Category: Centrist Politics

Draft Abortion Decision

Supreme Court Draft Decision

I just finished reading the introduction to the draft Supreme Court decision on the Mississippi abortion law. I highly recommend reading it before leaping into the debate on this issue.

The Centrist Independent Voter position on Abortion is in our policy position section.

I don’t agree with the conclusions presented in the introduction. I do think that the Court did have the choice of holding that Roe and Casey were settled law and that therefore the Mississippi law was unconstitutional. They could also have decided that, in line with Casey, the Mississippi law did not constitute an “undue burden” and was therefore acceptable.

How Broad are the Implications of this Decision, if Adopted?

I do agree with the author that this draft decision, if adopted, would not spell the end of other Supreme Court decisions on sexual relations, contraception, and marriage. All of those decisions addressed due process and individual liberty in situations that did not potentially affect an “unborn life.”

Where Do We Go From Here?

If this decision is adopted, the correct course of action is not packing the Court or eliminating the filibuster. Packing the Court will only lead to an ever larger Court, as each side gains enough power to add more Justices who favor their views. Breaking the filibuster means national legislation that will flip back and forth as each side gains a legislative majority and the Presidency.

The correct course of action is, first, to get busy at the the state level and pass legislation that secures some level of abortion rights. On this effort a willingness to compromise would be helpful. The second course of action is for Democrats to realize that they could have a solid 60+ majority in the Senate, if they became a true center left party and ignored the wishes of the progressive wing of the party. Once that is accomplished, we can have a national legislative compromise on the issue of abortion that securely establishes a reasonable degree of protection for abortion rights. This will probably resemble a legislative version of Roe.

The Pennsylvania 2022 Primaries

The Pennsylvania 2022 Primary: May 17, 2022

The race for the U.S. Senate seat from Pennsylvania, currently held by Pat Toomey (R) is heating up. Toomey is not running and there is a big field in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.

The Democratic Primary

The four candidates in the Democratic primary are: Conor Lamb, Alexandria Khalil, Malcolm Kenyatta, and John Fetterman. Khalil, Kenyatta, and Fetterman all seem to be competing for the progressive vote. Conor Lamb is reliably left of center on most issues. He is also a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives, which earns him our endorsement in the Democratic primary. The Philadelphia Inquirer, also, identifies him as the most moderate candidate in the race.

The Republican Primary

The seven candidates in the Republican Primary are: Kathy Barnette, Jeff Bartos, George Bochetto, Sean Gale, David McCormick, Mehmet Oz, and Carla Sands. Oz managed to secure Donald Trump’s endorsement which excludes him from our endorsement. Oz has no political or public policy experience and he would not have gotten our endorsement even if Trump had not endorsed him. While there isn’t anyone remotely centrist running for this seat as a Republican, the least extreme candidate appears to be Jeff Bartos. On the basis of this dubious distinction Bartos is able to garner our endorsement for the Republican primary.

Our overall recommendation is, therefore, to vote for Conor Lamb in the Democratic primary, if you can. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania is a closed primary state and you have to register by May 2, 2022. If you have to vote in the Republican primary, our recommendation is Jeff Bartos.

For an up-to-date summary of all Centrist Independent Voter endorsements to date for the 2022 primary season visit the Candidates page.

The Georgia 2022 Primaries

Georgia Primary Election May 24, 2022

The Centrist Independent Voter endorsed candidates for the Georgia May 24, 2022 Republican primaries today.

CIVPAC did not endorse anyone in the Democratic primary. At this point, Raphael Warnock and Stacy Abrams are running, essentially, unopposed for the Democratic nominations for the U.S. Senate and Georgia Governor positions respectively.

CIVPAC may or may not endorse candidates in the general election in Georgia.

The Centrist Independent Voter endorsed Brian Kemp for the Republican nomination for Governor and Brad Raffensperger for Secretary of State. This endorsement is, more than anything else, a reward for having stood up to Donald Trump when he attempted to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election in Georgia.

