Quick Hits: Shultz on Climate Change, The Minimum Wage, and Liz Cheney

 A few links and quick thoughts on three different subjects today:

1. George Shultz passed away away on Sunday at the age of 100 (!). Shultz was a Republican of a different era, who no doubt looked at the GOP of today with a combination of confusion and frustration. Perhaps, as my straight ticket voting grandmother has said, he was glad he was near the end and wouldn't have to deal with politics anymore. Shultz was Secretary of State for Ronald Reagan when Reagan decided it was time to take action to limit the compounding damage to the Earth's ozone layer. As this 2019 article from Forbes notes, there was far less conclusive science in the 1980s about the damage to the ozone layer than their is today regarding climate change. 

Thing about that: in the 1980s scientists were legitimately divided on the issue of the ozone layer being damaged, to what degree, or what to do about it. And a conservative Republican President, in the words of Shultz:

"(D)id something that nobody ever does anymore ... (President Reagan) went to the scientists who didn't agree and put his arm around them and said, 'We respect you, but you do agree that if it happens it's a catastrophe, so let's take out an insurance policy." 

Imagine a Republican at any significant level of government doing something similar today with their own party. Staking out a position that, if wrong, still wouldn't hurt us, but if right might save us. It's hard to imagine any Republican taking a progressive stance on combating climate change, let alone the party head (as President Reagan was) doing so. Shultz truly was from a different era, and era that is rapidly passing on. 

2. Interesting fact check from The Dispatch on the minimum wage debate. While this site is pretty conservative, they cite legitimate sources in establishing that President Biden's statement that "all the economics show" that a minimum wage will be a boon for the economy isn't accurate. Of course, the Democrats would cite other studies and statistics to tell you raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour will be like a rising tide raising all ships. Ultimately, the truth is that it's unlikely that all economists will agree on anything, given their various economic-political view points. But it's probably a pretty safe bet to say that whatever action is taken (including inaction) will have far reaching consequences. Given that many states (29 plus the District of Columbia) have already established minimum wages above the national standard of $7.25 an hour there is probably a middle ground that makes sense. It would probably also make sense to tether the minimum wage to economic factors year to year or every five to ten years to ensure that we don't end up in a situation where the federal minimum wage is so far below the poverty line again. 

3. Finally, Axios reported that Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, told Liz Cheney she needed to apologize for voting to Impeach President Trump. Cheney, a skilled tactical politician, called the bluff and survived the secret ballot in the Republican caucus to remove her from the leadership. She remains the number three in the GOP House hierarchy, and has continued to stake out her position as an anti-Trump voice in the party. It is hard to imagine how badly McCarthy and other leadership must hope President Trump fades into oblivion to allow them to unite against the Biden administration without litmus tests of loyalty to MAGA. That said, with fringe candidates like Representatives Taylor Greene and Boebert continuing to stake out more and more real estate on the conspiracy theory fringe it's hard to imagine the party unifying over much in the near term. At any rate, good on Representative Cheney for sticking to her position, voting her conscious, and staring down the attempt to get her to reverse course for political survival. Our government would be far better with more members, on both sides of the aisle, willing to do the same. 

Governing Is Hard

Comparatively speaking, Republicans have a huge advantage over Democrats when it comes to governing. Even during an extremely dysfunctional time of unified government in 2017 and 2018 the Republicans were able to push their two item agenda forward by getting tax cuts and pushing Judicial appointments at all levels of the Federal bench. Simply put, it's easier to pull everyone together when you have more narrow objectives. Additionally, much of the Republican agenda can be moved via Executive Branch action, such as deregulation efforts. Taken together, they have an easier time governing.

Another factor, however, lies in the party leadership's willingness to approach politics as a zero sum game. Mitch McConnell is the expert in this approach. His philosophy can be clearly seen in his refusal to hold a vote for Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016, while pushing through Amy Coney Barrett's nomination in 2020. Garland, nominated on March 16, 2016, was railroaded by McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader at the time, because it was too close to a Presidential election in his opinion (citing Joe Biden's prior statements; the man is skilled at this!). Coney Barrett, nominated on September 26, 2020, was rushed through the process and confirmed to the court in spite of her nomination coming six months later into the process than Garland's. 

McConnell is willing to make up rules and precedents to serve the party's larger goals, and is equally willing to discard those same things if it serves those same goals (or, at least, find new rationales to justify the discarding). McConnell, by the way, knew that the huge tax cuts passed in 2017 couldn't pass the Senate filibuster threshold. So what did he do? He fast tracked it using the budget reconciliation process. There was no hemming or hawing about the need to work across the isle; simply a unilateral pushing of the broader agenda. And, of course, he led the path to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees to get Neil Gorsuch on the court quickly for the very seat that Garland was refused even a vote for. 

Of course it was Harry Reid (D) who eliminated the filibuster for lower court nominations in a prior congress. While that move was in response to unprecedented opposition to judicial nominees by then Minority Leader McConnell, the reality is that it was Democrats who broke that seal. The difference is that McConnell not only was glad they did it, but then used it to further push his agenda. Democrats may have gotten some of Obama's nominees through, but McConnell and the GOP then had carte blanche to load the courts aggressively with no real opposition throughout the Trump Administration. They also had precedent that they were able to point to, by the Democrats, for their action to eliminate the filibuster for the Supreme Court. 

