MORE TARIFFS, HIGHER PRICES, FEWER SUPPLY CHAINS

 

After regaining the White House, President Trump began claiming unprecedented tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On April 4, 2025, Trump sent international and domestic stock markets into a tailspin by invoking this emergency law to impose "reciprocal tariffs" on imports from select countries not subject to other sanctions. A universal 10% tariff took effect on April 5, with higher rates indiscriminately announced in the following weeks.

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. This includes the authority to impose tariffs. Most constitutional law experts agree, and so far, three lower courts have ruled, that the IEEPA gives Trump no power to impose tariffs unless there is an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” a condition not found in this case.  On November 5, the US Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments about the legality of Trump’s tariffs. A final decision is not expected until June or July of 2026.

Over the past seven months, Trump’s tariffs on various countries (friend and foe) and industries (steel, smart phones, aluminum, cars, car parts, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals) have gone up or down without warning, often based on Trump’s political whims.

Tariff policy has become so unpredictable that financial analysts coined the acronym “TACO”, which stands for “Trump always chickens out.” This term describes his habit of announcing a tariff and then delaying the actual implementation if the stock market reacted badly. Under recent pronouncements, India and Brazil both face a 50% on most goods. Canada is at 35%, and China temporarily 47%, reduced from 100%, after the recent meeting with president Xi.

Most economists do not favor tariffs. Trade barriers raise prices and reduce available quantities of goods/services. Historically, tariffs often result in lower income, reduced employment, lower economic output, and higher inflation.

Following World War II, the United States favored an open trading system that rejected protectionist trade policies. The consensus was that international policymakers should promote free trade and the economic benefits it brings over imposing barriers to trade.

The Trump administration has rewritten these rules and turned U.S. trade policy on its head. At an average effective rate of around 18 percent, American import taxes are now the highest they have been in nearly a century.

What are the Trump administration’s justifications for imposing tariffs? According to the White House Fact Sheet: 1) The trade deficit is “an unsustainable crisis ignored by prior leadership.” Many economists disagree and The Council on Foreign Relations responds, “The trade deficit is a sign of a strong, attractive economy where foreigners invest heavily.  It allows the U.S. to consume more goods than it produces. It reflects efficient global capital markets, supports domestic investment, and provides a wider variety of goods for consumers.”

2) Tariffs encourage “Made in America.” Economists point out that this reasoning involves both potential benefits and significant drawbacks. Tariffs can support specific domestic industries. This is a reason to invoke “targeted tariffs’ on critical industries like steel rather than on entire countries. However, on the whole, tariffs lead to higher costs for consumers and businesses, trigger international retaliation, and cause broad economic disruptions.

3) Tariffs encourage the reshoring of American manufacturing. Politico points out that “President Donald Trump is pushing manufacturers to bring factories home. His policies are punishing them when they try.” Politico explains, “Tariffs meant to protect American producers are raising the cost of the very materials they need to expand their footprint in the U.S.”

4) Tariffs are a boost to government revenue. This reason is not listed on the Trump White House Fact Sheet, but is frequently brought up by the President as a reason for his tariff policy. The Republican “Big Beautiful Bill” kept taxes low for the wealthy and increases the federal deficit. To negligibly help plug this largest ever, 38 $trillion deficit, the Budget Lab at Yale recently calculated, “The U.S. has collected roughly $165 billion to $200 billion in tariff revenue for this fiscal year.”

The Trump administration fails to point out that the more effective a tariff becomes at restricting imports, the less revenue it generates. Moreover, Trump’s claim that the exporting country pays the tariff is not true. U.S. importers pay the tariffs to U.S. customs. These costs are passed on, to U.S. consumers through higher prices, or absorbed by U.S. businesses.  Americans ultimately bear the economic burden.

Recent research has pointed out another massive disadvantage to tariffs – supply chain disruptions. In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Shannon O’Neal, Senior Vice President at the Council on Foreign Affairs, concludes, “The Trump administration’s tariffs exclude the United States from the overall economic boost global supply chains provide…Unless American companies can buy parts from foreign firms at a reasonable cost and locate some of their operations abroad, they will struggle to make products as well, as cheaply, and as quickly as foreign competitors that are connected to global supply chains.”

