I thought you might be interested in this graphic, thoughtfully provided by the New York Times. It actually surprised me a little. I would have thought that Warren would have received the most time by far. As it is she came in third.

How is it that Booker managed to capture as much time as he did? Were the moderators afraid to cut him off?

Apparently, Gabbard followed by Booker were the most Googled following the event. I would think that bodes well for both of them. I’m not as surprised by the interest in Gabbard as much as the pundits seem to be.

So, one down and one to go. Will the second Democratic presidential candidate debate be a rerun of last night’s or will it be the “Biden and Bernie Show” with the two principals squaring off against each other and the other eight lining up behind one or the other (my prediction would be everybody lining up behind Biden)?

Apparently, the editors of the Wall Street Journal have noticed the same op-eds I have. Here’s their response:

Nineteen uberwealthy Americans posted an open letter Monday calling on “all candidates for President” to support a “moderate” wealth tax. Signatories include the investor George Soros, Berkshire Hathaway scion Molly Munger, Mickey Mouse heiress Abigail Disney, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and a couple of Hyatt Hotel progeny from the Pritzker family.

“America has a moral, ethical and economic responsibility to tax our wealth more,” they say. Revenue squeezed from the top 0.1% could fund “smart investments,” such as “clean energy innovation,” “infrastructure modernization,” “student loan debt relief,” and “public health solutions.” A wealth tax could safeguard democracy, too, since countries with high economic inequality are more likely to “become plutocratic.”

The letter brushes by the arguments against a wealth tax, calling them “mostly technical and often overstated.” Would courts find it unconstitutional? How would assets like Picassos be valued? Why has Europe largely abandoned this kind of taxation? Doesn’t it diminish the incentive to save and invest? What’s to keep a wealth tax from expanding, like the income tax did, to cover more and more Americans?

Instead of seriously grappling with these objections, the letter tries to sweep readers along in sheer patriotic fervor. The rich “should be proud to pay a bit more,” the authors say. “Taking on this tax is the least we can do to strengthen the country we love.”

Well, what’s stopping them? If billionaires see themselves as a threat to “the stability and integrity of our republic,” they could cease being billionaires any day. If retiring student debt is vital, they could put out a call to graduates and start paying off loans. If the climate is a priority, they could fund a green Manhattan Project.

My response was a bit more sophisticated than that but it’s a start.

It has been explained to me that billionaires will never voluntarily pay more taxes because they “don’t want to be chumps”. I’m skeptical of the notion that social pressure will motivate them. It’s contrary to my personal experience of the ultra-wealthy. Besides it would require that tax returns be public record. Not manipulating the tax code for private benefit would require Congressmen to disarm voluntarily, freely relinquishing one of Congress’s greatest powers. For those reasons I doubt it can happen.

The consensus among pundits and editorial writers appears to be that, since Elizabeth Warren didn’t fall on her face in the first Democratic presidential candidate debate, she won. In an op-ed in the Washington Post Stephen Stromberg explains another reason that she won:

If the first Democratic presidential debate is any measure, practically all the candidates who are not Elizabeth Warren seem to think they can distinguish themselves by sounding exactly like Elizabeth Warren, despite lacking the long record of being Elizabeth Warren. In a political epoch that rewards authenticity and boldness, candidate after candidate embraced the populism they believe Democratic voters desire.

Warren set the tone for the evening by railing against the drug companies, the oil companies and private prisons. She is right that some companies have behaved dishonorably. But she is wrong to make it seem as though, if there is a problem, some corporation somewhere must have caused it, and the only way to solve it is to find and break up that corporation.

“When you’ve got an economy that does great for those with money and isn’t doing great for everyone else, that is corruption, pure and simple,” she said, apparently reducing wealth inequality to an evil plot cooked up by a few billionaires in a room. The question was about talking to people, including 60 percent of Democrats, according to debate moderator Savannah Guthrie, who think the economy is doing well.

What followed was a competition to see who could sound more Warren-esque.

Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke blasted “an economy that is rigged to corporations and to the very wealthiest.”

Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) distanced himself from his previous criticism of politicians who single out companies for breaking up, attacking “pharmaceutical companies that often have monopolistic holds on drugs” — in other words, a legal patent — and bragging that “one of the most aggressive bills in the Senate to deal with corporate consolidation is mine.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), who had previously mocked candidates who promised free everything, stuck by her promise that she would not give everyone free college, because rich people can pay for their own college educations. But she would give everyone free community college. “If billionaires can pay off their yachts, students should be able to pay off their student loans,” Klobuchar said.

The candidate who came closest to matching Warren populist zinger for populist zinger was New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, probably because he started his rise to prominence as a Warren-like progressive. “You hear folks say there’s not enough money. What I say to them every single time is, there’s plenty of money in this world, there’s plenty of money in this country. It’s just in the wrong hands.”

But unfortunately for those candidates who tried to channel their inner Warren, there was nothing like the real thing. “I want to return government to the people, and that means calling out the names of the monopolists and saying I have the courage to go after them,” Warren said. The monopolists! Vote Bull Moose!

which is as good a definition of winning as any.

