Martin Heinrich (D) vs. Nella Domenici (R)

New Mexico poses a problem for Republican candidates. No Republican has represented New Mexico since Pete Domenici retired in 2009. As we all know, that was a different Republican Party. But then again, the Democratic Party has changed a lot since then, too. Nella Domenici is Pete Domenici’s daughter. She has had a career as CFO of Bridgewater, a very large hedge fund.

Abortion

New Mexico has a very liberal law on abortion. Nella Domenici, Pete Domenici’s daughter, has pledged to honor that law by not voting for a national abortion ban, if she is in the Senate. Martin Heinrich points out that Republican control of the Senate virtually guarantees that the Majority Leader in the Senate will favor a national abortion ban. You don’t have to doubt the sincerity of Domenici’s promise to imagine that a Republican Senate, if combined with Trump as President and a Republican House, would result in legislation that restricts various reproductive rights but stops short of an outright ban. In addition, Domenici leans heavily on support of contraception to make abortion less common. Her arguments are good, but many Republicans are antagonistic to financial support for contraception through the ACA (Obama Care). I doubt that a Republican Senate would support her on this issue. I would give this issue to Heinrich, mostly because Domenici is handicapped by the (R) after her name.

Energy and Climate Change

Domenici, rightly, points out that dealing with environmental issues requires making tradeoffs between protecting the environment and protecting the economy. She plays the usual Republican trick of avoiding discussion of climate change and recasting the issue in terms of “clean” air and water. I don’t think it is possible to reasonably discuss the tradeoffs between protecting the environment and the economy if you treat climate change as something that cannot be named (e.g. Voldemort in Harry Potter). She blames Heinrich for the closure of a coal-fired power plant. Heinrich rightly points out that coal is now losing in the market place to other forms of energy, including natural gas, solar, wind, and more recently modular nuclear. I am no fan of the heavily regulatory approach adopted by the Democrats on this issue, but Heinrich and the Democrats get the nod for being willing to openly discuss it.

Election Denial

Domenici states unequivocally that Trump lost the 2020 election and condemns the events of January 6. On this she deserves credit, since so many of her party lack the courage to do so.

Shortage of Doctors in New Mexico

New Mexico has a particularly difficult time attracting and keeping doctors and other medical professionals. There are a number of reasons for this: the large proportion of the population on medicaid, the high caps on malpractice lawsuits, and the low level of assistance on the repayment of student loans. I am generally unsympathetic to claims of shortages in any market, since prices generally adjust to eliminate the shortages.

All of the problems generally cited for New Mexico’s doctor shortage could be adjusted for by changes in physician compensation, were it not for the outsized role of the government in the physician compensation system in New Mexico. New Mexico is a poor state with a large portion of the population living below the poverty line and eligible for Medicaid. This provides a nice illustration of why Medicare and Medicaid can work in a mixed system with a high proportion of the population on private insurance. The privately insured patients pay enough to physicians and hospitals to cover overhead (including malpractice insurance) and Medicare and Medicaid pay enough to cover the marginal cost of treating those patients. When the proportion of patients paying through Medicare or Medicaid becomes too large in relation to the private sector, physicians and hospitals cannot cover their fixed costs and they move or shut down. This is true in many places in the United States. New Mexico stands out only because of the high poverty rate. This is why “Medicare for All” is problematic. In a “Medicare for All” system that used existing standards of compensation, there would be a national shortage of physicians and hospitals that would require the rationing of care. Avoiding that shortage would require a dramatically more expensive system per patient, and overall. For a longer discussion of this issue, see the CIVPAC policy position on medical care.

Nella Domenici attributes the problem to the Democratic Party’s support from the Association of Trial Lawyers. This may be true in part, but the core of the problem is New Mexico’s high poverty rates and the Medicaid compensation system. A solution might be to tie physician and hospital compensation under Medicaid (and maybe Medicare) to the proportion of their patients that use government provided insurance. Neither candidate seems to have a handle on what to do about this issue.

