The editors of the Washington Post remark on income inequality in the United States:

Consider the distribution of income across the entire spectrum. This is often measured by the Gini index, which represents how the actual distribution of income deviates from the line of perfect equality, where everybody gets the same. It ranges from zero in a perfectly uniform society to 1 in a society in which all income accrues to the top dog. Mr. Auten and Mr. Splinter estimated that between 1970 and 2019, America’s Gini rose from about 0.42 to 0.54, before taxes and transfers. Including the effect of government redistribution, it rose from 0.35 to 0.42.

This speaks well for American redistribution — pushing back against market forces driving up inequality. But the numbers are also pretty similar to preexisting work. The Luxembourg Income Study, which estimates inequality based on survey data (rather than official government data, as Mr. Auten, Mr. Piketty et al. do), finds that the U.S. Gini index rose from 0.40 to 0.51 before taxes and transfers over this period and from 0.32 to 0.39 after redistribution is added in.

America’s story might be due for some reinterpretation. Perhaps the very rich do not take quite as large a slice of the pie as many thought. Still, the “new” version of the United States remains a remarkably unequal place, more so than most other industrialized countries. According to data from the Luxembourg study, Norway’s Gini, after adding in taxes and transfers, is 0.28; Canada’s is 0.29, Germany’s is 0.30 and Britain’s is 0.30. Of the 38 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only four are more unequal: Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico and Turkey.

I have a number of thoughts on this. The first and, possibly, the most important is what is fair? Are equal and fair the same thing?

Let’s say there are two workers with the same job titles and responsibilities. The first comes in late, leaves early, and is slapdash in his work. The second comes in early, leaves late, and is unfailingly conscientious. They’re paid the same amount. That is equal. Is it fair?

Second, I was unaware that Norway, Canada, Germany, or Britain shared 2,000 mile land borders countries where the typical household income was a quarter theirs. In fact I believe we are the only country in the world with that distinction. It’s not too much of a leap to suspect that has some impact on incomes at both the low and high ends.

Third, we import very large numbers of very intelligent, highly educated, hardworking people into the United States at wages considerably higher than in their country of origin. That, too, is bound to have some impact on incomes both at the high end and the low end.

All of that said I will admit to being very uncomfortable with the incredibly high incomes being realized by some. When they can be related to supply, demand, and output, that’s completely reasonable. When it can’t it isn’t and that will be the case far too frequently. I have no idea how to remedy that but I’m open to suggestions. Please don’t suggest the tax system. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the last 40 years it’s that our political leaders are allergic to taking money away from their donors. At least without giving them even more.

I didn’t want to let this interview by Gordon Fairclough of Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant in the Wall Street Journal pass without comment. The entire interview, dwelling mostly on Israel’s plans moving forward, is informative and excellent but I wanted to call attention to this passage:

After calls last week by far-right members of Netanyahu’s coalition for a return of Jewish settlers to Gaza and Israeli occupation of the strip, Gallant’s office outlined a postwar vision of Palestinian self-governance coupled with freedom for the Israeli military to act against security threats.

As Gallant sees it, a multinational task force led by the U.S., with European and Middle Eastern partners, should oversee the “rehabilitation” of Gaza.

The emphasis is mine.

I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or to cry about that. Mr. Gallant is not hesitant to violate the “Pottery Barn rule”, is he? After having reduced Gaza to rubble he wants Israel to dash away as quickly as possible leaving the mess to good old Uncle Sugar to clean up.

A key problem is that the United States is not seen as an impartial third party but as an unconditional supporter of Israel. As I see it there are only two likely reactions to U. S.-led administration of the wreck that remains of Gaza: either we’re being too tough on the Gazans or too lenient with them. Such a task force would be an ongoing source of political unrest domestically and would in all likelihood prompt attacks on the U. S., either in Gaza, elsewhere in the Middle East or even here at home. I don’t believe we have anything whatever to gain from such a role.

