Open Senate Seat in Maryland

Larry Hogan

Larry Hogan is the popular, former, two-term, Republican governor of Maryland, a deeply blue state. He was the co-chair of No Labels, a centrist political organization. No Labels tried to recruit him as a centrist alternative to a Trump-Biden rematch. Hogan turned down that option because he did not want to be a spoiler and aid Donald Trump in the process. He has been a vocal critic of Trump. He rejected Trump’s endorsement saying he did not seek it and did not want it. He is pro-choice and has vowed to introduce national legislation to re-establish the rights under Roe v. Wade. He opposes packing the court and ending the filibuster rule. He supports aid for Israel and Ukraine and supports America’s role in NATO. If I did not endorse Larry Hogan, it is hard to imagine a Republican that I would endorse.

Angela Alsobrooks

Even given all of the above, I could be persuaded to stand on the sidelines in this race if the Democratic candidate were a centrist Democrat. Angela Alsobrooks is not a bad candidate, but she is a hardline Democrat. Even Larry Hogan says he likes and respects her. Her objections to Hogan appear to be almost entirely that he is a Republican. At one level this argument is effective, because a Republican Senate means that powerful committee chairmanships will go to Senators that neither Alsobrooks nor I want to see hold that power. However, she has pledged to be a reliable vote for Kamala Harris on the filibuster and packing the court. When asked if there was anything in the Democratic platform that she disagreed with, she reiterated her support for it and mentioned that she had managed to move the new FBI headquarters from Virginia to Maryland, winning out despite appeals from the two Democratic Senators from Virginia. (I don’t think that was responsive.)

As an aside, there is a charge that Alsobrooks has claimed homeowner tax credits and exemptions as an elderly, low income, primary resident when she was none of the foregoing. She claims that this was an error that she is rectifying, and even Larry Hogan seems to accept this explanation.

The Endorsement

I endorse Larry Hogan for the U.S. Senate from Maryland. I only wish that there were a half dozen more Republicans like him that I could endorse. At this point the polls suggest that he is likely to lose, although by a far smaller percentage than Donald Trump in Maryland. I think Hogan could have won this race if he had run as an independent, pledging to caucus with whichever party agreed to retain the filibuster, leave the Supreme Court alone, and legislatively enact the protections of Roe v. Wade.

Amy Klobuchar vs. Royce White

As Democrats go, I like Amy Klobuchar. She positions herself as a moderate Democrat and, considering the rest of the party, she is a moderate. Despite preferring her to most of the rest of the field in the 2019 primaries based on her policy positions, I did not think she was a viable Presidential candidate. Sadly, she sounds unsure in debate.

She is very popular in Minnesota and the Republican Party had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find someone to run against her. Royce White is a former professional basketball player who embraces a variety of populist positions and conspiracy theories. His principle appeal to some voters appears to be his MAGA connections. Klobuchar appears to be a near certain winner in this race. I have not been able to find a televised debate between them. Here is an account of a debate between them at a local Minnesota event. He comes across as strange. She is very focused on farm exports, which should make her very antagonistic to Trump’s tariff plans.

The Endorsement

This is not a hard call. I endorse Amy Klobuchar in 2024 for the U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota.

Tim Kaine vs. Hung Cao

I liked Tim Kaine a lot more before he became Hillary Clinton’s V.P. candidate. Virginia is a politically moderate state and Tim Kaine reflected that. It seemed to me that once he became the V.P. candidate, he tacked to the left to appeal to the base of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, as Democrats go, he is something of a moderate, center-left candidate. His opponent Hung Cao, has hard right views that are consistent with those of his most significant endorsement, Donald Trump. It is actually hard to distill Cao’s positions from listening to his debate performance. His military service and education are to his credit, but it did not prepare him for politics or public policy debate. In general, he simply ignores the question and gives a rambling discussion of a related or unrelated issue. Kaine is obviously better at this and at least gives the appearance of answering the question.

Immigration

Cao, like many Republican candidates in this cycle, tends to blame most public policy problems on illegal immigration. One wonders what these candidates would say if Trump had not intervened to prevent the passage of the bi-partisan immigration act. Yes, he is right that the Biden administration waited too long to do something, but he appears to endorse mass deportation, which would be harmful to the economy. I am not sure whether Cao, like many of his Republican peers, blames immigrants for high housing costs. It would be ironic if he did, since he is a refugee himself. He and his family are taking up housing that could add to the supply for native born Americans. Does he find fault in this? He does say that immigrants should wait in line for citizenship. I am guessing he, at least, would draw a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, but many in his party don’t. I wonder how he feels about JD Vance’s view that those who have not grown up here with generational roots in the community can never be fully American.