Right to Work Laws

Right to Work laws limit the ability of unions to compel workers to join the union and pay dues in unionized companies. New Mexico is not a Right to Work state. In fact, New Mexico passed legislation, in 2019, that forbids local governments from enacting Right to Work laws. Martin Heinrich attacks Right to Work laws based on workplaces issues, like excessive overtime, that are now regulated by OSHA. Domenici defends Right to Work laws as necessary to attract new businesses to New Mexico. This is a state level issue over which U.S. Senators have limited impact, but pro-Union legislation is a hallmark of the Democratic Party and you can expect both of these candidates to follow the party line on this issue. I would, therefore, give this issue to Domenici. For a longer discussion of this issue visit the CIVPAC policy position on Labor Unions.

Immigration

This issue is important in New Mexico, but the debate between the candidates mirrors the national discussion. Domenici criticizes the Biden administration, and by association Heinrich, for their failure to limit illegal immigration. Heinrich criticizes Trump, and by association Domenici, for their reluctance to support the bi-partisan legislation to, belatedly, do something about the problem. This is a complicated issue but the mass deportation approach pushed by Trump, and by association Domenici, is both inhumane and economically disastrous for the United States, so I give the issue to Heinrich.

The Endorsement

This is an interesting contest because of some of the issues it raises. Absent Donald Trump, Domenici might be a reasonable candidate to consider. Sadly, this Republican Party is not her father’s Republican Party. I, therefore, endorse Martin Heinrich for the U.S. Senate from New Mexico.

Elissa Slotkin (D) vs. Mike Rogers (R)

This Senate seat from Michigan is open as a result of Debbie Stabenow’s (D) retirement. Elissa Slotkin is a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official and a three-term Congresswoman. Rogers is a former FBI agent and seven-term Congressman.

Abortion

Rogers is solidly anti-abortion, but has pledged that he would not vote for national anti-abortion legislation. Slotkin, who is solidly pro-choice, has said she does not trust Rogers on this issue, given his record. One does not have to doubt the sincerity of Rogers’ pledge to realize that there are any number of proposals restricting reproductive rights that may confront the Senate, short of an outright ban, that Rogers could be expected to support given his record. I would give this issue to Slotkin.

Electric Vehicles and the U.S. Car Industry

This is a hot button issue in Michigan for obvious reasons. Rogers asserts that Electric Vehicle (EV) mandates have hurt U.S. car manufacturing. Slotkin asserts that there are no EV mandates and that she opposes EV mandates. She also supports subsidies for the U.S. auto industry to compete with China in the production of EVs. The truth is that there are no nationwide EV mandates (California is another issue.) Having said that, the Biden administration has pushed for tighter fuel efficiency standards and subsidies that favor EVs. The right solution on this issue is to have a uniform carbon tax and allow consumers and manufacturers to decide how to adapt to it. That could mean just driving less, driving more fuel efficient gas powered cars, driving hybrids (including both plug in or non-plug in versions, and driving EVs. Neither party or candidate supports this approach. What we don’t need are regionally different and constantly changing regulations that whipsaw manufacturers. I view this issue as a toss-up.

Foreign Conflicts

Both of these candidates favor continued support for Israel. Slotkin sides with the Biden administration to lean on Israel to accept a ceasefire if that is accompanied by the release of the hostages. Both favor continued support for Ukraine, although Rogers’ defense of Trump’s comments about not defending NATO countries is not helpful. Rogers also suggests that the aid to Ukraine should be a loan, which is problematic given Russia’s destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure. Both support continued support for Taiwan. Rogers wants to restrict that to weaponry. Slotkin suggests that she would support the use of U.S. troops to defend Taiwan. These are complicated issues. Both of these candidates are serious people. My concern is that Rogers will feel an obligation to Trump, based on Trump’s endorsement of Rogers. For that reason and because of Rogers’ less than full-throated support for Ukraine and NATO, I would give this issue to Slotkin.

Immigration

Slotkin appears to have taken the immigration problem seriously before the Biden administration turned to it. She has proposed a number of solutions to enhance Homeland Security against potential threats from illegal immigrants. Rogers opposed the bi-partisan legislation to strengthen the border, presumably to gain Trump’s endorsement. Rogers does oppose mass deportation and the direct use of U.S. troops at the border. Both of these candidates are better on this issue than their national standard bearers. I would view this issue as a toss up, were it not for Trump’s endorsement of Rogers. Based on that, I tilt toward Slotkin. I hope that Republicans recognize that a Trump endorsement is a solid negative for centrist, independent voters.