Here’s my alternative proposal. A task force with European and Middle Eastern partners, led by Germany, the only major European power that hasn’t tried to colonize the Middle East, should oversee the “rehabilitation” of Gaza. The U. S. should maintain a dignified silence.

On Friday President Biden gave a his first major campaign speech of the 2024 election at Valley Forge (transcript from Associated Press):

In the winter of 1777, it was harsh and cold as the Continental Army marched to Valley Forge. General George Washington knew he faced the most daunting of tasks, to fight and win a war against the most powerful empire in existence in the world at the time. His mission was clear: liberty, not conquest. Freedom. Not domination. National independence. Not individual glory.

America made a vow: Never again would we bow down to a king.

He made it completely clear that he is running against Donald Trump, considering Trump a deadly enemy of democracy.

Contrast President Biden’s speech with this prediction by JPMorgan strategist quoted at Business Insider:

President Joe Biden may not be on November’s ballot papers, says JPMorgan Asset Management strategist Michael Cembalest.

Cembalest predicted Biden would drop out from the race “sometime between Super Tuesday and the November election, citing health reasons.”

Super Tuesday is set for March 5, with 16 states and territories holding their primaries and caucuses on that day.

Biden, Cembalest wrote, would then be replaced by a “candidate named by the Democratic National Committee.”

Assuming he’s right, how you reconcile running to preserve democracy with running a candidate for whom no one voted but was appointed by the DNC is unclear to me.

I agree that Donald Trump should not have been elected president. I do not think he is suited by training, experience, or temperament for the job. I will not vote for him. I think the way to prevent that is at the polls and the way to build the case for the re-election of Joe Biden is by pursuing effective policies and administering them well. It’s a bit late in the day for that so running a completely negative campaign it will be!

The editors of the Washington Post decry “dangerous revisionism”:

The truth must be told. Mr. Biden won the 2020 election, fair and square, and no credible evidence has emerged of widespread voter fraud. Mr. Trump, despite knowing that he lost, summoned supporters to Washington ahead of the certification of the election and told a crowd on the Ellipse that he’d go with them to the Capitol and that they needed to “fight like hell.” Mr. Trump relished watching on television as his supporters attacked the Capitol for 187 minutes and resisted pleas to stop them. As Vice President Mike Pence said later: “His reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day.”

More than 140 police officers were injured there that day. So far, 1,240 people have been charged with federal crimes related to Jan. 6, including 452 who were charged with assaulting law enforcement officers. More than 700 have been sentenced after receiving due process, including the right to a jury trial. FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, a Republican appointed by Mr. Trump, has testified categorically and under oath that there’s nothing to the “ludicrous” conspiracy theories that his agency played any role in urging people into the Capitol.

The Supreme Court agreed last month to hear challenges to a law that has been used to charge 332 people in connection with Jan. 6, which makes it a crime to obstruct or impede an official proceeding. Defense lawyers say the government has used it overly broadly. Even if the justices agree, however, it would leave convictions on other matters intact.

I agree that President Biden was elected “fair and square” and that the violence that occurred on January 6, 2021 was reprehensible and should be punished to the full extent of the law. The SCOTUS will decide whether obstructing or impeding an official proceeding is legitimately against the law.

But I think we should keep our eyes on the ball. We need to have confidence in the validity of our elections and restoring that confidence is an urgent priority. Focusing on punishing those who doubt that validity is not only an inadequate response it is a counterproductive one.

I don’t think that the editors realize on how slender a reed the legitimacy of President Biden’s election rests. In Fulton County, Georgia the average precinct contains 3,600 voters. If there had been just an average of 36 fraudulent votes in the black precincts in Fulton County, that would have been enough to change the outcome of the election in Georgia. If the same had happened in a couple of counties in Michigan and Wisconsin, that would have changed the outcome of the election.

I would prefer it if President Biden pardoned those accused of non-violent crimes associated with 1/6 and paid more attention to making our election process beyond reproach than declaiming against those who doubt his legitimacy.

