shut, but Trump has raised fees so they remain open and operating.

Essential workers, 800,000 people including customs agents and air traffic controllers continue working with most going unpaid. Trump committed to paying active duty military and for the WIC food program using money raised by new, 2025 tariffs. Tariffs are currently bringing in ~$300 Billion/ year, and so far tariffs mostly don’t affect ordinary folks, and help return manufacturing to the US. Some time soon we’ll have to pay the necessary workers and also some 750,000 non-necessary employees including: half the Dept. of Education, most of NASA and Energy.. They are not really useless, but are doing nothing essential to the day-to-day operation of the country.

Trump seems committed to removing many non-necessary workers in an effort to streamline and balance the budget. He fired 4200, bought out another 25,000 earlier this year, and has issued pre-termination notices to 75,000. A federal judge has blocked all firings as unlawful, but my sense is they are quite lawful and mostly beneficial. If you can’t fire non-working, un-necessary workers that you can’t afford to pay, who can you fire?

I suspect the shutdown will last well into November, well past the election, and that more folks will be fired or bought out. The key November crossroads will be food stamps, SNAP. These benefits are scheduled to end November 1 baring an end to the shutdown. Normally the bill is $110 billion/year, but Trump has eliminated benefits for illegal aliens and asylum seekers, and has instituted tougher work requirements. Democrats seem certain that Trump will fold. For the 11th time they scotched a bill to fund this and reopen the government and pay SNAP. I suspect that, at the last minute, Trump will find savings, or left-over funds and will keep SNAP funded through November.

Among the new savings, Trump ended the EV subsidy last month, saving about $7.5 billion/year ($7500 x 1 million EVs), and has negotiated some reductions in drug costs. He also increased the tariff on some Chinese and Canadian goods appropriate for rectifying trade imbalance, it’s been blocked by a federal judge. He’s also cancelled some rail work and research, saving $28 billion, and cancelled $20 billion for hydrogen hubs, and 83% of USAID. Also two navy ships that were years behind schedule and billions over budget. We need the ships, but don’t have the money. So far, this saved enough to pay all military servicemen.

Beyond this, I hope he cuts Biden’s high speed rail plans: $550 Billion for fast trains, Chicago to Seattle, Detroit to Toledo, San Francisco to LA, etc. The investment is $1,500 per person in the US. The eager thinkers overseeing this would never invest their own money, but are happy to invest everyone else’s. I also hope to see the end of NASA’s SLS rocket to the moon, nice but far more expensive than Falcon. We could also cancel some F35s ($0.1 Billion each to buy, and far more to maintain). Musk suggested replacing them with drones. I don’t know that these savings are enough. I don’t know how long we can continue, but each day shut, we move closer to a balanced budget, and that’s a good thing.

Robert Buxbaum, October 21, 2025

Thomas Kuhn, and why half of America loves/ hates Trump

Leave a reply

This post was inspired by articles like the one below asking how it was that some Americans, MAGAs think Trump is good when everyone of value sees him as a fat, bigoted, criminal clown. The Atlantic’s answer is they’re detached from classic ideals of good or moral, and are now fueled by “narcissism, fanaticism, and authoritarianism”. I thought a more helpful explanation was that we’re going through a paradigm shift, perhaps progressing in our thought of what it means to be good.

Consider Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of scientific progress. Tomas Kuhn was a major American Philosopher of the 1960s-70s who claimed that science progress was not uniform but included long periods of “normal science” punctuated by change. A “crisis” leading a “Revolution” resulting in big changes in language, outlook and thinking, a “paradigm shift”. In the midst of these scientific revolutions, the experts of the old system fight bitterly against the new while being confounded by the fact that it seems to work.

Consider the resistance to relativity and quantum mechanics. Before 1905 the experts were doing fine: Professors taught and students learned — formulas, tools and techniques were handed over. Educated had respect and money, and could communicate. There were some few contradictions, as in why the sun burned hot, or why the sky was blue, but one could ignore these. You knew who the experts were, and they didn’t include Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, Plank.

Democrats sell red hats and buttons with Fascist or Felon because Trump’s red MAGA (Make America Great Again) hats work for him.

