Pun Salad

In a speech last night announcing her about-face on the filibuster (from supporting it while in the minority to opposing it while in the majority), New Hampshire senator Maggie Hassan proclaimed that “we must pass legislation to protect American democracy.” She warned that “if the partisans who are attacking our democracy have their way . . . we’ll see an Election Day that is a charade, just like in countries where democracy doesn’t exist.” This is a common argument used to rationalize obliterating regular order in the Senate: Democracy itself is at stake, so the filibuster must be nuked to preserve it.

However, this is also an argument that grows weaker the more seriously you take its premises. Removing the filibuster dramatically expands the ability of a temporary partisan majority to meddle in elections. For example, a party controlling the presidency and the Congress could set national standards for elections in a way it thinks will be to its own partisan advantage.

Plans by congressional Democrats for trillions of dollars in taxes and spending hikes appear to be faltering in the face of opposition by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Publicly and loudly concerned about the so-called "Build Back Better" bill's near-certain escalation of already worrisome federal debt and inflation, he has remained resolute in his demands for reductions in proposed spending increases as prices have risen across the board for Americans. Economic sense is on his side, since the ambitious bill threatens to further strain Americans' budgets.

"Throughout the last three months, I have been straightforward about my concerns that I will not support a reconciliation package that expands social programs and irresponsibly adds to our nearly $29 trillion in national debt that no one else seems to care about," Manchin warned in November of the measures dubbed "Build Back Better." "I, for one, also won't support a multitrillion-dollar bill without greater clarity about why Congress chooses to ignore the serious effects inflation and debt have on our economy and existing government programs."

Emphasis on jobs reflects the fact that government spending money on infrastructure projects entails hiring people to do work. But it’s not actually true that “in order to create jobs” is the reason to build infrastructure. And this is not unique to the infrastructure issue. Across a whole range of issues, emphasizing the job creation aspect of public expenditures is a staple of progressive rhetoric — in part just because it sounds good to people, and I can’t begrudge politicians for doing politics. But in part, it’s a reaction to a very prolonged labor market slump that we had in the 21st century which made “creating jobs” seem like priority number one at all times.

In the real world, though, this is not why we want to promote clean energy, expand health and dental coverage, or bolster the availability of early childhood education. Those things are all virtuous and important in and of themselves. The job creation sales pitch was a reaction to 20 years of catastrophic macroeconomic mismanagement. But you want to power people’s homes, reduce pollution, and clean their teeth. And now that we have an economy where it’s much easier to find a job than it was at any time during the 20 pre-pandemic years, it’s time to adjust our thinking.

While traveling by car during one of his many overseas travels, Professor Milton Friedman spotted scores of road builders moving earth with shovels instead of modern machinery. When he asked why powerful equipment wasn’t used instead of so many laborers, his host told him it was to keep employment high in the construction industry. If they used tractors or modern road building equipment, fewer people would have jobs was his host’s logic.

“Then instead of shovels, why don’t you give them spoons and create even more jobs?” Friedman inquired.

You almost have to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. Not really, but for the sake of argument. As recently as 2016, she was a multimillionaire feminist icon on the verge of making history. Now she's just an irrelevant failure and "toxic white liberal" who is despised or ignored by everyone outside the Acela corridor cocktail circuit. Her days of charging $225,500 to give a speech at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries are long gone, yet she is either unable or unwilling to bow out gracefully. The Master Class gig seems like another step in Hillary's inevitable evolution from failed politician to moderately successful self-help guru to extremely successful multilevel marketing executive to federal inmate.

Part of what makes Hillary Clinton so resilient, according to the Master Class instructor, is her values. She urges her students to "think about things that are fundamentally important to you," to "write it all down" and continuously revise it. For example, Hillary cares deeply about "so many different issues and concerns" that she simply "can't be involved in everything," so it's often necessary to "choose what it is you're going to stake as important to you and where you're going to put your energy."

What, exactly, does Hillary Clinton care about? Well, since her humiliating loss to Donald Trump in 2016, she has chosen to put most of her energy into talking about herself. She wrote a memoir about why she lost (James Comey, Vladimir Putin, and sexism), took part in a Hulu documentary about her life, and coauthored a thriller based on her time as secretary of state, in which the protagonist uncovers a "vast right-wing conspiracy" plotting to set off nuclear bombs across the country because they "hate America's diversity."

“We call St. Nick ‘Santa Claus’ because we get many of our Christmas traditions from the New Amsterdam Dutch. The way the Dutch pronounce ‘St. Nicholas’ is Sinterklass. And speaking of Rudolph’s red nose, this is how some people at this table are beginning to pronounce their words. I spiked the eggnog with Everclear, in the hope that at least a few of you would pass out face-first in your plates. Santa’s helpers are standing by at EMS.”

“Sinterklass has a helper called Zwarte Piet who wears blackface and carries bad children away in a sack. The Dutch claim this isn’t racist. I’ve invited Megyn Kelly to come over this evening and discuss the subject. She’ll be bringing her own sack.”