Tariffs

Rogers supports Trump’s across the board tariffs on imports. The vast majority of economists agree that this will raise domestic prices, lower economic growth and employment, and likely engender retaliatory tariffs and potentially cause a global recession. Slotkin favors more focused tariffs like the one on Chinese EV’s put in place by the Biden administration. While I generally favor free trade, I recognize that protectionist tariffs are popular in Michigan. On this issue, I give the nod to Slotkin because the across the board tariffs are such an unambiguously stupid idea.

Inflation

Neither of these candidates addresses the issue of inflation in a serious fashion. During the Covid pandemic, the U.S. and our peers in the G10 faced a hard economic decision. The U.S. chose to avoid a deep recession by aggressive fiscal spending, some of which began during the Trump administration. The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) initially accommodated this aggressive fiscal policy by maintaining low interest rates, as did many other central banks. The Fed eventually realized that the inevitable inflation was not going to be a temporary blip and raised interest rates to curtail inflation. The net result for the U.S. has been a more shallow recession, higher economic growth, and higher employment than our peers within the G10. We did have a somewhat higher level of inflation, but only modestly so. The correct question to ask voters is not are you better off today than you were before Covid, but are you better off now than you would have been under a less aggressive fiscal policy? Our experience relative to that of our peer countries suggests that the answer is a resounding yes.

Were there excesses in some of the specifics of the Biden administrations’ policies? Yes, but the broad policy was very effective. Some of the credit for this goes to the Fed, and the Biden administration deserves some credit for not attempting to interfere with the Fed when it increased interest rates. Trump, and by association Rogers, deserves discredit for suggesting that he would try to play an active role in monetary policy. Generally speaking, political involvement in monetary policy leads to greater inflation.

Slotkin, and the Democratic Party, suggest a variety of things to address inflation that have nothing to do with inflation and some of which might be counter-productive. To her credit, Slotkin opposes the subsidy for new home purchases proposed by Kamala Harris. To her credit, Kamala Harris, and by association Elissa Slotkin, has indicated that she would respect the independence of the Fed. On balance, I would give this issue to Slotkin. I wish her rhetoric and that of the Democratic Party reflected a better understanding of the issue.

The Endorsement

On balance, I have to endorse Elissa Slotkin for the Senate from Michigan. But, I would like to hear these two debate the issues in a post-Trump/Harris world.

If you are interested in seeing a current summary of the official Centrist Independent Voter endorsements in the 2024 Senate races, click here.

Christopher Murphy vs. Matt Corey

Murphy is a consistent ally of Elizabeth Warren and a predictably left-wing Democrat. If the Republicans could dig into their past and nominate someone in the tradition of Lowell Weicker (the Republican Senator from Connecticut from 1971 till 1989) they could probably retake this seat. Sadly, the Republican candidate in this race, Matt Corey, is a Trumpian Republican.

No Endorsement

I can’t bring myself to endorse anyone as far left as Murphy but I can’t endorse Corey either. I guess I’ll just sit on the sidelines on this one.

Robert Casey (D) vs. David McCormick (R)

Abortion

Apparently, Bob Casey used to represent himself as a pro-life Democrat. He now favors legislatively re-establishing the rights guaranteed under Roe v. Wade nationally. McCormick favors the states’ rights approach. There may be some constitutional issues associated with national legislation on abortion, but I believe there are ample grounds for some kind of protection that would survive court challenges. This is not an issue that is easily resolved by reason. It involves weighing individual rights vs. some, arguably, legitimate state interests. On the whole, I come down on the side of Casey’s current position.

Immigration

The Trump administration was able to drive illegal immigration numbers down in 2020, largely because the Covid pandemic recession reduced the incentive to cross the border and because the pandemic provided a justification for executive actions to force immigrants to remain in Mexico. The combination of the recovery and court decisions, that those executive orders were no longer justified, resulted in a pent-up surge in illegal immigration. The massive increase in the number of claims for asylum led to a death spiral of the system, in which wait times for asylum claims increased from months, or a couple of years, to as much as a decade. As a result, a specious claim for asylum gave an immigrant a free pass to work in the U.S. for many years before having to return home, further increasing the number of border crossings. The Biden administration waited way too long to address these issues. When it did, finally, put together a bi-partisan piece of legislation to deal with the issue, Trump intervened to keep the issue alive for the election. That is the truth as I understand it.

Casey shares the responsibility for the delay on the part of the Biden administration. McCormick shares the blame for inaction this year by his stated opposition to the bi-partisan deal.

