Updated Presidential Rankings

Ranking of American Presidents

I am only ranking Presidents who have served for at least 365 days. For this reason I am excluding William Henry Harrison and James Garfield who died less than a year before their first term is up, and I cannot rank President Biden yet because he hasn’t served a full term yet.
  1. Lyndon Baines Johnson – For his efforts on combating poverty, willingness to lead the country with his bully pulpit, and signing the civil rights act. His Great Society lifted millions out of poverty. No president comes close to his astonishing human rights record. Vietnam escalated under his presidency but he did everything in his power to end the conflict. He had the ability to get people to do what had to be done. His biggest blunder was not letting Americans know that Nixon was committing treason.
  2. Abraham Lincoln – for his effort in keeping the United States together and the Emancipation Proclamation. He respected the constitution with the suspension of Habeas Corpus. He didn’t free slaves in the North.
  3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt – For his efforts and success in setting a strong foundation for the 20th century economy. He was responsible for the incarceration of thousands of Japanese Americans.
  4. John Fitzgerald Kennedy – For his efforts towards science and combating poverty, and the second best human rights record in our history after his successor, but blundering foreign policy
  5. Barack Obama – For his efforts towards universal health care, ending the Iraq war, and standing up to warmongerers, improving education, environmental regulation, he harmed Social security benefits, improved financial regulation, second most progressive social issues president in history, opened travel to Cuba
  6. John Quincy Adams – For his economic wisdom, respect of Native Americans, establishing colleges, abolitionism, and expanding infrastructure
  7. George Washington – for his formation of treaties and respect of Native Americans. He ranks lower for signing the Fugitive Slave Act.
  8. Thomas Jefferson – For his exploration of the American west, preserving trade in the Mediterranean, and diplomacy
  9. Dwight David Eisenhower – For his diplomacy, protection of the economy, and prophetic farewell speech. He set up the foreign policy blunders of the next decade.
  10. Harry Truman – For his continuation of building the foundation for the 20th century his predecessor built. He is ranked lower for his dropping of the bombs. He helped escalate the Cold War.
  11. Warren G. Harding – for supporting the 8 hour work day, child labor laws, opposition to lynching, and good neighbor policy
  12. Benjamin Harrison – For his advocacy of civil rights, reformation of the civil service, and
  13. Ulysses S. Grant – For his continuation of Reconstruction and supporting equal rights. Corruption was rife in his cabinet.
  14. Theodore Roosevelt – For his valiant efforts in preserving America’s treasures and national parks, he is ranked lower for his interventions in Latin America.
  15. William McKinley – For his advocacy of human rights at home and abroad
  16. Martin Van Buren – his cowardice in face of anti-Mormonism which he opposed demotes him, he kept peace with Mexico, advocated free trade, and opposed slavery
  17. James Earl Carter – for his strong efforts towards peace around the world and attempts to gain energy independence for America. However, he signed the establishment of the NSA.
  18. James Madison – he opposed the national bank which hurt our economy, he started the War of 1812, and protected Native Americans.
  19. Zachary Taylor – For his attempts to set up the Western states as free states
  20. James Monroe – He started the Seminole Wars, did the Missouri compromise meaning each slave state had to be matched with a free state, his expansionist Monroe doctrine,
  21. Chester Alan Arthur – For his signing of the Pendleton Act which put rules against favors, he opposed Mormon polygamy (bad), opposed racism against the Chinese (good), and favored better relations with Native Americans.
  22. John Adams – His largest accomplishment was the Alien and Sedition Acts
  23. Bill Clinton – he passed no great laws and he signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, DOMA, DADT, and failed to pass meaningful health care reform. But he balanced the budget and didn’t hurt Medicare, which prevents him from falling further. He was led by pollsters and didn’t lead, he followed.
  24. James K. Polk – He was extremely expansionist,
  25. Woodrow Wilson – For his breaking his promise on World War I, anti-German sentiment, his support of the League of Nations keeps him from falling farther.
  26. Gerald Ford – environmental regulations, strengthened AMTRAK, pardoned Nixon
  27. Grover Cleveland – For racism, opposition to labor, and imperialism
  28. Herbert Hoover – For his obsession with the deficit, protectionist policies, and limited response to the great depression.
  29. Calvin Coolidge – His small government rhetoric and lack of leadership made his Presidency unsuccessful albeit popular
  30. William Howard Taft – for his attacks on President Roosevelt’s environmental policy
  31. Richard Nixon – EPA, improved relations with China, set up AMTRAK, worked against the Vietnam peace agreement which was treason. He entered office and destroyed the economy with deflationary monetary policy.
  32. John Tyler – For his refusal to form a national bank in the face of an economic collapse
  33. Franklin Pierce – For his unsuccessful compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska Act
  34. Rutherford B. Hayes – For ending Reconstruction
  35. Andrew Johnson – For his opposition to Reconstruction
  36. Millard Fillmore – For passing the Fugitive Slave Act
  37. James Buchanan – For his unwillingness to use his power to keep the Union together
  38. Andrew Jackson – For his deportation of Native Americans, and his fiscal policy which crashed the economy.
  39. Ronald Reagan – For negotiating with terrorists to hold Americans hostage until he was President, selling arms to Nicaraguan terrorists, attack on Grenada, and deregulation of the financial sector. As soon as he entered office he destroyed the economy with deflationary economic policy. His negotiations with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan betrayed America, making his administration a literal state sponsor of terrorism.
  40. George H.W. Bush – For vetoing every good bill that came his way and using the United States military to his benefit (an oilman used the US military to defend a major oil exporter with dreadful human rights, I’m sure there is no conflict of interest.)
  41. George W. Bush – For attacking Iraq, destabilizing the financial markets, the PATRIOT ACT, No Child Left Behind Act,
  42. Donald Trump – Made America’s tax code more regressive, constant racist rhetoric, first President to restrict American travel to another country in decades, trade war with China, shutting down the government because Democrats won’t give him everything he wants.