Inflation, the Economy, Energy and Climate Change

Every country in the G10, America’s economic peers, experienced the negative impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Some experienced slightly lower inflation at the cost of significantly lower economic growth and employment. I would never claim that all of the stimulus programs supported during this era were ideal, but the decision to engage in fiscal stimulus, under the circumstances, is certainly defensible. I suspect the rest of the G10 now envy our growth and employment record.

Kaine supports the Biden administration’s policies and argues that bringing down prescription drug prices, attacking “price-gouging,” and subsidizing rent and housing purchases are the answers to higher costs. Allowing Medicare to negotiate over drug prices might be good policy in its own right, but it has little to do with the overall economic issue. Anti-price gouging legislation and subsidies for rent and new house purchases are counter-productive. In this regard, Kaine notes that the Republican Governor of Virginia has also threatened the use of state level “anti-price gouging” legislation. This helps explain why I, and so many other Americans, are independents.

It did not come up in the debate, but Hung Cao appears to believe that climate change is a hoax.

Cao, seems to think that energy independence is the best solution for the American economy. Kaine touts the Biden administration’s record and making America energy independent. All of this is nonsense on both sides. Neither side scores any points with me on this issue.

Abortion

Kaine supports codifying Roe v. Wade legislatively at the national level and also supports some restrictions on abortion like those that apply in Virginia. I think national legislation to codify Roe v. Wade is a good idea. Unfortunately, it is not likely to be accomplished without abandoning the filibuster rule in the Senate, which I view as a mistake. If this legislation is passed, it will likely face a challenge on constitutional grounds. That is a complicated question, but I am sure that there are constitutionally defensible actions that Congress can take to protect reproductive rights.

Cao has advocated for personhood rights from the point of conception. As Kaine points out, it is hard to reconcile this with Cao’s current position on IVF or any reasonable position on reproductive right in general.

The 2020 Election and Jan 6th

Hung Cao has been evasive on the outcome of the 2020 election but has voiced support for the Jan 6th protestors, suggesting that they should be compensated.

The Endorsement

This is not a difficult decision. Kaine is a moderate Democrat, who I think would be even more moderate if his party would let him. Cao is a strange choice for the party. His only other notable endorsement, besides Donald Trump, came from Oliver North, notable for many things, including being head of the NRA. Surely, the Republican Party can do better than this.

I endorse Tim Kaine for re-election to the U.S. Senate from Virginia.

.

Process of Evaluating the Candidates for the U.S. Senate in 2024

It seems likely that the Senate will flip from being narrowly controlled by to the Democrats (51-49, including the independents who caucus with the Democrats) to a narrow Republican majority after the 2024 elections. Manchin’s (Democrat turned Independent) retirement in deep red West Virginia pretty much guaranteed at least one more seat for the Republicans. Other factors make it even more likely. Most of the U.S. Senate seats that are up for election this year in swing states are currently held by Democrats. Most of the Republican seats that are up for election are in safe states.

Control of the Senate will probably be decided in a couple of key races including Montana and Ohio. Both of these states have incumbent Democratic Senators, Tester and Brown, respectively. Both are running in solidly red states and Tester is behind in the polls and Brown is slightly ahead.

Tester vs. Sheehy

If Trump wins, I would very much like to see a Democratic Senate. If Harris wins, I would like to see a Republican Senate. The Presidential race appears as close to a toss up as one could imagine, so I will put the issue of balancing the President aside in thinking about my preferred victors in the Senate.

I prefer Tester to his Republican opponent mostly on the basis of foreign policy and abortion rights. Tester is a supporter of continued aid to Ukraine; his opponent Sheehy is not. Sheehy comes across as an America first isolationist. He seems to hold the bizarre view that a well funded military that sits on the sidelines, wishing our allies well but doing nothing, is a recipe for global peace and American security. I think he must have been dozing during history class when they discussed the causes of WWII. On abortion rights, Tester wants to legislatively re-establish the right of a woman to an abortion before fetal viability. Sheehy wants to tar Tester with the more extreme views of some Democrats on this issue.

I listened to a debate between these two and I have to say they were remarkably civil to one another. One thing does stand out. Tester is on the centrist wing of the Democratic Party. He cites rankings that list him as one of the most bi-partisan Senators. Sheehy is a fairly typical Trump era Republican. On balance, I personally prefer to keep Tester in the Senate.

