J.D. Vance

(Senate.gov photo)

Earlier today Donald Trump announced John David ("J.D.") Vance as his running mate. Your humble blogger, who doesn't pay much attention to who's who in national politics, will start learning about J.D. Vance by tackling his 2016 best-selling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy.

If elected, J.D. Vance, who will turn 40 on August 2nd, will be the third youngest vice president in American history behind John Breckinridge (37) and Richard Nixon (40), who assumed office in 1857 and 1960, respectively.

Here are the WSJ's "Five Things to Know About J.D. Vance."

1. He gained prominence as a bestselling author. “Hillbilly Elegy,” a rumination on the problems facing his hometown and growing up in working-class America, became a commercial smash, and later was a Ron Howard-directed film. The memoir helped Vance pitch himself to voters as he began to rise in politics.

2. He used to be a critic of Trump. Vance in 2016 said Trump could be “America’s Hitler.” But since then, the senator has morphed into a strong ally of Trump. He has echoed Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was rigged.

3. He was in the Marine Corps. Vance joined the Marines after high school, and he has said that the experience gave him a distaste for unnecessary foreign entanglements. In the Senate, Vance has helped lead the opposition to foreign aid for Ukraine. Trump, for his part, wasn’t as aggressive as Vance on the issue.

4. He has only been in Congress for two years. Vance, 39 years old, was elected to the Senate in 2022. He defeated Tim Ryan, a Democrat and longtime Ohio representative, for the seat. Trump endorsed Vance in that election, helping him win during a crowded election cycle.

5. He was also a venture capitalist and knows wealthy donors. Before coming to Congress, Vance graduated from the Ohio State University and Yale Law School, and was a principal at venture capitalist Peter Thiel’s firm in 2016 and 2017. Thiel spent millions on Vance’s Senate run. Those relationships have helped him hold his own among influential political donors.

Given Donald Trump's age (78), there is a distinct probability that J.D. Vance could become President in the next four years. Of course, the same thing may be said about Kamala Harris, 58, given the infirmities of President Biden, 81.

Primary Election Day

Foster City Library

I did my civic duty and cast my ballot in person earlier today at the Foster City library.

There were a limited number of offices to vote on, and only one proposition, Proposition 1, a $6.4 billion bond to build mental health treatment facilities and housing for the homeless. I voted "no" on Prop. 1, not because I don't want to spend money on mental health and/or the homeless but because I have little faith that the monies will actually help the intended recipients. They'll probably be diverted to consultants, planners, government agencies, and non-profits. We've been fooled before: in 2014 Californians approved a $7.5 billion bond measure to build more water storage; ten years later not one reservoir has been built.

The U.S. Senate race I also found interesting because of the way in which Democrat Adam Schiff "picked his opponent," Republican Steve Garvey. In California the top two vote getters in the primaries face off in the general election, and Adam Schiff ran ads that warned against Steve Garvey's conservatism, boosting the latter's profile amongst Republicans and some independents. A Democrat like Katie Porter would have likely proved a tougher opponent in November. If one is a fan of political strategy, one has to give credit where it's due.

Dianne Feinstein (1933-2023)

It was a quiet Monday after Thanksgiving in 1978 when the news came over the radio: George Moscone, the popular Mayor of San Francisco, had been shot and killed. Supervisor Harvey Milk was also assassinated, and the killer was ex-Supervisor Dan White. Dianne Feinstein, the President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, became the acting mayor.

As junior staffers for a Fortune 500 company in Menlo Park, none of us lived in San Francisco or followed its politics. George Moscone was well-known, Dianne Feinstein's name was familiar, and I had never heard of Harvey Milk or Dan White. All that changed on that tragic Monday.

In the weeks ahead Mayor Dianne Feinstein spoke often to the media. She wasn't polished like her predecessor, but she spoke simply and honestly. A political star was born.

She won two consecutive terms as Mayor. After leaving office in 1988, she lost to Pete Wilson in the 1990 governor's race but was elected to the Senate in 1992.

Dianne Feinstein had a long and distinguished career in the Senate but for me her most memorable moments occurred during the tumultuous days in 1978. R.I.P.

Presidential Material

He does look presidential

I'm entranced by the idea of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) becoming President just for the confusion that it would engender.

There may be no practical difference between "Whitehouse says" and "the White House says," but copy writers would have to guard against using phrases like "Speaking from the White House, Whitehouse..." or "Invited to the White House by Whitehouse..."