Going forward, I think Casey supports the above mentioned legislation. I think McCormick favors Trump’s mass deportation. The economic and humanitarian consequences of Trump’s proposed mass deportation plans are pretty devastating, so I give this issue to Casey.

U.S. Steel-Nippon Acquisition

Both Casey and McCormick oppose the sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel. This is a case of bi-partisan stupidity. Japan is a close ally, the assets remain here, and Nippon has promised a massive infusion of capital. Even the United Steelworkers favor the deal.

Price Controls, Anti-Price Gouging, and Shrinkflation

Both Casey and McCormick seem to think that price gouging causes inflation. McCormick even cites a Fed study to prove it. Let me explain. If war breaks out in the middle east and oil supplies are expected to be disrupted, any sensible gasoline retailer will recognize that the gasoline in storage, including tanks at the gas station, is instantly more valuable. Therefore, the price of gasoline at the pump should be increased immediately to reflect the higher opportunity cost of the gasoline in storage. This means that the “profit margins,” crudely calculated as the difference between the original cost of the gasoline in inventory and the price the gasoline sells for today, will increase. (If gasoline retailers fail to raise prices intelligent consumers will recognize that gasoline is underpriced and top off their tanks and there will be lines and shortages. This phenomenon was created artificially by price controls in the 1970’s.) This does not mean that the resulting higher corporate profits caused the increase in the price of the gasoline at the pump. The same is true of all events and policies that increase the value of existing inventories.

Casey adds another nonsense cause of inflation, “shrinkflation.” Yes, marketing suggests that consumers are less likely to respond negatively to smaller sizes than to explicit price increases. That does not mean that this phenomenon causes inflation. Legislating against this phenomenon would be unenforceable and incredibly pointless.

Inflation and the Economy

All of the countries in the G10 experienced a recession and some degree of inflation following the Covid-19 pandemic. Some, like the U.S., chose to use aggressive fiscal policy to combat the recession. This, combined with a slow response on the part of the Federal Reserve Board, led to a spike in inflation. Some other countries took a less aggressive approach to combating the recession and consequently had a more modest spike in inflation. Looking back, the U.S. approach seems to have worked better, with the U.S. outpacing the rest of the G10 in terms of economic growth and employment, with a fairly similar result in terms of inflation. That is not to say that some of the specifics of the fiscal spending were not mistaken. But the general policy seems to have worked well relative to the alternatives.

Neither of the candidates in this race appears to even understand this issue. Casey babbles on about price gouging and efforts to lower the price of prescription drugs. McCormick seems to like the price gouging argument and borrows it. While McCormick is right in saying that the fiscal stimulus (some of which occurred under Trump) contributed to the inflation, he fails to give it any credit for the recovery.

Neither candidate seems to understand the central role of the Fed in ultimately curtailing the inflation. To her credit, Kamala Harris has pledged to maintain the independence of the Fed. Trump, to his discredit, has said he wants to play a role in monetary policy. Since McCormick is a Trump loyalist, I can only guess that he would cooperate in giving Trump greater control over Fed policy. Political involvement in monetary policy generally leads to greater inflation.

Fiscal Discipline

Fiscal discipline is a two-sided street. Casey, and the Democrats in general, seem to have an affection for unlimited government spending and tax cuts for the “middle class.” McCormick is right to call this out, but he, and Trump Republicans in general, seem to embrace similarly undisciplined policies. This includes a virtually limitless list of tax deductions including tip income, overtime income, retirement income, auto loan interest, and the state and local tax deduction (SALT). McCormick does depart from Trump in opposing lifting the SALT cap. Trump, and I have to assume McCormick, also favors lower corporate and personal income taxes. Trump does favor one tax increase, tariffs. Collectively, all of these proposals would massively increase the deficit and, in the case of the tariffs, significantly increase consumer prices and lower economic growth and employment. The right-leaning Tax Foundation estimates that the Trump tax plans will increase the national debt by about $4.7 trillion more than the Harris plan over 10 years. They actually credit the Harris proposals with lowering the national debt but at the expense of reduced economic growth, since the Harris plan is weighted toward higher corporate and personal income taxes. The Wharton/University of Pennsylvania model predicts that Trumps’ policies will increase the debt by $4 to $6 trillion over 10 years.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

There was a fairly incomprehensible section of the debate between Casey and McCormick in which they traded accusations about lying. There were also many references by Casey to McCormick living in Connecticut while running in Pennsylvania and running a hedge fund that invested in China and Russia. McCormick answered that those investments were a small part of the overall portfolio. Some people may care about all of this. I can’t say that I do, without a lot more detail about the specific investments.

