With American families contemplating back-to-school spending and winter holiday budgets, the worrisome economic news is eerily on script: Donald Trump’s tariffs are indeed increasing prices for key goods, job losses due to AI and other payroll cuts are mounting,
The Democrats have nothing positive to offer, and it really shows. Their negativity is as blatant as anything I've seen in 50 years of watching politics and voting. Opposition is not only expected but it's a duty. Not this, though. Democrats have put all their chips on national failure. This is a very, very bad idea, to put it ever so mildly.
The issue for me is the Democrats besides having no vision , have no credibility to govern. I am not indicting all democrats but the ones leading (if you can call it that) are not credible. The major cities they lead have major crime and other issues. They have been on the wrong side of several issues (covid and immigration and crime) that have destroyed their credibility. A really good example of this is how they named their major legislative victory “Inflation reduction “. They did this because what it really was the public was not excited about so they stuck a name on it which was not just neutral phony but actually appeared to cause inflation to skyrocket. I could go on with several other high visibility issues where they squandered their credibility such as their denial of what was plain to the vast majority of people, Biden had serious age issues and not up to the presidents job. I think this credibility issues is going to wreck havoc on the Democrats for a long time.
Their so-called Dem moderate (Shapiro) has been busy backtracking in order to win the primary (like Kamala). Formerly for school choice, now against school choice. He has referred to supporters of PA's Save Women's Sports Act" as "extremist legislators" and refuses to say whether he will veto it. The states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are currently suing the Little Sisters of the Poor to force abortion funding on them. So the Liberal Patriot can continue gaslighting about kicking the poor off Medicaid and SNAP but it isn't flying.
Tweaking past policies and actions may inspire the base, but non partisan voters voted for Trump because whatever he was going to do, it would be way different from the past.
Tax the rich, how about cutting waste and ideals such as those who can work should. Why should I pay for the 10 million illegals Joe let in? Crime levels are fine? Chaotic tariff policies. How about a new and better way to negotiate with the world. Trump got NATO members to up what they were paying. Dems said he ruined our relationship with them. But look, they are gettin along fine today. Trump said peace in a short time. He lied and can’t get it done. How about Biden got is so screwed up even Trump couldn’t fathom how bad it was. For current events on his was, he has settled them. More Abraham accords. The stop Arab states came out and told Hamas, out down the arms and femur of the way for two state negations. All Biden did was royally (pun intended) piss of the Saudis, which is what they told him when he begged them for more production, and alienate the Middle East with his suck up to Iran debacle. It has been only two hundred days. New and admittedly radical approaches take time. Biden had four years and still never made it better. Trump is giving andy wife and extra $12000 to deduct. Adding the other couple thousand for the standard deduction means and extra $14 to $15 thousand to deduct as a senior. And Joe gave me what. A bankruptcy SS that he didn’t have the balls to address. And not because the majority felt that way, everything Joe did was for the Dems radical minority parts of the party. Note the backlash against his Trans policies. The fact Trump has had good success at reversing Joe’s whacked out policies, even though the Dems still “fight” it tells the impotence of the because their policies were not defendable. They cheer because someone can go 25 hours without urinating? That’s fighting. Ands there’s Murphy again. He was part of the big supports of the Biden administration so what can he possible that is just banks from a spoiled little child. Do we have to get into the media? Indoctrinated to depths that make them laughable. Sullivan brought on to critic Trump’s negations. He freaking started the wars and did nothing to stop time in over three years.
And worse of all, the chickensh*t Dems won’t even go Maher’s program. Republicans do. Republicans go on all sorts of hostile Dem programs and usually make asses of the “journalists” who try to bait them.
To me it boils down to. The harder the Dems work to make the base happy, the further away they push the independents and disaffected Dem voters. I haven’t seen the slightest indication they even care what other than the base thinks. You may win some elections. I hope Mamdani and his election strategy is the template for all future Dem elections. Life will be great for all but the left.
I particularly agree with your last paragraph. I have really been looking for some Democratic leader to standup, admit where the party went wrong and paint a competitive vision that both inspires hope but also give people a reason to believe it will actually happen and make common sense. I don’t see any sign. I know that the Governors of Kentucky, Kansas and Pennsylvania have been held up as the new beginning but I really can’t see it. I don’t see any of them doing on a large stage what needs to be done
“Accordingly, they want the government to competently harmonize policies that ensure social justice, promote equal opportunity, and encourage purposeful individual initiative.”
Statements like this are why the Democrats are still in the wilderness. They want government to ensure public safety first and foremost. This is something that the Democrats have not only utterly failed at but like inflation and the border under Biden are pretending isn’t a problem. Other than that Americans generally want good paying jobs and welfare to be a temporary hand up not the permanent handout the Democrats are perpetually pushing.
The best advice for Democrats is to meet Trump halfway on issues where the public is largely with him. E.g. stop the “sanctuary” nonsense when it comes to criminals and work with ICE to get them out of your communities. Ditch the trans insanity. And stop the war on fossil fuels. Or more simply put listen to Ruy.
It took 12 years of losing to Reagan/Bush and a belief that Bush would cruise to reelection for the Democratic leadership to decide to sit the 92 election out making room for a previously unknown governor from Hope, Arkansas.
For a good laugh see if you cantrack down a clip of SNL’s skit: Campaign ’92: The Race To Avoid Being The Guy Who Loses To Bush
Good comment, Norm. Somewhere in the Democratic Party there is a disruptive candidate with appeal across party lines. The difference between now and then is the power of the Dems progressive Left to withhold crucial support and funding for any such moderate.
After the Biden bait and switch, it will need to be an actual moderate with a track record of governing from the center-left. A willingness to continually rhetorically take the woke wing out behind the woodshed while speaking to Democrats will be necessary as well.
This site is less insulting to Reps than 99% of Dem pundits , so I am loathe to complain, but what is it in Dem DNA that feels comfortable describing Republican voters as "ignorant" if not just plain "uneducated"?
Forgive my bluntness, but I am not ignorant of Dem infrastructure spending, I'm appalled. Tens of billions of dollars for rural high speed internet that did not connect one single US home to the internet, in 4 years. Tens of Billions for a few dozen EV charging stations. Some, in remote areas, sitting next to diesel generators, providing the necessary electricity. Billions for luxury EV SUV companies, with starting prices of $100K, as if financing the toys of tomorrow for the wealthy, is a reasonable use of US of taxes collected from waitresses and truck drivers. Billions wasted to rebuild perfectly good "racist roads", could have been spent, actually helping the poor people on the wrong side of the offending speedways, rather than demolishing safe roads, to rebuild them a few hundred yards away.