If he's going to get to the presidential mansion, Senator Whitehouse should avoid sillinesses like accusing a Supreme Court justice of "improper opining":

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for publicly examining Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook for subtle messages of, well, we never could figure it out. And now he says Justice Alito committed “improper opining on a legal issue that may come before the court” in his recent interview with this newspaper [the WSJ]...

Our favorite line in Mr. Whitehouse’s letter says that “at the end, Justice Alito is the beneficiary of his own improper opining.” In other words, how dare Justice Alito defend himself from unfair attacks by Mr. Whitehouse, whose real goal is to coerce the Justices into doing his political bidding.

Senator Whitehouse didn't just say it but wrote a letter to Chief Justice Roberts complaining about Justice Alito's "improper opining." The Chief Justice is now obliged to compose a letter in return, and I'd give a penny, or even two, for his thoughts.

Justice Breyer to Retire

(WSJ photo)

Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, according to NBC News:

Justice Stephen Breyer will step down from the Supreme Court at the end of the current term, according to people familiar with his thinking...

Biden promised on the campaign trail to nominate a Black woman to the court. In the wake of Breyer’s announcement, there was an outpouring of statements calling for him to follow through.

The progressive group Demand Justice hired a truck last year to drive around Washington with the sign: "Breyer Retire. It’s time for a Black woman Supreme Court justice."

Justice Breyer, 83, has yet to make an official announcement.

The current SC term ends in late June or early July.

Although only a simple majority in the Senate is necessary to confirm a future nominee, the Democrats won't have any room for error. Digging through a nominee's personal life back to her high school days is now an acceptable practice, and any behavioral or verbal misstep will be grist for the hearings. Depending on what turns up, Senators may have difficulty justifying their vote to their constituents, especially if they're up for re-election in 2022.

In any case, replacing a Supreme Court nominee increases the likelihood of nothing important getting through Congress in 2022.

Bob and Dan, Continued

Two Senators who were friends for almost 70 years were honored this week.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole says goodbye to her husband.

Bob Dole Lies in State as Biden Hails Former Senator as ‘Giant of Our History’

“Well, you know, Bob and I, like many of us here, we disagreed on a number of things, but not on any of the fundamental things,” Mr. Biden said. “We genuinely respected one another as colleagues. As fellow Americans. It was real. It wasn’t fake. And we became great friends.”

From today's Star-Advertiser:

The Navy’s newest warship, the Arleigh Burke-class missile destroyer USS Daniel Inouye, was officially commissioned at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam on Wednesday. After days of rain, the sun shown bright during the morning ceremony as the ship, named for the powerful Hawaii statesman, war hero and Medal of Honor recipient, joined the fleet...

Daniel Inouye — as a Japanese American and World War II veteran — became an important figure in postwar U.S.-Japan reconciliation and in shaping U.S. policy in Asia more broadly. He spearheaded efforts, which, in 1994, resulted in Congress appropriating funds to create the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Waikiki. It aims to bring together military, civilian and academic leaders from across the region. After his death, the center was renamed in his honor...

Several speakers at the ceremony reflected on Inouye’s friendship with former Republican U.S. Sen. Bob Dole, who died Sunday. Inouye and the Kansan were often at odds politically when they served in the Senate, but they shared a bond as WWII soldiers who were both seriously wounded in battle during their service.

Bob, Dan, and the Way Things Used to Be

Celebrating his nomination at the Republican
Convention, San Diego, 1996 (WSJ photo)

Bob Dole (July 22, 1923 - December 5, 2021) was disabled by war injuries for most of his life:

In April 1945, while stationed in Italy during WWII, the young soldier was struck by enemy fire. As a result of his wounds, Dole was permanently left without feeling in his right hand and arm, which measured more than two inches shorter than his left after reparative surgeries; part of his left hand was also left numb. Dole, who died on Sunday at the age of 98, would live with and be shaped by the aftermath of those injuries in the years that followed, including the 30 he spent as a U.S. senator from Kansas.

The future Republican senator from Kansas met the future Democratic senator from Hawaii when they both were recovering in an Army hospital. Daniel Inouye (1924-2012), who lost his right arm in the Italian campaign, and Bob Dole became lifelong friends.

Below are Senator Dan's 2008 reflections on his shared experiences with Bob Dole. His description of how things worked mere decades ago shows how much times have changed.

The Ultimate Example

I still believe that eventually President Biden, Speaker
Pelosi, and Majority Leader Schumer will do the right thing.

The Wall Street Journal opinion page sheds a little more light on the process of budget reconciliation . [bold added]

The parliamentarian has already said that Democrats can use reconciliation to raise the debt limit, so why won’t they do it? As it happens, Mr. Biden gave that game away when he was asked Monday why Democrats aren’t using reconciliation.