Elizabeth Warren 2020

Roosevelt and Truman refused to prosecute the corporate CEOs who illegally use labor from the Holocaust. Johnson refused to prosecute Nixon for sabotaging his Vietnam peace talks. Carter covered up everything the Nixon administration did by not prosecuting the crimes he committed. Clinton refused to prosecute the Reagan/Bush administration for the Iran Contra Affair and Iran Hostage Crisis. Obama refused to prosecute the Bush administration for the 9/11 commission reports (I’ll write more about that scandal later) and refused to prosecute states for violating the Voting Rights Act.

Democrats have a long history stretching back as long as the party has existed in its current form of playing nice and then getting defeated through illegal behavior in the next election through Gerrymandering, corruption, and back dealing by the Republican Party. Trying to appease brainwashed voters never works, and refusing to stand up for what is right when it comes to the quality of our government hurts every American.

Today Elizabeth Warren announced that she will set up a commission to prosecute the current members of the Trump Administration for violating the law. I believe very strongly in equal justice under the law, and it shouldn’t matter who you are in the United States, if you are on American soil the law must apply to you as equally as every other person (to use the word the 14th amendment uses) on American soil. This doesn’t matter if you are an average citizen, a foreigner, or even the President of the United States, all three should have the law apply to them equally. The President needs to be impeached first in order to have the full brunt of the law apply to them, but after they are removed from office they are just another citizen, and the crimes they committed in office are the second they are no longer President can be prosecuted. Likewise, if someone is on American soil, or an American military base, and they are accused of a crime, the full laws of the United States apply to them, including the protections in the Bill of Rights. Those civil liberties do not stop anyone who is guilty from being prosecuted, they only protect the innocent from being wrongly imprisoned, when they are followed.

If President Elizabeth Warren is going to use the full power of the Presidency to hold the Trump administration accountable for their crimes, which no President has ever done before, and every President since Washington has sworn to do, then just imagine what is going to happen to States which violate the Voting Rights Act, police forces which repeatedly violate civil liberties through excessive force, and every single person who is currently held by ICE without a trial, which the 14th amendment and 5th amendment together very clearly show is completely unconstitutional.

Elizabeth Warren alone has a life long career of protecting the weakest in society in ways which really do matter. Millions of Americans have been able to get their money back due to the law enforcement through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She hits the right balance between stating how she will use the power of the Presidency to make a more just government, but she also has no desire to waste time if a bill isn’t likely to pass through the Senate. While I of course wish we could just go make an initiative which would significantly strike at two major issues confronting our country and make it pass, I literally worked on the most progressive proposal I’ve ever seen, which was Initiative 732, I also learned from that the importance of building coalitions to pass legislation. Dead legislation does nothing. Compromised legislation is like a compromised vehicle.

So, we should have a President who will do everything she can to reverse all of the executive orders Trump has passed over the last 3 years to make America more just. We need a President who has a 30 year long proven track record of strategically moving forward proposals which pass and then significantly help people. We need someone who moves strategically, but who also never claims that we can’t dream big and believes that we should make a world which brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

I have never seen a candidate in my life who more closely matches my values than Elizabeth Warren who will also successfully make a major difference by using her political power as President in a way to maximize good. If she becomes the nominee I know she will be elected. She will almost certainly use her candidacy to stump for Senate candidates in vulnerable states, which she did in 2012, raising over $1 million for Senate candidates, before she was even elected. You cannot say the same about any other Senate candidate. In 2016 Politico ran a piece Did Donald Trump Just Hand the Senate to Elizabeth Warren? when she had only been in office for 4 years. No other Freshman Senator could do that in a political piece. It is basically common knowledge among politicos that Bernie Sanders was late in announcing his candidacy in 2016 because he was expecting Elizabeth Warren to run and he would have backed her in that situation. No other politician has so much respect from their colleagues to the point that their allies will delay their candidacy to the highest office in the land because of so much trust.

In 8 years as Senator she has sponsored 9 pieces of legislation which have become law according to Govtrack.

Sanders has only sponsored 7 laws in 30 years.

Her values are pure, her strategy is proven, and I fully believe that if Senator Elizabeth Warren is elected she will have the balance between being effective in her strategy, while having a moral compass which points true, which will make America a more free country. With some major executive wins in the first two years that will give us the momentum to win the Senate in 2022, giving the brain behind the CFPB the first Democratic Trifecta in over a decade. I believe her strategy of making strategic wins against a Republican Senate will work.

I want to see that trifecta more than anything else in politics, and it is only going to happen if we have a President in 2021 who will use her strategy to mobilize voters through as many meaningful victories as possible. She will continue to stump for and support Democratic candidates for the Senate which will work yet again.

If that wasn’t enough, Senator Warren endorses a carbon tax, which is known to economists as the most effective way to fight global warming. Sanders has shifted his stance and isn’t talking about carbon taxes as much as he used to. Carbon taxes are actually not that controversial among candidates, as this Washington Post survey shows, Sanders and Gabbard are the only candidates who oppose it.

If you want a candidate who supports carbon taxes, ending the electoral college, and ending the filibuster, then there is really only one candidate you should vote for.


Elizabeth Warren deserves your vote.

My family’s economic history

I am the first in 4 generations of my family to not become a professional grade school teacher. My grandfather is a veteran. My family fought in Vietnam, World War II, the Civil War, and the Revolutionary War. I work for a state college. You will never find someone with a longer family history of public service than me, which literally stretches back to the founding of our republic. I look at my great-grandmother who was a teacher in California, and when she died, there was nothing left for our family. She had a traditional pension. I look at my grandparents on the other side of my family who have IRAs, and they are quite comfortable in their retirement. Not because of higher wages, but because their retirement has a balance which upon their death instead of going to the billionaires who manage their money will go to their children, grandchildren, and if me, my brother, or cousins have children before they pass, their great-grandchildren. The money they earned will stay in our family for the first time in 250 years, instead of going to the billionaires like my great-grandmother’s pension.

