At Yahoo R. Peña remarks on the “SAFE-T Act”, soon to become effective in Illinois:

Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history. Illinois is looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash bail. And the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state could mirror the horror movie “The Purge”. In the film, citizens were given 24 hours to commit all the crimes they wanted.

On January 1st of 2023 the ‘SAFE-T’ Act will commence in the state of Illinois. This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name SAFE-T is an acronym for ‘Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today’. Those that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those put away based on the crime.

There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end cash bail. The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide, robbery, kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated driving under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and threatening a public official.

I understand the problems with the bail system. The SAFE-T Act should be reformed. The author proposes some ways.

I think that violent offenses should never be deemed “non-detainable”. If you’re concerned about equity, consider that most of the victims of these crimes are members of minorities.

One way in which the law could be reformed could, for example, be to prohibit states attorneys from negotiating detainable offenses down to non-detainable. Another would be to make individuals arrested having been non-detained ineligible for non-detention.

I think the surest way that the defects in the bail system could be remedied would be to ensure speedy trials.

Lately we’ve been treated to some wild ironies.

On Meet the Press Vice President Kamala Harris declaims that there is no security problem at our southern border. A couple of days later Illinois Gov JB Pritzker declares a state of emergency and calls out the National Guard to manage illegal immigrants. You need to torture language and logic not to consider that a security problem.

Signs prominently displayed on Martha’s Vineyard proclaiming their support for immigrants. Illegal immigrants on Martha’s Vineyard removed from the island to a military base “for support”.

Mayors of cities that have declared themselves “sanctuary cities” complaining bitterly when they actually receive illegal immigrants.

Since taking office the Biden Administration has transported 500,000 illegal immigrants into the interior of the United States. The Biden Administration sharply criticizes the governors of Arizona, Texas, and Florida for transporting illegal immigrants.

What do you think of the tactic the governors of Arizona, Texas, and now Florida have used—chartering planes and busses to transport illegal immigrants from their states to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Martha’s Vineyard?

I have sharply mixed feelings. It has been called “politically motivated” and “cruel” and I think it is probably both. I think it is an Alinskyite strategy to goad the Biden Administtration into doing what’s necessary to stem the surge of illegal immigration across our southern border.

I think there’s a lot of cruelty to go around. I think it’s cruel of the governors to transport the migrants. I think it’s cruel to expect the people of Arizona, Florida, and Texas to pay for all the migrants. I think it was cruel of Candidate Biden to invite immigrants to come to the United States.

I doubt that legal methods to get those governors to stop will be effective.

And now for something completely different. The Ig Nobel Awards for 2022 have been awarded by the Annals of Improbable Research. Jennifer Ouellette reports at Ars Technica.

To my eye the first is the best, a study of ritual enemas on Mayan pottery. Although the moose crash test dummy isn’t bad, either.

I didn’t want to let these observations by the editors of the Wall Street Journal to pass without remark:

Mr. Scholz is dragging his feet on new tanks as Kyiv begs the West for the weapons to build on the momentum of its recent advances against Russia’s invaders. Berlin in April promised to provide Cheetah anti-aircraft tanks, and then waited until July to start delivering them. As of this week, Berlin’s defense ministry says 24 have been sent.

Germany could also send its Marten infantry and Leopard battle tanks, and a growing chorus of German leaders and foreign allies says Mr. Scholz should. That includes Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock of the Green Party and chairwoman of Parliament’s defense committee Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, a Free Democrat. Both parties are part of the coalition government with Mr. Scholz’s Social Democrats. The opposition Christian Democrats also support sending more tanks.

Even Mr. Scholz’s party, long a bastion of pro-Russian pacifism, is changing. Social Democrat Michael Roth, chairman of the Parliament’s foreign-affairs committee, is a vocal advocate for more weapons deliveries.

I don’t find the Germans’ action as baffling as the editors seem to. I think that

1. The Germans are extremely reluctant to do anything which bears costs for Germany.
2. But they want to remain in the U. S.’s good graces

Basically, they’re trying to have it both ways. I suspect the Germans’ strategy depended on the war having been concluded before winter and they’re very disappointed with how it has dragged on.