“There is a process” that “would require literally up to hundreds of votes,” Mr. Biden explained. “It’s unlimited number of votes having nothing directly to do with the debt limit; it could be everything from Ethiopia to anything else that has nothing to do with the debt limit. And it’s fraught with all kinds of potential danger for a miscalculation, and it would have to happen twice.”

In other words, Mr. Biden admits that Democrats could raise the limit via reconciliation, but then they’d also have to take difficult votes on many issues on the Senate floor. Some of those votes might be unpopular. Mr. Biden is admitting that the reason is political—that Democrats want Republicans to spare them from having to take those tough votes.

Republicans have been hinting (actually some have been shouting) that President Biden is out-of-touch and even senile. From the above quote he doesn't sound senile to me. His handlers should let him speak more--I like this truthful Joe.

But back to the issue at hand: the editorial does communicate more information about Democrats and Republicans' respective motivations and the what of budget reconciliation ("difficult votes on many issues"). Just why these votes have to be taken through this still-mystifying procedure is not something that has been explained clearly to John or Jane Q. Public.

It's often been lamented that nothing works in Washington, and if these inside-the-Beltway rules crash the U.S. dollar and the world's financial system, the American people will view this as the ultimate example of dysfunctional government.

If you thought Donald Trump was bad, wait till you see what comes next.

Washington Works in Mysterious Ways

I freely admit my bias against having more Federal spending increases and changes to the tax code:

Full disclosure: the SALT limitation costs your humble blogger thousands of dollars in additional Federal taxes per year, yet I wish all of the politicians would go home for the rest of 2021 and not try to "help" us by spending any more money or tinkering with four-year-old tax changes that we haven't even figured out yet.

However, these preferences are nothing compared to the importance of not defaulting on national debt payments.

(From Peter G Peterson Fdn)

If Republican votes are necessary to raise the debt ceiling, they should vote to do it, then get on with the usual politics over taxes and spending.

But Republican votes are unnecessary: according to a procedure known as budget reconciliation, the Democrats by themselves can authorize an increase to the national debt.

[Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.)] emphasized that Democrats could raise the debt ceiling on their own by reopening the reconciliation process, which would allow them to move a bill through the 50-50 Senate with just a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes required of most legislation. “This is the path they will need to take,” Mr. McConnell said.

Mr. Biden, in remarks at the White House, said the U.S. “is a nation that pays its bills and always has.” He called on Republicans to “get out of the way” and let Democrats quickly raise the debt limit. Asked whether he could guarantee that the U.S. would be able to raise the debt ceiling before the deadline, he put the onus on Republicans: “No, I can’t. That’s up to Mitch McConnell.”

Democratic leaders have said trying to address the debt limit through a process tied to the budget known as reconciliation would be risky and time-consuming.

This is why politics is so mystifying to us plebeians. The House webpage states that reconciliation is "a fast-track process" that requires a simple majority in the Senate and does not allow Senators to filibuster. That sounds much less risky and time-consuming.

It's also hard to see why the President called on Republicans to "get out of the way" when Democrats can push them aside with impunity in budget reconciliation.

Raising the debt ceiling is the right thing to do, the vast majority of Americans including most Republicans, would agree. Just do it, Democrats, quit wasting time over a non-issue. Your supporters in the media will see that you get the credit, and the public will follow along.

Apple One: Distractions Welcome

Because seven(!) hours a day of screentime is not enough, I signed up for Apple One on Sunday. Apple One is Apple's bundled subscription to a number of its services.

The Premier plan, which has been shared with each member of the household, costs $29.99 a month and is a bargain.

It includes Apple Music, TV, News, Arcade, 2TB iCloud storage, and a soon-to-be-released Fitness app.

I had not heretofore explored the game and music libraries, and they are a welcome distraction from the post-election scrum.

We won't know definitively about who controls the Senate until the runoff elections for two Georgia Senate seats on January 5th. As for the Presidential race, it looks like Mr. Biden will soon have the necessary 270 Electoral votes, but there seems to be evidence of vote fraud that could reverse the result.

So it looks like we'll have at least two more months of politics to obsess over, argue about, and ruin our Thanksgiving and Christmas.

I never thought I'd be saying this, but being distracted by games, music, and video entertainment will be a better use of time than the alternative.

Doing Nothing In Times of Uncertainty

As of this writing, the President and Senate races haven't been resolved, but the trends lean toward Joe Biden and a Republican majority, respectively.