Sherrod Brown vs. Bernie Moreno

On two issues, I strongly favor Brown over Moreno; support for Ukraine and abortion rights. Their positions on these issues are clear and polar opposite. Brown supports abortion rights and aid to Ukraine. Moreno opposes both.

On other issues, I’m not so sure. Brown has been an ardent supporter of organized labor. He gets a 100% lifetime score from the AFL-CIO. He ranks nearly as far left as it is possible to rank on economic issues, on the ontheissues.org graphic of the political spectrum. Moreno appears to be almost as staunchly conservative, with a whiff of populist.

I decided to leave this race alone if Moreno was at least silent on Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. When I looked it up, I found this. So I think I will hold my nose and personally endorse Sherrod Brown. I will not even propose to our Board of Governors that CIVPAC officially endorse him.

The Process: The Lesser of Two Evils

Our Board of Governors struggled with whether or not to endorse a candidate for President this year. There was no support for endorsing Donald Trump. I think, we might well have endorsed Nikki Haley, if she had been the candidate. A few insisted at first that we endorse no one. Everyone agreed that Harris is too far left for an enthusiastic endorsement from a centrist group. In the end, we decided to endorse Harris, while giving voice to our reservations about her left- wing record and impulses.

Her rhetoric, at least, has become more centrist. We understand that candidates will adjust their policy positions based on the constituency they hope to represent and that California is further left than America is as a whole. Her positions on foreign policy and respect for the independence of the Federal Reserve Board are consistent with our own. We disagree strongly with her positions on price controls and redistribution. For a review of the policy comparisons you can read some of the prior posts in this blog or go to the official CIVPAC endorsement for a more wide ranging comparison of Harris vs.Trump.

If Harris wins she is very likely to have to deal with a Republican Senate, which should force her administration to govern more from the center than she, or her party, might prefer. She appears to be sane and competent. We hope that she will recognize that victory in this election is no mandate to govern from the left.

Centrist Independent View on Immigration

The Centrist Independent Voter supports immigration reform with a preference for a more merit based system, greater emphasis on border security, expanded immigration courts to permit rapid adjudication of asylum claims, a method for screening asylum claims that does not leave the system open to abuse, a significant increase in the number of legal immigrants admitted to the U.S., and a path to legal residence (not citizenship) for those who are currently here illegally but have no other criminal record and who are willing to pay a fine of some sort for having entered illegally. For details see our policy proposal on immigration.

A Merit Based System

By a merit based system, we do not mean that we would restrict immigration to an elite group. Rather we would admit immigrants based on the economic value that they contribute to our society. This might include increasing the number of immigrants with advanced degrees in the sciences, but it also might mean an increase in the number of immigrants who would be joining the agricultural labor force. It would not necessarily mean a reduction in the number of immigrants admitted based on family connections, but it would mean that the increase in legal immigration would be based on adding value to the U.S. labor force.

Why Not a Path to Citizenship

There is a belief on the part of Republicans that Democrats favor immigration as a method for tilting political demographics in favor of the Democratic Party. The best way to dispel this concern is to limit any path to legal status for illegal immigrants to legal residency without citizenship.

Kamala Harris on Immigration

Harris has committed herself to the bi-partisan legislation crafted earlier this year in the Senate. She also supports creating a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. She supports expanded border security, but she opposes a border wall.

The bi-partisan legislation that Harris supports is, to my mind a good step. Unfortunately, it should have been proposed earlier, when it would not be seen as an attempt to diffuse a potent political issue. Having said that, the legislation that the House Republicans demanded was not a serious attempt at compromise.

Donald Trump on Immigration

Donald Trump seems to view immigration, both legal and illegal, as a threat to American culture, national security, and the economy. He makes outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about the impact of illegal immigration on crime. (In this regard, it is important to note that the plural of anecdote is not data.)

JD Vance went out of his way in his acceptance speech to note that he rejects the notion that America is an idea. He emphasized that America is also a shared common history and shared community. This view makes it pretty much impossible for immigrants to be viewed as fully American. I think that was his point.

Trump supports a massive deportation of illegal immigrants that would be harmful to the American economy, particularly the agricultural sector and residential construction.

A Centrist Independent View

We need to control the border. We need to reform the asylum system so that it cannot be easily gamed. Because of the huge backlog of asylum claims (cases can take many years to resolve), people seeking economic opportunity can easily make the decision that a weak claim to asylum at least gets them into the country and gives them a number of years to enjoy the benefits of living here. So why not come? If claims could be resolved in a matter of months rather than years, the incentive to make the dangerous journey would be dramatically reduced. The bi-partisan bill at least attempted to address this core issue. The Republicans have not suggested a reasonable compromise that would make a Centrist Independent Voter think that they take the issue seriously. Closing the border is not a reasonable compromise and would not be in America’s self interest.

