I genuinely don’t know what to make of the chaos surrounding Texas’s SB 4. Here’s a report at NBC News from Rebecca Shabad and Kyla Guilfoil:

Judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared unreceptive to arguments by Texas’ solicitor general Wednesday that the state’s new immigration law should take effect because it “mirrors” federal law.

A three-judge panel of the court had ruled 2-1 late Tuesday that the measure, known as Senate Bill 4, should be temporarily blocked while the judges hear the case. Earlier Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it could take effect.

“Texas has a right to defend itself,” state Solicitor General Aaron Nielson said, adding that the district court had acknowledged that “sometimes those associated with the cartels cross over the border with malicious intent.”

As flip as it sounds I don’t think that Texas’s argument is entirely without merit. Does the federal government have the right not to defend Texas and to prevent Texas from defending itself? That doesn’t sound reasonable, either.

I suspect the question is not whether there is a line but where the line should be.

I wanted to take note of one passage in William A. Galston’s Wall Street Journal column on Chuck Schumer’s Israel speech:

The majority leader also misreads Israeli public opinion. Like many U.S. politicians, he seems unaware of the vast changes in Israeli sentiment since the collapse of the Oslo accords in 2000. The gravamen of his speech was the familiar call for a two-state solution, which Jewish Israelis reject by a margin of about 2 to 1, even if accompanied by U.S. security guarantees and a peace agreement with Saudi Arabia. “Call me an optimist,” Mr. Schumer said in his speech. Others would be less generous.

Israeli sentiments about the war in Gaza are no less challenging for American liberals. Nearly three-quarters of Jewish Israelis favor extending military operations to Rafah, Hamas’s last stronghold, where more than a million Gazans have taken refuge. Two-thirds of Jewish Israelis polled in February opposed more humanitarian aid for Gaza “at this time,” even if delivered through organizations unrelated to Hamas or the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The U.S. should disregard this sentiment, but our leaders should try to understand why it has taken hold.

A slight majority of Jewish Israelis polled in February even favored expanding hostilities to include a northern front against Hezbollah, as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has urged. In this respect, Mr. Netanyahu has been a moderating influence.

Would we prefer that the Palestinians weren’t dominated by radical Islamists? Sure. But they are. Would we prefer that Israelis weren’t responding by becoming more militant? Sure. But that’s not what’s happening. I don’t think we should like either group very much.

Yesterday I dutifully went to vote at my assigned polling place, cheat sheet provided by the ward Democratic organization in hand. It showed me exactly how not to vote.

Actually I did vote for one of the approved candidates: Spyropoulous for Clerk of the Circuit Court. Although I recognize that most of the party’s opposition to Martinez was because she had not been a “good soldier”, I still think there

About 20% of registered Chicago voters voted in the primaries all told. That includes in-person voting yesterday, early voting, and vote-by-mail, something like 300,000 in all of Chicago’s 1.7 million voters. One individual characterized the turnout as “shockingly low”. I don’t believe that the low turnout was due to disinterest but to despair. It really didn’t make any difference how we voted.

You can see details of the results here, provided by ABC 7 Chicago.

Of greatest interest to me was the race to succeed outgoing Cook County States Attorney, the execrable Kim Foxx. It’s a close race. To the best of my ability to determine at no time did Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle’s hand-picked candidate, party apparatchik Clayton Harris, III lead but it’s tight, Burke 51%-Harris 49%, a difference of about 10,000 votes. The outcome will depend on votes mailed in which will trickle in over the next several days. If Harris wins based on mail-in votes, I think we should all smell a rat.

The mayor’s real estate transfer tax referendum appears to be going down to defeat 54%-46% but that, too, is too close to tell. The measure provided for a graduated real estate transfer tax with properties of values below $1 million taxed at .6%, $1 million taxed at 2%, and $1.5 million or greater taxed at 3%. Had the measure been more narrowly tailored, applying only to single family dwellings and adjusted for inflation I might have voted for it. It isn’t what the mayor characterized it as, a “mansion tax”. It doesn’t take much of an apartment building to have a valuation of $1 million or more. As such it’s mostly a commercial property tax. Furthermore, “bracket creep” should not provide an automatic tax increase.

The editors of Bloomberg remark on President Biden’s budget. In general they support it but they find a few defects:

The plan is right to raise taxes more than spending — enough to curb borrowing and stabilize the ratio of debt to gross domestic product at 106% by 2029. That’s much better than the current baseline, which shows debt rising from 99% of GDP this year to 117% by 2034, with more to follow.

Yet the budget’s forecasts optimistically assume strong and steady growth over the coming decade. A downturn would drive debt higher. Starting out with a ratio pinned at well more than 100% of GDP — the highest since just after World War II — leaves no space for emergency fiscal expansion. When the economy is at full employment and growing well, public debt should be falling.

and the numbers don’t add up:

First, after 2025, many of the measures included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 will expire. Biden’s plan relies on the revenue that would result despite promising (no details) to extend the law’s changes for people making less than $400,000 a year. In effect, that hides a shortfall of $1.4 trillion. Second, Social Security is heading for insolvency in 2033. The budget promises to prevent this, but doesn’t say how — another big fiscal hole.