The above is but a short list. Toss in 3rd world adult cosmetic circumcisions, sex change operations, trans operas.. . Hundreds of billions to support 10 million unvetted migrants in luxury hotels, with room service and laundry delivered, so more than 1/2 could enroll in US welfare programs. Hundreds of extra federal billions, dumped on public schools with no accountability or even auditing, as test scores mostly drop each year.
Don't get me started on the Biden handouts to the wealthiest Americans. Does the Silicon Valley Billionaire Bank Bailout ring a bell? The wealthiest and best educated Americans excused from FDIC limits, every 80 year Iowa farm widow understands and abides. An attempted trillion dollar student debt forgiveness that sought to hand up to $40K, to 26 year old lawyers married to 26 year MBAs, earning $250K together, long before their 30th birthdays. $7500 checks for those buying $80K luxury EVs. Nearly unlimited billions for anyone that could scratch out a Green business plan on the back of a napkin, form a corporation and call a DC Dem buddy, looking for ways to burn a trillion dollars ASAP.
Many of us assumed, Trump's reelection was going to be the proverbial slap the Dem Party needed to wipe the smug smiles off their faces, ditch the perpetual "uneducated" insults and seek, at least, a mini Reformation. All, in hopes of avoiding the 12 years of Rep rule that followed Carter's debacle, that was mirrored by Biden's massive failures. 6 months later, the only Dem policy change has been a begrudging acknowledgement that migrant murderers, rapists and pedophiles should be deported. Absolutely nothing else has changed.
Dems are counting on massive Trump failure to save them, along with horrendous Rep messaging, that fails to convey the historical consequences of Dems mucked up policies. If Reps ever figure out how to speak, so voters understand the full destruction of the Biden years, Dems will need more than Trump failures.
To support his hypothesis that the country needs change, Justin cites an Economist/YouGov poll saying some 70% of Americans think the country is in “poor shape.” In fact, that poll says 72% of Americans think the country is in “FAIR or poor shape”. Very deceptive. The RCP average of polls shows that as many Americans think the country is headed in the right direction as has been the case over the last 15 years. Trump’s RCP consensus approval rating is so-so at 45.8% (vs 51% disapproval), but that’s higher than Biden’s 43.2% average and 39% at year end 2024. The preamble for the article was misleading.
On to the solutions. Justin makes 4 recommendations. The first two are to increase the money supply (print money) and increase the safety net. Classic failed and typical Democrat approaches, instead of making the economy more efficient.
He does offer two constructive suggestions. One is to increase “the quality of life” and the other is to “encourage individual initiative “. Who’s not for that? But here, alas, there are no specific solutions, because they would be in conflict with current Democrat orthodoxy. The article underscores the challenges facing Democrats in constructing a coherent political strategy.
Not one word in the entire essay on illegal immigration, or did I miss it. The best I've ever heard any of my fellow Democrats offer is to "strengthen the border" or some such drivel. Trump already did that, now what.
All over my metro area businesses I deal with and suppliers say things have slowed. People are worried about inflation because the media bombards us night and day with misleading hyperbole probably based on the basic innumeracy displayed by college grads in "journalism".
I'm retired, but still contracting, headed out to work this minute though I shouldn't be and don't need to. I've been charging a heck of a lot more.
That bill was crazy stupid, yes, and I think Trump is something unprintable, don't like him at all, given everything would I vote for him again, you bet.
I cast my third consecutive write-in vote for president last year, but I agree with the thrust of your last sentence in many ways. I would put it differently, but the idea is the same, and it's something I have ALWAYS believed: If the president succeeds, meaning delivers prosperity and peace, the country succeeds.
So I ALWAYS want the president to succeed, even if I didn't vote for him, wouldn't vote for him, and don't like him. Country first, god damn it. I love this country at the molecular level. Anyone or any party invested in American failure, as the Democrats clearly are now, deserves to be left sputtering in the dust.
You have hit the nail on the head. For the first time in US history, 25% of all people dwelling in the US are enrolled on Medicaid, before we experience any economic downturn. 40% of US children are enrolled in Medicaid. Medicaid spending has increased by more than 30% just since 2019.
Likewise, for the first time in the US, more than 1/2 of all immigrants, be they naturalized citizens or noncitizens living legally or illegally, are enrolled in welfare programs. We are not curing anyone's poverty, we are simply relocating it , to more expensive locals.
Now imagine how those percentages will rise in a prolonged economic downturn. Maybe Trump's tariffs are Armageddon, or maybe just a natural pull back in the business cycle. The lack of mass poverty is the first hallmark of any First World nation. As nations develop in the West, all of society is suppose to move up the economic ladder. We appear to be, massively, moving in the wrong direction.
“Not only have Republicans extended tax cuts that heavily favor the very wealthy” The proper term is ‘made permanent current tax rates for everyone’. As a widow, living on social security, rental income from a tiny house, and supplemented with IRA withdrawals, I am very glad my tax bracket isn’t going up. The US economy and stock market is climbing a wall of worry, very bullish.
Some decent ideas but they will entail taking on significant elements of the party base like public sector unions and environmental activists. This is especially true if Democrats are to demonstrate competence in governance in their strongholds. NYC is about to provide a demonstration in the opposite direction. Chicago already has but it is not the media capital.
Congratulations to Justin Vassallo for an incisive explanation of the Democrats' political problem. They might do better in 2026 and 2028 if they offer a credible solution to the housing shortage. Yet, most of the states and all of the cities where housing is scarce and expensive have Democratic governors and mayors. What the Democrats need to win on the housing issue is clear success at the state and local level, the opposite of what they have today.
Gov. Newsom recently signed into law a bill which raises the California Renter's Tax Credit to $500 a year. The income limit is higher than the median household income there, so most California renters will qualify. The problem is, $500 is 1.5% of the median annual rent in Los Angeles and 1.2% of that in San Francisco. A small drop in a large bucket.
