I’m still stewing about voting on Tuesday. The ballot is a real chamber of horrors.

I’ll vote against Amendment 1. I’ll probably vote in favor of the tax increase for the Cook County Forest Preserve. Fun fact about Illinois: Illinois has more independently taxing jurisdictions than any other state. The forest preserve is one of those independent taxing authorities.

I’ll probably leave my vote for governor blank. In all honesty I can’t justify voting for either nudnik. Darren Bailey is a dolt and JB Pritzker is wrong about just about everything. Much of the ballot is like that.

I’ll vote for re-electing my state representative. I think my state senator is running unopposed. I won’t vote for him in any event—he voted in favor of the SAFE-T Act. I think we should eliminate cash bail for a lot of offenses but not the entire list in the present bill and in particular not for violent crimes.

Some interesting observations from Charlie Cook:

It has long been my view that the final races rated as Toss Ups rarely split down the middle, they break in the direction of the last gust of wind occurring in the days before Election Day (or in more recent years with so many ballots cast early, election weeks) but that does not explain the streaky nature of this races, why the last four elections would behave differently from the previous four elections.

Given how Toss Ups have broken in the last four elections, coupled with polling continually understating Republican support, it is little wonder why Democrats are so anxious right now. For much of the last two years, this election was behaving as we have come to expect midterm elections, as a straight-up referendum on the incumbent president and governing party. In August and September however, after the Supreme Court reversed the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision, and after gas prices dropped from over $5 a gallon to under $4, it seemed to be more of a choice election. But over the last three weeks, it seems to have returned to the more conventional referendum dynamic.

How this election finishes is thus an open question. When does the curtain fall on this opera? The House, where individual races and candidates matter less and the behavior is more parliamentary, the outcome is very likely to be quite bad for Democrats. My personal hunch is Democrats suffer net losses of at least 20 seats, but in the Senate, the difference between either party picking up or losing a seat or two could easily be minimal. In the upper chamber, the party that wins three of the following four contests will be in the driver’s seat: the Democratic-held seats in Georgia and Nevada, and the two Republican open seats in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

This post will be a bit of a jumble since I’m trying to accomplish several different things in it. I’m starting out by, as they say on Jeopardy, putting it in the form of a question: did the Biden Administration cause inflation deliberately? That’s what Daniel Turner says at RealClearEnergy:

Toomey outlines the numerous times Biden promised to “get rid of” the fossil fuel industry. Biden announced executive orders on his first day in office cancelling the Keystone pipeline and ending oil and gas leases on federal land. As the title of Toomey’s report suggests: energy inflation was by design.

For two years, I’ve discussed this issue on television and radio programs and asked the same question: How did the Biden administration not know what the consequences would be of such policies? Toomey answers the question: they did know. They desired these results.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. I think that events developed much more rapidly than they expected and that the real problem is actually worse.

Josh Billings put it quite well: it ain’t what you don’t know that will hurt you but what you do know that just ain’t so. Everything in Joe Biden’s lengthy career tells him that government spending is economic stimulus. That’s only true when there’s excess capacity as any good Keynesian would tell you. Otherwise it produces inflation: too much demand chasing too little supply.

They also think that climate change is a crisis or, at least, they want their supporters to think they believe that. I think it’s a risk rather than a crisis. That has implications for strategy and timing. Astonishingly, they don’t seem to relate the policies they’ve put in place with what has actually happened. I suspect from that they believe that the private sector responds instantly to new incentives regardless of what has happened before. That, too, just ain’t so. Investors need a reasonable expectation of return over the life of the investment. If that’s the way you define “corporate greed”, then Bernie Sanders is right—corporate greed is producing higher prices. But it’s only true if you define corporate greed as the inexplicable desire to make money on your investments.

You can’t even produce an instant response with government action anymore. There’s a year or so of planning and hearings followed by a lengthy and involved process during which the contracts are let. By the time any action has taken place a new administration is in office.

All of that presents a pretty gloomy outlook. Will a Republican Congress be able to curb inflation? I don’t believe so. Even with their best efforts it can only be accomplished by reducing demand and/or increasing supply while reducing spending. The spending reduction part is a necessity so that the Fed’s interest rate jiggering will work.

I have no idea what Kevin McCarthy’s priorities are but I suspect they are more minarchist than will produce any of those outcomes in the near term. We’ll see.

It’s a lot easier to break things that are maintaining a precarious balance than it is to build them back up again.

And I haven’t even touched on Ukraine yet.

I think there’s a lot of this going around. Looking at snapshots and believing they’re representative of the whole movie. I think that’s part of our political problem. It think it’s one of the causes of the high inflation we’re experiencing.

That’s how I interpret Fareed Zakaria’s remarks in his latest Washington Post column:

As an immigrant to the United States who has traveled a great deal around the world, I have always been certain that America was the best place for people like me — people who looked different, with brown skin and a strange name. I remember coming to America as a college student and feeling the openness and generosity of a country born of and made by immigrants. When visiting Britain around the same time, I could sense that I was treated politely but as an outsider.