The Filibuster Rule

Casey clearly favors abandoning the filibuster rule in the Senate. I think this is a bad idea, although I could see lowering the threshold to 55 rather than 60 senators. This kind of change has happened in the past. I would think this issue favors Republicans like McCormick except that Trump, who seems to have an iron grip on the party, also favors abandoning the filibuster rule. Sadly, I think that the rule will, eventually, be dropped no matter who controls the Senate.

Climate Change and Fracking

The Democratic Party wants to phase out fossil fuels. The right way to do that is to impose a carbon tax that reflects the negative impact of carbon emissions on the environment. Given the advantage that natural gas has over oil and coal in terms of carbon emissions, natural gas should remain a major source of energy supply for many more decades. The Democratic Party does not like that solution, so they want to create regulatory barriers to the use of fossil fuels and subsidize their preferred alternatives to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels. The Republican Party wants to deny that the problem of climate change exists.

In the last year or so, Democrats have recognized that political success and power runs through Pennsylvania. They have also discovered that fracking and natural gas production are important to Pennsylvanians. So now fracking and natural gas production are no longer bad.

I suppose that, on balance, I favor acknowledging the problem and trying to find a better solution. I think there is more chance of getting to that point by working with those who believe that there is an underlying issue, than with those who deny its existence. That said, shame on the Democrats for using pro-climate legislation to favor unionized labor, as they did in the “Inflation Reduction Act.” Is this an existential issue, as you insist, or not?

Foreign Policy and Defense Spending

I don’t think there is a lot of difference between these two candidates on Israel and Ukraine. The Democrats have published a live quote from McCormick saying he would have opposed the military aid package “as proposed.” I wish they would have also given the context for that quote. McCormick seems to favor a more robust defense budget. Sadly, it is hard to reconcile that point of view with support for Trump’s tax proposals. These are important issues but they don’t provide much basis for deciding between these two candidates.

The Endorsement

Bob Casey is a truly uninspiring politician. That said, if I were still living in Pennsylvania, I would hold my nose and vote for Casey.

Curtis Bashaw (R) vs. Andy Kim (D)

This is a different kind of contest. There was a telling point in the debate when they were asked to identify a member of the other party that they could have seen themselves voting for. Bashaw named Joe Manchin. Kim named Mitt Romney. It is no accident that both of these guys are retiring from the Senate.

The first debate in this race was made a bit more interesting because Bashaw appeared about to faint a few minutes into the debate. He says he had failed to eat enough that day. They took a short break and nothing much else was said about the event.

Curtis Bashaw

As we know, it takes a different kind of Republican to win in New Jersey. No Republican has been elected to the U.S. Senate from New Jersey in 50 years. Curtis Bashaw is a different kind of Republican. He is pro-choice to the point that he would buck his party to support national legislation to codify Roe v. Wade. However, he does oppose ending the filibuster, so the likelihood that he would have to honor that promise with a vote is slim. He sounds very Trumpian with respect to the border, but he opposes mass deportation and favors a path to citizenship for some. He supports strong background checks, the Affordable Care Act, a higher minimum wage, and, by-the-way, he is gay and married. Sadly, he has endorsed Donald Trump, although Trump endorsed someone else in the Republican primary. America First Republicans, a New Jersey MAGA group, has condemned Bashaw. So far the only Republican Senate candidate, that I know of, who has not endorsed Trump is Larry Hogan in Maryland, so it is hard to make that the sole criteria for opposing a candidate.

Andy Kim

Andy Kim is a pretty typical left of center Democrat, who was a member of the Progressive Caucus in the House, but he has managed to win in a congressional district that Trump won twice.

On Abortion

As noted above, Bashaw says he is pro-choice. He did favor the Dobbs decision. That is a defensible position, although not one I favored. He, also, apparently said that he opposes action at the federal level to restore these rights legislatively. He now says he would favor federal legislation, but he opposes abandoning the filibuster rule. All of this is defensible but, if you really care about women’s reproductive rights, Kim is your candidate.