And that’s hardly a solution - let the taxpayers subsidize poor policy decisions. With more rules and regulations than any other state, it’s almost impossible to build here in California. My next door neighbors wanted to remodel - not even change the footprint of their house. The permits took two years and cost many thousands of dollars.
This piece is another diagnosis of Democrat party problems. The fact that the Democrats allowed in 10 to 20 million illegal migrants of whom 500,000 are criminals and are committing crimes to this day is not even mentioned. If citizens don't feel safe, then their economic well being may take a back seat, and if citizens don't trust the Democrat party because of the invasion they allowed, and if citizens don't trust the Democrat party because of the big time inflation they caused, then the Democrat party is screwed just like they screwed America. They put up Biden as a moderate and then shoved the DEI and Green New Deal down our throat without asking us what we want. DEMOCRATS CANNOT BE TRUSTED!!! I am an unaffiliated voter who voted for Obama twice, Trump 3 times, and may have voted for Bernie if the Democrat party had allowed him to run against Trump. And so far, the way I see it, Trump is the man of the hour. GO TRUMP!!!
"Should prices soar by year’s end, Democrats will have a clear-cut message for the 2026 midterms."
Maybe, but their messages to date have been vague, disproven, contradictory or, as the author himself concedes, strictly "reactive" to Trump's and the GOP's initiatives.
In politics, as in life, you don't win a cigar nor an election with that kind of cowering timidity and absence of a clearly articulated vision.
We'll see. I've argued here that all it takes (as it did with Reagan in 81-82) is a little time and the tariff position will jump to an 80/20 issues for Rs too. I would welcome a looser Fed--right now, that's one (but not the only one) of the factors holding back the home industry.
Now, you are dead on that AI is going to cost jobs as all automation does. But AI has massive power and WATER needs. There is a jobs bonanza coming in energy and water/desalinization etc. If the Ds could get on that band wagon . . . but nooooo. That conflicts with the green transition.
I'm a pretty fierce critic of the Democrats in recent years, but I am also critical of the Republicans on Social Security, in an oblique way. The following comes from a back-and-forth with an affluent wingnut friend who was complaining that the return on FICA contributions is low. He argued that people should have a choice of investment vehicles for their FICA money, and I argued vigorously against it. Here were my points:
1. If, for example, people could designate money to be put into S&P 500 index funds, the federal government would eventually have major ownership stakes in those companies. And of course there would quickly be demands to be able to put FICA contributions into a variety of other passive vehicles, small-caps, large caps, ETFs, currencies, you name it.
The dead sweaty hand of government would be regulating fees, and voting shares. Government would have incentives to protect existing companies at the expense of innovative challengers. If we'd done this, 75 years ago, we'd all be driving 1963 Pontiacs, paying $5 a minute for long distance, wireline only. Personal computers? What are those?
Secondly, I told him, never forget that half the population is below average. Social Security is a floor meant to keep Americans from having to eat cat food in retirement. As a finance proposition, it's a risk-free vehicle (see below for more), and very much a direct investment in the real economy. It's not supposed to be something with superior returns. It's a safety net, and it should be as simple as it gets.
2. SS was designed to be part of a three-legged stool, the other two legs being private pensions (now 401Ks) and personal savings and investment. That's where you chase yield, not in the safety net.
3. The Republicans just cannot help trying to undermine Social Security in various "privatization" schemes. In so doing, they miss a big opportunity. Instead, they should stress what Social Security actually is: that "risk free" investment in the long-term performance of the real American economy. The lack of risk depends on a stable federal financial position, and the rapid accumulation of external debt through reckless spending is a threat, and if not contained will undermine Social Security.
Thus, if I were a Republican, I would say, "Look folks, regardless of what some of the most conservative in my party say, I am 100% for Social Security, and I am here to say that the biggest parts of ensuring the future of this vital program is to pay a lot more attention to our fiscal situation and to ensure the ability of our businesses to succeed." The Republicans, in my opinion, constantly miss the chance to include Social Security in their platform and rhetoric.
4. By, in so many ways, pulling for American failure, today's "progressives" are actually endangering Social Security, and should be called out for it -- by the Republicans, in the terms I mentioned in point #3 above. They are injecting more risk into its future, and that's a very negative thing.
A few comments. First of all, FDR envisioned Social Security as a temporary program until Americans learned to save more. He would be appalled at the level of entitlement spending that exists today.
Many countries allow some portion of their social security payments to go into private/market accounts. It works fine and improves outcomes, as do programs that are indexed to life expectancy. If individuals own an index fund, they are the voters of proxies, not the government. That is how 401(k) plans work already.
The much maligned George W. Bush tried to reform Social Security to put it on a path to solvency. As an aside, he also promoted comprehensive immigration reform. Both were shot down by Congress on both sides of the aisle.
I'm curious to know what makes you think "FDR envisioned Social Security as a temporary program until Americans learned to save more." My parents were Depression kids. Their generation was much more frugal than their children, the inflation kids.
It was an extensive history of the Social Security Program. I read it many years ago and I'd be guessing as to the author at this point. My parents were Depression kids /young adults also. They were certainly frugal, but there was little to be frugal with at that point as we all know. I think FDR was basically trying to create a bit of what he thought was a temporary safety net that the nation would outgrow. I recognize that some people disagree with that, and I may have read wrong information - always possible. But he was quoted more than once on this in the book. It may have been political posturing, because he certainly was in favor of expanding the role of Government.
GWBush's plan for SS was to privatize for the young and reduce benefits for the older, in other words get rid of it. I guess something that is gone is solvent.
There was zero reduction for the "older" under his plan (which I define as age 55 and above).
Privatization was focused on younger people because it has no impact when you're close to retirement - that's just basic compounding math. Many countries allow private accounts, and they tend to be among the most solvent systems (Sweden, Chile, etc).
He also proposed using a different CPI index which better reflects actual price increases. The current wage based index distorts the numbers. For example, when states mandate a high minimum wage for workers (e.g. California, New York), it boosts the Social Security CPI calculation regardless of overall inflation trends.
His plan was an opening offer, subject to negotiation in Congress. They never took it up. At that time the NPV of the SS deficit was a few Trillion. It's now $27 Trillion solely due to inaction by Congress and future presidents.
The problem with Social Security is that it was set up when people both died younger and had more children.
I kind of agree with you on privatization. It sounds great in theory, but the risks of increased government involvement in board rooms is a massive downside.
