WEEK 21

The only thematic thought I have this week concerns the budget. The rest is just a record of the developments that attracted my attention.

The budget

The budget bill was passed. Two aspects attracted my attention. One is the increase of anti-immigrants funding: 46.5 billion for border control, including the wall, 45 billion for building detention camps that would have 100,000 beds, recruitment of additional 10,000 ICE agents. The second is the combination of elimination of subsidies for clean energy with a tax credit for coal: this is literally "Back Again."

I was struck by how little detail of the budget was covered in the press and I wonder how many people have any idea what is in it. The budget bill has 870 pages, containing details each of which affects someone positively or negatively. Some of the details reflect the Administration priorities; see a selected list below. But many must have resulted from particularistic pressures by particular legislators, interest groups, or even private individuals. Many details appear to be so specific that only the groups directly affected by them can understand their consequences. Here is a taste: "Section 1115 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9015) is amended ... (C) in paragraph (2) (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking 'and' at the end; (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting 'and' ...." Someone obviously knows what this is about but I wonder how many people do.

This is the first time I looked at any national budget in some detail and, having done some research, I discovered that what I learned must be general. The 870 pages is not long: the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2617) had 4,155 pages. Recent equivalent bills range in length from 356 pages in Australia, 400 in Canada, 560 in the United Kingdom, to 1,1450 in France, 1,806 in Germany, and over 3,000 in India. Is there anyone who ever reads the entire text? In several countries there are bodies which are supposed to analyze proposed budgets before the bills are submitted to legislatures, so perhaps someone does. But it seems that the laws that structure the economic life of democratic systems are glued together from particularistic pressures by government agencies, parties, and lobbies, subject to approval by finance ministers. I have friends who were at various times ministers in their countries. Two who were Education Ministers recount that all their cared about was to defend their budgets against the competing claims of other "spending ministries" (the phrase is from an old article by Jean Tirole). One who was the Finance Minister cared only about the bottom line: the fiscal deficit. Once the budget compromise was reached by the Council of Ministers, it was voted by the legislature on party lines. So it must be a safe assumption that no legislator who votes on budgets ever reads them in their entirety. This is just the way democratic systems work.

Obviously, I am not willing to read the 870 pages but I was curious what is in them, so I just looked at some items. Here is one section: TITLE VI---COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS. The budget items are:

Sec. 60001. Rescission of funding for clean heavy-duty vehicles.

Sec. 60002. Repeal of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Sec. 60003. Rescission of funding for diesel emissions reductions.

Sec. 60004. Rescission of funding to address air pollution.

Sec. 60005. Rescission of funding to address air pollution at schools.

Sec. 60006. Rescission of funding for the low emissions electricity program.

Sec. 60007. Rescission of funding for section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act.

Sec. 60008. Rescission of funding for implementation of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act.

Sec. 60009. Rescission of funding for enforcement technology and public information.

Sec. 60010. Rescission of funding for greenhouse gas corporate reporting.

Sec. 60011. Rescission of funding for environmental product declaration assistance.

Sec. 60012. Rescission of funding for methane emissions and waste reduction incentive program for petroleum and natural gas systems.

Sec. 60013. Rescission of funding for greenhouse gas air pollution plans and implementation grants.

Sec. 60014. Rescission of funding for environmental protection agency efficient, accurate, and timely reviews.

Sec. 60015. Rescission of funding for low-embodied carbon labeling for construction materials.

Sec. 60016. Rescission of funding for environmental and climate justice block grants.

Sec. 60017. Rescission of funding for ESA recovery plans.

Sec. 60018. Rescission of funding for environmental and climate data collection.

Sec. 60019. Rescission of neighborhood access and equity grant program.

Sec. 60020. Rescission of funding for Federal building assistance.

Sec. 60021. Rescission of funding for low-carbon materials for Federal buildings.

Sec. 60022. Rescission of funding for GSA emerging and sustainable technologies.

Sec. 60023. Rescission of environmental review implementation funds.

Sec. 60024. Rescission of low-carbon transportation materials grants.

I wonder again about the electoral consequences of the budget. The common estimate is that 11.8 million people will lose health care and 8 million will lose food subsidies. Someone estimated that 34% of Americans will be negatively affected. The question is who they are. If they are predominantly people who either did not and will not vote or people who voted Democratic in 2024, the electoral effect may be negligible. The Atlantic had an article which claims that people who voted for Trump will be negatively affected, without providing any evidence. Other sources assert that "the average Republican voter" will be hurt, again with no evidence. Numerically, this is likely but I could find no analysis of the consequences of the budget for voters distinguished by their partisan stripes. As of now, assertions that Trump voters will turn against him because of the budget remain purely hortatory.

Miscellaneous

The administration is laying the groundwork for deporting naturalized citizens, people born abroad and who are now American citizens. While the legal bases for "denaturalization" are limited to specific wrongdoing, the language used by DoJ has a typically vague residual clause: a memo instructs lawyers to institute proceedings against naturalized citizens who are suspected of having "illegally procured" naturalization or having done so by "concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation." Suddenly, US citizens now come in two classes: native born and naturalized.

The Administration has raised the possibility of stripping Zohran Mamdani of citizenship. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, appeared to open the way for an investigation into Mamdani's status on the grounds that he may have concealed his support for "terrorism" during the naturalization process.

Laws regulating birthright citizenship will differ from state to state unless and until the Supreme Court considers the issue as such.

ICE is now using facial recognition software.

There are several reports that people pretending to be ICE agents harass or intimidate whomever they suspect of being immigrants.

Palantir Technologies, headed by Peter Thiel, is constructing a unified data file that includes personal data, social media, personal information and physical characteristics of all Americans. So now the government will be able to assign to every individual a "social credit" score, the term used by the Chinese to the great horror of American media.

Following ABC News, Paramount agreed to pay a $16 million bribe to Trump.

An Executive Order of July 3 announces an increase of prices of entry to the national parks, with higher prices for non-US residents.

Random headlines. CNN: "Law used to kick out the Nazis could be used to strip citizenship from many more Americans." The Guardian: "'The American system is being destroyed'; academics are leaving US for 'scientific asylum' in France." CNN: "Measles cases surge to record high since disease was declared eliminated in the US." New York Times: "US Turns Eight Migrants over to South Sudan, Ending Weeks of Legal Limbo."

I was wrong about the stock market. All the economic forecasts were negative, organs of business were critical of the economic policy, so I expected that expectations of reduced profits would make the stock market tumble. I even thought that the first signs of resistance would come from the stock market. I could not have been more wrong. It may be a bubble but predicting when bubbles burst is impossible: this is what makes them bubbles.

Personal

Last evening I was sitting outside, waiting for a chicken to roast on a grill, sipping wine, and listening to bel canto arias sung by Callas. The temperature was ideal, with a slight breeze, and the sky gradually graying as the evening set on. There was no other world. This morning, as I am reading news, I was thinking of the novel by Ann Padget, entitled Bel Canto. There is a moment in this novel which is outside the real world, a moment of fraternity between the kids who capture a group of diplomats and their hostages. This world is shuttered when the capturers are indiscriminately massacred by the army. Repeatedly, I succeed to momentarily escape reality, lose myself in novels, music, conversations, or just random thoughts. And, repeatedly, when something jerks me back to reality, my first thought is why the world could not be just one of peace and beauty.

PSG beat Bayern 2:0 after a game full of drama, scoring the second goal with nine players against eleven. That was pure pleasure. Now I am eagerly waiting for PSG to play Real. Futbol still provides an escape.