Monthly Archives: June 2016


CW is Trump needs to 1) nail down GOP 2) then go for swing votes. Why not just go straight for swing, winnable Dems?…

| 7 years ago on Twitter


Also the piece undermines itself. Says “sovereignty” referenda are OK, then feebly tries to say Brexit wasn’t that.…

| 7 years ago on Twitter


Not completely sure the press makes all the rules here. If he only talks of country-based ban, *something’s* changed…

| 7 years ago on Twitter


Do “programs that help U.S. industries and workers transition” ever come close 2 fixing neg. trade impacts? #fantasy

| 7 years ago on Twitter


Paulson says income disparity increasing but uses “average” # for trade bonus ($10,000) that hides effect at bottom

| 7 years ago on Twitter


So Paulson answer 2 “tech. advances moving @ warp speed…hollowing out…middle class” is 1) more! 2) cut SS/Mcare

| 7 years ago on Twitter

27 Should it take a 60% vote to increase immigration?

If Rogoff’s serious … : Economist Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard argues that Brexit should have required a supermajority vote — say, 60%.

But what, exactly, is a fair, democratic process for making irreversible, nation-defining decisions? Is it really enough to get 52% to vote for breakup on a rainy day? [Emphasis added.]

Hmm. I can think of an even more* irreversible and nation-defining decision that we make by ordinary majority rule** — the decision to admit large numbers of new immigrants to (in due course) become citizens. It’s irreversible because once they are citizens we can’t un-make them citizens (and in practice they will not be kicked out before then).*** It’s nation-defining because new arrivals bring their culture with them, and culture is extremely important in defining a nation. If we somehow let in 80 million misogynsts we’ll have a very different country than if we don’t.

So should proposals that would dramatically increase (or reallocate) the number of new citizens — like the Senate’s now-defunct “Gang of 8 bill” or the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act — require a Rogoffian supermajority? Sixty percent of the House? Two separate majority votes two years apart? I’m warming up to this line of reasoning.

[via @FelixSalmon]


*– I would say “more” irreversible because, as we are learning. Brexit may not have the finality it appeared to have before last week’s vote. It’s not hard to conceive of circumstances in which the EU would be happy to take the UK back in. It’s inconceivable (I hope) that a class of law-abiding U.S. citizens would be stripped of their citizenship and removed from the country.

**–Yes, a supermajority is normally required to survive a filibuster in the Senate. But a) that’s the ordinary procedure for approving any law, not just “irreversible, nation-defining” laws; b) it’s not a constitutional rule — it’s an in-house Senate rule that can be eliminated any time via the “nuclear option.” Hardly sufficient protection against majority whim! And c) it doesn’t apply in the House.

***–A decision not to admit new immigrants, in contrast, is quite reversible (by admitting them).


“it may be time for the elites in Britain and beyond to sue for peace”

| 7 years ago on Twitter


If you want the true weary, contemptuous voice of elite media reaction to Brexit, listen to NYT’s Erlanger here ……

| 7 years ago on Twitter


Because nobody at the time warned that O’s embracing Arab Spring could bring huge chaotic consequences ……

| 7 years ago on Twitter


“[T]he generation that just lost its future.” A solid contender for the Overreaction Award, but the night is young.…

| 7 years ago on Twitter


Simple Brexit lesson: When people are pissed off abt mass immigration address their concerns-don’t call them racists…

| 7 years ago on Twitter