I don’t believe I have ever expressed my opinion of Elizabeth Warren here. I think she makes an excellent junior senator from Massachusetts which, as fate would have it, is her present job. If she were 15 years younger, my advice would be to run for governor of Massachusetts, serve a couple of terms there, and then run for president. But she’s too old. She should stay right where she is.

Haven’t we learned our lesson yet? We need a president with executive branch experience. Either that or we should amend the Constitution to divide the powers of the presidency between a head of government and a head of state. If we allow executive branch officials, appointed or civil service, become precinct captains for the digital age, Washington will fall into even further disrepute if such a thing be possible. The executive branch needs serious attention not to mention pruning and it will never get it by electing senators. Or amateurs. We need a government wonk not just a policy wonk.

I found this fact-checking article at CNN of the Democratic presidential candidates made pretty interesting reading. To my eye they don’t understand the tax system (who does?) or income inequality but they do have a pretty good grasp of policy proposals presently being discussed and violence in our cities. And, of course, they never let a good opportunity for demagoguery go to waste.

From an economic efficiency and fairness standpoint we should abolish all income taxes (private and corporate) and replace them with a VAT very broadly applied accompanied by monthly prebate to make it progressive. Such a plan would be hated by the left and the right but most especially by the Congress which would find its ability to raise campaign funds would practically vanish so it will never see the light of day.

I don’t plan to watch the Democratic candidates’ debate this evening. I’m tired and it will go on long past my bedtime. Tell me how it comes out.

Two hours is 120 minutes. If they were to give each candidate the same amount of time that would be 12 minutes per candidate. If they allow each candidate a two minute opening statement, ask a question of each candidate in turn three times, and allow each candidate a two minute closing statement, that would be the entire two hours including transitions. If they allow audience questions, it will be chaos.

Most of the candidates are long-time professional politicians not radio broadcasters. Two minutes would be barely enough time to let them clear their throats. I anticipate an exercise in futility.

Other formats are possible and I presume that the network would prefer them. “Warren and the 9 Dwarfs” is one possible story. “Gang Up On Warren” is another. Yet another story would be to pit all of the candidates against the person not in the room: “Is Trump an Idiot or a Villain?” or “Tell us why we should vote for you and not for Trump” which is really the question, isn’t it? I presume that the network would prefer drama and it’s darned hard to get drama with so many candidates in such a limited timespan while remaining fair. I doubt it will make for riveting television.

Lately I’ve seen any number of op-eds from the rich and the ultra-rich with notionally high-minded pleas to raise their taxes. Take this op-ed from Eli Broad in the New York Times:

Don’t get me wrong: I am not advocating an end to the capitalist system that’s yielded some of the greatest gains in prosperity and innovation in human history. I simply believe it’s time for those of us with great wealth to commit to reducing income inequality, starting with the demand to be taxed at a higher rate than everyone else.

This does not mean I support paying higher taxes without requiring government to be transparent, accountable and equitable about how it spends the revenue, particularly for health care, public education and other programs critical to social and economic mobility. But let’s end this tired argument that we must delay fixing structural inequities until our government is running as efficiently as the most profitable companies. That’s a convenient tactic employed to distract us from the real problems.

The apparent claim is that the only thing preventing his paying higher taxes is the marginal tax rates. That is arrant nonsense.

Let’s take Warren Buffett, for example. He’s already acknowledged that his effective tax rate is in the low double digits. That tells us that he’s taking every deduction and using every strategem at his disposal to reduce his tax burden. Paying more in taxes for him doesn’t require him to volunteer an extra check to the Treasury. All that is necessary is that he not take any deductions and take all of his income in the form of wages and his tax bill will be triple what it is now. The principle of time consistency tells us that if marginal tax rates are increased he’s likely to continue that practice. Additionally, I suspect that most people believe that Mr. Buffett’s ability to influence the tax code is greater than theirs.

So what’s the actual message being communicated? He’s saying “I want somebody else to pay more taxes”. That’s not high-minded at all.

At Politico Charles Sykes has some handy tips for how the Democrats can blow it. Here they are in summary:

1. Hold firmly to the idea that Twitter is the beating heart of the real Democratic Party.
2. Embrace the weird.
3. Keep promising lots of free stuff and don’t sweat paying for it.
4. Go ahead and abolish private health insurance.
5. Spend time talking about reparations.
6. Trump thinks that immigration and the crisis at the border are winning issues for him. They aren’t. But you can turn that around.
7. Lots more focus on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
8. Socialism.
9. Turn the abortion issue from a winner into a loser.
10. You can also turn a winner into a loser on the issue of guns.
11. As you try to get Americans more alarmed about Trump’s attacks on democratic norms, make sure you talk as much as possible about your support for court-packing.

I think I would add three:

• Assume that everyone hates Trump as much as you do.
• Make a bunch of extravagant promises during the primary season and then backpedal as quickly as possible during the general election campaign.
• Embrace open borders.

At present entering the United States without having presented yourself to a duly constituted official is a misdemeanor. Doing do multiple times is a felony. So far among the Democratic candidates Julian Castro and Elizabeth Warren have endorsed “decriminalizing” entering the country without permission.

Here’s my question. Would that encourage more people to enter the country, discourage people from entering the country, or have no effect? I think it would minorly encourage more people to enter the country. Is that actually what we want to do?