On the Economy

Bashaw favors lower taxes and less regulation. Pretty typical stuff for a Republican. Both use the usual, irrelevant, talking points about inflation and the economy. I have yet to see a candidate who acknowledges that, absent a massive recession, we are unlikely to see prices return to the levels that prevailed pre-covid. The U.S. economy is actually doing fairly well given the challenge of the Covid pandemic. Certainly, we are the envy of the G10 in terms of economic growth and employment. I don’t understand why Democrats fail to note this. Partly, I guess it’s because the general public is mad as hell about higher prices and want some kind of miracle that will return price levels to pre-pandemic levels. Partly, I think the Democratic Party wants to use the issue to push other policy agendas like child care tax credits, and subsidies for health care and housing. These proposals may or may not have some merit, but they have nothing to do with combatting inflation. The key to combatting future inflation is the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. Harris has promised to defend this, Trump has said he wants a role in monetary policy. Bashaw has endorsed Trump.

On Foreign Policy

Both support Israel and Ukraine. Bashaw criticizes the Biden administration’s freeing of $6 billion of frozen Iranian assets, as part of a prisoner exchange, as enabling the funding of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. Putting party aside, I am not sure this issue favors either candidate.

To Endorse or Not?

I have passed on offering an endorsement in other races where neither candidate was acceptable. This case is different. There are things I like about both of these candidates. Kim seems like a serious person who has a depth of experience and knowledge that most congressmen lack. I particularly like his support for legislation that would limit the ability of members of Congress to invest in individual stocks.

Bashaw seems like a nice guy. He lacks the relevant experience, but his impulses seem well grounded. I think if he had rejected Donald Trump, like Larry Hogan in Maryland, I would endorse him.

I am going to take a pass on this race. Not because neither candidate is acceptable, but because they are both acceptable.

Angus King

Angus King is the incumbent independent Senator from Maine. He has been one of the more centrist Senators during his term in office. He, rightly, bemoans the departure from the Senate of some of his key allies in the center: Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin, and Mitt Romney. While King is probably the furthest left of this group, he is not wrong to include himself in the group.

The Opposition

King’s opposition includes a Democrat, a Republican, and another independent. The Democrat, David Costello, appears to be solidly to the left of King. The Republican Demi Kouzounas, appears to be solidly to the right. In fact, she appears to be a solidly Trumpian Republican, complete with a fondness for conspiracy theories. The independent, Jason Cherry, does not appear to have a coherent political philosophy.

My Endorsement

As I mentioned in previous blog posts, I am approaching these Senate races without regard for the outcome of the Presidential election. If I knew the outcome of the Presidential race with some degree of certainty, I would favor a Senate from the opposing party. Sadly, the Presidential election is way too close to call. So I am approaching each of these Senate races independently, looking for the most centrist available candidate to support. With that in mind, I find it easy to endorse Angus King in the race for the U.S. Senate seat from Maine.

Ted Cruz vs. Colin Allred

I just finished listening to the debate between Cruz and Allred for the U.S. Senate seat from Texas. Harvard Law (Cruz) is probably a better preparation for this kind of debate than the NFL (Allred), but Allred did a very credible job. Making sense of any of these debates requires doing a lot of reading between the lines and doing your own fact checking. My sense of the truth in this contest is that Cruz is a very right-wing Republican, who has caved to Donald Trump’s hold on the GOP. He is anti-abortion rights, so much so that he repeatedly refused to answer the question of whether he supported exceptions for rape and incest in anti-abortion legislation. This is not surprising given his earlier support for personhood for the unborn. Both candidates have voted for or opposed legislation that would make them appear to be very extreme. Unfortunately, legislative proposals, on both sides, are often performative setups. They are designed to force the other side to seem to take an unreasonable position based on distasteful elements included in the legislation. Here is my take on what both candidates would do in office.

Immigration

The Democratic Party, including Colin Allred, has been converted on immigration by recent experience. I believe that Allred will support the kind of immigration reform embodied in the bi-partisan legislation that Donald Trump killed, through people like Cruz. I believe that Cruz will do the same, once his party and Donald Trump can claim credit for it. I think Cruz will support Trump’s border wall, even in places where it makes no sense. I don’t think Cruz will oppose anything that Trump does in office. Sadly, I think this will include ill advised mass deportation programs and restrictions on legal immigration. I think this will hurt our agricultural, construction, hospitality, and home child and health care sectors. While additional immigrants may contribute to increased demand for housing, they also contribute significantly to America’s productive capacity in many areas, including housing. If Harris is President, I think Cruz can be relied upon to oppose whatever she supports, because he has Presidential ambitions that require that the issue of immigration remains a hot button issue.