My family has served this country since its founding, and the creation of the IRA is what finally moved us out of poverty.

The Trump Administration’s attempt to invade Iran is pathetic

Say it with me. Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda are both of the Salafi interpretation of Sunni Islam. There are MANY movements among Sunni Islam, of which the Salafi are just one. The attempt by the current administration to try to paint a connection between Iran and Al Qaeda is patently false and is playing on the lack of knowledge the average person has on religions besides their own. Iraq is one of a few countries which has many Sunni and Shiite, so keeping Iraq in chaos serves the interests of Saudi Arabia and extremist Christians in fostering the idea that religions cannot coexist. This is the same type of bullshit like what happened in Poland under Soviet Occupation where there was massive ethnic cleansing, fostering the same idea which is that people of differences cannot coinhabit the same area.

The religious extremists who control Saudi Arabia want to dominate the world.

That is why the United States is trying to invade Iran. The rest of the story should now be fairly obvious.

We should all do ourselves a favor and learn the basics of all the world’s major religions. This doesn’t mean you have to believe in them, but to understand all of the major religions is clearly an important step to world peace.

The lessons of President Clinton

American history has gone through several major cycles where parties have changed. Parties have flipped which regions they dominate, the Overton Window has changed substantially in various directions, and the impact of both the President and Speaker of the House has changed dramatically over time.

His Presidency also has a lot of lessons for our ongoing Presidential Election on what is likely to happen in 2021-2023 assuming a Democrat wins the election.

When people discuss major presidents, certain names always come up, Washington, Lincoln, and both of the Roosevelts are usually the top names historians list as the most important Presidents in American history.

Presidents can both follow the lead of previous presidents, do various levels of impacts on our policies, and lead major realignments in American history. Our system has the Electoral College which is unique in the world. Such are the consequences of being the prototype.

There have been several types of electoral college maps over history, and how various regions have voted.

As time goes on, parties have various levels of support which goes up and down.
I have written about the Electoral College a lot in the past, but today I want to focus on one President in particular, and that is President Clinton.

Before we understand President Clinton we need to understand the political environment as it existed when he became President. Republicans had controlled the Presidency for 19 of the previous 23 years in American history. Richard Nixon started the drug war, and President Ford did as well a job as anyone could given the legacy he was inheriting. President Carter was stonewalled by congress, preventing most of his reforms from occurring. The real challenges President Clinton faced came from two of our most corrupt Presidents in American history, those of Reagan and Bush. He started with an economic policy which moved money from the working class to the 1%, he committed treason during the Iran-Contra affair, he accelerated Nixon’s War on Drugs, crashed our economy during the first term, and was supported by the media all the way through, through a policy of charm and hiding information on the corrupt actions he was committing which came out later. He spurred the empowerment of the righteous right, and hurt American culture. Bush was similar to Ford in that his Presidency was not wrecked by scandals as much as his predecessor, and a number of good pieces of legislation but he also pardoned many criminals from the administration of which he was second in command. Neither man deserves to be well remembered by history.

The Clinton presidency started with the first Democratic Trifecta in 12 years. This led to many very important reforms, the Family and Medical Leave Act, National Voter Registration Act, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Violence Against Women Act, and Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Compared to any congress under the Reagan or Bush administrations this was a monumental year. The most important bill of course was Hillarycare, which failed because of opposition which was well organized to get congressional Democrats onboard. It’s a complex story, and deserves its own article. Despite the failure of Hillarycare, I do believe that it was still a very successful term in other respects. After that session however, Clinton signed into law many laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which he should have vetoed.

In terms of long term impact, I think the first Session under President Clinton was a success, and he did make America a more free country in the first two years. His remaining 6 years were an absolute disaster. There were many times where he signed laws which he should have vetoed, and by signing almost everything which came across his desk he significantly reduced his power,  giving Congress basically complete control. This is despite the fact that the Democrats won more votes in the 1996 House election than Republicans by a small margin. If he had taken this and forced Gingrich to play hardball he could have increased turnout among Democratic Voters during an era when the map was quickly evolving.

One important part to recognize about the transition which was happening in the 1990s was the elimination of Southern Democrats. In his first two sessions, the Democrats controlled a large number of seats from former Confederate states.

1992 election results
2002 election results
2012 election results

We have seen a near elimination of Southern Democrats from the House since Clinton came to office, and the parties have established very clear lines which most candidates followed. This is very different from when I was born.

In terms of President Clinton’s actions, I believe his first two terms paved the way for President Obama to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2010, through the lessons learned. It’s failure meant they failed to galvanize Democratic voters and enraged Republican voters so that Gingrich could make his Contract with America in 1994. His remaining 6 years in office were I believe a lost opportunity. If he had vetoed more legislation it would have forced the Republicans to compromise with him, and it would have galvanized Democratic Voters in 2000 showing a clear choice between their two options. It would have also helped galvanize voters in the House elections which would have improved his chances at having more Democrats in 1998.

The real barrier in 1998 was the same as what Obama dealt with, where due to gerrymandering the Republicans were able to pick up a clear majority (over 50% of the seats) with not even a plurality (more than any other party) of the vote. This creation of mostly safe seats benefits rural areas while creating a disadvantage for the majority of Americans who live in urban areas. This significantly reduced the ability of Presidents Clinton and Obama to pass the legislation they both campaigned and pushed for.

We are likely to see a continuation of this pattern in 2023 after the first midterms from whichever candidate succeeds Trump. The Republican machine which consists of Fox News and other right-wing channels is going to push against the Democratic Congress in the 2022 elections, focusing on swing districts. On top of this, many publications pandering to liberal-leaning voters are going to be rattling on about how they didn’t get Medicare for all passed, and are shills because we don’t live in Utopia passed. Jacobin is one such example. Both of these extreme publications are designed to get people who agree with the idea that everyone should have high quality health care and oppose tyrannical governments such as Putin to convince them that whoever wins is not as liberal as they claim and will continue to whitewash foreign despots. The goal will not be to get Democratic voters to vote for the Republican, but for them to abstain altogether.