It’s probably going to require some combination of raising both the retirement age and taxes along with some level of means testing.
Right now the Republican plan is the same as the Democrats: kick the can down the road and demagogue any proposed changes as killing Grandma.
Means testing means just another government welfare program. The truth is people just think 'the rich' are going to somehow fund trillion dollar programs.
I've looked at the math around Social Security for decades. There just aren't enough "rich" to have much impact on the deficit, though it still might occur for political reasons. The formula for Social Security funding is complex and already skewed towards lower earners. Most people don't know this.
What you say, Norm, is true. It's hard to fight demographics (fewer births, older population) when you're running a pay as you go system. Not every country does it that way. You can close the gap today with an increase of 2% in FICA, eliminate ceiling cap on contributions (already in place with Medicare) and use a chain-weighted CPI (Social Security's inflation index is tied to wage growth).
As you say, Republicans are just as mum on this issue as Democrats. Any talk of reform is seen as a career-ender, when in fact Americans want this problem solved. Some smart politician will lead on this and reap the benefits. Now that's something the Democrats could win on.
Your #1 is the Republican version of the criticism at the original enactment of SS. The Democratic version is all that money would be taken out of the economy which was trying to recover from the Depression. (Probably neither would be true today.) FDR actually wanted a sort of mild version of individual accounts but he got rolled (with the connivance of his own staff) which is how we wound up with the Ponzi-type system we have.
Your #3 is a fair criticism of the Paul Ryan Republicans but not of Trump who has been steadfast in defense of Social Security. Hopefully, Ryan will be seen only in the rear view mirror.
As for #2, have you been following the attempt of the hedge fund giants to get their greedy hands on the 401k pool.
If you look at how the FICA receipts were deployed, nothing was ever "taken out of the economy." The minute the hedge funds get into the 401(k)s, that will be the sign that hedge funds are over with.
Almost all of my income isn't subject to Social Security tax. Taxing all income for Social Security would be enough to actually increase payments which are too low, and maybe bring retirement ages back into reality. No cap, capital gains, and unrealized income, all subject to SS tax would more than do it.
The three legged stool of retirement only has one leg. Very few people have enough in a 401K to make any difference, pension funds disappeared with corporate takeovers pumping and dumping causing corporate bankruptcies with sudden insolvent pension funds.
People are really stupid with money. Look at our student loan debacle. Smart, successful people are also stupid with money. SS needs strengthening as does Medicare.
There are some good observations in this article, but many inaccuracies and important points glossed over as well. Too many to cite here, but I address a few:
Many economist not tied to the Left have said the "American Rescue Plan" was the kickstarter for the high inflation of the early Biden years since it poured a huge amount of newly-printed money into the economy when it was already recovering from Covid and didn't need increased demand chasing too few goods when productivity was not there to support the demand. We are still living with the consequences. The "Inflation Reduction Act" was nothing but the old "Green New Deal" dressed up with a totally misleading name, even the Dems admit it had nothing to do with reducing inflation and everything to do with handing out more billions to their favored environmental rent seekers. All of it was wasted deficit spending we will be burdened with for decades to come since very little of that money was spent on anything with an economic payout. The CHIPS act might do some good somewhere but the money had so many strings attached for favored Dem priorities that it probably won't have much effect on increasing high tech manufacturing.
The OBBB was among other things about making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, which were skewed towards reducing taxes for those at the lower end of the wage scale despite all the Dem lies about who benefited. The wealthy certainly did not with the elimination of SALT deductions.
The Medicaid reforms were about requiring able-bodied adults with no children to work, volunteer or go to school to receive benefits - something the public approves of by large margins. The Dems lied about this too - no one will get kicked off Medicaid except people who don't deserve to be there.
The author states that the Biden agenda was to repair the industrial base and enhance productivity - it did none of these things. The green agenda was all about tearing down the industrial base and trying to replace it with more leftist-approved wind and solar which cannot support large scale industry or productivity.
I will not address tariffs because the situation is not yet settled and the evidence can be interpreted through whatever your favorite ideological lens might be.
Dems have a universally terrible record at managing government welfare programs, so good luck with improving unemployment and job training programs. They have had decades to show even a minimal level of competence in blue states with no results to speak of.
Cost of living and quality of life in cities? Again, they got as terrible as they are under Dem rule and there is no indication that they have any intention of doing one single thing positive about fixing any of it. Just more of the same. So no hope there for Dems.
Social justice as practiced by the identity politics Left is incompatible with equal opportunity and individual initiative. They want equal outcomes not opportunity. And initiative is actively discouraged because that would mean outcomes would not be equal, and government was not the grantor of the results.
Today's Dems have no interest whatever in America as it is or in the strengths of its past, they hate America and want to tear it apart but have no apparent plan for rebuilding in any realistic way. So recommendations that they should think about a positive future for the country are just wishful thinking at best, and realistically delusional. Also, various center-left figures have been telling them at least since the election that they need to regroup and rethink with no sign that they have heard the message.
I mean, I think it's in the realm of possibility that it won't matter what changes the party makes, given that I don't see what the incentive is amongst DC Republicans to allow fair elections at this point, at least in 2026 and 2028.
After the past few weeks, it's fairly clear that all that need be done is:
I.) deploy the national guard and ICE to major swing state cities a few weeks before the election, citing some minor crime incident, as with D.C., or rumors of ‘illegal alien’ activity or whatever
II.) keep voters away from the polls by various methods--e.g., threatening anyone who didn't bring their citizenship papers with arrest, (or actual arrest on 'suspicion' of something untoward) or provoking an incident that leads to violence and a shutdown of polling places, or simply hanging out with a mask on and military armaments in hand.
Do this in the big urban strongholds of Democratic voters and you’ll likely repress enough of the voting margin to prevent Democrats from any statewide victory.
Much of it would likely be illegal, but by the time the courts rule on it, the votes will have been cast and you won’t be able to reverse the results.
The precedents have already been established in L.A. and in D.C., so whose gonna stop you? It's certainly the surest path to an overwhelming November victory, and eliminates the uncertainty of the outcome. It would be one less uncertainty to worry about.
The Democrats have nothing positive to offer, and it really shows. Their negativity is as blatant as anything I've seen in 50 years of watching politics and voting. Opposition is not only expected but it's a duty. Not this, though. Democrats have put all their chips on national failure. This is a very, very bad idea, to put it ever so mildly.
