Tag: liberals
Best-Selling, Liberal-Bashing 'Abundance' Is Abundantly Clueless

Best-Selling, Liberal-Bashing 'Abundance' Is Abundantly Clueless

The hot-selling book Abundance is written by liberals who bash liberals, or more precisely, try to make them feel guilty. Sure, authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson shed some blame on conservatives for why America doesn't build as easily as it used to. But it's those liberals in expensive cities, the authors insist, who are callously driving less-than-rich families to move elsewhere.

Klein and Thompson argue that Democrat-run "superstar" cities have failed to provide enough affordable housing because of all their building rules and regulations and pesky zoning ordinances that make it harder to build. The chief culprits are San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston and, as always, New York City. The comparisons made against them are ludicrous.

A sample complaint: "The Austin metro area led the nation in housing permits in 2022, permitting 18 new homes for every thousand residents. Los Angeles's and San Francisco's metro areas permitted only 2.5 units per thousand residents."

Where do we start? Let's start with the not-insignificant matter of buildable land. The population density of San Francisco is five times that of Austin. Even sprawling Los Angeles has nearly three times as many people per square mile as Austin does.

Another sampling: Houston "is not facing the crises of homelessness and housing affordability seen in the superstar cities of many blue states." Why? In 2023, the Boston metro area issued 10,500 new housing permits, while Houston issued almost 70,000.

Boston has nearly four times the number of people per square mile as Houston. And Boston Harbor borders a big, blue-gray body of water. The land to its east is Portugal. Of course, buying and building in Boston is harder to do — and more expensive.

Really, all the so-called superstar cities getting roasted in Abundance — San Francisco, New York, Boston, Los Angeles — are bounded by water whereas Austin and Houston can easily expand into open country. The authors speak a lot about "bottlenecks" impeding progress. I'd say that the Pacific Ocean is a significant bottleneck to Los Angeles building out. Wouldn't you?

Houston has no zoning laws, so you can put almost anything anywhere. That's the Houston way. (This dynamic metropolis might rightly bristle being left out of the list of superstar cities.) Urban Texas has some fine old neighborhoods that locals treasure, but there's a lot more history to protect in the older cities.

Let Houston be Houston, Boston be Boston and LA be unlike either.

This is a big country. The four ultra-costly superstar cities combined take up a minuscule 0.025% of the total U.S. landmass. Let's not insult the thousands of smaller cities and towns by portraying the glitzy coastal metros as the only places where opportunity beckons. Fortunes can be made anywhere. Silicon Valley was almost all fruit orchards into the 1950s.

A needed update: Austin's heralded building boom is over for now. Austin's growth, fueled by the pandemic, now limps along with sky-high office and apartment vacancy rates.

Klein and Thompson speak in that confident wonky voice, arms outstretched with futurama visions of shared prosperity. If only Americans, Democrats especially, would get out of the way.

"Democrats cannot simultaneously claim to be the party of middle-class families while presiding over the parts of the country they are leaving." They predictably single out liberal California, noting "California's most populous cities are run by Democrats."

As it happens, Democrats also preside over Austin, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio.

Abundance operates on the assumption that liberals can be shamed for wanting to preserve landmarks, intimate Main Streets and tenements with old shops at the bottom. Pass the guilt by. Liberals, joined by their conservative neighbors, have every right to slow down the bulldozers.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture.She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Leonard Leo

It's Just His Nature: Scorpion Trump Stings Frog Leo In Lawless Rage

Leonard Leo, the bête noire of liberals who curated Trump’s first-term judicial appointments, including his three Supreme Court justices, has gone from Trump's shortlist to his shit list. As is his wont, Trump turned on his loyal servant with particular savagery, calling him a “sleazebag” who had rendered bad advice on a series of judicial nominations.

Leo responded with comparative good grace, along with a pointed, if diplomatic, defense of his influential work: "I'm very grateful for President Trump transforming the Federal Courts…[T]he Federal Judiciary is better than it's ever been in modern history, and that will be President Trump's most important legacy."