Now, a few things are different about the midterms in 3 years. Democrats took a lot of important Governorships a year ago, and this is going to significantly improve our chances of having fair congressional and legislative maps.

Current US Governor affiliation

Eliminating gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are going to give Democrats about a 12 seat advantage as opposed to the map which Obama had to fight throughout his Presidency. This might make enough of a difference in 2022, which remains to be seen.

Ultimately however, we need to reform our election systems to eliminate gerrymandering, which is what FairVote is working on.

Conclusion

  1. Clinton did a decent job when he had a trifecta.
  2. Clinton failed to stand up for his values as much as he could when facing a Republican congress.
  3. The next President will likely start their term with a divided Congress.
  4. A President facing an obstinate congress needs to stand up for their values, otherwise they risk alienating the voters they need in order to get a majority in Congress or be succeeded by a President of their party.
  5. Gerrymandering can significantly weaken the power of any Democratic President.
  6. Clinton served during a time of enormous political change where the parties were solidifying behind national platforms in a way like never before.

Predictions for the next President

  1. The next President will have to work with a Republican Senate for at least their first session.
  2. There will not be a major health care reform bill in the 117th congress because of Republican opposition in the Senate.
  3. Mitch McConnell will likely continue to oppose basically every bill.
  4. There are several very good potential pickups for the Senate in 2022, particularly Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. If Democrats can win these three states we might have a slim majority in the Senate of 53 or 54 seats in 2023, which will make it possible to pass legislation.
  5. The current Democratic debates are projecting for a fantasy world where they would have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This is unfortunately unrealistic. We will need a candidate who is able to work with Republicans as much as possible to get good legislation passed, bad legislation blocked, and get voters excited so that we can take the Senate in 2022.

The biggest lesson of all from the Presidencies of Presidents Clinton and Obama is that we need to reform our election system to eliminate gerrymandering to ensure that every vote counts. No Representative should have no serious competition for our seat.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

2020 elections, 1 year out

We are currently in declaration season for the upcoming elections in 2020. Elections are going to decide state legislatures, several governoships, the entire House, and 1/3 of the Senate. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this election. Here are my thoughts:

President

We have the best slate of candidates for President we could possibly have. In terms of experience, we have a former vice president (who honestly shouldn’t be nominated for his foot in mouth syndrome, the only thing going for him is people recognize his name), 8 senators, 3 governors, and several representatives. 

Senate

When it comes to the Senate elections, we need to pick up at least 3 seats in order to have a fighting chance. The 4 states with Republican Senators up for election which the least favorable Cook Partisan Voting Index scores for them are Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia.

I prefer candidate who are currently in office, which means they have the opportunity to propose legislation right now addressing the issues of today, and then with that information someone who is able to pass legislation regardless of the political climate will be my preferred pick, such as Senator Barack Obama in 2008 which helped propel him to rival Senator Hillary Clinton in the primary almost out of nowhere. Someone with a powerful speaking voice who can speak eloquently and clearly will be preferred to someone who has a weak stage presence. Someone who has not lost before is preferred to someone who has lost elections in the past.

Iowa

In Iowa Joni Ernst is up for election. She is the 10th most Conservative Senator in one of the most moderate of States, so with the right candidate we have a really good chance.
  • I think Rob Sand has a really good shot if he chooses to run from what I can see. He is well spoken, calm, and will do a good job as Senator. he won in a very close election, and if he continues to do good work as the State Auditor I think he would have a good shot at winning the Senate seat. From what I can see from the PBS station it looks like he is making good progress at prosecuting corruption this will play well in the Midwest. He has a very calm presence on stage.
  • Abby Finkenauer is an advocate for better broadband for rural Iowa, and has been fighting to improve access to health care in rural America. She has good stage presence with a powerful effective speaking voice. and would do a good job as a Senator.
  • Rob Hogg has a published book on climate change, and with a law degree could be a formidable challenger.
Any one of these three candidates would do a good job. I think Finkenauer could win if she runs.

North Carolina

The incumbent only won by 48.8% of the vote in 2014, so I believe this is one of our best shots at winning in 2020. He opposes net neutrality, and is dismissive of the Mueller investigation. He needs to go.
  • Erica Smith has 4 years experience as a State Senator in North Carolina, with a focus on education, expanding opportunities to rural areas, and improving access to jobs. She could win.

Arizona

Arizona is weird because it is a special election with an incumbent Republican who has already lost against the other Senator in Arizona. The opponent who is declared is Gabby Giffords widow, astronaut Mark Kelly, who has a really good chance. Katie Hobbs might run, and she has already won a statewide election as Secretary of State. I think this will be a close election but if the Democrats reach out properly and hold McSally responsible for her support of the detention camps at Guantanamo Bay and voting against accessing Trump’s tax returns, we could have a good shot of taking Arizona.

Georgia

Scott Holcomb  has been mentioned as a potential candidate in Georgia. As a sitting State Senator since 2011 he has worked on legislation which passes which helps victims of sexual assault in a Republican legislature. If he runs, he could win.

South Carolina

  • Jaime Harrison would be a great candidate, but his website is bland and he has no elected experience. He however does have experience leading the Democratic Party, so that can help him.
  • Mayor Stephen Benjamin of Columbia has a decade of elected experience, has experience with the NAACP. He was selected to speak at the DNC Convention in 2016 with an excellent speaking voice. he could be a formidable challenger to Lindsay Graham.

Maine

Sara Gideon, the Speaker of the House, is running and she can win.

Colorado

Former Governor John Hickenlooper is running, and will hopefully win.

References

If we win just half of these seats than we will have a Federal trifecta in 2021.

House

The Democrats are playing the defensive game for the House next year of course. We can lose as many as 17 seats and still have a majority. Current projections put the Democrats with a slight majority in 2021, which should be enough to pass legislation.