He goes on to explain why he thinks that Britain is now more welcoming than we are.

I was a bit surprised by a number of things in the column. For one I don’t think that the United States has ever been that friendly to migrants. Please don’t quote “The New Colossus” to me or point to the Statue of Liberty. In 1883 most migrants came to the United States to farm. Those who did were tolerated to the extent that they farmed and there was lots of land seen as empty. The indigenous Americans had never seen the land as empty or available but that’s another subject.

There were anti-immigrant riots from the 1840s through the 1870s and in the early 20th century. To my knowledge there was also one immigrant lynched during World War I. That’s compared with no lynched Japanese-Americans during World War II although they were interred in camps. There’s also an anti-immigrant thread running through the riots of the 1960s and recent anti-immigrant violence going on right now.

I think that by and large my fellow Americans are good and decent people but I honestly wouldn’t characterize us as “friendly to migrants”.

I can’t comment on Britain but I would point out that the numbers are actually quite small. The United Kingdom has about 7% Asians and 3% blacks, most of whom reside in the big cities. Once you get out into the countryside you will encounter relatively few immigrants.

In his most recent Washington Post column George Will laments that the midterm campaign season has given us a master class in things we probably don’t want to know about ourselves. Here’s what was to me the most salient part:

If on Tuesday Hispanic voters continue their drift away from Democrats, the reasons might include these: Self-identified “strong progressives” are only about 10 percent of voters, but they have a disproportionate effect in setting perceptions of the Democratic Party. Sixty-six percent of them say this is not the world’s greatest country, and 94 percent say racism is built into the nation’s policies and institutions. Hispanics disagree with those propositions by 70 percent and 58 percent, respectively.

Also, many Hispanics fled socialism, or have family memories of it, and are repelled by progressives who admire it from a safe distance.

I don’t think it’s just Hispanics.

I thought you might be amused (or infuriated, depending) on the editors’ of the Wall Street Journal’s reaction to President Biden’s pre-midterm plea to save democracy. It takes the form of “missing pages” from the president’s address:

“My fellow Americans, I’ve mentioned the MAGA threat. But to preserve democracy, it will take the efforts and honesty of both political parties. And we Democrats need to acknowledge that most Republicans feel as strongly and sincerely about fair elections as we do. After the 2020 election, hundreds of Republicans were the most important obstacle to Trump’s false claims of a stolen election.

“Mike Pence in particular played a heroic role in refusing as Vice President to stop the Electoral College count. He was under enormous pressure from Donald Trump to do so, and he knew that refusing would jeopardize his chances of ever becoming President. But he stood on principle and followed the Constitution. I should thank him more often than I have, and I want to salute him tonight.

“There were also the many lawyers in the White House and Justice Department who refused to go along with the former President’s claims when they saw no evidence for them. Thank you, Bill Barr.

“There were Governors and state election officials who refused to follow Trump’s demand to find votes that didn’t exist. Thank you, Doug Ducey and Mark Brnovich.

“There were the many judges appointed by Donald Trump who examined the evidence and ruled against the fraud claims. Thank you, Mitch McConnell and Federalist Society for supporting those judges.

“Truth be told, some in my own Democratic Party have also contributed to the climate of political mistrust and animus. The ranks of election deniers include Georgia’s Democratic candidate for Governor Stacey Abrams, who refused to accept her defeat in 2018. My own press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, tweeted in 2020 that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp ‘stole the gubernatorial election from Georgians and Stacey Abrams.’

“That was wrong, and I’ve asked Karine to apologize at her next press conference. I know she regrets that tweet.

“Worst of all, Hillary Clinton and many others claimed Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 was illegitimate and the result of Russian influence. Some in the FBI even lied to a secret surveillance court to spy on a Trump campaign official. That was wrong, and those lies have made it easier for Trump to exploit fears about a politicized ‘deep state,’ as MAGA Republicans call it. I hope that Secretary Clinton will also acknowledge the damage from those versions of the Big Lie.

“Democracy is too important to have a double standard for election denial. And from now on, including next week, I promise to call out members of my own party if they refuse to recognize they have lost an election after all the votes have been counted and confirmed.

“I also can’t absolve myself for sowing doubts about democracy. In my first year as President I referred to election changes being considered in Georgia as ‘Jim Crow 2.0,’ and I said the midterm election would be ‘illegitimate’ if laws like that passed.

“Well, the Georgia law did pass, and it looks on the evidence so far that voter turnout in Georgia will set midterm records. I was wrong to use such divisive language, and especially to invoke the shameful era of government racial segregation, to make a partisan point.”

and they conclude:

We’d like to think Mr. Biden meant to include these missing pages in his speech. If they weren’t dropped accidentally, then perhaps he could include them next time. Otherwise his speeches about democracy will be dismissed as cynical and calculating partisanship.

My own take is somewhat different. I think that Democrats and Republicans differ in their definitions of “democracy”. I don’t think that either of them mean the same thing as I do.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed it but I certainly have. Judging by the various reactions, the assault on Paul Pelosi is practically a Rorschach test.

