Economic Outlook

Although the Times still is publishing an extra section to cover election "news," and a lot of young people in urban centers haven't figured out that you're supposed to organize and get active before bad things happen, the dust is beginning to settle.

Somebody seems to have assured Wall Street that our next president will not be starting any trade wars, so the markets have stabilized.  Given Tr*mp's anti-regulatory instincts and the promise of even more tax advantages for the rich, a bit of a bull market certainly isn't out of the question.  Economically, it looks like Republican-as-usual on the horizon.

The narrow Republican majority in the Senate means that Obamacare, such as it is, will be safe for a while — although steady defunding seems inevitable.  In a way, it's a shame: the total elimination of Obamacare could pave the way for genuine national health insurance down the line.  The biggest beneficiaries of the ACA were those newly qualified for Medicaid, and it's pretty clear that letting market forces determine health spending continues to be unworkable.

I wonder how successful Tr*mp can be in moving expensive infrastructure projects past the deficit hawks.  They even might balk at a substantial expansion of border controls.  Forget the "wall" altogether: if there is any real progress towards seizing remittances to Mexico, invest in virtual currency exchanges — or, perhaps, organized crime cartels.

The biggest damage will be done to the fight against climate change — but even there, it seems to be too late to save the coal industry.  Hopefully, though, the industry's last gasps won't be a prelude to our own.

... and a couple more

Immigration and Border Security

Why are Republicans so insistent on "sealing" the southern border of the USofA?  As usual, it's less a matter of xenophobia (although there's plenty of that in their base) so much as money.  As was noted in a Times article on June 6, military contractors are looking at declining revenue streams with the decline of American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Further militarizing our southern border will help plug the holes in their profits.

Greatly expanding the number of "guest workers" and making it impossible for those workers to change jobs will make another batch of Republican contributors quite happy.  If Democrats are willing to go along — and since they share many of the same contributors, many will — the "amnesty" argument just may fade away.

The Farm Bill

Farm bill?  What farm bill?

I don't see much likelihood of an "compromise" between Senate and House versions of a new farm bill, but I guess the inept assholes will manage to extend the 2008 bill for another year.  For poor families that depend on SNAP (still commonly referred to as "food stamps"), that might be a good outcome.  Both Senate and House versions would toss even more of the poor into food insecurity, and the House proposal would help eliminate poverty by the simple means of starvation and death.

The Senate bill would cut federal crop insurance subsidies for big agriculture by about 15%, which would not do much to curtail the incomes of Representatives Stephen Fincher (R-TN) or Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), both major recipients of farm subsidies and vocal proponents of slashing SNAP.  Hell, they could go without insurance, considering how both are filthy rich and also deniers of climate change.  What do they have to worry about?  Nevertheless, they want their subsidies maintained or enlarged, mostly because of something else they have in common.  They're scumbags.