What reforms do we need? I believe we need tighten up on absentee voting processes and tighten up the election period. I also favor a national biometric ID but that’s another topic.

I am frankly puzzled by Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr.’s Wall Street Journal op-ed. He opens by establishing his credentials in case you don’t know who he is:

Four years ago this week, at the direction of the president, forces under my command struck and killed Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. He was arriving there to coordinate attacks on our embassy and coalition targets across the region. Our successful strike threw Tehran’s plan into disarray. The Iranian response—a barrage of missiles against Al Asad air base in western Iraq—was largely a punch that landed against air. The attack was designed to kill Americans, but commanders on the ground ensured there were no fatalities. I don’t minimize the injuries our forces absorbed in that attack, but it could have been much worse. The Iranians subsequently backed down.

He then turns to his main message:

Here is the lesson: The Iranians’ strategic decision-making is rational. Its leaders understand the threat of violence and its application. It takes will and capability to establish and maintain deterrence. We were able to reset deterrence as a result of this violent couplet. The Iranians have always feared our capabilities, but before January 2020, they doubted our will. The bombing of the memorial ceremony for Soleimani in Iran on Wednesday that killed dozens of civilians isn’t an example of deterrence but likely internal factions struggling for power.

After exchanging fire with the U.S. four years ago, Iran continued to pursue its long-term trifecta of strategic objectives: preserving the theocratic regime in Tehran, destroying Israel, and ejecting the U.S. from the Middle East. The mullahs’ actions, however, were muted and hidden behind proxies, from the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas in Gaza and Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria. The Iranians remembered the result of a straightforward confrontation with the U.S.

That brings me to what puzzles me. What does he want us to do? Strike back at Iran whenever someone in the Middle East attacks U. S. forces there? I’m skeptical that militias and even individual actors in the Middle East take their orders from a Central Command or in fact can be deterred by our using military force. Yes, we taught Iran a lesson: don’t attack U. S. forces directly. They aren’t. Mission accomplished.

But, as Gen. McKenzie observes, deterring Iran from taking direct military action against U. S. forces does not mean that Iran abandons its national interests. It just means they pursue them through means not deterred by American military might.

For me this is the crucial passage in the op-ed:

If avoiding escalation is the highest U.S. priority, then it is only logical to withdraw our forces from the region. That would ensure attacks on our bases don’t continue but ultimately endanger the future of the Mideast.

He raises a very interesting point. Why are U. S. troops stationed in the Middle East? As he notes if our primary objective is avoiding escalation the prudent course of action would be to remove them. If it’s to preserve peace in the Middle East, pretty clearly that’s a flop. There is precious little peace to preserve. Israel is attacking the Palestinians. Hamas, Hezbollah, and who knows how many others are attacking Israel right back. The Turks are attacking the Kurds and vice versa. DAESH is attacking Iran. Presumably, Iran will retaliate against DAESH in due course.

What national interests are we promoting with our troops in the Middle East? Because we import our oil from the Middle East? Our oil imports from the Middle East aren’t what they once were:

Are we there to preserve the flow of oil to our allies? France imports a much larger percentage of its oil from the Middle East than we do. Shouldn’t France be doing more to preserve the flow of oil?

Are our troops stationed there in case they’re needed? That would suggest that they’re there not to prevent escalation but in case of escalation.

Jeffrey Sachs’s remarks on the White House’s Ukraine strategy, quoted at length by Tim Hains at RealClearPolitics, align pretty well with my own:

Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University known for his work with the United Nations, told podcast host Andrew Napolitano last week that President Biden’s gambit in Ukraine has backfired and caused “a bloodbath and a disaster.”

“This is a plan that has just gone over the cliff. it was a terrible idea based on a set of miscalculations by the U.S. military-industrial complex with Biden out there as the front person,” Sachs said. “And it has gone horribly wrong.”

“They can’t admit it because they are all parties to this horrible outcome, so they would rather double down. It’s not them fighting after all, it’s not their money. Everybody is doing it on deficit spending. And it is not their soldiers, only Ukrainians are dying.”