It always catches my attention when national media outlets take note of Chicago, almost always in a negative light. This time it’s the editors of the Wall Street Journal, reacting to remarks from the CEO of McDonald’s:

McDonald’s Corp. calls Chicago home, with its corporate headquarters and some 400 restaurants, but CEO Chris Kempczinski issued a frank warning Wednesday about the city’s crime and social deterioration. “Everywhere I go I am confronted by the same question these days: ‘What’s going on in Chicago?’ . . . There is a general sense out there that our city is in crisis,” he said, and he’s right.

The fast-food chain moved its headquarters to the Loop from the suburbs in 2018, and Mr. Kempczinski estimates its economic contribution to the city at $2 billion a year. But lawlessness is taking a toll. “It’s felt most significantly every single day in the restaurants,” he told the Economic Club of Chicago. “We have violent crime that is happening in our restaurants . . . we are seeing homelessness issues in our restaurants, we are having drug overdoses that are happening in our restaurants.”

Calling Mayor Lori Lightfoot. When residents no longer feel safe at a major restaurant chain and a CEO issues a public plea, social order is breaking down.

The comments won’t surprise residents who have watched their city on Lake Michigan slide into a mess of public disorder. Tent cities sprawl across lakeside parks. Crime that was once confined to certain neighborhoods now threatens the downtown business district.

Overall crime in the city is up 38% in 2022 over 2021, according to Wirepoints, and a new city policy this summer made it harder for cops to pursue criminals on foot for minor offenses. Mayor Lightfoot has given little support to the beleaguered police force that has shrunk to 11,600 officers from 13,300 in 2019.

As if crime were not enough of a problem there are economic issues as well:

“It has become increasingly difficult to operate a global business out of the city of Chicago,” Mr. Kempczinski said, owing in part to a tax climate that the Tax Foundation says now ranks Illinois 36th of 50 states. “There are fewer big companies headquartered in Chicago this year than last year. Fewer this month than last month.” Among those fleeing have been Boeing (Virginia), Caterpillar (Texas) and Citadel, the giant hedge fund (Miami).

Ms. Lightfoot and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker will be tempted to dismiss Mr. Kempczinski’s remarks, but they do so at the city’s peril. They might not get another wake-up call as clear as this one. “Make no mistake . . . McDonald’s commitment to Chicago is not corporate altruism,” Mr. Kempczinski said. “It’s not open ended, it’s not unconditional. As a publicly traded company, our shareholders wouldn’t tolerate that.” Chicagoans shouldn’t either.

That looks to me as though Mr. Kempczinski is firing a shot across Chicago’s bow. I wonder if anyone is paying attention?

IMO there are several different strategies that either the state of Illinois or Chicago might employ. One is a growth strategy. Reduce corruption. Lower taxes. Streamline government. Enforce the law.

Another strategy would be to just keep right on doing what you’ve been doing. Call it an IGBYBG strategy.

A third strategy would be the one that Mr. Pritzker attempted to put in place. Raise taxes. Give more power to the public employees’ unions. Call it the “double down” strategy. The people of Illinois rejected Gov. Pritzker’s attempt to impose a graduated state income tax. Will they reject granting more power to the public employees’ unions, too?

I think that David Brooks is wrong in his latest New York Times column. There is a strategy to defeat Trump:

Many strategies were deployed in order to discredit Trump. There was the immorality strategy: Thousands of articles were written detailing his lies and peccadilloes. There was the impeachment strategy: Investigations were launched into his various scandals and outrages. There was the exposure strategy: Scores of books were written exposing how shambolic and ineffective the Trump White House really was.

The net effect of these strategies has been to sell a lot of books and subscriptions and to make anti-Trumpists feel good. But this entire barrage of invective has not discredited Trump among the people who will very likely play the most determinant role. It has probably pulled some college-educated Republicans into the Democratic ranks and pushed some working-class voters over to the Republican side.

The barrage has probably solidified Trump’s hold on his party. Republicans see themselves at war with the progressive coastal elites. If those elites are dumping on Trump, he must be their guy.

lamenting that there is no strategy for defeating Trump.

I think there is a strategy and it is to disqualify him from running in 2024. I don’t think it’s the right strategy but I think that’s the strategy.