The genesis of the fallout speaks volumes about Trump's view of the role of the federal judiciary, and of his own inner circle.

Trump's ire was sparked by the Court of International Trade’s recent opinion striking down his broad tariffs because they unlawfully usurped Congress’s powers and relied on supposed “emergency” powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that the Act does not provide.

This legal failing is a cross-cutting theme of Trump's indiscriminate power grabs. Similar to a number of modern would-be authoritarians, Trump has repeatedly tried to steamroll basic legislative authority by characterizing everyday political issues as emergencies requiring a strongman’s intervention.

The opinion was a unanimous per curiam (i.e., no single author was identified) by three members of the Court of International Trade: a Reagan appointee, an Obama appointee, and a first-term Trump appointee. Moreover, the Trump appointee, Timothy Reif, is—as Trump appointees go—unusually well qualified, having previously served as general counsel in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in the Executive Office of the President and then senior counsellor to the U.S. Trade Representative.

The panel, including Reif, held that the IEEPA—the text of which doesn't even contain the word emergency—could not support Trump’s outlandish and all-too-familiar claims that the sky is falling. At the same time, the court noted the possibility of statutory sources of authority other than the one Trump invoked.

In response to the administration’s predictable motion for emergency relief, the Federal Circuit—the Court of Appeals for the specialized Court of International Trade—has imposed an administrative stay that tells us nothing about whether it will affirm the lower court on the merits.

Trump's temper tantrum is ironic, if not absurd, given Leonard Leo’s record as the administration’s judicial nominee whisperer. By any measure—on the left or the right, and whether provoking aversion or elation—Leo has compiled a phenomenally successful record in the service of Trump and the conservative judicial movement in general.

He follows in the footsteps of advisors to other Republican administrations since Reagan, who have adopted a single-minded focus on judicial appointees and have dramatically transformed the makeup of the federal judiciary. In Leo’s case, that includes Trump's three Supreme Court nominees: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Conservative Trump supporters have generally taken those appointees—which have established an über-majority conservative Court likely to last for a generation or more—as back-to-back-to-back home runs.

Just for starters, all three of them voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, probably the number one goal of judicial conservatives for a generation, and a (dubious) achievement that for many years looked impossible. In terms of the personal bounty for Trump, all joined the outlandish 2024 immunity opinion that continues to provide him comfort on a regular basis—for example, just last week, with the pardon for Paul Walczak in the wake of a $1 million solicited donation by Walczak’s mother that fits the criminal elements of bribery to a T.

The larger lesson in Trump's excoriation of Leo is what it shows about Trump’s expectations of the purpose of screening his nominees.

Leo has served up a long series of candidates who talk the talk about conservative jurisprudence, including the newfangled articles of faith like robust Second Amendment interpretation, solicitude for religious-based intolerance, and the Supreme Court’s less-than-fully-coherent history-and-tradition test.

That doesn't cut it for Trump. One important opinion against him—plainly on the basis of well-established legal principles that any judicial conservative should embrace—and Leo gets moved to the other list, with a heavy dose of Trump’s obloquy for good measure. For Trump, there's only one test of judicial qualifications: ruling for Trump, whatever the law provides. Leo failed in his presumed duty to find absolute Trump toadies, or to quietly inculcate the potential toadies he did find.

Leo joins a very long list of former insiders whom Trump has abruptly cast out and vilified. Central advisers such as Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Anthony Scaramucci, Kayleigh McEnany, Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, and many others have all tasted Trump’s poison, some for reasons that are minor or even mysterious. The fact is, there's no rhyme or reason to Trump's spurning of former close associates. It rather just seems to be a way of demonstrating domination and superiority to any advisor, however valuable.

Trump is like the scorpion in the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Not able to swim to cross the river, the scorpion asks a frog for a ride on his back. Knowing the scorpion’s dangerous sting, the frog hesitates: “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion replies, “Because if I sting you, we’ll both drown.” So, the frog agrees to ferry the scorpion across the river. Halfway there, the scorpion stings the frog, who with his dying words asks, “Why did you do that? Now we’re both going to die.”