Governors

There are two possible pickups in Vermont and New Hampshire in 2020. In Vermont the Lieutenant Governor is a reasonable pick, and if he wins the Democrats will have a trifecta.

In New Hampshire, the mayor of Manchester and majority leader of the Senate are both viable candidates who could win. This will deliver a Democratic Trifecta.

State Legislatures

Arizona

Republicans have a 2 seat majority in the House, the closest margin by percent in the country. All 60 Representative are up for election every two years. The three closest districts were in 20, 6, and 23. 20 is just northeast of Glendale and Peoria, 6 goes from Flagstaff to Phoenix, and 23 is in Northeast Greater Phoenix.

Michigan

Michigan has a 6 seat Republican majority out of 110 seats in the House. Districts 104,38,110, and 61 are the closest margins which will give Democrats control of the House following next year’s legislative election. 104 is at Grand Traverse, 38 is in the Detroit suburbs, 110 is the northwestern most district, and 61 is South Kalamazoo. Democrats need 4 pickups to have a majority.

Minnesota

Minnesota currently has a Democratic House and a 3 seat Republican majority in the Senate. The Democrats have a good chance to regain the Senate in districts 47, 37, 54, 14, 5, 25, 26, and 35 where they won over 45% of the vote in 2018.

Virginia

Virginia is technically having elections this November, but it is part of the same two year cycle, so I’ll discuss it here.
Virginia has a 2 seat majority in each house for the Republican Party and a Democratic Governor.
There are 6 competitive seats in the Senate where Northram won in 2017, and have Republican legislators. There are 12 such districts in the House as well. Each of these need to be targeted and have as good candidates as the local parties can find who are involved in local organizations. The Democratic Party could easily pick up a Trifecta in Virginia in 4 months.

Every other state in the Union which has a Republican majority has over a 10% lead, so unless if this cycle has a particularly large landslide year, I do not expect any big changes.

This leaves us with not very many places for progress which will fully flip a chamber, but some important places to make a difference building towards the future.

Trifectas post-2020

I expect most states will be the same.

Democrats will maintain trifectas in Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maine.

Republicans will keep their trifectas in Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

Current divided governments will continue in Montana, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Louisiana.

Democrats could pick up trifectas in Virginia, Minnesota, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Republicans could potentially lose their trifecta in Arizona.

Republicans will likely gain a trifecta in Louisiana.

The total trifecta party score post 2020 will likely be:

  • Democrats: 18
  • Republicans: 23
  • Divided government:9

This is a really important step in the right direction.

Ballot Initiatives

Elections

There are a lot of exciting elections related initiatives, with 5 ranked voting initiatives, so I expect we are going to make a lot of progress.

 References

How to get Visa-free access to the United States

The United States is one of the least welcoming countries in the world based on our visa policy. Only Canadians, Palauans, Marshall Islanders, and Micronesians can come here without some sort of visa. Everyone else needs to either preregister for $14 or pay $140 for a ten year visa. Most people need to pay the $140.

I think this is ridiculous because many countries which require visas are safer than we are, and we are really not protecting ourselves by making German tourists pre-register before they invade with socks and sandals.

All jokes aside, this should be a much bigger diplomatic issue. There are a few options for countries to reciprocate. Some countries usually will charge the citizens of the other country the same amount before abolishing visas, but I think there is a better way to do this.

When most Americans travel abroad off the continent we will most likely travel to The European Union. These countries are our allies, and safer than us by practically every metric. There is absolutely no reason to have visas for German and French tourists. I count a visa as any document which a tourist must pre-register for and pay money before they arrive, whether there is a 99.9% approval rate or not. The European Union should negotiate with my country to get visa-free access for their citizens by making a demand.

Either all Schengen Treaty citizens get visa free access to the United States,or the following laws will trigger.

  1. Americans will have to pay $140 for a 10 year visa to visit the Schengen Area effective immediately. This will be an on-line application. Each and every applicant will be given a message that this is reciprocity, and if they want visa-free access to call their member of congress which the EU will provide for them on the page.
  2. Elected government officials must pay $1000 for a single entry 14 day visa to visit the European Union or Schengen Area effective immediately.
  3. The United States President and Secretary of State are banned from entering the European Union or Schengen Area effective immediately.
  4. Ambassadors must pay $3 per day to remain in the European Union. Starting 1 January 2021 Ambassadors must pay $1000 per day to remain in the European Union.

Or the United States can give EU and Schengen Area members visa-free entry.

Tourist visa fees will be refunded after visa-free access is granted.

This would probably work.

Unfortunately, the European Union is not doing this plan. Instead, under the leadership of Juncker they are deciding to go with a similar plan to the US, Canada, and Australia of having low-cost visas for tourists starting the beginning of 2021. They said themselves back when the US started charging for ETA that the idea that it would increase tourism is ludicrous. However, 8 years later they end up doing the same thing which will not help their tourism industry. It will not keep Europeans safe, neither will it increase goodwill between countries. Their system is even worse because applicants will need to announce which country they intend to enter in and will not be allowed to enter in other countries in the Schengen Area. This means that unless if they see sense before then that people will be required to always to fly through one country and then transfer, which will hurt tourism.

I personally have family in Germany, Finland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Saying I MUST always enter through Germany to go to Finland for a three year period is inconvenient, and doesn’t benefit anyone.

The system we have now where we present our passport when we arrive and get a stamp is as much as we need (probably more than we need actually) in terms of safety on both sides of the Atlantic relative to both countries. ETIAS is also not just being targeted at the US, Canada, and Australia who have similar absolutely ridiculous systems.

More than this, pre-registration like ESTA, ETA, and ETIAS push refugees out of sight and out of mind, enabling fascists. With the EU, Canada, USA, and Australia implementing such systems, the number of places where refugees can safely go to avoid persecution grow low in number. These programs are not being targeted at countries like Saudi Arabia which would be a real security risk given their attacks on other countries with their paramilitaries, but instead between free and developed countries, where they simply do not belong.

