George Will describes the calamitous consequences of progressivism as evidenced by Chicago. Two slices:
Democrats convene here amid destruction more comprehensive, deadly and intractable than that of 1871. The Great Fire hardly interrupted the city’s ascent. Today, however, Chicago suffers from the “blue model” of urban politics: government of, by and for government employee unions. Chicago is the nation’s warning.
The 28,000-member Chicago Teachers Union’s money and organization made Brandon Johnson, a former CTU organizer, mayor. The CTU’s political machine is as mighty as Mayor Richard J. Daley’s was, 1955-1976. The CTU, like the city council’s socialist caucus, has praised recent Venezuelan regimes, and echoed pro-Hamas supporters’ calls for an Israeli cease-fire. The CTU’s head, Stacy Davis Gates, sends her son to private school, as did 30.5 percent of Chicago’s public school teachers, 2018-2022.
Spending on public schools (more than $24,000 per student, not counting debt service and capital expenditures) has increased 107 percent since 2012, but proficiency in reading and math in grades 3-8 plummeted 63 percent and 78 percent, respectively. Only 22 percent of 11th- graders can read at grade level, only 19 percent do math at grade level. Black students’ percentages are 11 and 8. While school enrollment declined 9 percent in 2020-2022, spending increased 35.7 percent, with one unionized employee for every eight students.
…..
Chicago’s population has declined for nine consecutive years as education has cratered, crime has soared, and public services have withered because almost half of the city budget goes to debt service and government employees’ pensions. These have been negotiated with government sitting on both sides of the table: its employees demanding that it do what it wants to do — grow. The steep price of this progressivism is disproportionately paid by its supposed beneficiaries.
Juliette Sellgren talks with Ryan Bourne about the war on prices.
Gouging is often hard to define, let alone spot in the wild. It could be argued that the proposed policy is harmless because food price inflation is low now, anyway. But as in the example of the immigrant merchant, having an anti-gouging law on the books invites regulatory abuse. Targeting big companies, as the Harris plan seems designed to do, is not harmless, either. Food prices as a share of income fell as the food industry consolidated and took advantage of economies of scale. Limiting food companies’ ability to set prices in response to market conditions will only curb their growth and willingness to operate in less populated areas—further increasing the prices that many consumers pay. We can expect fewer goods available during the next event that increases demand or reduces supply. Good luck finding food during the next hurricane.
Vice President Kamala Harris’s speech Friday was an opportunity to get specific with voters about how a Harris presidency would manage an economy that many feel is not working well for them. Unfortunately, instead of delivering a substantial plan, she squandered the moment on populist gimmicks.
…..
Never mind that many stores are currently slashing prices in response to renewed consumer bargain hunting. Ms. Harris says she’ll target companies that make “excessive” profits, whatever that means. (It’s hard to see how groceries, a notoriously low-margin business, would qualify.) Thankfully, this gambit by Ms. Harris has been met with almost instant skepticism, with many critics citing President Richard M. Nixon’s failed price controls from the 1970s. Whether the Harris proposal wins over voters remains to be seen, but if sound economic analysis still matters, it won’t.
We wrote Friday that Kamala Harris was likely to continue President Biden’s unfinished Build Back Better agenda, but it turns out we were far too optimistic. The policy priorities the Vice President laid out Friday are much worse, including a plan to impose national price controls on food and groceries.
Ms. Harris’s political problem is that the Biden-Harris economic policies have delivered inflation and declining real incomes. The high price of food is a particular sore point, and the Vice President’s response is to make it worse by resorting to Venezuelan-style left-wing populism. That’s no exaggeration.
On Friday she floated a “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries,” including “new authority” for the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to punish companies for charging too much.
This sounds like legislation introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren that would ban “grossly excessive prices” as determined by the Federal Trade Commission. Business violations would carry a penalty of up to 5% of annual revenue. This would effectively let the FTC set prices. But what is an excessive price? Is $4 too much for a gallon of milk in Omaha? Is it a different price in Miami? FTC Chair Lina Khan and her army of bureaucrats would presumably decide.
Writing at USA Today, Nicole Russell warns Americans not to fall for Kamalanomics. A slice:
I know you learned in school that socialism doesn’t work. Apparently, Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t.
But what do you know? You iPhone-carrying, Starbucks-sipping, freedom-loving American? Haven’t you wondered what it would be like if your president gave away things for free? Things like a house? And groceries?
Enter Kamalanomics.
Hold on, it’s a ride through utopia.
“Former Obama economist slams Kamala Harris’ plan for nationwide ‘price controls’“