“We now have foreign policy in the hands of a few people, and they happen to be incompetent, aside from everything else. Or, there’s another theory, which is they don’t really care about the outcome, it is the war itself that is the desire because it is big business,” Sachs said.

“This is an end game. And it’s a shame for Biden, who caused this, because Biden stopped negotiations that would have ended the conflict in March or April 2022.”

There’s a lot more. Note in particular the observation about “foreign policy in the hands of a few people”.

My first question is whether Dr. Sachs is right or wrong? It seems clear to me that it is a bloodbath. Is it a disaster?

There is a third alternative that has been suggested (other than the two mentioned by Dr. Sachs): that the U. S. objective of the war in Ukraine has been to degrade Russia’s military and that has succeeded splendidly. Leaving aside the incredible cynicism of that strategy, has it succeeded? Has Russia’s military been degraded? How and how do you know? Take into account the differences between our way of war and Russia’s.

Based on the figures I’ve seen the total number of Russian casualties (killed plus wounded) is around 350,000 and the number of Russian regulars killed in action is about 80,000 with the balance of killed being partisans and Wagner Group. That’s on the order of U. S. losses in Vietnam. Did those losses degrade the U. S. military?

That’s a question not an answer. I would honestly like to know.

I wanted to call attention to one passage in Karl Rove’s most recent Wall Street Journal op-ed:

If these margins don’t change dramatically, they’ll have a catastrophic effect on Mr. Biden’s re-election.

Take Georgia, which Mr. Biden won by 11,779 votes. Blacks made up 29% of Peach State turnout and cast some 1.45 million votes. They broke for Mr. Biden by 88% to 11%. A falloff of about 0.9% among black Democratic voters would have flipped Georgia’s 16 electoral votes to Mr. Trump.

In Arizona, Mr. Biden’s margin was even narrower—10,457 votes. Hispanics, 19% of the electorate, cast roughly 640,000 votes and broke for Mr. Biden 61% to 37%. A decline of just 2.7% in the Hispanic Democratic vote would have turned the Grand Canyon State’s 11 electoral votes red.

Finally, there’s Wisconsin. In 2020 Mr. Biden’s margin was 20,682. Voters 18 to 29 were 14% of the state’s 3,298,041 votes and broke 59% to 36% for the Democrats. A drop of 7.6% among young voters would have caused the Badger State’s 10 electoral votes go Republican.

Small changes in voter turnout among key demographics could be enough to move Mr. Biden out of the White House and Mr. Trump back in. The combined weakness among these groups could cause other close states—Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania—to flip as well.

on the challenges that President Biden faces in being re-elected. Mr. Rove’s ultimate point is that Joe Biden’s biggest asset is Donald Trump. The highlighted portion (highlights mine) is nearly verbatim an observation I made in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election. That’s not “woke”. It’s just arithmetic.

The strategy the Democrats appear to have decided on is to use lawfare to remove Trump from the ballot. They apparently don’t recognize how risky that is. At this point the risk I’m more worried about is the prospect of an increase in spending producing another round of inflation. There’s good evidence for increased use of grants in election years and why it is the case—it works, cf. Kriner and Reeves, 2012:

However, in a county- and individual-level study of presidential elections from 1988 to 2008, we present evidence that voters reward incumbent presidents (or their party’s nominee) for increased federal spending in their communities. This relationship is stronger in battleground states. Furthermore, we show that federal grants are an electoral currency whose value depends on both the clarity of partisan responsibility for its provision and the characteristics of the recipients. Presidents enjoy increased support from spending in counties represented by co-partisan members of Congress. At the individual level, we also find that ideology conditions the response of constituents to spending; liberal and moderate voters reward presidents for federal spending at higher levels than conservatives. Our results suggest that, although voters may claim to favor deficit reduction, presidents who deliver such benefits are rewarded at the ballot box.