But then came a few more problems, (inconsistencies in Kuhn-speak: radioactivity, photoelectrons, the speed of light… Einstein published on them in 1905, thoughts that few took seriously: imaginary time was a fourth dimension at right angles to the others, etc. The explantations seemed mad and for 14 years after he published, Einstein could not get a university job — anywhere. By 1919 detailed experiments suggested he might be right on a lot of things. It lead to the rise of a new group of experts plus a loss of esteem for the old, and a bunch of crank explainers who were neither but flourished in the confusion.

Hate abounded; new weapons and cures WWI removed aristocrats and beards. A popular book a lecture series of the time was “100 scientists against Einstein.” There followed a lost generation with no clear foundation. It took 50 years to resolve confusion, but there developed new thought leaders, a new language, new standard formulas and books were sold, and we were returned slowly to “normal science” in a new thought paradigm.

I see the conflict of opinion surrounding Mr Trump as a crisis in political thought similar to the crisis in science thought 100 years ago. Polite discourse if gone, replaced by stunts and insults. The government is currently shut, with 40% federal workers, those whose jobs are non-critical, on unpaid leave. It’s a collapse, not of morals, but of language. Trump hopes to use the shutdown, I think, to show that most of these 40%, are not needed. If they are not needed, it reflects a big lack in government — actually a big bloat in government. You can see why the opponents of cuts see Trump as a fascist who uses “dog whistles” to motivate “his base”, there is a lack of communication and a fear Trump may be right too, I think. The experiment in smaller government is being run as I write, and Trump seems confident that some 400,000 federal workers are not needed. Are they? Instead of debating, we’ve got to violence: two attempts on Trump’s life so far, the main college debater, Charlie Kirk, shot dead. Appropriate, I think, is Bob Dylan’s, “Times are a-changing” and “something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr Jones.”

Other questions are being worked out as we speak -sending chills through the old order: Are China and Europe “ripping us off,” by free trade and stolen technology? Are tariffs an answer. Canadian and European leaders deride these thoughts openly, but I notice that both Canada and the EU have put heavy tariffs on Chinese goods.

Another issue is respect for experts. The Atlantic bemoaned that Trump supporters don’t respect experts on health, climate, and education, but perhaps they are lying. The seas have not risen as expected. Some warming may be good, or better than the remedies. Even if RFK Jr.’s ideas are wrong it seems that science has become unreliable (irreproducible), and that elite colleges aren’t fair in their assessment, nor do they provide great value.

Eventually things will settle down; we will some day have polite discourse. In 40-50 years, I suspect we’ll agree that some tariffs are good and that Trump’s tariffs are either to high or low, We’ll think that the climate push to no nuclear power, was a mistake, as was the giant, Ivanpah solar farm). And we’ll be able to discuss it civilly. I hope the change in thought takes less than 50 years.

Robert Buxbaum, October 3, 2025 – we are now entering another physics crisis too, I think.

Gerrymandering, old-politics, fairer versions could be worse than less fair

Leave a reply

There is no truly good way to give representative voices to a population. The founders of the country decided that there would be a set number of congresional representatives, divided it by states, and left it to the individual states to subdivide, with a few provisos. They mandated that congressional districts have to be contiguous, entirely within a state, and contain approximately the same number of citizens in each. A later law specified that the districts should not directly disadvantage a racial minority. Within these parameters, legislators in most states have divided congressional districts to advantage those in power to a greater or lesser extent. The most egregious of these are Gerrymanders, odd shaped districts that protect sitting congressmen and parties, as bad as the worst of these are, they are better than some, truly awful, “fair” divisions, in my opinion.

This was Michigan’s district map (Detroit area) until redrawn by independent commission, 2022. My district was the dark blue one that looked like a man in a chair.

Consider my state: Michigan, a swing state that voted for both Biden, and Trump. Currently the state house is 52% R and 48% D, but Democrats were in majority as recently as 2024. Our congressional district map used to be a disaster, shown at left. In 2022 it was replaced by a map created by an independent committee that aimed for roughly square districts that aimed to keep towns and communities together. The result is that most districts are either safe D or safe R. This, we’re told, is bad in that it leads to factionalism, with congressmen pandering to political extremes, with little incentive to compromise.

A fairer alternative (?) would divide the congressional districts so that all or most district are swing, like the state. Supposedly such districts would elect moderates who compromise. This version, though no-less fair than the above, is not good, in my opinion. I expect it creates chaos and turnover. I’m also not convinced that compromise is always best.