Some saw it as an example of right-wing extremism. Some saw it as an example of left-wing extremism. Some saw it as being hoist by one’s own petard. Or a security state cover-up. Now there’s apparently an illegal immigration side of it.

As I tried to indicate in my quick take post, I thought that people should be cautious before leaping to too many conclusions.

Stand aside, baseball. Jumping to conclusions is apparently now the national pastime.

Among the many offices and other matters on which Illinoisans will be voting next Tuesday is something called “Amendment 1”. Here’s how the referendum appears on the ballot:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT

The proposed amendment would add a new section to the Bill of Rights Article of the Illinois Constitution that would guarantee workers the fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively and to negotiate wages, hours, and working conditions, and to promote their economic welfare and safety at work. The new amendment would also prohibit from being passed any new law that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety. At the general election to be held on November 8, 2022, you will be called upon to decide whether the proposed amendment should become part of the Illinois Constitution. For the proposed addition of Section 25 to Article I of the Illinois Constitution.[

Amendment 1 would add the following language to Article I of the Illinois Constitution:

(a) Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at work. No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and work place safety, including any law or ordinance that prohibits the execution or application of agreements between employers and labor organizations that represent employees requiring membership in an organization as a condition of employment.

(b) The provisions of this Section are controlling over those of Section 6 of Article VII.

Several lawsuits have been brought concerning this amendment. In one of them the appellate court found that the amendment would only pertain to public sector workers, the supremacy clause ensuring that the provisions of the NLRB would continue to hold for private sector workers.

If I had to pick the ten most important issues facing Illinoisans today, this would not be among them. I have been unable to find any newspaper, print or online that has come out in support of the amendment. the Chicago Tribune, Crain’s Chicago Business, The Daily Herald, and the Wall Street Journal have all published editorials against it. As I see it among the things this amendment would do would be to render all “no strike clauses” in public employee contracts null and avoid which seems to me to be the opposite of what needs to be done. Is it really true that public employees in Illinois do not have enough power?

The editors of the Wall Street Journal certainly don’t seem to think so:

Illinois debt teetered close to junk bond status until nearly $200 billion in Covid bailouts provided enough cash for a reprieve to its fiscal mess. A peek at the startling state payroll reveals why the mess will return.

According to Open The Books, which focuses on government transparency, the state has 132,188 public employees with salaries and benefits over $100,000. That’s a total cost of $17 billion. The list includes 10 police department leaders and 18 school superintendents with salaries above $300,000 and some 16,592 retirees with six-figure pensions. Five of the top 10 public school employee payouts are for pensions above $330,000 a year.

That’s in a state school system that fails its most vulnerable children. See the National Assessment of Educational Progress, if you dare. In 2020 the average Chicago teacher’s compensation was $108,730 including salary and benefits. Chicago teachers are among the highest paid in the nation, which might be fine if they were also among the highest performing measured by student achievement. But pay for performance is unknown in Springfield.

Giant pensions in some cases outstrip salaries, as politicians know they can increase pension benefits that will be paid long after they leave office. Open The Books says there are “more state police officers retired on six-figure pensions (1,555) than officers currently paid on six-figure salaries (1,540).”

Many states offer high salaries to public employees, but Illinois state workers are the second highest-paid government workers in the country when adjusted for cost of living, according to Wirepoints. The Land of Lincoln beats California, New Jersey and New York on the metric. This is one reason Illinois voters pay the second highest property tax rates. New Jersey is number one.

In my view there are presently several major problems with the relationship between the state and public employees. First, public employee unions’ contributing to political campaigns is inherently corrupt. That’s the very nature of being able to recycle tax dollars into political contributions. Second, many of those who benefited from the high pensions offered to public employees aren’t paying for them. They’ve left the state, leaving the state with a larger tax burden than might otherwise be the case. That is unjust. And we aren’t receiving value for what we’re paying. Also, not only are Chicagoans paying the pensions of retired Chicago schoolteachers, they’re paying the pensions of all Illinois schoolteachers. I believe that Chicago is the only jurisdiction so burdened. Jurisdictions should pay their own pensions rather than depending on other jurisdictions to do it for them.

I will vote “No” on Amendment 1 and I encourage all Illinoisans to do the same.

Ballotpedia has considerably more detail on Amendment 1.

As I had anticipated Kyle Kondik has an update on the midterm elections at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball. Here’s the bottom line:

This week’s rating changes leave us with 219 seats at least leaning Republican. 196 at least leaning Democratic, and 20 Toss-ups. Splitting those would lead to a 229-206 Republican House, or a net gain of 16 for Republicans. However, as we wrote above, that represents the low end of what we’re expecting, and we think our final handicap will be better for Republicans.

The Senate remains a toss-up. Here in Illinois the status of the 6th Congressional District, presently represented by Democrat Sean Casten, has shifted from “likely Democratic” to “leans Democratic”. Given that the boundaries of the gerrymandered 6th had been drawn specifically to save Casten’s seat while packing Republicans into an adjoining district, it would be a shock if he lost his re-election bid.