Inflation

Irresponsible spending and irresponsible tax cuts are stimulative and in the absence of constraint by the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), they have been inflationary. The spurt in inflation that followed Covid had many causes but it was primarily due to loose monetary policy in the U.S. and other developed countries in the early days of the pandemic. The proposals offered by Allred and the Democrats generally are a mix of somewhat defensible public policies, like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and horrible policies, like price controls (labeled anti-price-gouging legislation). The key to avoiding a resurgence of inflation is preserving the independence of the Fed. Harris has promised to do this, Trump has said he wants a role in monetary policy. Political involvement in monetary policy generally leads to higher inflation. I doubt that Cruz has the political courage to oppose Trump on this issue or any other issue.

Foreign Affairs

Colin Allred is a supporter of U.S. aid to both Israel and Ukraine. Cruz is likely to be supportive of Israel under all circumstances, but is likely to oppose continued aid for Ukraine. He did vote against it. He is likely to adopt Trump’s America first views with respect to NATO and generally weaken America’s alliances.

Energy and the Environment

Allred and Cruz both say they favor an “all of the above” approach to energy production.

Allred and Cruz both objected to the ban on LNG exports, although in Allred’s case after having cast a vote against legislation that would have prevented the ban. Higher LNG exports are in the interest of Texas as well as the United States and Western Europe. Cruz has a rather bizarre view that limiting these exports hurts Texas agricultural interests. If anything, preventing LNG exports lowers domestic natural gas prices and the cost of fertilizer produced with natural gas.

On climate change, Allred seems to support the Democratic Party’s views. Cruz is a hard core climate change denier. I am fine with objecting to the targeted subsidy approach favored by Democrats on this issue. I am frustrated by Cruz’s and the Republican Party’s attempts to dismiss the problem rather than offer better proposals for dealing with it, like the carbon tax/tariff approach.

Political Courage and Bi-partisanship

I don’t really care if Ted Cruz hid in a closet during the January 6 attack on the capital. I don’t care if he flew to Cancun during the power outages in Texas. I do care that he appears to lack the necessary political courage to stand up to Trump. Allred made repeated references to his own bi-partisan reputation. Cruz claimed Allred almost always voted straight party line. Cruz claimed to have introduced a number of bills co-sponsored by Democrats. It is noteworthy that those bills were mostly about bipartisan pork, like highway construction, rather than politically controversial issues. The record clearly shows that Allred is a left of center politician but he is not in the same crowd as Warren or Sanders.

Cruz was instrumental in trying to overturn the 2020 election. He remains a defender of Trump’s false claims. Despite repeated insults to Cruz’s family, his wife, and to Cruz himself, Cruz continues to seek out Trump’s affection. The only explanation that comes to mind is blind political ambition.

Elimination of the Filibuster Rule

Cruz rightly points out that Allred would support Kamala Harris and vote to abandon the filibuster rule in the Senate. We view this as a serious mistake no matter what your political leanings are. Unfortunately, Trump also favors dumping the filibuster rule. Is there anyone who thinks that Cruz would stand up to Trump and defend the filibuster, if Trump leaned on him to vote against it?

The Endorsement

This is not a happy choice, but on balance I’d rather see Colin Allred in the Senate than Ted Cruz.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is unquestionably the most left-wing member of the U.S. Senate. It is, therefore, impossible for a centrist independent to endorse him. Having said that, his opposition is uniformly unappealing. Gerald Malloy, the Republican candidate, notes that Vermont has a long tradition of sending Republicans to the Senate. Sadly, that was a different Republican Party. Both Malloy and the other opposition candidates to Sanders voice either wishy-washy, or antagonistic, attitudes toward U.S. support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. Some of them voice concern about the federal deficit, but none of them offer concrete proposals for dealing with it. Malloy is a Trump supporter and has received and welcomed Trump’s endorsement.

As much as I dislike doing this, I am going to have to remain on the sidelines with respect to the U.S. Senate race in Vermont.