The issue for me is the Democrats besides having no vision , have no credibility to govern. I am not indicting all democrats but the ones leading (if you can call it that) are not credible. The major cities they lead have major crime and other issues. They have been on the wrong side of several issues (covid and immigration and crime) that have destroyed their credibility. A really good example of this is how they named their major legislative victory “Inflation reduction “. They did this because what it really was the public was not excited about so they stuck a name on it which was not just neutral phony but actually appeared to cause inflation to skyrocket. I could go on with several other high visibility issues where they squandered their credibility such as their denial of what was plain to the vast majority of people, Biden had serious age issues and not up to the presidents job. I think this credibility issues is going to wreck havoc on the Democrats for a long time.
Their so-called Dem moderate (Shapiro) has been busy backtracking in order to win the primary (like Kamala). Formerly for school choice, now against school choice. He has referred to supporters of PA's Save Women's Sports Act" as "extremist legislators" and refuses to say whether he will veto it. The states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are currently suing the Little Sisters of the Poor to force abortion funding on them. So the Liberal Patriot can continue gaslighting about kicking the poor off Medicaid and SNAP but it isn't flying.
Tweaking past policies and actions may inspire the base, but non partisan voters voted for Trump because whatever he was going to do, it would be way different from the past.
Tax the rich, how about cutting waste and ideals such as those who can work should. Why should I pay for the 10 million illegals Joe let in? Crime levels are fine? Chaotic tariff policies. How about a new and better way to negotiate with the world. Trump got NATO members to up what they were paying. Dems said he ruined our relationship with them. But look, they are gettin along fine today. Trump said peace in a short time. He lied and can’t get it done. How about Biden got is so screwed up even Trump couldn’t fathom how bad it was. For current events on his was, he has settled them. More Abraham accords. The stop Arab states came out and told Hamas, out down the arms and femur of the way for two state negations. All Biden did was royally (pun intended) piss of the Saudis, which is what they told him when he begged them for more production, and alienate the Middle East with his suck up to Iran debacle. It has been only two hundred days. New and admittedly radical approaches take time. Biden had four years and still never made it better. Trump is giving andy wife and extra $12000 to deduct. Adding the other couple thousand for the standard deduction means and extra $14 to $15 thousand to deduct as a senior. And Joe gave me what. A bankruptcy SS that he didn’t have the balls to address. And not because the majority felt that way, everything Joe did was for the Dems radical minority parts of the party. Note the backlash against his Trans policies. The fact Trump has had good success at reversing Joe’s whacked out policies, even though the Dems still “fight” it tells the impotence of the because their policies were not defendable. They cheer because someone can go 25 hours without urinating? That’s fighting. Ands there’s Murphy again. He was part of the big supports of the Biden administration so what can he possible that is just banks from a spoiled little child. Do we have to get into the media? Indoctrinated to depths that make them laughable. Sullivan brought on to critic Trump’s negations. He freaking started the wars and did nothing to stop time in over three years.
And worse of all, the chickensh*t Dems won’t even go Maher’s program. Republicans do. Republicans go on all sorts of hostile Dem programs and usually make asses of the “journalists” who try to bait them.
To me it boils down to. The harder the Dems work to make the base happy, the further away they push the independents and disaffected Dem voters. I haven’t seen the slightest indication they even care what other than the base thinks. You may win some elections. I hope Mamdani and his election strategy is the template for all future Dem elections. Life will be great for all but the left.
I particularly agree with your last paragraph. I have really been looking for some Democratic leader to standup, admit where the party went wrong and paint a competitive vision that both inspires hope but also give people a reason to believe it will actually happen and make common sense. I don’t see any sign. I know that the Governors of Kentucky, Kansas and Pennsylvania have been held up as the new beginning but I really can’t see it. I don’t see any of them doing on a large stage what needs to be done
Sorry if the post misspelling etc. my wife came out to car and I had to finish.
“Accordingly, they want the government to competently harmonize policies that ensure social justice, promote equal opportunity, and encourage purposeful individual initiative.”
Statements like this are why the Democrats are still in the wilderness. They want government to ensure public safety first and foremost. This is something that the Democrats have not only utterly failed at but like inflation and the border under Biden are pretending isn’t a problem. Other than that Americans generally want good paying jobs and welfare to be a temporary hand up not the permanent handout the Democrats are perpetually pushing.
The best advice for Democrats is to meet Trump halfway on issues where the public is largely with him. E.g. stop the “sanctuary” nonsense when it comes to criminals and work with ICE to get them out of your communities. Ditch the trans insanity. And stop the war on fossil fuels. Or more simply put listen to Ruy.
I agree. But will they?
I don’t think they’ve hit rock bottom yet.
It took 12 years of losing to Reagan/Bush and a belief that Bush would cruise to reelection for the Democratic leadership to decide to sit the 92 election out making room for a previously unknown governor from Hope, Arkansas.
For a good laugh see if you cantrack down a clip of SNL’s skit: Campaign ’92: The Race To Avoid Being The Guy Who Loses To Bush
Good comment, Norm. Somewhere in the Democratic Party there is a disruptive candidate with appeal across party lines. The difference between now and then is the power of the Dems progressive Left to withhold crucial support and funding for any such moderate.
An authentic moderate? Or one who pretends to be moderate?
After the Biden bait and switch, it will need to be an actual moderate with a track record of governing from the center-left. A willingness to continually rhetorically take the woke wing out behind the woodshed while speaking to Democrats will be necessary as well.
Can you think of one?
This site is less insulting to Reps than 99% of Dem pundits , so I am loathe to complain, but what is it in Dem DNA that feels comfortable describing Republican voters as "ignorant" if not just plain "uneducated"?
Forgive my bluntness, but I am not ignorant of Dem infrastructure spending, I'm appalled. Tens of billions of dollars for rural high speed internet that did not connect one single US home to the internet, in 4 years. Tens of Billions for a few dozen EV charging stations. Some, in remote areas, sitting next to diesel generators, providing the necessary electricity. Billions for luxury EV SUV companies, with starting prices of $100K, as if financing the toys of tomorrow for the wealthy, is a reasonable use of US of taxes collected from waitresses and truck drivers. Billions wasted to rebuild perfectly good "racist roads", could have been spent, actually helping the poor people on the wrong side of the offending speedways, rather than demolishing safe roads, to rebuild them a few hundred yards away.