Pennsylvania’s congressional map before redistricting by independent committee. Ugly, but fair in its way.

The variant of this that preceded our current is for congressmen and others in power to create districts that are fairly safe for themselves and their party, leaving those of the other party in a few, super-concentrated districts. This division is less fair, but far more stable and workable. It lead to ugly gerrymander districts in Michigan (left) and Pennsylvania (below). This is not bad in itself. What was bad about these gerrymanders is that the congress folk, secure in their jobs, formed a political aristocracy. Seats passed from generation to generation, and ruled fairly disconnected from the wishes of those they represented. A good part of the aristocracy is that they worked well with each other, across party lines. They were friends, alumni of the same schools, members of the same churches and country clubs. They were good-‘ol-boys, who didn’t pander nor embrace ideological extremes. Writers romanticize this, but I’ prefer our current’m glad it’s going in MI.

California and Texas politicians are pushing for more gerrymandering. California’s congressional districts were drawn by independent committee. Their governor called the Trump White House fascists as recently as today. There’s a vote to get five more D-districts. The claim is it’s to balance Texas’s push for three more R-districts. I nothing illegal or immoral here, just old style politics, power grabs left and right, with incendiary language. The districts look bad, but I’ve seen worse. No need to call ‘fascist’ unless your next step is to impeach president Trump again, or your hope is another shooting.

The worst option, in my opinion is term limits. It’s promoted from both sides, and I consider it insane, except for party bosses. It actively prevents people from re-electing the politicians they like based on the objection that these people have been on the job long enough to feel at home and get things done. I consider term limits completely non-republican, non-democratic, a disease, “fair” only in that it hurts every citizen equally, benefitting only party bosses.

Robert Buxbaum, September 27, 2025

Korean movies and music; my thoughts on why they do so well

Leave a reply

A Korean animated movie, K-Pop Demon Hunters, KPDH, just broke all-time record for most watched movie in the History of Netflix. It’s only 92 days old, and not a big-budget film with massive marketing, but it’s had over 314 million views so far, appearing on the most-watched list in 32 countries. Some Chinese movies have had more views, but these tend to be specific to China, with limited appeal elsewhere. KPDH has three songs in the Billboard 100 too, including golden at no.1, see official music video, 352M views for the music video. The last movie to have three songs in the Billboard top 100 was Saturday Night Fever, some 45 years ago. Other top Korean groups include Stray Kids, BTS, and Black Pink, they’ve had multiple #1 songs world wide of the last five years, and fill 50,000 seat stadiums regularly with seats going for $150. Here are Black Pink, filling a 50,000 seat stadium in Paris. If you read the US press, you’d hardly know these groups exist. BTS had a big hit during Covid called, “Permission to Dance,” a positive song during that grim period, danced e.g at the UN. Listeners noticed, the press did not. I think the press finds Koreans “anodyne”, that is, insipid.

Top movies of the last 20 weeks include two Korean offerings, Squid Game and K-Pop Demon Hunters

One thing that turns off the US press, is that Korean songsters and movies are less sexual, and less politically moralizing. The top Oscar awards go to political movies. At the Emmies, this year, we were told, “F*ck ICE, Free Palestine.” Similarly, Green Day, Eminem, and other western bands lead chants of F*ck Trump. The press takes this moralizing as intellectual, but I find it cheap and suspect it turns off many potential fans.

Director of Star Wars, Kennedy, promoting diversity.

A favorite moralizing of US movies is to show women who don’t need or want men. Frozen was like that, as was Encanto, Last Dragon, Moana… Star Wars was a top franchise that Disney made more feminist, writing basically every man as bad. Women were good, powerful, and inherently talented. Rey a main new character, grabs a light saber with no background or training, and uses it like an expert. It turns off men, then women stayed away too.

End kiss of Pirates of Penzance, the pirate prince and the major general’s daughter

We like to show black actors in white rolls too, though not white actors in black rolls. Hamilton was successful, and had black actors playing in every positive roll, white actors playing evil idiots. It was done again with 1776, less successfully. All the founding fathers are cast as women; Jefferson is black, bisexual, and pregnant. There’s a message somewhere. The upcoming movie about King Gustaf of Sweden has a dark-skinned actor playing the king. Why? We had a dark- skinned daughter of the major general, who bends the pirate over to kiss him, a dark skinned Snow White with most of the Dwarves normal height, a female She-Hulk, stronger than the original, who lectures the original (and us) about anger. Apparently, the idea is to highlight the difficulties powerful women face. Korean shows have casts that make sense to the plot, and no gratuitous reversals or sex. Did Oppenheimer need the many sex scenes? Did the suicidal love interest have to be written stronger than the main character?