CIVPAC endorsed the field, i.e. any one other than Herschel Walker, for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. Herschel Walker has no experience that suggests that he would make a good U.S. Senator. He does have one huge liability that suggests that his election would be damaging to the political environment in the U.S. He has Donald Trump’s endorsement. Those on the right, left, and center who would like to see Donald Trump disappear from the American political scene would be well advised to vote for a candidate that does not have Trump’s endorsement, to demonstrate just how toxic that endorsement is.

Tariff (or Price Cap) on Russian Oil and Gas Exports as an Alternative to Boycott

A tanker on the high sea

The Economist published an excellent article yesterday about a way to begin gradually cutting off oil and gas revenues to Russia. Since an outright embargo on Russian oil and gas exports appears unlikely, much the same thing could be accomplished by a tariff.

In the limit, a very high tariff would be the same thing as an embargo. A lower tariff allows Europe to wean itself more gradually from Russian oil and gas and provides an economic incentive for markets to seek out other alternatives. It still allows some Russian oil and gas to enter Europe for very high value uses, but it places the social costs of subsidizing Russia’s war against Ukraine on those who want the benefit of using Russian oil and gas. Alternatively, if Russia wants to maintain its current level of oil and gas exports, Russia would have to absorb the cost of the tariff by lowering its prices. Either way Russia gets a smaller revenue stream.

As a side benefit, European countries get a new stream of revenues they can use to offset the impact of high energy costs on their economies. They can use these revenues to lower other taxes or rebate them on a per capita basis to their citizens. As long as they don’t use the revenues to subsidize oil and gas consumption, the European economies will adjust efficiently to reduced supplies of energy from Russia. Ideally countries that impose the tariff could use all or some of the proceeds to arm Ukraine.

Limitations

The good news about a tariff on Russian energy exports is also the bad news. It is gradual. Because it is gradual, it gives Russia more time to adapt.

A tariff also suffers from some of the same limitations as a boycott. Russia can send oil to India and India can export oil to Germany. Unless the tariff is also placed on energy exports from countries that do not, themselves, impose the tariff on Russian energy exports, Russia can, at some expense, evade the tariff. This is less true of Russian natural gas exports, since these generally flow through pipeline systems that cannot be easily redirected. Therefore, to the extent that it can be done, the tariff should apply to Russian energy exports and energy exports from countries that do not impose the tariff on Russia. One side benefit of this approach is that it can induce countries that are currently neutral to embrace the anti-Russian tariff, to protect themselves from having their own exports be subject to the tariff. This gets complicated, but it is certainly worth considering. Perhaps starting with a tariff on Russian gas exports would be a good beginning.

A Price Cap as an Alternative to a Tariff

A tariff on Russian oil and gas exports is a way for Europe to take advantage of the fact that it has a degree of monopsony power over Russia with respect to Europe’s purchases of oil and natural gas. This power is more significant with respect to oil and gas imports via pipelines, since these products cannot easily be redirected to other markets.

A price cap could accomplish the same thing. However, in the case of a price cap the difference in value between the cap and the market price is captured by the importer rather than the importing government. In cases where the government is the importer this is irrelevant. The value of the price cap approach over a tariff is largely cosmetic because it allows the importing government to claim (falsely) that it is not responsible for higher prices. In general, we favor the tariff over the price cap approach as more transparent, but for governments that find the tariff politically unpalatable a price cap is a workable alternative.

Parents’ Rights in Public Schools

Frank Bruni had an interesting article in the New York Times on the fact that public schools are created, at taxpayer expense, to serve a public purpose. That purpose, according to Bruni, is “the cultivation of citizens who better appreciate our democracy and can participate in it more knowledgeably and productively.”

I happen to agree with that point of view but would modify it to include making our society more socially and economically mobil and making our economy more productive. Having added that modification, I agree with Bruni’s main point that parents don’t have a lot of rights, as parents, to control what is taught in public schools. But parents are also voters, and, if they are angry, highly motivated voters, who do have the right, as voters, to control what is taught in public schools. They also, as Bruni points out, have the right to put their kids in private schools or to home school them. If enough people choose private schools or home schooling, public support for public education will evaporate, the public schools will deteriorate, and even more people will leave the public school system.

From a pragmatic point of view, parents collectively have some power to decide what will be taught in public schools, if we want a broadly funded public school system.

What this means is that compromise is necessary.