O’Neal is most concerned about the ability of American defense contractors to “go it alone” without access to international supply chains.

Following seven months of new tariffs, the overall economic analysis indicates a failing "report card" for their impact on the U.S. economy. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will not be too late in reversing Trump’s illegal imposition of these harmful tariffs. This will restore prudent guardrails rather than insanity into American trade policy.

 

 

  

DEMOCRACY VS. CAPITALISM SPLITS THE NATION

 

With the constant barrage of news, it is easy to focus on the President’s newest outrage. Less obvious, permanent damage is being done to our republic’s founding principle of “democratic capitalism.” If we took a “social MRI” of the United States we would discover that, below the surface, democracy and capitalism, once compatible, have taken radically different paths.

Democracy and capitalism are no longer working together to maintain our republic. In today’s world of politics and economics, democracy is for Democrats, unregulated capitalism is for Republicans.

This conclusion helps explain why so many traditional Republicans continue to hold their noses and support Trump’s narcissistic personality and populist, authoritarian policies. For them, the Trump administration’s economic policies have added to their wealth and power. This outweighs significant losses to democratic principles and institutions.

When our country was founded, democracy and capitalism comfortably coexisted. There was limited representative government designed to protect property rights. Unlike Europe, most white male citizens in America held a "stake" in society as property owners and supported capitalism. Majority rule was restrained. The colonial system was balanced by an economy that, while fundamentally capitalist, had not yet developed the vast economic inequalities seen today.  
During the American Industrial Revolution, democracy and capitalism were in a more complex and often tense relationship. The period was defined by economic laissez-faire policies and rampant corruption. Ultimately, government intervention and social reforms won out to address the worst excesses of industrial capitalism.   

Following World War II, democratic capitalism flourished. The middle-class soldiers returning from battle were rewarded by the government for their sacrifices. The period was characterized by unprecedented economic growth and expanding consumerism.  Government programs helped the middle class economically improve.  While capitalism brought prosperity and stability, it was also a period marked by strong labor movements and public investment into important social priorities. 

To examine the unexpected breakdown between democracy and capitalism over the past several decades, I will turn to Martin Wolf, one of journalism’s most influential commentators on economics. Wolf trained at Oxford and worked at the World Bank before becoming the chief editorial writer for the prestigious London Financial Times. His two most recent books come to opposite conclusions regarding democratic capitalism.

First, in his 2004 treatise, Why Globalization Works, Wolf explained the then prevalent economic consensus following the West’s 1991 victory in the Cold War. He confidently stated that, “democratic capitalism is not only a coherent form of social organization but in fact the best one.” In 2004, Wolf was adamant that a market economy in a democracy was the only means for “giving individual human beings the opportunity to seek what they desire in life.” Most Republicans then supported democratic capitalism.

Twenty years later, in his latest, 2024 book, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, Wolf’s analysis and conclusions are quite different. He now believes that the global financial crisis of 2007-09 turned discontent into seething anger at governing elites and caused a loss of trust in the system. His present diagnosis is, “Neither politics nor the economy will function without a substantial degree of honesty, trustworthiness, self-restraint, truthfulness and loyalty to shared institutions. These values have run into crisis all over the world.” Wolf’s hard to dispute conclusion follows: “Without ethical elites, democracy becomes a demagogic spectacle hiding a plutocratic [government by the wealthy] reality.”

Traditional Republicans appear to be “all in” with this state of affairs. Even young tech entrepreneurs can get behind an unethical governmental that represses democracy and gives the elite power to champion unfettered capitalism. It does not matter that Trump achieved this result by building a movement under the banner of nativism, religious nationalism, and resentful populists looking to return to a glorious past.

What does unjust capitalism mean for Republicans? The “Big Beautiful Bill” guarantees hardship for those who depend on wages, disability benefits and public services. It provides state-sponsored extravagance for those who own assets.