Then there are the sequels: the Marvel universe includes 37 interconnected movies, Star Wars, 19, Batman 13. To get the full story, you have to see them all. So far, in 2025, only two of the major funded movies were original (one was Korean, Mikey 17). The others are all reboots or sequels with recycled plots and ever-bigger explosions. It all works until it doesn’t, then they make a reboot. Law and Order, 26 years old with 500 episodes.

Scene from Crash Landing on You. These two are in serious trouble.

Korean entertainment has series too, but much shorter and with fewer explosions. A TV series will have only 16-24 episodes and I’ve yet to see one with a mass-murderer. The Squid game, has had 13 episodes over 3 seasons. Some deaths, but not wholesale. A longer series, “Crash Landing on You,” 24. In it, a successful South Korean executive (female) is blown across the border to North Korea into the arms of a handsome, North Korean. No deaths. They could have gone on for years, but didn’t. People rewatch the original.

Other countries movies moralize too, like ours do, but they tend to be patriotic moralization, and anti gratuitous violence, not violent, anti-patriotic as in the US. Chinese TV shows present Chinese politicians as honest, they have praise for the Chinese schools and infrastructure, and regular invocations to respect the police. India moralization is similar, but more towards family order. Korean messages are in-between, with some crooked politicians, some violence, people with mental or emotional problems who evolve.

Robert Buxbaum, September 17, 2025. The industry has pushed back against criticism of their wokeness, claiming that the only folks turned off are the toxic fans: white, MAGA men, mostly, who hate diversity. They claim to be happy when such fans stay home and watch KPDH, or go buy $150 tickets to see Koreans sing in Korean.

Kamala’s positivity; Gavin’s MAGA tears

1 Reply
Harris presents is something of a unifier.

Kamala Harris always seems happy while most Democrats come off as sad, and report being sad. Harris’s campaign also stood out from Clinton’s and Biden’s for positivity. She never played the racism card, or the feminine glass ceiling card, and still managed to raise $1.5 B, some three times more money than any other candidate in history. In a campaign of only 108 days, she focussed on the swing states, inspiring support from the press, comedians, academia, Socialist Bernie Sanders, and the billionaire class: Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc. Quite a mix. She lead in the polls to the end, barely beaten by a seasoned, media-savvy Trump, running effectively as an incumbent. I suspect she’ll be unbeatable in 2028, if she’s allowed to run.

Harris has some minor down-sides, all of them related to her positivity. First off, Harris comes across as somewhat dim-witted. That’s annoying to political junkies, but not really a problem for most Americans. She comes across as having a good heart, and that’s enough. We elected George W. Bush and Joe Biden, dim-witted, likable guys, who people we related to. Brains can even be a handicap: we voted out George H. W. Bush, despite his brains and expertise, even after he’d taken down the Berlin Wall. It helps to have competent helpers, and Kamala stayed close to Obama and Cheney. Her VP failed to impress, but she’s sure to pick better in 2028.

Harris also comes off as drunk; she giggles a lot (AOC too). It makes them seem young and insubstantial. I find it annoying, but not deadly. It’s a way around tough questions, Rather like Regan’s jokes, or Trump repetitions. Hilary campaigned as a good, heavy smart and mean. Her “basket of deplorables” comments, for example. They must have sounded OK for those already on her side, but they sound mean and dismissive to everyone else. Harris will need a signature issue by 2028, but is sure to find one. Free everything seems to be working for Mamdani in NY.

None of the other top D contenders for 2028 are anywhere near as likable as Harris. Gavin Newsom comes across as smart, but mean. Not too smart, but as mean as Hillary. His current push is to redistrict California to fight the Republicans. That’s smart but not inspiring; people of California will loose their representatives so the democrats can gain power. Then there are the photos he puts out of himself drinking “MAGA tears.” The idea he’s pushing is that Republicans are cry-babies, while he’s a man’s man, and that he enjoys making MAGA folks cry. It’s dismissive of the suffering (real and imagined) of the rural, less rich, less educated, white folks — the folks who are the core Republicans. He also calls them “The base,” and that’s another slight; they’re people, often hard working, disrespected, with uncertain job prospects, from communities that are unusually hit by prescription drug addiction. Harris knows enough to care or pretend to care.