“I couldn’t help it,” the scorpion replies. “It’s in my nature.”

Trump is a legal ignoramus indifferent to the Constitution and the role of law. His only interest is domination. He turns on those who served him faithfully because it’s in his nature.

The general agenda of Trump 2.0—outlined by the long blueprint of Project 2025—is to put in place a series of measures that grossly, and unconstitutionally, aggrandize Trump's personal power, rejecting any vestiges of restraint and lawfulness that stymied him the first time around.

Transposed to the federal judiciary, that means a careful search for judges like Aileen Cannon or Matt Kacsmaryk who—not to put too fine a point on it—are utterly in the tank for the president who appointed them and who could yet elevate them to higher judicial service.

So far, the Trump 2.0 judicial nomination process has little to show for itself; the Senate has confirmed none of his 11 federal court nominees this year.

Leo’s casting out thus portends a series of nominees carefully chosen to cross fingers behind their backs when they swear, as the law requires, to “administer justice without respect to persons.” Call it the attempted Cannonization of the federal judiciary—and, to the extent Trump can secure Senate confirmations, one more sharp departure from the rule of law.

Harry Litman is a former United States Attorney and the executive producer and host of the Talking Feds podcast. He has taught law at UCLA, Berkeley, and Georgetown and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Clinton Administration. Please consider subscribing to Talking Feds on Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Drill Baby Drill? How 'MAGA Brain' May Kill US Energy Independence

Drill Baby Drill? How 'MAGA Brain' May Kill US Energy Independence

Does anyone remember “Drill, baby, drill?” What with all the tumult over Donald Trump’s disastrous trade war, many have forgotten that energy production played a big role in his second inaugural address. He claimed that we were facing a “national energy emergency,” and that he would bring prices down and make America rich by releasing the “liquid gold under our feet.”

There was, in fact, no energy emergency. One thing you always find Trump and MAGA in general doing is assuming that the real world must look the way their prejudices say it should look. Squishy liberals who believe in rule of law were in charge last year, so America must have been in the grip of a terrifying crime wave — even though the homicide rate in 2024 was close to a 65-year low:


Source: Jeff Asher

Similarly, the Biden administration was full of woke environmentalists who believe in the global warming hoax, so they must have crippled energy production — even though America in the Biden years was, for the first time in generations, producing more energy than it consumed:

When I wrote about this at the time, I suggested that Trump was suffering from "MAGA brain,"

the belief that the only way you can get results is by being tough and nasty, avoiding anything that might be considered woke. Thus, to achieve energy independence, we must put aside worries about pollution and climate change while blocking clean energy.

So administrations that care about climate change and the environment in general must be crippling the energy sector. Biden may have presided over record oil production and growing energy exports, but we’ll just say that we have an energy emergency anyway.

You can probably guess what’s coming next. There appears to be a real chance that America will lose its newly reacquired energy independence. And if it does, we know who will be responsible: Trump himself.

To see why, we need to look at the factors responsible for America’s return to energy self-sufficiency.

One of these is fracking — extracting oil and gas embedded in shale by fracturing that shale with high-pressure liquids. Yes, there are serious environmental issues involved both in the fracking process and in the fact that more fossil fuel production adds to greenhouse gas emissions. But while the Biden administration took climate change seriously, that didn’t stop oil and gas production from rising on its watch.

The other factor was the incredible rise of renewable energy. Not that long ago wind and solar power were widely seen as silly, hippy-dippy conceits. Now they’re major contributors to energy supply:


Data source: US Energy Information Administration

In the case of shale, it’s all about prices. Drilling new shale wells is expensive. In fact, Trump’s vision of drastically lower oil prices never made any sense, because any large drop in oil prices would make new shale wells unprofitable. And since production from any given shale well drops quickly over time, anything that caused new drilling to fall substantially would quickly translate into declining oil production.