There also isn’t nearly enough research on the impact of such systems on tourism or safety, meaning they are not making us safer, and the government has failed to provide any proof that they actually keep terrorists from crossing borders.

We need proof that these are not working, and to abolish them as fast as politically possible. Europeans need to vote out EPP, Australians need to vote in Labour, and Americans need to vote in Democrats. Then a Democratic Party, Labour Party, Liberal, S&D alliance can work on ending visas between the EU, Canada, United States, and Australia since the far-right coalition has failed to provide any evidence that these programs actually keep people safe.

Wir sind ein Volk.

Appendix:
The ESTA was funded to support The Brand USA, a private-public partnership funded by ESTA visa fees to advertise tourism to the United States. They state on their website: “As one of the best levers for driving economic growth, international travel to the United States currently supports over two million American jobs (directly and indirectly) and benefits virtually every sector of the U.S. economy.”

Sounds like a self-aware wolf to me… because they are literally funded by a program which is proven to reduce tourism to the United States…

This is just too rich.

Bad investment advice

I was doing some reading this morning and was thinking about defined benefit vs. defined contribution plans and trying to find some actual numbers from a source which would know what they were talking about to show some real numbers behind which decision people should make.

The article I turned to first was from Forbes, which is in my view is a fairly reliable magazine for financial issues. The first yellow flag was a lack of charts plotting how fast someone’s investment would grow, and not showing their work regarding inflation. As I read through I found a glaring error.

The article assumed that someone would only deposit 8% of their income from a match from the employer. But employer matching contributions only occur if you have already contributed that much from your salary. It is usually a dollar for dollar match to your contribution for your retirement.

Now, if you were only contributing 4% of your salary (accounting for inflation of course) then the numbers in the article were correct, and you would only end up with $22,000 of retirement income in 25 years (the short time frame this article was based on) which is clearly not enough. This is not what the article stated however, and only depositing 4% of your income in retirement is a terrible decision.

The golden rule of thumb for savings is simple. You should save for retirement as early as you can, diversify across many industries, and invest as much as you can every year. Contributing only 4% of your salary to your retirement plan is utterly foolish, especially if you have paid down your debt and have a Home Equity Line of Credit on your home.

Once we readjust their assumption that you are only depositing 8% of your income in total in your retirement plan, and account for inflation, continuing their 5% after inflation investment rate (which is approximately the 8% market rate of the S&P 500 times 2% inflation), you will end up with $749,529 in today’s dollars, or $1.2 million without adjusting for inflation, which will provide you with $58,000 of income in today’s dollars. This is almost double what you would receive from the annuity they are using as a comparison. This is also only after working for 25 years.

The article was written to make it look like a hard decision, but in reality, every defined benefit plan I have ever looked at has come in far short of a defined contribution plan, even before accounting for accidents which can occur, ending your life, making defined benefit plans disappear, unlike defined contribution plans which are inheritable upon your death. I have yet to find a traditional pension plan which performs well in comparison.

No matter what age you pass away, the plan with a balance will always win, whether you die at 70 or 100.

Be careful about the media you read, it can really mislead you if you don’t read carefully. Even fairly well reputed magazines can sometimes make glaring errors.

Year Salary Deposit Balance Inflation Real value Interest
1 $80,000.00 $12,800.00 $12,800.00 1 $12,800.00
2 $82,400.00 $13,184.00 $27,008.00 0.98 $26,467.84
3 $84,872.00 $13,579.52 $42,748.16 0.9604 $41,055.33
4 $87,418.16 $13,986.91 $60,154.92 0.941192 $56,617.33
5 $90,040.70 $14,406.51 $79,373.82 0.92236816 $73,211.89
6 $92,741.93 $14,838.71 $100,562.44 0.9039207968 $90,900.48
7 $95,524.18 $15,283.87 $123,891.30 0.885842380864 $109,748.17
8 $98,389.91 $15,742.39 $149,544.99 0.86812553324672 $129,823.83
9 $101,341.61 $16,214.66 $177,723.25 0.850763022581785 $151,200.37
10 $104,381.85 $16,701.10 $208,642.21 0.83374776213015 $173,954.97
11 $107,513.31 $17,202.13 $242,535.71 0.817072806887547 $198,169.34
12 $110,738.71 $17,718.19 $279,656.76 0.800731350749796 $223,929.94
13 $114,060.87 $18,249.74 $320,279.04 0.7847167237348 $251,328.32
14 $117,482.70 $18,797.23 $364,698.60 0.769022389260104 $280,461.39
15 $121,007.18 $19,361.15 $413,235.63 0.753641941474902 $311,431.71
16 $124,637.39 $19,941.98 $466,236.47 0.738569102645404 $344,347.85
17 $128,376.52 $20,540.24 $524,075.63 0.723797720592496 $379,324.75
18 $132,227.81 $21,156.45 $587,158.13 0.709321766180646 $416,484.04
19 $136,194.64 $21,791.14 $655,921.92 0.695135330857033 $455,954.50
20 $140,280.48 $22,444.88 $730,840.55 0.681232624239892 $497,872.43
21 $144,488.90 $23,118.22 $812,426.02 0.667607971755094 $542,382.09
22 $148,823.57 $23,811.77 $901,231.87 0.654255812319992 $589,636.19
23 $153,288.27 $24,526.12 $997,856.55 0.641170696073592 $639,796.38
24 $157,886.92 $25,261.91 $1,102,946.98 0.628347282152121 $693,033.74
25 $162,623.53 $26,019.76 $1,217,202.50 0.615780336509078 $749,529.37 $58,763.10

Does the EU work?