A staple of Newsom’s campaign, him smiling, drinking “MAGA tears”

I don’t see Newsom as particularly manly, either. He looks less virile than Vance, who he targets as a compete wimp. Newsom recently published pictures with Vance’s head photoshopped onto a skinny female dancer. Is that funny? Is it true? Vance is an ex- marine. That’s the sort of manliness credential that Newsom doesn’t have, and is rare among Democrats. Not that I see America preferring manly men, but Newsom should know enough to not to get into a manliness fight with a marine.

And that brings us to baggage. Harris has relatively little. Newsom has the California fires that he screwed up by diverting water. He has ownership protecting high crime, the homelessness by fighting ICE and The national guard. He also has the baggage of California’s, high taxes, high regulations, high energy costs, and population flight. California keeps needing to borrow money, and in this, I doubt it helps that he’s made illegal immigrants a priority. He could acknowledge that Trump has reduced crime, as the DC mayor has. Harris has mostly avoided speaking on these issues, and it seems to help.

No empathy for Charlie Kirk from Manitoba’s Minister of Families

Other Democrat heavyweights are as bad. Walz says he checks his phone every day hoping to see that Trump is dead. He also claimed to enjoy news that Tesla stock is down. Illinois Governor Pritzker, here, blamed Trumps heated rhetoric for the murder of Charlie Kirk. Then there are those like the MSNBC host or CNN’s who blamed Kirk himself. Or this, from Manitoba’s Minister of Families. It’s mean, untrue, and not even self serving. Harris comes off as the best among the Ds, and the most electable.

Robert Buxbaum, September 12, 2025. I’m a New Yorker, and I like Trump’s accent, his brashness, his tariffs and peace initiatives — and that he backs Israel over Palestine. A lot of people can’t stand him though. Folks are likely to elect a Democrat in 2028 — so long as the D candidate doesn’t claim to drink MAGA tears or watch to see Republicans dead.

Liberals are unhappy, every demographic less happy than conservatives.

2 Replies

Liberals are less happy than conservatives, a finding that has been found consistently in every study since the first in 1972. It persists for Americans whether Democrats or Republicans are in control in Washington, and holds true for both sexes, and all sexualities, all ages, all races and incomes, all education levels. An example is the 2022 Cooperative Election Study from Tufts University. According to the survey, organized by Nate Silver for his silver bulletin, here, liberals of every demographic are significant less happy than conservatives in that demographic, with an average difference of 15 points on a 0 to 100 scale.

Graphic from Nate Silver’s “Silver bulletin,” based on data from the 2022 cooperative election survey.

I note that 2020-2022 was the height of the Biden administration, with Democrats in control of the entire government.

Some of this can be explained perhaps by self-selection: A liberal may considered a person who don’t like the current situation, and wants it changed, while a conservative, in some sense is someone happy with the status quo. Of course this isn’t the full story, since conservatives too generally want to see change — smaller government, less regulation and taxes, and the like. The real gap in happiness, then seems to come from a difference in perception of how important the change is, or how bad things are now. Liberals, on TV at least, claim that America is awful, among the worst countries ever: racist, sexist, colonialist, violent, stupid, fascist. They blame the US for warm temperatures and suffering Iranian women, finding half of their fellow Americans – those who don’t agree– “a basket of deplorables,” to quote Hillary Clinton, where half of these conservatives needed re-education, in her view, and the other half were beyond re-education. Conservatives are just not as unhappy. They still think that they can “Make America Great Again”, perhaps by capturing something of the good old days (1945, say).

Devyn Brandt (They/Them) orientation advisor for Washington University. My guess is liberal, and not very happy.

The happiness gap has increased with time and extends into mental health. In the 2022 Cooperative Election Study  found that, 16% of all Americans who voted for Joe Biden had depression in 2020. Going further, 45% of self-described liberals said their mental health was poor. By contrast 51% of conservatives said their mental health was excellent, and only 19% said it was poor. This might be self-delusion, still it is consistent year to year. A year later this 2023 depression study from Columbia University found only 20% of liberals who believed they had excellent mental health while 51% of conservatives believed their mental health was excellent. Presenting this another way, among voters who said their mental health was poor, 45% identified as liberal, and 19% as conservative. The remaining 36% were either independent, or decided not to answer the question.