I thought these were their central observations:

Unrealized capital gains should be taxed at death, not erased by so-called step-up basis. Carried interest should be taxed like ordinary income. But smart reforms like this can’t do the heavy lifting. With households making less than $400,000 excluded, the biggest hauls come from taxing profits at 28% instead of 21% and from sharply higher taxes on the rich.

This strategy is questionable. Recent evidence suggests that former President Donald Trump’s corporate tax cuts spurred investment; over time, that means faster growth. And by international standards, the US personal tax code is already progressive. (Europe’s governments, having tested the limits of income taxes, rely heavily on broadly based consumption taxes to pay for their more expansive spending programs.) New taxes that fall heavily on capital formation and boost the rewards for tax avoidance are likely to hurt the economy and raise less money than the administration’s planners think.

They also don’t mention that public debt overhang tends to reduce GDP growth, something demonstrated empirically. Increasing public debt while relying on growth for solvency is a non sequitur.

The editors of Bloomberg are generally supportive of the president.

I wanted to call attention to just two sentences in the editors’ of the Wall Street Journal’ remarks on Sen. Schumer’s and President Biden’s recent statements on Israel. First is this:

The joke around Jerusalem is that while Mr. Biden once worked to help Israel after Oct. 7, he’s now working on the “two-state solution”: Michigan and Nevada.

That comports pretty closely with my earlier observation: Sen. Schumer and President Biden are doing damage control, trying to avoid losing Jewish votes and Arab votes. I wish them luck. I don’t believe there is any way of threading that needle.

Here are the other two sentence:

To leave Hamas in power in Rafah is to lose the war, and to replace Hamas with Fatah is to lose the peace. That’s an Israeli consensus, not “Bibi.”

which comports with my observation yesterday that Sen. Schumer and President Biden are imagining an Israel that does not exist. That they are also imagining Palestinians who don’t exist doesn’t compensate for that. It actually makes it worse.

I think that Donald Trump is a loose cannon who says things for shock value, to rile people up, and to get headlines. I don’t think he’s temperamentally suited for the presidency.

I also think that importing Chinese EVs will be hard on the domestic auto industry. I have problems with importing any product from any country that has received massive state subsidies.

What do you think of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s proposal for a 32 hour work week (at the same pay). Sounds like he’s going after the Generation Z vote to me.

Tomorrow I plan to vote in the Illinois Democratic primary. The Cook County Democratic Party helpfully sent me a handout which I plan to take to the polls with me. It shows me exactly who I won’t vote for.

I wanted to make some observation on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s recent speech on Israel. The full text of it is here, made available by the Times of Israel.

My immediate reaction to his speech was that as a good Democrat he was attempting to do damage control for President Biden’s, frankly, confused or conflicted policy with respect to Israel. As such his speech reflects the fantastical view towards Israel of American Jews and, indeed, many non-Jewish Americans. On the one hand there’s the fantasy Israel, a liberal democratic country, a sort of paradise on earth. On the other there’s the real Israel which, while more liberal and more democratic than its neighbors, is not that liberal or democratic and is far from a paradise and in which public opinion, under the repeated assaults of Islamist terrorist groups, has grown increasingly hostile to those groups.

I wanted to call attention to these passages:

Hamas has knowingly invited an immense civilian toll during this war. Their goal on October 7 was to provoke a tough response from Israel by killing as many Jews as possible in the most vicious manner possible — by raping women, executing babies, desecrating bodies, brutalizing whole communities.

Since then, Hamas has heartlessly hidden behind their fellow Palestinians by turning hospitals into command centers, and refugee camps into missile-launching sites. It is well documented that Hamas soldiers use innocent Gazans as human shields. The leaders of Hamas, many of whom live lives of luxury in places far away from the poverty and misfortune of Gaza, do not care one iota about the Palestinians for whom they claim to nobly fight.

and

The only just solution to this predicament is one in which each people can flourish in their own state side-by-side.

But for a two-state solution to work over the long term, it has to include real and meaningful compromises by both sides.

and

Right now, there are four major obstacles standing in the way of two states, and until they are removed from the equation, there will never be peace in Israel and Gaza and the West Bank.

Those four major obstacles are:

Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways.

Radical right-wing Israelis in government and society.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Does anyone else see the cognitive dissonance in those statements? You can not coherently insist on a “two-state solution” and reject both Hamas and Palestinian Authority. Those are the alternatives for Palestinian governance. With whom would such a settlement be negotiated? There are no liberal democratic Palestinian parties with anything resembling majority support waiting in the wings.

And, of course, he’s assuming that whoever would replace Benjamin Netanyahu would be less “right-wing” and nationalistic than Mr. Netanyahu. IMO that reflects the fantasy Israel again. IMO Netanyahu’s bad polling numbers are due to the attack on 10/7 not because he’s not liberal or democratic enough.