Tax cuts are given to wealthy individuals and corporations. There are tax breaks, incentives, and inducements for investors, financial asset holders, and home owners. The bill assures a continuous wealth transfer to the already well off and to Americans fortunate enough to own assets.

What does democracy mean for Democrats? As reported in the Harvard Business Review, in a 2020 article, Democracy Under Attack, “Capitalism is the right way to organize an economy, but it’s not a good way to organize a society. Markets can allocate resources, but they cannot solve climate change, too much inequality, or the plight of workers whose jobs have been destroyed by trade or technology.”

A functioning democracy is needed to establish guardrails against both political and economic inequality. The mechanisms of democracy must be in place to push back against powerful, entrenched interests. Democratic institutions are needed to ensure that the electoral process is not compromised. Most importantly, as pointed out by Martin Wolf, “democracy needs ethical leaders to survive.”

There is no reason that the free market must remain in the hands of corrupt leaders, large corporations and the wealthy. There are over 36 million small businesses that employ most of the nation’s private sector workforce. They can help bring back a functioning civil society with a market economy and democratic resilience.

It is time to stop tribal fighting about nonsense on social media and to figure out how to reconcile democracy and capitalism for the next 250 years.

 

TRUMP DESERVES CREDIT FOR GAZA BUT NOT A NOBEL PRIZE

 

Recent international events paint a complicated picture of the President’s values and goals. When it comes to the Gaza ceasefire and the Noble Peace Prize, is Donald Trump one who personifies the peace prize qualification of “fraternity between nations” or are his actions only about drama and fragile, short-term deals?

On the one hand, despite all of his faults and the domestic and international carnage caused by his policies, the Trump administration has achieved an historic breakthrough on the war in Gaza. For his diplomatic actions, the President deserves all the accolades he is receiving from Israel, the Middle East, and around the world.

On October 13, Hamas released all 20 of the last living hostages, and Palestinian prisoners were returned to Gaza. The same day, Trump flew to Isreal and Egypt to praise his own efforts and to sign a peace deal, though not the twenty point plan he wanted.  A week after the signing, the truce appeared tenuous, when Israel launched attacks and halted aid into Gaza.

The violence began two years ago with the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust. The Israeli response has killed over 60,000 in Gaza and 1.9 million have been displaced. Now that the shooting has stopped, serious challenges lie ahead, leaving many unanswered questions. However, the exchange of hostages and prisoners is significant in itself and marks a key first step.  

Trump’s administration was largely responsible for this landmark development.  Envoys, Steve Witkoff and the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner entered the negotiations when they were deadlocked to work out final details. Back at the White House, a critical turning point occurred when Trump strong-armed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to apologize to Qatar for an air strike against Hamas negotiators in its capital, Doha.

The citizens of Israel view Trump and his team in heroic terms for getting the hostages released. However, there is much work to be done before Trump’s claim of “Everlasting Peace” becomes a reality. Isreal Prime Minister Netanyahu appears ready to resume the fighting at the least provocation.

Why the breakthrough now? I am inclined to agree with the analysis of the Economist digital editor, Roger McShane, that some of Trump’s most negative characteristics of bullying, being transactional rather than visionary and his narcissism have actually assisted in reaching a ceasefire. McShane concludes that, “The choreography of the negotiations, with so much pressure applied to both sides, Mr. Trump’s willingness to push Israel hard, and the enlistment of Gulf Arab states not only to pay for Gaza’s reconstruction, but to underwrite a peace process and perhaps help provide security—these are huge steps forward, possible only because of this administration’s efforts. Whether or not Mr. Trump deserves a Nobel prize, he certainly deserves praise.”

It must be said that the Trump approach, while successful in the short term, is a far cry from the sustained economic and diplomatic commitment needed to make a lasting peace. Such a level of commitment is not a hallmark of Trump or his MAGA followers. However, in this moment, I applaud Trump’s work in creating possibilities for a new beginning in the Middle East, while remaining a fierce critic of his authoritarian, domestic policies.