The above is but a short list. Toss in 3rd world adult cosmetic circumcisions, sex change operations, trans operas.. . Hundreds of billions to support 10 million unvetted migrants in luxury hotels, with room service and laundry delivered, so more than 1/2 could enroll in US welfare programs. Hundreds of extra federal billions, dumped on public schools with no accountability or even auditing, as test scores mostly drop each year.
Don't get me started on the Biden handouts to the wealthiest Americans. Does the Silicon Valley Billionaire Bank Bailout ring a bell? The wealthiest and best educated Americans excused from FDIC limits, every 80 year Iowa farm widow understands and abides. An attempted trillion dollar student debt forgiveness that sought to hand up to $40K, to 26 year old lawyers married to 26 year MBAs, earning $250K together, long before their 30th birthdays. $7500 checks for those buying $80K luxury EVs. Nearly unlimited billions for anyone that could scratch out a Green business plan on the back of a napkin, form a corporation and call a DC Dem buddy, looking for ways to burn a trillion dollars ASAP.
Many of us assumed, Trump's reelection was going to be the proverbial slap the Dem Party needed to wipe the smug smiles off their faces, ditch the perpetual "uneducated" insults and seek, at least, a mini Reformation. All, in hopes of avoiding the 12 years of Rep rule that followed Carter's debacle, that was mirrored by Biden's massive failures. 6 months later, the only Dem policy change has been a begrudging acknowledgement that migrant murderers, rapists and pedophiles should be deported. Absolutely nothing else has changed.
Dems are counting on massive Trump failure to save them, along with horrendous Rep messaging, that fails to convey the historical consequences of Dems mucked up policies. If Reps ever figure out how to speak, so voters understand the full destruction of the Biden years, Dems will need more than Trump failures.
Weak article.
To support his hypothesis that the country needs change, Justin cites an Economist/YouGov poll saying some 70% of Americans think the country is in “poor shape.” In fact, that poll says 72% of Americans think the country is in “FAIR or poor shape”. Very deceptive. The RCP average of polls shows that as many Americans think the country is headed in the right direction as has been the case over the last 15 years. Trump’s RCP consensus approval rating is so-so at 45.8% (vs 51% disapproval), but that’s higher than Biden’s 43.2% average and 39% at year end 2024. The preamble for the article was misleading.
On to the solutions. Justin makes 4 recommendations. The first two are to increase the money supply (print money) and increase the safety net. Classic failed and typical Democrat approaches, instead of making the economy more efficient.
He does offer two constructive suggestions. One is to increase “the quality of life” and the other is to “encourage individual initiative “. Who’s not for that? But here, alas, there are no specific solutions, because they would be in conflict with current Democrat orthodoxy. The article underscores the challenges facing Democrats in constructing a coherent political strategy.
Not one word in the entire essay on illegal immigration, or did I miss it. The best I've ever heard any of my fellow Democrats offer is to "strengthen the border" or some such drivel. Trump already did that, now what.
All over my metro area businesses I deal with and suppliers say things have slowed. People are worried about inflation because the media bombards us night and day with misleading hyperbole probably based on the basic innumeracy displayed by college grads in "journalism".
I'm retired, but still contracting, headed out to work this minute though I shouldn't be and don't need to. I've been charging a heck of a lot more.
That bill was crazy stupid, yes, and I think Trump is something unprintable, don't like him at all, given everything would I vote for him again, you bet.
I cast my third consecutive write-in vote for president last year, but I agree with the thrust of your last sentence in many ways. I would put it differently, but the idea is the same, and it's something I have ALWAYS believed: If the president succeeds, meaning delivers prosperity and peace, the country succeeds.
So I ALWAYS want the president to succeed, even if I didn't vote for him, wouldn't vote for him, and don't like him. Country first, god damn it. I love this country at the molecular level. Anyone or any party invested in American failure, as the Democrats clearly are now, deserves to be left sputtering in the dust.
You have hit the nail on the head. For the first time in US history, 25% of all people dwelling in the US are enrolled on Medicaid, before we experience any economic downturn. 40% of US children are enrolled in Medicaid. Medicaid spending has increased by more than 30% just since 2019.
Likewise, for the first time in the US, more than 1/2 of all immigrants, be they naturalized citizens or noncitizens living legally or illegally, are enrolled in welfare programs. We are not curing anyone's poverty, we are simply relocating it , to more expensive locals.
Now imagine how those percentages will rise in a prolonged economic downturn. Maybe Trump's tariffs are Armageddon, or maybe just a natural pull back in the business cycle. The lack of mass poverty is the first hallmark of any First World nation. As nations develop in the West, all of society is suppose to move up the economic ladder. We appear to be, massively, moving in the wrong direction.
“Not only have Republicans extended tax cuts that heavily favor the very wealthy” The proper term is ‘made permanent current tax rates for everyone’. As a widow, living on social security, rental income from a tiny house, and supplemented with IRA withdrawals, I am very glad my tax bracket isn’t going up. The US economy and stock market is climbing a wall of worry, very bullish.
Some decent ideas but they will entail taking on significant elements of the party base like public sector unions and environmental activists. This is especially true if Democrats are to demonstrate competence in governance in their strongholds. NYC is about to provide a demonstration in the opposite direction. Chicago already has but it is not the media capital.
Congratulations to Justin Vassallo for an incisive explanation of the Democrats' political problem. They might do better in 2026 and 2028 if they offer a credible solution to the housing shortage. Yet, most of the states and all of the cities where housing is scarce and expensive have Democratic governors and mayors. What the Democrats need to win on the housing issue is clear success at the state and local level, the opposite of what they have today.
Gov. Newsom recently signed into law a bill which raises the California Renter's Tax Credit to $500 a year. The income limit is higher than the median household income there, so most California renters will qualify. The problem is, $500 is 1.5% of the median annual rent in Los Angeles and 1.2% of that in San Francisco. A small drop in a large bucket.
And that’s hardly a solution - let the taxpayers subsidize poor policy decisions. With more rules and regulations than any other state, it’s almost impossible to build here in California. My next door neighbors wanted to remodel - not even change the footprint of their house. The permits took two years and cost many thousands of dollars.
Interesting observations that could have been in the article.