As I read Andrew Bacevich’s post at Responsible Statecraft on Israel’s war against Hamas:

Today challenges to the nation’s erstwhile indispensability premier abound: the rise of China, a stalemated conflict in Ukraine, porous borders at home, the pressing existential threat posed by climate change. Yet none poses a more urgent test than the ongoing war in Gaza. Here, more than anywhere else, events summon the United States to affirm its claim to primacy. Right now, without delay.

Doing so would mean employing U.S. power and influence to bring this wretched war to an immediate end.

As measured by actions rather than rhetorical gestures, however, the Biden administration has done just the opposite. By providing immense quantities of ordnance to one side, it ensures the war’s perpetuation and facilitates the continued slaughter of noncombatants. By vetoing UN Security Council efforts to force a ceasefire, it stands virtually alone in defiance of world opinion. While American diplomats travel hither and yon, their efforts cannot be rated as other than ineffectual.

and Jack Watling’s piece at Foreign Affairs on Russia’s war against Ukraine:

If the Ukrainian military’s 2023 offensive had gone according to plan, its forces would have punched through Russia’s so-called Surovikin Line in Zaporizhzhia Province and liberated Melitopol, severing the roads connecting Russia to Crimea. Combined with Ukrainian naval operations, that would have put Crimea under siege. This objective was ambitious but achievable. The foremost reason it failed was that the Ukrainian units assigned to lead the offensive had insufficient time to train and prepare.

In July 2022, the United Kingdom, alongside other Ukrainian partners, established Operation Interflex to train Ukrainian troops. At the time, Ukraine desperately needed more units to hold defensive positions, so Interflex set the training program at five weeks, prioritizing skills vital to defensive operations. That five-week regimen still exists, but the mission has fundamentally changed.

During World War II, the British military considered 22 weeks the minimum time necessary to prepare a soldier for infantry combat. After this initial period, soldiers would be assigned to units and take part in collective training in battalions. Even before May 2023, it was evident that Ukraine’s troops were undertrained for offensive operations and had barely had time to learn how to operate newly donated equipment. But as Russian forces strengthened their defensive positions, the offensive could not be delayed.

the question that occurred to me was is prolonging wars actually in the best interest of the United States? I don’t think so. I think that short, swift, decisive wars tend to favor our interests while long, drawn out wars have generally gone against us for the last 50 years. The White House is rather clearly pushing to continue both wars.

Yesterday I remarked on Joe Biden’s approval rating. Today at Gallup Megan Brenan reports that President Biden ended 2023 with a lower approval rating than when he began it:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Joe Biden’s job approval rating is 39%, marking a slight improvement from the 37% low points in October and November but the fifth time his rating is below 40% in 2023.

During the latest poll’s Dec. 1-20 field period, the war between Israel and Hamas continued after a late November pause in fighting, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Biden at the White House to ask for the United States’ help in his country’s war with Russia, and House Republicans unanimously voted to open an impeachment inquiry into Biden.

While rank-and-file Republicans’ ratings of Biden have been firmly entrenched in the single digits since August 2021, independents’ ratings have been more variable. After hitting a record-low 27% in November, approval of Biden is up seven percentage points this month. Approval of Biden among Democrats is currently 78%, down slightly from last month’s 83%.

That’s no actually the punchline which is that President Biden’s approval rating at this point in his presidency is lower than that of any president in post-war period including Jimmy Carter who failed to be re-elected.

As I observed in comments to be re-elected his approval rating’s trend must change and it must change soon.

There are all sorts of retorts to that. His approval rating doesn’t matter; his approval rating relative to Donald Trump’s does (Trump’s approval rating is presently higher than Biden’s). It’s still early. A lot could happen between now and November 2024 (will what happens improve his approval rating or hurt it?). The only poll that matters is the one in November 2024.

My only points are that I’m sure that President Biden’s re-election campaign is looking at the same polls, should be expected to act accordingly, do it soon, and their actions may have unanticipated results.