The Centrist Independent Voter suggests, in the public policy discussion on K-12 educational content, that the civics and U.S. history curriculum ought to be such that a super majority of Americans (this includes parents) would agree that it is reasonable. I think that it is probably safe to say that this same rule should apply to sex education in K-12. As I have said, in an earlier blog post, I think this can be accomplished for civics and U.S. history. I am less confident that we can reach a super majority acceptable point of view on sex education, but that is what we need to be striving for.

Bruni is right. The purpose of public schools is “the cultivation of citizens who better appreciate our democracy and can participate in it more knowledgeably and productively.” However, it is, ultimately, the voting public, which includes many highly motivated parents, that gets to decide how that democracy should be described. We also need to remember that students cannot be cultivated by the public schools if they are not in the public schools, or if the public schools cannot function for lack of funding.

At the risk of repeating myself, compromise is necessary.

Legacy Admissions

Cambridge University

If you have read the Centrist Independent Voter policy position on higher education, you know that CIVPAC recommends ending legacy admissions. The method for accomplishing this would be to deny federal assistance to colleges and universities that practice legacy admissions. Since almost all colleges and universities benefit from one kind of federal assistance or another, this should end legacy admissions in the U.S.

You would have easily been able to predict this policy position, if you had read the Centrist Independent Voter philosophy section on fairness and equity. Legacy admissions at selective colleges and universities are an egregious affront to the notion of equality of opportunity and a barrier to social mobility.

The Atlantic has an excellent article on the question of legacy admissions this month. It points out the irony that England, a hereditary monarchy with an aristocratic social structure rejects legacy admissions at Oxford and Cambridge.

The article points out that legislation has again been introduced to accomplish eliminating legacy admissions at American colleges and universities. I heartily recommend letting your congressional representatives know that you endorse this legislation.

The article also notes that there is a pledge being circulated among the alumni of selective colleges and universities that commits the signers to not donate again until their institution abandons legacy admissions. Please seek it out and sign up.

Inflation, Gas Taxes, and Ukraine

A number of states and the federal government are, or are considering, lowering gasoline taxes to offset the impact of inflation on consumers. Assuming that the gas taxes made sense in the first place, and that this is intended to be temporary, this is bad public policy.

What Causes Inflation?

Supply chain problems, surging demand as the global economy recovers from Covid and the impact of the war in Ukraine are all causes of relative price increases. As some commodities become harder to obtain, the price of the affected goods can be expected to rise relative to the price of other goods. These things are not in themselves the root causes of inflation. Absent accommodating monetary policies from central banks, like the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) in the U.S., these price shocks would be accompanied by declines in the prices of other goods or an overall reduction in economic activity, rather than inflation.

Doesn’t Lowering Gas Taxes Reduce the Pain of Inflation?

Ok, you say, lowering gas taxes may not address the root causes of inflation, but doesn’t it reduce the pain to consumers?

Lower gas taxes can be thought of in two ways.

One, absent an increase in other forms of taxation, it is an economic stimulus payment, the exact opposite of what is needed in a period of escalating inflation.

Two, it is a relative price subsidy. If you subsidize the consumption of a commodity you get greater demand for it. One of the problems in persuading European countries to boycott Russian oil and gas exports is that the global demand and supply of oil and gas are highly inelastic, in the short run. That means that the quantity of oil and gas demanded and supplied does not change very quickly in response to price changes. As a result, even small changes in supply (or demand) result in very large changes in price, in the short run. By lowering gas taxes, the United States is subsidizing the purchase of oil and making the global demand for oil even more inelastic than it would otherwise be. That will mean that the pain of boycotting Russian oil and gas will be even higher in Europe than it would otherwise be.

Impact on OPEC Incentives.

A variable tax on oil imports was considered, in the 1970’s, but was rejected because, by reducing the elasticity of demand, a variable tax actually increases the incentive for OPEC to reduce supplies to drive up oil prices.

So What Should We Do?

What we should be doing, to lower inflation, is what we should have been doing for months. The Fed needs to end its open market purchases of bonds and begin raising interest rates. How far should this go? At least far enough that short and long-term interest rates meaningfully exceed the expected rate of inflation.