I think the right strategy is competence. Apparently, that’s too much to ask.

Although millions of retirees are looking forward to the Social Security Retirement Income cost of living adjustment (COLA), there’s actually another question that’s equally if not more important. Estimates of next year’s COLA are runnng around 8% due to the high rate of inflation.

Here’s the other question. What impact will the COLA have on the Social Security Trust Fund? For that we’ll need to wait until the trustee’s report comes out which, judging by the last few years, may be anywhere from May to July. I’m betting that the COLA shaves a whole year off the date at which the trust fund is expected to be unable to pay full SSRI.

If you think things are miserable now, wait until that one hits.

I didn’t say “fixed” because, at least here in Chicago, that means something different. Okay, I’ll bite. Will the reforms proposed by Mark Penn at RealClearPolitics reform primary election:

To fix these problems we need to take some urgent steps. First, we need to shine light on this low participation and information as a problem. Second, we should deny tax deductibility status to nonprofits that are carrying out one-party agendas and encourage the growth of nonprofits that want high voter participation in all elections by all voters. Third, we need to set three or four regional primary days in which groups of states all hold their primaries at the same time to cut down on all the confusion of 20 or more possible dates. Further complicating this are Democratic campaigns to meddle with the primary process by deliberately providing tens of millions of dollars to extreme candidates they oppose and hope will be easier to defeat in the general election. Though unlikely to be banned outright, this practice further undermines the primary process, and hopefully the parties will agree to end it in the name of a fair democracy.

I don’t think they’ll do a darned thing.

I’ll propose a different slate of reforms:

1. Abolish primaries. Back to the proverbial “smoke-filled room”!
2. Make voting in primaries compulsory with stiff fines for not voting and enforce it. I only know of three countries in which that’s the case: Australia, Belgium, and Luxembourg. I can’t imagine that happening here.
3. Render anyone who fails to vote in the primary ineligible to vote in the general election.

I always vote in the primaries. Here they are the only election that matters. The candidate for whom I cast my vote in the primary almost never gets the nomination.

I honestly don’t believe that primaries can be cured.

It’s pretty easy to summarize Megan McArdle’s most recent Washington Post column—the go-to economic policies of both political parties are obsolete:

If the president wants to spare himself further such embarrassments, and his constituents further price hikes, he needs to stop fire hosing money into the economy. That won’t be easy, because both Democrats and Republicans think of deficit spending as free money with which to pursue their goals and reward their voters.

Politically, deficit spending is a hard habit to kick. Democrats, in particular, have devoted the past 15 years to arguing that deficit spending isn’t just politically expedient (all politicians love spending borrowed money) but is a positive boon to the economy.
Some of those arguments were sound. I supported deficit-financed relief during both the Great Recession and the covid-19 pandemic, and not just because I wanted to mitigate the misery of people who lost jobs and businesses. Rapid economic contractions can feed on themselves, as panicked consumers hoard money against possible financial hardship and thereby trigger further waves of layoffs and business failures. Strategic injections of government deficit spending can theoretically slow, or even reverse, that downward spiral.

But those injections only cure the patient if there’s spare economic capacity waiting to be put back into service as soon as demand recovers. That’s no good to us now, because unemployment is below 4 percent, core inflation is above 6 percent and demand has already recovered. So, when the government (as it has under Biden) comes in with even more borrowed money, all that money can do is bid up the price of existing goods and services further.
Unfortunately, a lot of Democrats, including our president, are stuck in the economic mind-set of days past, when there was always economic slack that could theoretically be stimulated away, so that deficit spending of any amount seemed to be all upside. They have yet to adjust to the new reality of an economy where the problems are all on the supply side.

The Republicans’ problem is easier to summarize: they believe in tax cuts. Full stop. Even Reagan didn’t reduce the size or scope of government. The key problem with relying solely on tax cuts is that we were on a different part of the Laffer Curve 40 years ago than we are now.

As I have been saying some time we need to produce more. More energy. More food. More houses. More stuff that people want to buy.

The alternatives are have fewer people and want less. For the last couple of years the U. S. population (births – deaths + immigration) has been about 3 million people. It should be obvious that increases aggregate demand. Regulating immigration is a lot more humane and politically possible than reducing births or increasing deaths.