Great write-up! I always look forward to your analysis; it's increasingly difficult to find clear-eyed, non-partisan stuff on Substack. Nate Silver wrote a few times last year about a trend (real or imagined) of people treating polling and more niche political topics as yet another form of entertainment, and insofar as that does exist it seems to have skewed a lot of bloggers towards Nate's "Indigo Blob" or whatever you want to call it.
Curious what you think Trump's end-game is for the third term stuff, since much of the controversy in his term thus far centers around executive overreach, and calling for something that blatantly authoritarian seems counterproductive.
You argue that withholding congressional pay would lead to bad public policy and make the analogy that you would not want Members to have their children conscripted (into combat) if they voted for a war--it would distort their incentives to choose the "right" policy. The late economist Uwe Reinhardt pointed out that when the people that decide to declare war are insulated from the associated costs/risks they are more likely to declare war. This is a "moral hazard" issue illustrated by the (apocryphal) story of why owners of fireworks companies put their own house in the center of the plant, so as to align their incentives for safety with their workers. Choosing the "right" policy in a democracy should align the risk/reward tradeoffs between decision-makers and those who pay, no?
Also, given your 13th item about "nuking the filibuster"--I wonder if you have ideas about why the Dems don't make the argument: given the use of rescissions (requiring only 51 votes) and impoundments, why not encourage Republicans to nuke the filibuster?
Btw, I'm an economist (Robert Driskill, emeritus at Vanderbilt), not a political scientist.
I agree, as you say, that insulating Members from any harm would potentially distort public policy. In my view, the creation of directly personal incentives distorts it by *orders of magnitude* the other direction. Imagine a provision that banned Members from holding US Treasuries as an investment vehicle vs. a provision that forced them to put their entire investment portfolio in US Treasuries. That feels to me like the difference between keeping their kids out of a war vs. forcing them into the war, or letting them get paid during a shutdown vs. prohibiting. It just seems asymmetric to me (though obviously either policy creates personal incentives).
I'll have to think about this more. Being an economist, I might have to make a model. But for sure, there is a tension and with only discrete choices available your point might be right.
You keep mentioning someone named “Newsome” in your recent posts. As a person very well-connected and informed on politics, I am certain you have to know that the name of the California governor is “Newsom,” but I’m also not sure who else you could possibly be talking about?
Do you think the Senate margin has anything to do with Republicans lack of not wanting to doing something different with cloture/filibuster? Or they just generally view the Senate maps in combination with current carveouts as beneficial. What I mean is if they had 57 Senators does that induce a different stance.
Great write-up! I always look forward to your analysis; it's increasingly difficult to find clear-eyed, non-partisan stuff on Substack. Nate Silver wrote a few times last year about a trend (real or imagined) of people treating polling and more niche political topics as yet another form of entertainment, and insofar as that does exist it seems to have skewed a lot of bloggers towards Nate's "Indigo Blob" or whatever you want to call it.
Curious what you think Trump's end-game is for the third term stuff, since much of the controversy in his term thus far centers around executive overreach, and calling for something that blatantly authoritarian seems counterproductive.
You argue that withholding congressional pay would lead to bad public policy and make the analogy that you would not want Members to have their children conscripted (into combat) if they voted for a war--it would distort their incentives to choose the "right" policy. The late economist Uwe Reinhardt pointed out that when the people that decide to declare war are insulated from the associated costs/risks they are more likely to declare war. This is a "moral hazard" issue illustrated by the (apocryphal) story of why owners of fireworks companies put their own house in the center of the plant, so as to align their incentives for safety with their workers. Choosing the "right" policy in a democracy should align the risk/reward tradeoffs between decision-makers and those who pay, no?
Also, given your 13th item about "nuking the filibuster"--I wonder if you have ideas about why the Dems don't make the argument: given the use of rescissions (requiring only 51 votes) and impoundments, why not encourage Republicans to nuke the filibuster?
Btw, I'm an economist (Robert Driskill, emeritus at Vanderbilt), not a political scientist.
I agree, as you say, that insulating Members from any harm would potentially distort public policy. In my view, the creation of directly personal incentives distorts it by *orders of magnitude* the other direction. Imagine a provision that banned Members from holding US Treasuries as an investment vehicle vs. a provision that forced them to put their entire investment portfolio in US Treasuries. That feels to me like the difference between keeping their kids out of a war vs. forcing them into the war, or letting them get paid during a shutdown vs. prohibiting. It just seems asymmetric to me (though obviously either policy creates personal incentives).
I'll have to think about this more. Being an economist, I might have to make a model. But for sure, there is a tension and with only discrete choices available your point might be right.
You keep mentioning someone named “Newsome” in your recent posts. As a person very well-connected and informed on politics, I am certain you have to know that the name of the California governor is “Newsom,” but I’m also not sure who else you could possibly be talking about?
This was ridiculous.
and wonderful.
thank you, i hope you do this again
Uh, Matt?
Trump's deliberately and illegally stopping SNAP despite USDA having enough money for at least three weeks worth.
Why? Because he and Stephen Miller think that only "Democrats" (meaning Black and Latino persons) get SNAP
https://bsky.app/profile/centeronbudget.bsky.social/post/3m3xk4h4il22t
Trump literally thinks all troops are now white men and all SNAP users are BIPOC.
That's why troops are getting some money and SNAP recipients are getting screwed.
Do you think the Senate margin has anything to do with Republicans lack of not wanting to doing something different with cloture/filibuster? Or they just generally view the Senate maps in combination with current carveouts as beneficial. What I mean is if they had 57 Senators does that induce a different stance.