No doubt, the President is seething that his diplomatic efforts did not land him the Noble Peace Price, announced on October 10. The award will be presented to Maria Corina Machado "for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy."

The irony is that Trump has recently been anything but peaceful toward Venezuela. His administration has halted diplomatic contacts, increased intelligence activity, deployed military assets throughout the Caribbean, and mounted at least five military actions against its citizens in international waters.

In fact, Trump sealed his own fate in being denied the Peace Prize.  First, before the recent peace initiative, Trump’s Mid East position was to “give war a chance” by often categorically supporting Israel and sending bombers to attack Iran’s nuclear program.

Second, at a press conference last month, the President proclaimed that the Department of Defense would thereafter be known as the Department of War.  Third, his newly anointed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, proclaimed that the armed forces would henceforth deliver “maximum lethality” that would “not be politically correct.”  

Fourth, Trump ordered drone strikes on several small boats headed out of Venezuela suspected of drug trafficking. This violent alternative to inspecting the boats killed almost all on board in what some legal and defense experts consider a war crime.

Fifth, at a recent conclave of all active serving generals and admirals, the President announced a new plan for using American cities that object to his immigration policies, as training grounds for the military.  He told the assembly, “That’s a war too. It’s from within.”

Lastly, Trump’s Border Patrol officials announced that a marine unit would be relocated to Chicago.  The explanation was that Chicago’s lakes and rivers are borders (with Michigan, not a foreign country).

Attacks on revered democratic institutions, bombing Iran, provoking hostilities in our own hemisphere, and the fabrication of domestic war zones do not build an ideal resume for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.  One can only guess what opportunities three more years of a Trump White House will bring.

THREE COUNTYWIDE REASONS TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER FOURTH

 

In last week’s commentary I discussed the importance of the upcoming election as it relates to the retention vote for three Supreme Court Justices. Overall, each local election is important and deserves careful vetting of candidates prior to filling-out and returning a mail-in ballot or visiting a polling place on November 4. This commentary will give my opinion on three voter decisions of significance to all county residents.  

Judge Brandon Neuman for Superior Court.  Judge Brandon Neuman is clearly the more qualified candidate for the vacancy on Superior Court. Neuman has served as a Washington County Judge since 2018 and is now running for this statewide judicial office. This is a rare opportunity for Washington County voters to support one of their own judges in an important judicial position that reviews lower court verdicts across Pennsylvania.

Traditionally, candidates serving on Superior Court are from urban areas like Allegheny, Montgomery or Philadelphia counties where there is a large base of familiarity and financial support. Neuman will bring a distinctive “Washington County” perspective to Superior Court, reflecting our unique community and his knowledge of issues in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

This diversity helps produce rulings where all positions are considered.

 

Prior to taking the bench, Judge Neuman served four terms with distinction in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. His work on the House Judiciary Committee, Commission on Crime/Delinquency, Commission on Criminal Sentencing, and on other subcommittees, gives him a strong background in state government and on important legal issues facing the Commonwealth.

Judge Neuman was honored to be “highly recommended” by the non-partisan Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) Judicial Evaluation Commission. The commission concluded, “His opinions demonstrate knowledge of substantive and procedural legal issues and the ability to provide good factual background and well-developed legal arguments.”

 

Neuman’s opponent, Maria Battista, has worked as a county prosecutor and as counsel in state government. She has never served or been elected to any judicial office. Because Battista refused to participate in the PBA rating process to evaluate her qualifications for Superior Court, she was not recommended.

Judge John DiSalle for Retention.  In Washington County, Judge John DiSalle is on our local ballot, running for retention. In 2005, he appeared on the Republican ballot and won his first term.  Judge DiSalle has earned the right to remain on the bench and to continue to work for the citizens of Washington County. Following a recent poll of county lawyers, the President of the Washington County Bar Association, Deana Stephens, announced, “with a 72% retention vote for Judge DiSalle, we are confident in recommending his retention.”