How low would prices have to go to shrink the U.S. oil industry? Recently the Dallas Fed did a survey which suggested that drilling in many major fields would stop if the price per barrel fell below the low 60s:

And that was before Trump’s tariffs raised costs, so the critical price is probably higher now. And guess what: oil prices right now are at a level where we can expect production to fall. Here are oil futures:

Why did oil get cheap? Look at the sudden drop on April 2, a.k.a. Liberation Day, when Trump first announced extreme tariffs. It’s obvious that oil prices are down thanks to pessimism about the global economy, which in turn is tied to Trump’s trade war. And by the way, that war is by no means over. A new analysis by the Yale Budget Lab finds that the damaging effects of Trump’s tariffs are only modestly mitigated by his surrender to China.

And as for renewables: Trump hates them, wind power in particular. He offers crazy justifications for that hatred — did you hear about his claim that offshore wind farms kill whales? — but it’s pretty clear that he has been nursing an irrational grudge ever since he was unable to stop a Scottish wind farm that he thought ruined the view from a golf course he owns.

Oh, and I’m pretty sure that MAGA types in general dislike renewable energy because they don’t consider it manly.

So what will be the economy-boosting effects of drill, baby, drill? Nil, baby, nil.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, where he now posts almost every day.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman Substack.

Why I'm Not Commenting Every Time Trump And His Stooges Troll Us

Why I'm Not Commenting Every Time Trump And His Stooges Troll Us

Donald Trump sure has been spending a lot of time trolling the libs and throwing red meat to his base. That's what most of the executive orders were about, that's what his appointment of Elon Musk as Capo de Tutti Capo Destructamundo amounted to, and that's what nearly every one of his cabinet appointments were.

Now he's engaged in rolling out a daily menu of outrages guaranteed to get under the skin of Democrats and liberals. Yesterday he appointed Walt Nauta to the Board of Visitors of the Naval Academy, essentially the group of officials who meet quarterly to oversee the Academy. Nauta is Trump’s former body man whose main job during his last term was to respond with a Diet Coke every time Trump pressed the special red button on his desk.

You will also remember Nauta as one of those indicted along with Trump in the classified documents case for having hidden a stash of Trump's secrets from lawyers for the DOJ when they showed up at Mar a Lago to seize stolen documents from him. Nauta served in the Navy for 20 years as a steward’s mate, essentially a servant on a naval vessel for the ship's officers. Trump also appointed to the Board of Visitors Sean Spicer, his former and very short-lived press spokesman who went on to an equally short-lived television career on Dancing with the Stars.

These are of course not serious appointments, although I guess a case could be made for a former enlisted man to be appointed to oversee the Naval Academy, since most of those who have served in that position have been corporate presidents or other so-called “distinguished” Americans from positions of wealth and privilege. The same sort of backhanded logic would apply to Spicer whose time as White House spokesman was marred by lies he regularly told on orders from Trump. Why shouldn't the world's top liar have one of his sub-liars represent him on one of the Academy’s Boards of Visitors?

It was also announced that Trump has appointed Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host, to the board of the Kennedy Center, along with the anchor of one of the shows on Fox Business, Maria Bartiromo, who happened to interview Trump on a show that ran this morning. Outrage among the major domos of the D.C. art scene was immediate and predictable. But again, why shouldn't Trump be able to appoint whoever he wants to the Kennedy Center, even if they are people whose taste we might consider questionable or nonexistent? The jokes flew online today about who might now receive Kennedy Center honors. Billy Joel and Joan Baez and Philip Glass have had their turns. Shouldn’t rank mediocrity be celebrated along with greatness? Why not Kid Rock and Ted Nugent and Jeff Foxworthy?

There's nothing but upside for Trump trolling us every chance he gets. His base loves it, we hate it, and there's no good way for us to complain about it without looking like elitist snobs, which is exactly the way he wants us to look. So, I'm going to try not to rise to the bait of his trolling, although I'm sure there will be times when I can't resist. The truly bad stuff he's doing to Ukraine, to the NIH and the CDC and USAID is already costing lives, and that's where our attention and efforts should be. He's a master at distraction, but it won't work if we refuse to pay attention.

So, I'm not going to comment on this shit from Trump. Mostly anyway.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World