President Donald Trump has many times suggested that people should move from Upstate New York to places where there are more jobs. In his quote to the Wall Street Journal about two years ago:
“You’re going to need people to work in these massive plants,” Trump told the newspaper. “I’m going to start explaining to people: When you have an area that just isn’t working like upper New York state, where people are getting very badly hurt, and then you’ll have another area 500 miles away where you can’t get people, I’m going to explain, you can leave. It’s OK. Don’t worry about your house.”
This is pretty solid economic advice – people should consider moving to places where there are better jobs – so they have more choices in employment, more possibilities to make more money.
But I’m sure the President is aware there is more to relocating than just selling your home, renting a trailer to tow behind your pickup and moving to a different part of the country. It’s hard to leave your family and friends to move from your hometown to a place where there are more jobs.
Moreover, nowhere are sustainable, long term jobs popping up in the rural countryside or small towns, all of the action in American capitalism is happening in the big cities and metropolitan regions. Like New York City or Los Angeles. You can’t expect to move from rural or small town New York to somewhere in the south or Midwest and instantly have a better life. Part of the price of living in farm country or the mountains is lower wages and less economic opportunities.
Simply said automation and mechanization has eliminated a great deal of rural and small town jobs. Almost all Americans economic activity occurs in large Metropolitan Areas and their suburbs. Most rural areas and small cities are almost entirely dependent on government jobs and welfare, such as school teachers, highway workers, and social security payments even if the legacy industries like agriculture and manufacturing which employee few are highlighted by the politicians. While living in the country is cheaper – you can meet your basic needs more on farm or on the homestead, you still are giving up economic gain by not moving to a big city.
Now to be sure there are political reasons to consider moving to another state – gun laws, restrictions on fireworks, open burning, or cannabis – for example. Rural freedom is better in red states for sure, where the government is closer in sync with the needs of farm families and other rural residents. Or you just want to pay less in taxes in exchange for less services. Rural states lack the costly infrastructure and legacy needs of big states Those are valid reasons for going red state for country living. But not necessarily alone in the search for a better job when most of America outside of metropolitan areas is struggling.
The conventional wisdom of the day says, never say anything good about President Donald Trump. He’s a man from the other political party, he must be wrong at all time. But I disagree. I think when he does good things, you should say good things about the President. Maybe he’s not perfect, and maybe there are better alternatives for 2020, but when he does good I think you should be positive towards him to the extent he’s doing good.
Most of the waste, fraud and abuse found by DOGE is simply things that current administration does not support or is contracts already expired or soon to be expired.
Truth is most things government does is legitimate, at least to the constituencies it benefits. People elect representatives to bring home the bacon, they want their communities and interests to be supported by their tax dollars. That only makes sense.
Does that mean the tax cuts should go away? No, not necessarily. We pay a lot in taxes and we should have a discussion about the scope and size of government. The defense and police establishment seems particularly bloated, having expanded enormously since the 1990s. We would do better if we reduced the number of laws needing enforcing, and help law enforcement find jobs in the private sector.
The government can tax less and provide less unnecessary enforcement.
I never liked Trump as I didn’t think he was a serious candidate for president or even a serious president. He’s not somebody I think is willing to listen to facts or even understand complicated nuisanced issues. Most politicians like to toot their horns and be obnoxious ideologues by throwing red meat to their base, but I never got the impression that Trump goes any deeper than that.
I never got rallying around the flag or the support our police and military movement. Government workers have jobs and we expect them to do it competently for pay. It’s what I do too. But I don’t expect any parades in my honor. Government workers get paid, and many have unions and if they are concerned about low pay or unsafe working conditions – the solution shouldn’t be parades or medals given out – but better pay, benefits and working conditions. Government workers aren’t virtuous but they deserve fair working conditions.
Indeed, I’m deeply cynical about the government. I don’t think the government is out there to help but instead is motivated by a complex web of personal ambitions. Every government program after all is motivated by a desire of politicians to get reelected or a government employee to get a promotion and make more money. So if anything I’m a libertarian – regulate the corporations and big businesses but leave the little guy alone.
In a newly unsealed court filing, special counsel Jack Smith provides the most detailed picture yet of his criminal case against Donald Trump for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election and why the former president isn't immune from prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, released the filing, with minor redactions, on Wednesday.
The special counsel uses the 165-page document to make his case that Trump's actions around the election were made in a private capacity and not in his official role as president.
The filing comes after the Supreme Court ruled this summer that presidents enjoy broad immunity for official acts while in office, but not for unofficial acts as a candidate or a private citizen.
2024 will be an election year. So will 2026 and 2028. Either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will win in 2024 most likely, and either the Democrats or Republicans will control the US House and Senate. An election will determine that this year, and another election will determine that in 2026 and 2028. Both Biden and Trump are term limited in 2028, and even if they somehow could get away with ignoring the constitution, their advance age will send them packing not long beyond that.
Do I have faith in the politicians to not try to tweak the rules so their favored party wins extraordinarily close election? Of course, not. I’ve been around Albany along enough to not be that stupid. But extraordinarily close elections are as much a coin toss as anything else. Storm clouds, a car with a dead battery, a phone call to one’s niece can often determine close elections. Or a clever intrepration of election law, or how the existing law puts a finger on the scale on who wins the election. Really when the election is that close, it doesn’t matter who ends up winning, because essentially the winning candidate reflects either majority sentiment or close to majority sentiment. The next go-around, things might be different.
While in a pure discussion of fairness, you can say a candidate who has 48% popular support winning over the candidate 52% popular support is anti-Democratic. But regardless of who is chosen, virtually the same the number of people will have backed the winner and loser. It’s a rounding error. If the 52% view can’t win under the enacted rules, then they’ll just have to win over a few more supporters, so they get 54% or maybe 56% so they win the election. And then they can play around with the rules, to tilt the election rules more in their favor.