As I explained in my last commentary that discussed the judicial retention process, “In a retention election, voters cast a "yes" or "no" vote on whether a judge should be granted another ten-year term. There are no opponents or party affiliation listed for these races… Retention elections are designed to be a non-partisan means for voters to weigh in on the overall judicial acumen and competence of members on the bench.”

My prior commentary also explained, “Pennsylvania's judicial retention policy originated at the 1968 Constitutional Convention as a reform measure intended to reduce partisan political influences on the judiciary. In order to make the process as non-political as possible, the names of retention candidates appear on a separate area, at the end of the November ballot, apart from individuals running for other elective offices.”

Judge DiSalle has performed his judicial functions admirably for nearly twenty years and served for three years in the administrative position of President Judge. He currently presides over homicide cases, Family Court cases, and domestic violence matters. As a cutting-edge jurist, DiSalle reconstructed the county’s diversionary programs in substance abuse, veterans’ issues, and mental health. In appropriate cases he permitted offenders to seek treatment as an alternative to incarceration. He also created the county’s DUI Treatment Court to provide treatment for driving under the influence offenders.

During DiSalle’s tenure as President Judge, he implemented a state-of-the- art court docketing system to provide online access to the court’s dockets and for the electronic filing of pleadings and documents. DiSalle worked closely with the county commissioners to initiate substantial remodeling of the courthouse. Under his leadership needed repairs were made and construction of a new courtroom was completed for the county’s seventh Judge.

Heather Sheatler for Controller. In 2024, Heather Sheatler, a Republican, was appointed by the Republican Commissioners and sworn in as Washington County’s acting Controller. Sheatler had worked in the county controller’s office for 22 years and before her appointment served as deputy controller. Sheatler incurred the ire of the Republican Commissioners by doing her job and, among other issues, challenging their movement of federal grant funds into an unauthorized checking account.

 

The Republican Commissioners supported an alternative candidate, Pat Philips, who won the primary. Sheatler came in second place in the Republican primary but a write-in campaign gave her the Democratic nomination.  

During her appointment, Sheatler has brought stability and professionalism to the controller’s office. She deserves to be elected in her own right. Disagreements between her office and the commissioners should not be taken lightly. Her prudent decisions demonstrate that she understands the importance of placing taxpayers before politics. She will provide an ongoing transparency and watchdog function on finances that Washington County desperately needs.

It is not often that an “off year election” offers two elections and one retention of critical importance to local voters. When added to the Supreme Court retention votes, discussed last week, there is every reason to exercise the important right to vote.

 

   

A Week in the “Land of Enchantment”

 

While searching for a late summer getaway, an article in the Wall Street Journal provided an intriguing prospect. Why not fly into Albuquerque, New Mexico and also visit Santa Fe and Taos?  The State is proudly called “the Land of Enchantment” to reflect its rich history, cultural diversity, and natural beauty. 

My wife and I decided that since the three destinations are only an hour apart, a week was all we needed. We scheduled two days in each location, with a final dash back to the Albuquerque airport.

After arriving and taking in the high desert sights, sounds, and smells of Old Town Albuquerque, we rested before heading out for a full day of exploration. Our first stop was the well-regarded Pueblo Cultural Center, an introduction to the Native American clans that have populated New Mexico for centuries. Luckily, each Sunday features a full program of Pueblo native dance in full traditional costume. The exhibits surrounding the outdoor courtyard where the dancers performed were outstanding. A traditional Pueblo lunch concluded our visit.

In the afternoon, we headed for an attraction that every tourist seems to seek out as a break from indoor museums. The Sandia Peak Tramway takes visitors to the crest of this 10,000-foot mountain for spectacular views covering 11,000 square miles of New Mexico.

The next morning, we departed for Santa Fe and arrived minutes after the Georgia O’ Keefe Museum opened for the day. We were rewarded with an uncrowded viewing experience of some of the greatest works of this famous American artist. O’ Keeffe began her career in NYC before discovering the beauty of New Mexico. Her earlier paintings featured large colorful close -ups of flowers. Later, she would paint the landscapes surrounding Santa Fe and Taos in her distinctive style.