This piece is another diagnosis of Democrat party problems. The fact that the Democrats allowed in 10 to 20 million illegal migrants of whom 500,000 are criminals and are committing crimes to this day is not even mentioned. If citizens don't feel safe, then their economic well being may take a back seat, and if citizens don't trust the Democrat party because of the invasion they allowed, and if citizens don't trust the Democrat party because of the big time inflation they caused, then the Democrat party is screwed just like they screwed America. They put up Biden as a moderate and then shoved the DEI and Green New Deal down our throat without asking us what we want. DEMOCRATS CANNOT BE TRUSTED!!! I am an unaffiliated voter who voted for Obama twice, Trump 3 times, and may have voted for Bernie if the Democrat party had allowed him to run against Trump. And so far, the way I see it, Trump is the man of the hour. GO TRUMP!!!
"Should prices soar by year’s end, Democrats will have a clear-cut message for the 2026 midterms."
Maybe, but their messages to date have been vague, disproven, contradictory or, as the author himself concedes, strictly "reactive" to Trump's and the GOP's initiatives.
In politics, as in life, you don't win a cigar nor an election with that kind of cowering timidity and absence of a clearly articulated vision.
We'll see. I've argued here that all it takes (as it did with Reagan in 81-82) is a little time and the tariff position will jump to an 80/20 issues for Rs too. I would welcome a looser Fed--right now, that's one (but not the only one) of the factors holding back the home industry.
Now, you are dead on that AI is going to cost jobs as all automation does. But AI has massive power and WATER needs. There is a jobs bonanza coming in energy and water/desalinization etc. If the Ds could get on that band wagon . . . but nooooo. That conflicts with the green transition.
I'm a pretty fierce critic of the Democrats in recent years, but I am also critical of the Republicans on Social Security, in an oblique way. The following comes from a back-and-forth with an affluent wingnut friend who was complaining that the return on FICA contributions is low. He argued that people should have a choice of investment vehicles for their FICA money, and I argued vigorously against it. Here were my points:
1. If, for example, people could designate money to be put into S&P 500 index funds, the federal government would eventually have major ownership stakes in those companies. And of course there would quickly be demands to be able to put FICA contributions into a variety of other passive vehicles, small-caps, large caps, ETFs, currencies, you name it.
The dead sweaty hand of government would be regulating fees, and voting shares. Government would have incentives to protect existing companies at the expense of innovative challengers. If we'd done this, 75 years ago, we'd all be driving 1963 Pontiacs, paying $5 a minute for long distance, wireline only. Personal computers? What are those?
Secondly, I told him, never forget that half the population is below average. Social Security is a floor meant to keep Americans from having to eat cat food in retirement. As a finance proposition, it's a risk-free vehicle (see below for more), and very much a direct investment in the real economy. It's not supposed to be something with superior returns. It's a safety net, and it should be as simple as it gets.
2. SS was designed to be part of a three-legged stool, the other two legs being private pensions (now 401Ks) and personal savings and investment. That's where you chase yield, not in the safety net.
3. The Republicans just cannot help trying to undermine Social Security in various "privatization" schemes. In so doing, they miss a big opportunity. Instead, they should stress what Social Security actually is: that "risk free" investment in the long-term performance of the real American economy. The lack of risk depends on a stable federal financial position, and the rapid accumulation of external debt through reckless spending is a threat, and if not contained will undermine Social Security.
Thus, if I were a Republican, I would say, "Look folks, regardless of what some of the most conservative in my party say, I am 100% for Social Security, and I am here to say that the biggest parts of ensuring the future of this vital program is to pay a lot more attention to our fiscal situation and to ensure the ability of our businesses to succeed." The Republicans, in my opinion, constantly miss the chance to include Social Security in their platform and rhetoric.
4. By, in so many ways, pulling for American failure, today's "progressives" are actually endangering Social Security, and should be called out for it -- by the Republicans, in the terms I mentioned in point #3 above. They are injecting more risk into its future, and that's a very negative thing.
A few comments. First of all, FDR envisioned Social Security as a temporary program until Americans learned to save more. He would be appalled at the level of entitlement spending that exists today.
Many countries allow some portion of their social security payments to go into private/market accounts. It works fine and improves outcomes, as do programs that are indexed to life expectancy. If individuals own an index fund, they are the voters of proxies, not the government. That is how 401(k) plans work already.
The much maligned George W. Bush tried to reform Social Security to put it on a path to solvency. As an aside, he also promoted comprehensive immigration reform. Both were shot down by Congress on both sides of the aisle.
I'm curious to know what makes you think "FDR envisioned Social Security as a temporary program until Americans learned to save more." My parents were Depression kids. Their generation was much more frugal than their children, the inflation kids.
It was an extensive history of the Social Security Program. I read it many years ago and I'd be guessing as to the author at this point. My parents were Depression kids /young adults also. They were certainly frugal, but there was little to be frugal with at that point as we all know. I think FDR was basically trying to create a bit of what he thought was a temporary safety net that the nation would outgrow. I recognize that some people disagree with that, and I may have read wrong information - always possible. But he was quoted more than once on this in the book. It may have been political posturing, because he certainly was in favor of expanding the role of Government.
GWBush's plan for SS was to privatize for the young and reduce benefits for the older, in other words get rid of it. I guess something that is gone is solvent.
There was zero reduction for the "older" under his plan (which I define as age 55 and above).
Privatization was focused on younger people because it has no impact when you're close to retirement - that's just basic compounding math. Many countries allow private accounts, and they tend to be among the most solvent systems (Sweden, Chile, etc).
He also proposed using a different CPI index which better reflects actual price increases. The current wage based index distorts the numbers. For example, when states mandate a high minimum wage for workers (e.g. California, New York), it boosts the Social Security CPI calculation regardless of overall inflation trends.
His plan was an opening offer, subject to negotiation in Congress. They never took it up. At that time the NPV of the SS deficit was a few Trillion. It's now $27 Trillion solely due to inaction by Congress and future presidents.
The problem with Social Security is that it was set up when people both died younger and had more children.
I kind of agree with you on privatization. It sounds great in theory, but the risks of increased government involvement in board rooms is a massive downside.
It’s probably going to require some combination of raising both the retirement age and taxes along with some level of means testing.
Right now the Republican plan is the same as the Democrats: kick the can down the road and demagogue any proposed changes as killing Grandma.