Going back to an older Pew study 2008, 47% of Republicans said they were “very happy” compared to 28% of liberal Democrats. All of the advances since then, have not made liberals less unhappy, if this 2019 study is to be trusted, they keep looking for meaning in their lives, and things to be unhappy about.

Some things make liberals happy, though, and one of them is money. The highest income liberals (>$100k per household) are happier than poorer liberals, but only as happy as the lowest income conservatives (<$30k/ household), 60% in both cases. Education helps too, but not as much, and religion. Political activism only makes things worse, both for liberals and conservatives. My advice for the summer: try ice cream. It always works for me. And this song from the musical Iolanthe, where the guard outside the parliament confides that political stance is inborn, with particular opinions handed down by others, including a band of mischievous fairies.

Robert Buxbaum, June 24, 2025

This is not the most important election, 1860 was

Leave a reply

Every year we hear the same claim: that this the most important election of America’s history. This year is among the more contentious than most, but the issues dividing the candidates are few. Both, for example, claim they will protect the border and spur the economy. In lieu of issues, there’s name calling. Trump claims Harris is as incompetent buffoon and Harris claims Trump is a fascist dictator. The rancor practically guarantees as they’ll be riots whoever wins but, as these things go, the election is less important, and divisive than ’64 and ’68, and in particular, the election of 1860.

Following the 1860 election, election seven states ceded from the union and we had a Civil War. Even the most bleak prediction for 2024-25 is for a more peaceful transfer of power. The election of 1860 had two major issues on the ballot; one was slavery or rather the expansion of slavery to the territories, and the other was implementation of the Morrill tariffs. These import taxes, proposed by Justin Morrill and passed but not yet implemented, would have raised the average agricultural duty from 15% to to 47%. Duties on durable goods wool rise to 65%, with the burden falling disproportionately on the southern states. Duties on durable goods. There was also a price schedule that would have prevented British shippers from minimizing the effect by falsely claiming a price far below market, something China currently does. In September 1860, Republican Leader Thaddeus Stevens told a New York City audience that “the Tariff would impoverish the southern and western states, but that was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers.”

Matching the two sides to the two major issues of the day, there were four major candidates for president in 1860. All of them won states. Lincoln carried the greatest number, 18, and won the most electoral votes, 180. He was for high tariffs and against the expansion of slavery. Second was John Breckinridge, the Southern Democrat, who carried 11 states and got 72 electoral votes. He was for the expansion of slavery and against the higher tariffs. Then there was Stephen Douglas, the Northern Democrat, who was for allowing the expansion of slavery, considering it a “states right,” and also for the higher tariffs. Douglas carried only one state, Missouri, with 12 electoral votes. Finally, there was John Bell, the Constitutional Union candidate, who carried three states, Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky, representing 39 electoral votes. He opposed the expansion of slavery and also the increased tariff, but he generally believed that compromise was always possible. This was the worst vote split in US history. The worst split I’ve seen was 1968, when three candidates carried states.

Had either Bell or Douglas won, I suspect that the Civil War could have been avoided, at least temporarily. Virginia, the most important of the slave states, had shown it was willing to accept an anti-slavery president so long as he did not impose high tariffs — tariffs that benefitted the northern industrial workers and manufacturers at the expense of southern consumers and agricultural producers. Lincoln’s victory precipitated the immediate secession of 3 states. Another 4 seceded after inauguration.

The south imagined they could walk away because that’s how they read the constitution before the 13th amendment. They imagined they could win a civil war because they imagined they had British military support. “Cotton was king,” they claimed. The UK prime minister, Lord Palmerston, had told secretary Adams, “We do not like slavery, but we want cotton, and we dislike very much your Morrill tariff.” As it was, the British stayed on the sidelines, in part because of diplomacy. Besides, the gunship Monitor showed that the North could sink most any British ship that entered US waters.

As for 2024, I expect there will be riots whoever wins, but nothing more. The parties are realigning significantly, as happened in 1964-68, and neither side much understands the appeal of the other. This seems like less of a wrenching election than in 1964 and 1968, though. In ’64-’68 US boys were dying in Vietnam in numbers, and black folks and their white friends were being lynched in the south. Nothing like that is happening today. Today’s riots have been fueled by nothing more than name-calling, fear, and the occasional assassination attempt. Mild, even compared to 1968.