List of wars involving France and one of its neighbors in continental Europe, or the United Kingdom in reverse chronological order:

  • 1945: World War II ends (74 years and counting)
  • 1939: World War II begins
  • 1919: World War I ends (20 years)
  • 1914: World War I begins
  • 1871: Franco-Prussian War ends (43 years)
  • 1870: Franco-Prussian War begins
  • 1859: Second Italian War of Independence (11 years)
  • 1839: Pastry War (20 years)
  • 1831: Belgian Revolution ends (8 years)
  • 1830: Belgian Revolution begins
  • 1823: Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis (7 years)
  • 1815: Napoleonic Wars end (8 years)
  • 1803: Napoleonic Wars begin
  • 1801: War of the Oranges (2 years)
  • 1783: American Revolutionary War ends (18 years)
  • 1778: France enters the American Revolutionary War
  • 1769: French Conquest of Corsica (9 years)
  • 1763: Seven Years’ War ends (6 years)
  • 1756: Seven Years’ War begins
  • 1748: War of the Austrian Succession ends (8 years)
  • 1740: War of the Austrian Succession begins
  • 1735: War of the Polish Succession ends (5 years)
  • 1733: War of the Polish Succession begins
  • 1720: War of the Quadruple Alliance ends (13 years)
  • 1718: War of the Quadruple Alliance begins
  • 1714: War of the Spanish Succession ends (4 years)
  • 1701: War of the Spanish Succession begins
  • 1697: Nine Years War ends (4 years)
  • 1688: Nine Years War begins
  • 1684: War of the Reunions ends (4 years)
  • 1678: Franco-Dutch war end
  • 1668: War of Devolution ends (10 years)
  • 1667: War of Devolution begins
  • 1659: Franco-Spanish War ends, continuation of the Thirty Years War (8 years)
  • 1618: Thirty Years War begins
  • 1583: War of the Portuguese Succession ends (35 years)
  • 1598: French Wars of Religion end
  • 1580: War of the Portuguese Succession begins
  • 1562: French Wars of Religion begin
  • 1559: Italian Wars end (3 years)
  • 1494: Italian Wars begin
  • 1488: Mad War ends (6 years)
  • 1485: Mad War begins
  • 1482: War of the Burgundian Succession ends (3 years)
  • 1477: War of the Burgundian Succession begins
  • 1453: Hundred Years’ War ends (24 years)
  • 1337: Hundred Years’ War begins
  • 1326: Invasion of England (9 years)
  • 1324: War of Saint-Sardos (2 years)
  • 1305: Franco-Flemish War ends (19 years)
  • 1302: War of the Sicilian Vespers ends
  • 1297: Franco-Flemish War begins
  • 1282: War of the Sicilian Vespers begins
  • 1243: Saintonge War ends (39 years)
  • 1242: Saintonge War begins
  • 1222: War of the Succession of Champagne ends (20 years)
  • 1217: First Barons’ War ends
  • 1216: War of the Succession of Champagne begins
  • 1215: First Baron’s War begins
  • 1214: Anglo-French War ends (1 year)
  • 1213: Anglo-French War begins
  • 1204: Normandy Campaigns end (9 years)
  • 1202: Normandy Campaigns begin
  • 1199: Anglo-French War ends (3 years)
  • 1193: Anglo-French War begins
  • 1174: Revolt of 1173-1174 (19 years)
  • 1173: Revolt of 1173-1174 begins

The longest periods of peace between France and its European neighbors hence  are:

  • The current period (74 years and counting)
  • Post-Franco Prussian War to World War I (43 years)
  • War of the Portuguese Succession to Thirty Years War (35 years)

These are the only periods in time since 1150 where France has had more than 30 years of peace with its neighbors, and in 9 years our current period will be twice that of the second period.

Most of the wars France fought involved England, in the Middle Ages this started in 1066 with the Norman invasion of England which was the first time that the King of England also held significant land on the continent. This would remain true until the Italian War of 1551-1559 which would result in the United Kingdom losing Calais. Animosity would continue due to the French-Scottish alliance until King James VI of Scotland was the next in line for the British throne in 1603, and then the crowns were merged in 1660 when the Scottish Parliament was resolved. Disputes continued revolving the Netherlands and the succession of various monarchies during the era before the American Revolution. The last bullets between the United Kingdom and France as part of a declared were shot in 1815

Idea for European history eras
This is off-topic, but reading about European History, I think it would make sense to make a better timeline, and here is my attempt based on the most important events in European history:

  • Fall of communism: 1991
  • End of World War II, start of Cold War, beginning of European integration: 1945
  • World War II: 1939
  • Interwar era, Democracy vs Fascism/Communism: 1919
  • Formation of Germany: 1871
  • End of Napoleon: 1815
  • American Independence: 1781
  • Columbus lands in America: 1492
  • Byzantine Empire falls: 1453

We are currently in the longest period of peace in European history, which is growing by the day. I believe this is caused by the standard predictions of the Liberal Paradigm in International Relations, based on the integration of trade and establishment of mechanisms for dialogue and discussions between countries so they can discuss problems before they blow up into armed conflict. The interdependence of the European economy is so strong that the cost of going to war is far greater than any potential benefits of going to war. There is no need to go to war for any material gain, since they are part of a true free trade area, and the peoples of each country may freely visit each other, growing people to people relationships.

This leads me to the conclusion that the European Union does indeed work and has succeeded in his goal. We should all support this great institution and the formation of similar institutions around the world which are designed to foster trade and peace between nations.

    Characteristics of American homicide

    As I keep working on studying the relations of which countries do and do not have open borders, the one variable in the United States which keeps sticking out is our very high homicide rate relative to other countries. It is the only variable where we are consistently doing worse than every member of the Schengen Area. Our corruption perceptions index, ease of doing business index, and our press freedom are all in line with member states of the European Union. However, our homicide rate is significantly higher than that of any member state of the Schengen Area.