With the House of Representatives secured by Democrats, it is almost certain that the United States will again have a divided government, that is, where the President and at least one house of Congress will be controlled by opposite political parties.

It's been fashionable to lament the brakes the Founders put in to the Constiution--six-year terms of Senators, two Senators for each State regardless of size, the Electoral College, the difficulty in amending the Constitution, even the permissibility of divided government--but when the country is split relatively evenly and the sides are far apart, the wisdom is clear.

It's very difficult to enact major changes; either the sides compromise or nothing happens. And sometimes nothing is the way to go.

The stock market, which has moved upward during the week, likes the prospect of nothing.

So a tip of the hat to the Founders, who knew nothing about the technological and scientific wonders of the 21st century but knew a lot about human nature.

He's Past Dissembling

86-year-old party elder Willie Brown wants the Democrats to win, but that doesn't stop him from giving them advice they might not want to hear.

WB: our next Justice (WSJ)

Forget about the Court and Concentrate on November

Forget about it, it’s over. Democrats need to put the Supreme Court appointment fight behind them as quickly as possible and move on to the real battle in November.

They have no power in the Senate, and they cannot afford to spin their wheels over an appointment whose conclusion is already foretold by the Republican majority.

And there is no avenue of attack open to them. The fear of a rollback of Roe vs. Wade or a shutdown of Obamacare plays well in blue states, but it also carries the potential for blowback in the battleground states.

Admit D.C. and Puerto Rico as States (after winning the Presidency and Congress)

Flag of Puerto Rico

Democrats’ best revenge for the Republican court packing is to win the White House and Congress in November — then immediately admit the heavily Democratic District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as the 51st and 52nd states.

It would forever shift control of the Senate to Democrats and go a long way toward fixing the red-state bias of the electoral college.

Because their economies are dependent on Federal spending, Puerto Rico and D.C. will add four reliably Democratic Senate votes for the foreseeable future. Your humble blogger would cheer this development if the people of Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico vote for Statehood. (I would also cheer California splitting into at least three States, but that's for another time.)

"Idiot" Trump has a Point on Mail-In Ballots

it’s very hard to strike someone from the voter rolls. The rule is, if someone misses two consecutive federal general elections — a presidential election and a midterm — and then misses two more after failing to respond to a mailed query from county registrars, they’re supposed to be tossed off the rolls.

So, you can be gone from your registered address — or dead — for a long time before the state gets around to erasing you. Some estimates say that up to 10% of California’s 20 million registered voters aren’t where the state thinks they are.

Nonetheless, ballots will be going to their listed addresses. So some people who have moved won’t get ballots. Residents at the old addresses will get ballots for people who are no longer living there or are no longer living, period.

For the sake of the Republic and the Constitution I hope a clear result obtains in November. That's more important than my choices winning.

Not the Win, But the Game Itself

Why are moderate Senators like Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah) reversing their position on voting for a Supreme Court nominee before the election?

I suspect that they feel compelled to fill the seat because of the high likelihood the Supreme Court will be called upon to rule on some aspect of the election. With the possibility of a 4-4 SC deadlock, a Court of Appeals or a State Supreme Court (e.g., Florida, 2000) somewhere could determine the next President.

It's more important that the mechanism be in place to decide the election, not whether Joe Biden or Donald Trump is President, or whether the Senate majority is Democrat or Republican.

I do fantasize that the President and the entire Senate can set aside their differences and agree on a jurist who is not "perfect" to either the left or the right. Wouldn't that be great if he or she gets at least 60 votes? Our constitutional democracy is at stake; like the Christmas truce of World War I, suspend hostilities for a week for the common good, then go back to killing each other.

Note: my ADD-brain flitted to the Play from the Cal-Stanford game in 1982. With 5 laterals, the Stanford Band, cheerleaders, and bench players on the field, the outcome was and is highly controversial. Now just imagine if there were no referees to make the call--it could be a foreshadowing of Washington, D.C. in December, 2020.

Politically Ignorant, Deliberately

Unless the playoffs include a local team, I don't start following the major sports until the final rounds, just before the championship game(s).

Similarly I haven't been paying attention to the preparation for the Democratic candidates' debates. This studied non-interest saves me a lot of time; I don't have to learn their political positions, much less their personal histories, until the primaries winnow the field down to 3 or 4.

How many faces can you recognize without Googling their names and images? (The NY Times helpfully appears to be running them in alphabetical order.)

Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren should be known to even casual observers. Senators Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar may be remembered from the Kavanaugh hearings. Senator Cory Booker became famous as the outspoken mayor of Newark, NJ, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend was on the cover of Time. I'm also aware of Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, my home state.

On the Republican side are President Trump, of course, and William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts. (Bill Weld was popular 20 years ago as a Republican who could command the respect and votes of Democrats.)

Beyond those names I'm drawing a blank and choose to remain ignorant. At my age one has to be careful what one puts in the attic:

(Image from boingboing.net)

I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.
------Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle)

I Would Buy That Book

(Image from the Weekly Standard)

Your humble blogger has so far resisted commenting on Brett Kavanaugh because:
1) much more has been said--and better--than I ever could;
2) there's much we don't know, and new information could instantly upset any carefully thought-out narrative;
3) expressing an opinion can be dangerous to social relationships that are much more important to me than the success or failure of this nomination, or, for that matter, what happens in the mid-term elections.

One of the best pieces I've read has more to do with the listening audience than with Brett Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford. It concerns our motivated reasoning.

Let's assume that, before Dr. Ford's allegations became known, you supported Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice.That should not have meant that you necessarily believed that he was innocent of her charges. Similarly, you could have been opposed to Judge Kavanaugh without believing he was a sex abuser. Yet...[bold added]

One of the most striking aspects of the debate over the sexual assault accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is the extremely high correlation between what people think of the allegations and whether they believe Kavanaugh should be confirmed aside from them. Conservatives Republicans who like Kavanaugh's jurisprudence tend to dismiss the accusations. Liberal Democrats who oppose Kavanaugh on jurisprudential grounds tend to think the accusations are true (or at least highly likely to be so). A similar pattern emerges when it comes to the issue of burden of proof, with conservatives often claiming that it rests on the accuser and that Kavanaugh is "innocent until proven guilty," like a defendant in a criminal trial. Liberals, by contrast, tend to argue that the situation should be treated as more a "job interview" than a legal process, and it is up to Kavanaugh to prove that he is fit to be a Supreme Court justice. Some even contend that we should presumptively believe the accusers.

I tried to keep an open mind during the hearings last Thursday. This meant suppressing defensive thoughts when a witness or questioner challenged what I wanted to believe. It meant empathizing with each witness, trying to imagine myself in his or her shoes and assuming what he or she said was true.

Even after it was over, I didn't see how anyone could say that they were "100% sure" that one of them was lying. There are possible scenarios where both could be telling the truth as they knew it, for example, where he was so drunk he failed to remember the incident or she had a false memory by assigning a face and name to a shadowy figure in a long-ago traumatic event.

Whatever happens to this nomination I hope a major media organization will continue to look at what may have happened 36 years ago. If that investigation is done in good faith, that is, by not trying to drive to a conclusion, I would buy that book.

What He Endured

1973: President Nixon greets a POW (WSJ)

As a politician his "maverick" positions could exasperate his allies. As a man there was none better.

Tributes from across the world poured in for John McCain, who died today.

Two comments:
1) Our household seldom agrees on politics, so we don't waste our money on offsetting political donations. We did agree, however, on John McCain, whose 2008 Presidential campaign received the only political contribution we have ever made.

2) I am rarely offended by anything the current President--or his opponents--say. However, when candidate Trump said that John McCain was a war hero because "he was captured," that crossed the line. People admired John McCain not for the fact of his imprisonment but for how he conducted himself in captivity.

David Foster Wallace followed John McCain for Rolling Stone during the 2000 Presidential campaign. It's a lengthy excerpt that reminds us of what he endured:

Business-Friendly Enough

Sen. Ron Johnson (Washington Times)

Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson opposes the current Senate tax proposal: [bold added]

Mr. Johnson said Republican plans prioritize corporations over “pass-through” entities—sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies and S Corporations—whose owners pay taxes through individual returns and at individual income-tax rates, rather than corporate rates. The Senate plan, like the House plan, proposes to cut the corporate rate from 35% to 20%.

As an owner and part-owner of various pass-through LLCs, your humble blogger is in favor of the bill in its current form though my LLCs won't gain directly. I am also an owner of publicly traded stocks that will benefit from lowered corporate taxes; from personal experience I know many LLC-owners who are in my position.

Furthermore, when a business achieves scale it often is structured with multiple pass-through as well as taxpaying ("C Corporation") entities, so many C-Corp beneficiaries are S/LLC/partnership owners as well. It is exceedingly rare to find a strictly pass-through owner who won't benefit from a lowering of C-Corp taxes.

The bill is business-friendly enough, and I find it hard to believe that Senator Johnson is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.