Robert Buxbaum, November 4, 2024. Justin Morrill is mostly remembered today for the Land-grant college act of 1862. This created an agricultural -technical college in each state. I taught at Michigan State University, Michigan’s land grant university. I’m generally a fan of tariffs, both as an aid to the domestic economy and as a tool of foreign policy. I present these views here. I got these views from Peter Cooper.

Why did the UK reject Trump’s trade deals?

Leave a reply

When the UK left the EU, they gained some economic freedom, but lost easy access to their largest trade partner. They avoided having to follow the weird green policies of the EU, and no longer had to take low cost workers from Poland, Bulgaria, Tec, but having lost easy access to European trade, the assumption was that they would want a trade deal soon, with someone, and the likely someone was the USA.

At first things went pretty well. there was the predicted crash didn’t come, showing that the top economists were talking out their hats, or trying to scare people to stay in the EU. And then Trump proposed the first of four attempts at a trade deal, and things got ugly. All four attempts were rejected in a most-forceful and insulting way.

When Trumps first forays at a trade deal were rejected, he attempt a visit in the summer of 2017. The British Parliament forbidding the visit, accepting it only by a slim majority with the PM, May making no strong case. The mayor of London protested with a blimp of Trump as a big baby, and the Queen was not sure she had time for tea (she had time for Obama). Trump cancelled the visit, and May made deals with Norway, Switzerland, Israel, Palestine, and Iceland. Why these but not the US?

Over the next two years Trump made trade deals with Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Korea, trying The UK again in July, 2019. This time, Theresa May was more welcoming — she was facing an election — but the blimp was brought out again, and allowed to follow Trump around England, along with a statue of Trump on the toilet, tweeting, and making fart sounds while saying “witch hunt,” “no collusion*”, and other comic comments. All rather insulting, and deal with the UK was signed.

I suspect Trump’s offers to the UK were similar to those with Japan, and Japan seemed very happy with the deal (Biden offered them an exit from Trump’s, and Abe stayed — and proposed Trump for the Nobel Prize. So why the British antagonism? Even if they had to say no, why didn’t they arrange a location or treatment to say no politely. India said no to Trump’s trade deal, politely, in 2020, and to the UK too.

My theory is that Theresa May was taken by the anti-Trump propaganda of Europe and particularly of the German press (see magazine covers of the time). Germany was the leader of Europe (this status has diminished), and its press presented Trump as a racist murderer. May kept trying to get back into the EU, and may have thought that ill-treating Trump would help. Boris Johnson followed May, and was pro-Trump, but his cabinet was not. They acted as if they could recreate the British empire of Queen Victoria — a silly thought. They tried for free trade deals with India, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, members of the old empire, but they never quite managed anything. COVID made things worse. The UK economy stalled, Johnson was removed, and the current PM, Rishi Sunak, seems to have got nowhere with Biden. Trump re-offered his trade deal during the visit, but he was out of office; Both Biden and Sunak ignored it.

The UK needs free trade with some substantial countries. They are a hub for manufacturing, information, and banking, currently without any spokes. India likely turned them down because the UK no longer has the power to protect them from enemies, China, Iran, Russia.., nor to protect their trade. Aside from rejoining the EU (good luck there), US is the obvious partner. If personality were the problem, there would have been a deal between Rishi Sunak and Joe Biden.

Since leaving the EU, the UK is doing slightly better than Germany, but that’s not saying much. British exports were helped by the cut off of trade with Russia, but that might not last, and London is having trouble trying to remain a financial center, fighting difficult travel and work rules, and the decline of the pound. Maybe it’s Biden’s fault that there is no deal. It’s hard to tell. Last week, the British Foreign secretary, David Cameron, came to visit Trump at Mar a Lago for a good feelings chat and to start on a trade deal should Trump become president. It’s not clear that Trump will become president, but there are at least hopes for a deal, ideally signed at a distance from the baby balloon.

Robert Buxbaum, April 18, 2024 *”Russian collusion” was a big deal at the time. A dossier was supposed show that Trump was a Russian agent. It turned out the dossier was created by Democrats working with the FBI.