On this issue, I would give a very weak nod in Harris’ direction. Not to the 2019 Kamala Harris, but to the 2024 Kamala Harris.

The Issue

The Centrist Independent Voter does not have a policy position on governmental support for child care. A case can be made that universal day care might have some advantages in preparing children from low income families for school. A case can also be made that the child care tax credit provides similar benefits either by permitting a couple or single parent to better afford paid child care or by allowing one member of a couple to stay home with the children because the primary earners income is augmented by the tax credit.

Kamala Harris on Child Care

Harris has been an ardent proponent of subsidized paid family leave and universal day care. She also supports an expanded child care tax credit. These are not necessarily bad public policies. The issue is how to pay for them. Harris seems to be a proponent of the cornucopia school of public policy in which a litany of nice-to-have public subsidies can be paid for by taxing the rich and corporations. The problem is that there are not enough truly rich people to fund the laundry list of programs that Democrats support. Taxing corporations to fund these programs ignores the fact that the shareholders of these corporations are often the same middle-class people that the Democrats say they care about. Higher corporate taxes can also lead to slower growth, fewer jobs, and higher prices. None of which benefit the middle class.

Donald Trump on Child Care

When Donald Trump was asked this question he responded with a classic Trumpian word salad. I will “sane-wash” his response and say that he has his own version of cornucopian economics. In his version, dramatically higher tariffs will provide so much funding that generous child care tax credits will be easy to fund. (There is every reason to believe that Trump’s tariffs will result in lower growth and less government revenue rather than more.)

JD Vance gave a somewhat more coherent response on the question when he came down on the side of tax credits as opposed to subsidized child care. His response is in line with his support for more traditional family structures with two parents, one of whom works outside the home and the other takes care of the children. Vance is, to the best of my knowledge, silent on how these tax credits would be paid for.

The Bottom Line

Neither side in this discussion provides a credible basis for funding their efforts to help families with children. In terms of the manner in which the help is provided, I think I have a preference for the tax credit approach. Putting together Trump’s word salad and JD Vance’s response I am guessing this is where they come down. But that is a form of very aggressive “sane-washing.”

The Issue

The Centrist Independent Voter supports the Supreme Court’s Heller decision that defined the constitutional right to bear arms to include the right of individuals to have guns. We also support that decision’s caveat that this does not preclude the government, at all levels, from restricting the right to own and carry weapons of some kinds, in some circumstances. For more detail, visit our Policy Position on Gun Control.

Kamala Harris on Gun Control

Kamala Harris was instrumental in pushing the bi-partisan gun safety legislation that the Biden Administration managed to get through Congress. Harris’ selection of Tim Walz as her running mate was, no doubt intended to signal her support for gun control of the kind Walz created in Minnesota, when he was Governor with a Democratic legislature.

So where does Walz stand on gun control: He supports universal background checks; opposes conceal and carry legislation; supports restrictions on gun silencers; supports increased funding for mental health services; supports additional restrictions, such as red flag laws, to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people; and supports an assault weapons ban.

I don’t think any of this is a violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It is possible to object to the assault weapons ban as too ambiguous, but I don’t think it is unenforceable. We had one before and I see no harm in trying to bring it back, to see if that helps.

Donald Trump on Gun Control

Trump, while generally supportive of the NRA, has a mixed history on gun control. He has, for example, supported red flag laws. He vows to protect gun rights and help repeal the Biden era gun safety legislation.

The Bottom Line

If you are a hardline gun rights’ voter, Trump is, possibly, your man. If you support the right of individuals to own guns but approve of legislation to increase gun safety, as CIVPAC does, then Harris is your candidate.

The Abortion Issue

The Centrist Independent Voter favors institutionalizing Roe v Wade legislatively at the federal level. For details see our Policy Position on Abortion. That position would leave state governments able to restrict abortion during the third trimester, if they chose to do so.

Kamala Harris on Abortion Rights

Kamala Harris supports the position of the Democratic Party that neither the federal nor the state governments should restrict a woman’s right to an abortion at any time. I am sure that she would sign legislation that embodied the Centrist Independent Voter’s position on this issue because it is probably the best that she could get out of Congress, even a fully Democratic Congress. I am also reasonably certain that she would use whatever authority she had as President to protect abortion rights and reproductive rights in general.