Means testing means just another government welfare program. The truth is people just think 'the rich' are going to somehow fund trillion dollar programs.
I've looked at the math around Social Security for decades. There just aren't enough "rich" to have much impact on the deficit, though it still might occur for political reasons. The formula for Social Security funding is complex and already skewed towards lower earners. Most people don't know this.
So you haven't paid attention to the increases in the retirement age, have you?
Moving full retirement from 65 to 68 is hardly worth paying attention to. It’s certainly not going to come close to fixing the problem.
What you say, Norm, is true. It's hard to fight demographics (fewer births, older population) when you're running a pay as you go system. Not every country does it that way. You can close the gap today with an increase of 2% in FICA, eliminate ceiling cap on contributions (already in place with Medicare) and use a chain-weighted CPI (Social Security's inflation index is tied to wage growth).
As you say, Republicans are just as mum on this issue as Democrats. Any talk of reform is seen as a career-ender, when in fact Americans want this problem solved. Some smart politician will lead on this and reap the benefits. Now that's something the Democrats could win on.
Your #1 is the Republican version of the criticism at the original enactment of SS. The Democratic version is all that money would be taken out of the economy which was trying to recover from the Depression. (Probably neither would be true today.) FDR actually wanted a sort of mild version of individual accounts but he got rolled (with the connivance of his own staff) which is how we wound up with the Ponzi-type system we have.
Your #3 is a fair criticism of the Paul Ryan Republicans but not of Trump who has been steadfast in defense of Social Security. Hopefully, Ryan will be seen only in the rear view mirror.
As for #2, have you been following the attempt of the hedge fund giants to get their greedy hands on the 401k pool.
If you look at how the FICA receipts were deployed, nothing was ever "taken out of the economy." The minute the hedge funds get into the 401(k)s, that will be the sign that hedge funds are over with.
Almost all of my income isn't subject to Social Security tax. Taxing all income for Social Security would be enough to actually increase payments which are too low, and maybe bring retirement ages back into reality. No cap, capital gains, and unrealized income, all subject to SS tax would more than do it.
The three legged stool of retirement only has one leg. Very few people have enough in a 401K to make any difference, pension funds disappeared with corporate takeovers pumping and dumping causing corporate bankruptcies with sudden insolvent pension funds.
People are really stupid with money. Look at our student loan debacle. Smart, successful people are also stupid with money. SS needs strengthening as does Medicare.
There are some good observations in this article, but many inaccuracies and important points glossed over as well. Too many to cite here, but I address a few:
Many economist not tied to the Left have said the "American Rescue Plan" was the kickstarter for the high inflation of the early Biden years since it poured a huge amount of newly-printed money into the economy when it was already recovering from Covid and didn't need increased demand chasing too few goods when productivity was not there to support the demand. We are still living with the consequences. The "Inflation Reduction Act" was nothing but the old "Green New Deal" dressed up with a totally misleading name, even the Dems admit it had nothing to do with reducing inflation and everything to do with handing out more billions to their favored environmental rent seekers. All of it was wasted deficit spending we will be burdened with for decades to come since very little of that money was spent on anything with an economic payout. The CHIPS act might do some good somewhere but the money had so many strings attached for favored Dem priorities that it probably won't have much effect on increasing high tech manufacturing.
The OBBB was among other things about making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, which were skewed towards reducing taxes for those at the lower end of the wage scale despite all the Dem lies about who benefited. The wealthy certainly did not with the elimination of SALT deductions.
The Medicaid reforms were about requiring able-bodied adults with no children to work, volunteer or go to school to receive benefits - something the public approves of by large margins. The Dems lied about this too - no one will get kicked off Medicaid except people who don't deserve to be there.
The author states that the Biden agenda was to repair the industrial base and enhance productivity - it did none of these things. The green agenda was all about tearing down the industrial base and trying to replace it with more leftist-approved wind and solar which cannot support large scale industry or productivity.
I will not address tariffs because the situation is not yet settled and the evidence can be interpreted through whatever your favorite ideological lens might be.
Dems have a universally terrible record at managing government welfare programs, so good luck with improving unemployment and job training programs. They have had decades to show even a minimal level of competence in blue states with no results to speak of.
Cost of living and quality of life in cities? Again, they got as terrible as they are under Dem rule and there is no indication that they have any intention of doing one single thing positive about fixing any of it. Just more of the same. So no hope there for Dems.
Social justice as practiced by the identity politics Left is incompatible with equal opportunity and individual initiative. They want equal outcomes not opportunity. And initiative is actively discouraged because that would mean outcomes would not be equal, and government was not the grantor of the results.
Today's Dems have no interest whatever in America as it is or in the strengths of its past, they hate America and want to tear it apart but have no apparent plan for rebuilding in any realistic way. So recommendations that they should think about a positive future for the country are just wishful thinking at best, and realistically delusional. Also, various center-left figures have been telling them at least since the election that they need to regroup and rethink with no sign that they have heard the message.
I mean, I think it's in the realm of possibility that it won't matter what changes the party makes, given that I don't see what the incentive is amongst DC Republicans to allow fair elections at this point, at least in 2026 and 2028.
After the past few weeks, it's fairly clear that all that need be done is:
I.) deploy the national guard and ICE to major swing state cities a few weeks before the election, citing some minor crime incident, as with D.C., or rumors of ‘illegal alien’ activity or whatever
II.) keep voters away from the polls by various methods--e.g., threatening anyone who didn't bring their citizenship papers with arrest, (or actual arrest on 'suspicion' of something untoward) or provoking an incident that leads to violence and a shutdown of polling places, or simply hanging out with a mask on and military armaments in hand.
Do this in the big urban strongholds of Democratic voters and you’ll likely repress enough of the voting margin to prevent Democrats from any statewide victory.
Much of it would likely be illegal, but by the time the courts rule on it, the votes will have been cast and you won’t be able to reverse the results.
The precedents have already been established in L.A. and in D.C., so whose gonna stop you? It's certainly the surest path to an overwhelming November victory, and eliminates the uncertainty of the outcome. It would be one less uncertainty to worry about.
"First, Democrats need to get ahead of the Trump administration in advocating for a faster swing to a more dovish monetary policy."
Unfortunately, that would be perceived as helping Trump (since he is arguing for that too). So there is no chance the left will argue for lower rates.