If the shoe was on the other foot, there is no doubt what McConnell would do at present with a GOP house and control of the White House: he would push through their highest priority agenda using reconciliation if he could. Beyond that, he would do it with a smile. McConnell is better at politics than his Democratic counter parts. Some of that is due to him heading a coalition that is far more narrow in their agenda (lower taxes, deregulation, anti-abortion, pack the courts, etc.). Part of that is that he recognizes that no matter what you do you will lose power, as that's the nature of the system. Given that, you are incentivized not to work with the other side, but instead to push through as much as you can, as fast as you can, for as long as you can. This definitely isn't right, but when you see the Democrats force through something on budget reconciliation and hear the cries from the other side of the aisle just remember: they would have done the same exact thing. 

The Future of the Economy

 A very brief post today, but I did want to speak a bit to GM's recent announcement that they will go all electric by 2035, phasing out all gas and diesel engines. This is an ambitious plan, to say the least, given that they are just over four years since releasing their first full service electric car into the market. That said, fortune favors the bold (most times), and I suspect this will end up being a good move for GM in the long term. 

I've often been somewhat perplexed by both the Democrats and Republicans approaches to alternative (green) energies. This seems to be an area where there are a few undebatable facts:

1. fossil fuels are finite, and likely to run out this century. This will lead to catastrophic shortages long before the last feasible resource is pulled from the ground.

2. This, in turn, makes it pretty clear that whichever nation manages to master green, renewable energies will dominate the globe economically by the end of this century. 

3. The US became a world power in the 20th century on the strength of our natural resources. We used that strength to position ourselves well to maintain global influence as the world became smaller with globalization. If we want to maintain some semblance of that international influence, as well as the domestic lifestyle, we have to create a modern day economy that thrives on whatever the next wave of energy is. 

That argument, conveniently and intentionally, leaves aside the "hottest button" in this argument, which is climate change*. I, for one, think this part of the argument is as persuasive as it is undeniable. I also recognize that the discussion on climate change unfortunately falls into "facts are not as viable as my own opinion" territory. Still, conservative or liberal I think we all have a stake hold in the economy of the future, and green energy is inarguably going to be the linchpin to economic viability, let alone dominance, throughout the remainder of the 21st century and into the 22nd. 

I cannot fathom how that isn't a winning argument that both sides of the political spectrum can rally around, but GM, at least, seems to have bought into phasing out fossil fuel dependency as a factor in their long term economic viability. It should be interesting to see if Ford or another major manufacturer follows suite. Regardless, good on GM for taking a bold position and trying to lead a major portion of the US industrial economy into the future realistically, as opposed to so many segments that seem comfortable keeping their collective heads in the sand. 

*By the way, if you didn't see, 2020 tied 2016 as the hottest year on record globally. Yeah, this stuff is real, we (human beings) are the single biggest contributor, and bad things are going to continue to happen as the globe warms. 

Hank Aaron, BLM and a Reflection on Black History Month

As we venture further into 2021 we enter February, and with it Black History Month. 2020 brought us a year of greater clarity regarding where race relations stand in our country, and how far from equality we still remain. The Black Lives Matter protests through the year sparked counter protests, counter movements, and a great deal of social commentary. All of these things fell short of simply acknowledging the truth: America's original sin, that of slavery and deeply ingrained racism, is alive and strong today. That is not to say any aspect of this discussion is simple; quite the opposite, all of it is complex and multi-layered. But if we cannot start from the position that racism is still a strong factor in American society then it's hard to start a dialogue to move forward. 

I thought quite a bit about 2020, Black Lives Matter, and the state of race relations when reading this article about Hank Aaron's life. Aaron, who died on January 21, 2021, was the "home run king" of baseball from 1974 until Barry Bonds passed him in 2007. Both Bonds and Aaron dealt with pushback as they approached the records, but whereas Bonds pushback was related to his reported use of performance enhancing drugs (at least on the surface), the vitriol directed at Aaron was overtly racist. If you read the article, which was published on The Ringer, you'll get vibrant examples of the hate mail and outright death threats Aaron dealt with as he approached the record, which had been held since 1921 by Babe Ruth. 

Part of my struggle in engaging in discussions with certain segments of the American population is the way in which they want to open scientific or data driven fact to debate. This is true in the area of disproportionality statistics as well. We know that black Americans are far more likely to be killed in police shootings than white Americans. We also know that there are significant disparities in the area of healthcare and health outcomes. Further, we also know that there are significant gaps in socioeconomic status between black Americans and their white counterparts, as well as frequency and impact of traumatic events in childhood. These truths, along with others, are well researched and proven. They are not a matter of opinion; they are a matter of fact. 

I'm currently reading Jon Meacham's book "His Truth is Marching on: John Lewis and the Power of Hope." While I have a ways to go in the book, reading through Lewis' early life, and realizing the relative proximity of full blown Jim Crow era America is always something that shakes me to my core. I faced that same reality reading the articles about Aaron after his death, realizing how much of his career was played in Jim Crow America. I am a sucker for pointing out how terribly human beings conceptualize time; what seems to be a "long time ago" is really the blink of an eye. The impact of what happened a generation ago cannot be understated. Simply put, I am more likely to succeed in this world because of who my parents are and where I was born. The same was true for them, and so on. 

Of course, many people rise above their "station in life," but on the whole we cannot afford to pretend that slavery from 1619 through the end of the Civil War, coupled with systemic overt racism, as well as de facto covert racism, hasn't led to the myriad of studies I noted above. As we enter Black History Month I hope that in 2021 we can take a step closer to acknowledging these impacts society wide, and committing to work on tangible action to help reduce socioeconomic inequality, justice system inequality, health inequality and childhood trauma inequalities, among other aspect I did not note. The reality is that we are far to comfortable as a society to let generations pass and let the problems change, without making the hard decisions necessary to resolve the root issues that led to and perpetuate the problems in the first place.