    The big question of course is why, and in order to answer this question I am going to describe what the data shows in several variables:

    1. Regionally
    2. Racial
    3. Inequality

    Regions

    When it comes to regions, murder rates vary wildly city to city. Statista has the data to fully see where people are most likely to be shot. They found that the cities in the United States with the highest murder rates today are in:

    • St. Louis 66.07
    • Baltimore 55.77
    • Detroit 39.8
    • New Orleans 39.5
    • Cleveland 27.77
    • Memphis 27.73
    • Newark 27.14
    • Chicago 24.13
    • Cincinnati 23.4
    • Philadelphia 20.06
    • Milwaukee 19.83
    • Pittsburgh 17.98
    • Indianapolis 17.91
    • Stockton 17.77
    • Tulsa 17.29
    • Washington, DC 16.72
    • Atlanta 16.41
    • Nashville 16.3

    St. Louis has the largest rate by far and than the rate drops significantly after that. Shootings around St. Louis tend to be concentrated around downtown, and in Black neighborhoods. Shooting map, Race map. Almost all of the murders were committed using a firearm.

     When it comes to states, we see (unsurprisingly) a similar pattern:

    1. Louisiana
    2. Missouri
    3. Nevada
    4. Maryland
    5. Arkansas
    6. Alaska
    7. Alabama
    8. Mississippi
    9. Illinois
    10. South Carolina
    11. Tennessee
    12. New Mexico
    13. Georgia

    Race

    Murder disproportionately impacts African Americans more than anyone else.
    https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/08/10/african-american-homicide-rate-nearly-quadruple-national-average-11680

    Inequality

    Here is a map of states with a higher homicide rate than Lithuania:

    Here is a map of US Inequality from Wikipedia:

    Not a perfect fit, but still pretty darn close.

    The best theory so far which I have tested myself and have not broken is that income inequality is the biggest driver of homicide. This journal article shows how the inequality hypothesis is an unbreakable hypothesis (I tried and failed to disprove the inequality hypothesis myself when I was in college) in determining where there will be more homicides using a linear regression. Meaning, the relationship between them is so strong that it is a linear one at that, which is actually highly unusual.

    More articles examining the link, none are very long and all are worth reading:

    Reading through these articles, along with my own research, I am completely convinced that in order to reduce our homicide rate we need to focus on reducing our inequality.

    So, what does this look like in practice?

    1. Well, the first thing we can do is tax reform. Reducing taxes on low income earners and increasing taxes on the wealthiest in America will make an immediate and lasting effect on American income inequality. This should be fairly obvious. I do not oppose other methods to reduce inequality, but I personally believe this should be the first step. This is part of why I was so quick to join Carbon Washington while studying political economy in college.
    2. What is the point of increasing disability payments if 10% of that money goes right back to the state? What is the point of increasing TANF when property taxes are hitting low income families the hardest as a percentage of income and 13.4% of their income goes to what is essentially a Ponzi scheme which most low income earners will lose money on? We should obviously do both tax reform and improve our safety net.
    3. We should invest in Early Childhood Education. The impacts of Preschool are shown to be lifelong. It allows parents to go back to work, increasing their economic well-being, and substantially helps children with their social skills.
    4. Improving Social security Old Age Insurance would make a significant impact on the ability of people to save and help money in poor families stay in their pockets. I have already written about how Social Security takes money from people who die young (read, are poor and more likely to be a racial minority) and transfers it to people who die old (read, are rich and more likely to be White). Replacing SS OASI with a Basic Income would instead transfer money to those people who need it most, reducing inequality, instead of probably increasing it. That money would stay in their families, not be transferred to richer old white people. The biggest policy move we can do to reduce inequality actually comes from a Republican proposal (if you have read my blog you know I generally have a very low opinion on United Russia, oh, Republicans), and that is to give people the option to privatize their Old Age Insurance contributions. I expect this would end the program within a decade because everyone would opt to privatize their contributions in a situation similar to what Singapore uses. The big difference is when people pass away this money is then inheritable by their heirs because it exists, as opposed to being transferred to rich old white people, as is the policy today. We could also give people the option to put their money in Real Estate as payments on their house mortgage, which is an option in Singapore, which has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. We could also just end the Payroll tax because it is the most regressive tax in America, though I do like the idea of forcing people to invest in their future in a way which actually provides value to their heirs, which OASI does not. This would literally save lives by reducing inequality.
    5. Ensure all Americans have access to health care, in order to end medical debt which is eating us alive.
    6. We can significantly increase funding for education at all levels. Free college will put young people on a path to save for retirement which will significantly reduce inequality for the long term. Improving schools in poorer neighborhoods by ending the dependence on local property taxes will have long term effects on economic inequality in the United States.
    7. We should expand the Earned Income Tax Credit as soon as possible because it works at reducing inequality.
    8. America seriously needs to join the bandwagon with the rest of the world and implement paid parental leave. This will allow people to keep their jobs and reduce the number of people who have to leave the workforce to take care of their children.
    9. Ending racial segregation is the 6th idea from the Berkeley article, which will of course be the hardest to implement, but allowing people to use their payroll taxes to pay off their house will help this.
    10. The OECD points out that tax incentives for education and health care disproportionately benefit the wealthy. We need to switch to a model which subsidizes these activities.
    11. Improving unemployment benefits for people who lose work which is temporary would help reduce inequality.
    12. Reducing the gender wage gap, which deserves an article on its own because unlike how social security takes from the poor and gives to the rich, this one is super complicated.
    13. Cutting unnecessary government expenditures, particularly when it comes to the military, and then using that money for effective social welfare programs will help inequality by making it so money goes to people who actually need it.
    14. Have no income tax on incomes below $100,000 per year for an individual.

    As you can see, there are no shortage of policies the US government can do right now to reduce inequality, save lives, and save money. We should do as many of these as politically possible as soon as we can.

    This is ultimately how we will reduce our homicide rate to be in line with other developed economies.

    We need to do this now.

    Lives are literally on the line.

    Black Lives Matter.

    References for inequality mitigation:

    • https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/six-policies-reduce-economic-inequality
    • http://www.oecd.org/eco/labour/49421421.pdf