Donald Trump on Abortion and Reproductive Rights

Pinning Donald Trump down on abortion rights is like fishing with your bare hands. Early in his career he was pro-choice. He veered pro-life to get the evangelicals when he ran for President. He did what they wanted and appointed three conservative justices to the Supreme Court who overturned Roe v. Wade. He brags about having done that. Nevertheless, Trump now wishes the issue would go away because he knows it might hurt him. He has suggested he might veto a national ban on abortion, but he refused to answer that question during the debate with Harris. He has said the issue is in the hands of the states now. The problem with this answer is that there are national issues, even if one accepts that the core issue is in the hands of the states. For example, should states be allowed to criminalize crossing state borders or helping people cross state borders to obtain abortions. Should chemical abortions prescribed by out of state doctors and delivered by out of state pharmacies be available in all states? Hard right Republicans have pushed into the arena of IVF and contraception. That too begs for a national approach. Trump has said he opposes restriction on IVF, but he also says these issues should also be left up to the states. Trump opened a Pandora’s Box of problems with his Supreme Court appointments and now he would like to just wish them away.

The Bottom Line

I don’t think Trump really cares about this issue. I am pretty certain that Harris does care. I think that Trump would be willing to use this issue as a bargaining chip in pursuit of his other objectives. So for those who care deeply about protecting abortion and reproductive rights, I think the safer bet would be Kamala Harris. For those who would like to use the Presidency to promote greater restrictions on abortion rights, your guess is as good as mine about what Trump would really do. I don’t think he wants us to know.

The Issue

The Centrist Independent Voter’s position on climate change is that the problem is real and global. Solutions that ignore the global aspect of the problem may well do more harm than good. We favor a carbon tax of $100-$200/ton on U.S. carbon emissions pared with a comparable tariff on goods imported from countries that do not impose a similar carbon tax on their own production. For more details, see our Policy Position on Climate Change.

Kamala Harris on Climate Change

Harris supports the Biden Administration’s position on climate change. That position is reflected in the inappropriately named “Inflation Reduction Act.” Briefly, they hope to achieve major reductions in U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by promoting electric vehicles and electric power generation from solar and wind power. They also hope to limit greenhouse gas emissions through regulations. They appear to hope that voluntary agreements like the Paris Climate Accords can induce other countries to follow a similar path.

Despite a widespread consensus among economists that a tax and tariff approach would be superior, Democrats oppose this approach. Their opposition may stem from a belief that the political will is not there and that the subsidize and regulate approach is a good second best. I am inclined to believe that they also dislike the distributive effects of the tax and tariff approach in which everyone pays for the solution to the problem in proportion to their contribution to the problem. I believe that the Democrats believe that by using subsidies they transfer the cost of solving the problem onto Federal taxpayers, who are disproportionately the “rich.” They may also favor the regulatory approach because the costs are hidden from the consumer and Democrats may avoid paying a political price.

Kamala Harris was on record that she would ban fracking, which dramatically increases oil and gas production in the U.S. She now claims that she no longer opposes fracking because she believes the U.S. can achieve its carbon reduction goals without banning fracking.

Donald Trump on Climate Change

Trump asserts that climate change is a hoax. He believes that subsidizing electric vehicles and solar and wind power is a waste of money and that regulations on fossil fuels impose higher costs on U.S. consumers for no good purpose. If he were right that climate change is a hoax, he would be right that these subsidies and regulations are harmful. Unfortunately, he is wrong. There are sound arguments for opposing the Biden/Harris approach to climate change, but Trump is not making them.

The Bottom Line

It is possible that the Biden/Harris approach to climate change might work. If by subsidizing electric vehicles and solar and wind power, these technologies will achieve sufficient economies of scale that they will actually be cheaper than the cost of internal combustion engines and power from fossil fuels. It is also possible that subsidized R&D in these areas will create technologies that are so cheap that the rest of the world will adopt them without the need for incentives. This is not the best approach to confronting climate change, but it is not impossible that it will be successful. Unfortunately, these new technologies need to be cheaper than the marginal cost of existing technologies. For example, it is not sufficient that power from solar be less expensive than a new coal fired power plant; to be really effective power from solar must be less expensive than the cost of power from an already existing coal fired power plant. Power from coal will only be rapidly abandoned if this higher standard is met.

Part of the problem with the Biden/Harris approach is that they have other objectives that they are trying to promote with climate change legislation and regulation, e.g. promotion of union labor, protection of domestic firms, and racial equity. If they really believed that climate change was an “existential” issue, they would probably be a lot more flexible.

Taking all of that into account, it is nevertheless true that the Biden/Harris approach is a serious, if flawed, approach to a real problem. Trump’s approach is not serious. For that reason, I give a slight nod on this issue to Kamala Harris.