My Criteria for Endorsing Candidates for U.S. Senate

Endorsements expressed in this blog are my own. If I persuade the Board of Governors to support these endorsements, they will become the official CIVPAC endorsement and will appear in the Candidate’s section of this website. If a majority of the Board of Governors choose to go with someone else, that endorsement will become the official endorsement and will appear in the Candidate’s Section of this website.

On the whole, I would prefer the Senate to be controlled by the party that does not control the White House. Unfortunately, this Presidential race is so close that I have no idea which party will control the executive branch. Given that uncertainty, I am inclined to treat each Senate match-up on its own merits.

Elizabeth Warren (D) vs. John Deaton (R)

Elizabeth Warren is one of my least favorite Senators and probably my least favorite Democratic Senator. (Please note that Bernie Sanders is an independent, since the Democratic Party is not far enough left for him.) She is a “soak the rich” populist who favors impractical and unconstitutional wealth taxes. She also favors price controls, as illustrated in her sponsoring so called “anti-price-gouging” legislation. Numerous Democratic leaning economists have pointed out how ineffective and counterproductive price controls are. She even appears to have influenced Kamala Harris’ decision to endorse “anti-price-gouging” legislation. She was instrumental in setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Commission, including its extra-legislative funding, which I view as unconstitutional. A key target of this Commission has been so-called “pay day lenders.” Restricting the availability of what she views as predatory financing denies many people, with no other options, their last hope in desperate circumstances.

The Republican Candidate for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts is John Deaton. To his credit, he defeated a Trump-backed candidate in the primary. He also describes himself as a centrist Republican. Unfortunately, he has an affinity for promoting cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is possibly the only regulatory issue on which I support Warren’s concerns.

The Endorsement

Despite my reservations on the cryptocurrency issue, I personally endorse Deaton because Warren is problematic on so many issues.

Ruben Gallego vs. Kari Lake

I have been trying to listen to all of the debates for the U.S. Senate. Mostly they have been fairly civil affairs. This debate is an exception. Kari Lake is the reason. She speaks over her opponent. She speaks when it is not her turn. She speaks beyond her time limits and generally pays no attention to the agreed upon rules. Given her continued disrespect for the voting process in the 2020 election and her own failed bid for Governor of Arizona in 2022, her disrespect for the debating rules should be no surprise.

Immigration

To hear Kari Lake speak, you would think there is only one issue in this election: immigration. If the question is inflation or the economy, the answer is building the wall. If the issue is housing, the answer is deporting illegal immigrants. Although it is not clear that she draws a distinction here between legal and illegal immigrants, since they both consume housing. If the issue is abortion, the answer is, bizarrely, protecting women from illegal immigrants. It is clear why she opposed the bi-partisan bill to do something about illegal immigration. Without this issue she has nothing.

Whatever Ruben Gallego may have said on the issue of immigration in the past, he seems to favor strong border protection now. This includes building a wall where those guarding the border think it will be helpful.

Foreign Policy

On foreign policy Kari Lake will certainly abandon support for Ukraine, thereby inviting further aggression by Putin. She seems to think it impossible for a smaller country to defeat a larger one, despite the evidence from Vietnam and Afghanistan. She also appears to have slept through history class when the lessons of the dangers of appeasement prior to WWII were discussed. She will support Israel, but so will Gallego.

The Filibuster Rule

I have to say that Ruben Gallego’s willingness to end the filibuster rule to legislatively codify Roe v. Wade disturbs me. That said, Trump has said he favors abandoning the filibuster rule and it is hard to imagine Lake opposing anything Trump wants. Sadly, I think the filibuster rule does not have a long life expectancy, no matter who controls the Senate.

Abortion

Democrats have over reached on this issue in the past. But Gallego’s current position and that of the Democratic Party, i.e. legislatively re-establishing the rights under Roe v. Wade on a national level, is appealing. It is certainly more appealing to me than a mix of state legislation, including some draconian laws that essentially ban abortion under all circumstances and attempt to limit the ability to travel to receive an abortion. Kari Lake seems to think that defending the rights of some states to ban abortion is a more important defense of liberty than placing the issue in the hands of individual women. This is an odd notion of liberty that reminds me of the Confederacy claiming that they seceded from the union to defend freedom.

The Endorsement

Ruben Gallego is no centrist but Kari Lake is beyond the pale. I, therefore, endorse Gallego for the U.S. Senate from Arizona.