Across the street in Santa Fe’s Old Town was the New Mexico History Museum. The major attraction is a timeline that traces historical events from antiquity to the present. New Mexico's history spans thousands of years, beginning with Native American cultures, followed by Spanish colonization in the late 1500s. The Pueblo Revolt of 1680 and subsequent Spanish reconquest were violent, not well known, events.  Following Mexican independence, the region became part of the United States after the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. New Mexico became a US territory in 1850 and finally achieved statehood in 1912. 

At the History Museum, one cannot help but reflect on what it means to be an American. In the 1840s, “manifest destiny,” the 19th-century doctrine that the expansion of the US throughout the American continents was both justified and inevitable, overran New Mexico. The historical record makes clear that neither the Native Americans nor Spanish speaking residents were eager to become assimilated into the United States.

In the early twentieth century when the western railroads were being built, there was a critical need for labor. Tens of thousands of workers from Mexico were recruited. Many of them stayed and are now the backbone of New Mexico society.

Today, roughly fifty per cent of the New Mexico population identifies as Hispanic or Latino and eleven percent as Native American. There are too few jobs and a great deal of open space.  Eighteen percent live below the poverty line. When we had dinner with a classmate from Swarthmore College, now an Albuquerque physician, he explained how difficult it was to retain professionals in New Mexico.

Our next full day in Santa Fe was dedicated to diverse attractions.  The church located in Santa Fe's historic central plaza is the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi. Another historic church near the plaza is the San Miguel Chapel, the oldest in the continental U.S.

We left the central square and drove to seek out the Museum of International Folk Art, a pleasant surprise. We spent hours admiring the large collection from all over the world. It was a riot of color, design, and unique objects. My wife could not resist purchasing a traditional Ukrainian blouse, in support of this nation still under siege by Russia. Across the street, the Botanical Gardens delighted her with a large collection of local flora.

The next morning, it was on to Taos along the more scenic “high-road” where the two-mile-high altitude will “take your breath away.” Outside of town we made an unscheduled stop for lunch at “Antonio’s,” a roadside café. We were thrilled to learn that this traditional New Mexico eatery had been featured on the show, Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.

Nearby, Taos Pueblo is the only Native American community designated as both a World Heritage Site by UNESCO and a National Historic Landmark. Made entirely of adobe, the multi-storied homes are still occupied today, embodying a living culture. In our only disappointment of the week, the village was closed to tourists in late August so that the community could undertake some traditional rituals.

As an alternative, we took in the Millicent Rogers Museum, started by the late daughter of a Standard Oil executive. Her collection of Native American art is considered one of the finest in the Southwest.

Our final day in Taos started with a visit to the breathtaking Rio Grande Gorge Bridge and ended with hours of shopping in Taos Plaza. Discerning buyers from all over the world patronize the many galleries and studios.

Sometimes it is the trip that is taken on short notice with minimal planning that reaps the greatest rewards. The New Mexico “land of enchantment” provided an entertaining and cultural journey to the Southwest – well beyond our expectations.

 

 

 

 

 

REPUBLICANS HAVE MISLED VOTERS ON JUDICIAL RETENTION

 

My next two commentaries will focus on the upcoming election. One would think that after the national election of 2024 and before the important mid-term election of 2026, that this year’s event would be of less importance. This assumption would be a major mistake for those concerned about preserving democracy in Pennsylvania and in our nation at large.

Three Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices are up for a retention vote on November 4, Justice Christine Donohue, Justice Kevin Dougherty, and Justice David Wecht. They were all elected in 2015 as Democrats. In Washington County, Judge John DiSalle, is on our local ballot, running for retention. In 2005, he appeared on the Republican ballot and won his first term.

In a retention election, voters cast a "yes" or "no" vote on whether a judge should be granted another ten-year term. There are no opponents or party affiliation listed for these races. In place of term limits, Pennsylvania has adopted a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all members of the judiciary.

The federal court judges, including the Supreme Court, are appointed and often serve for life. In Pennsylvania, because judges are initially elected, retention elections are designed to be a non-partisan means for voters to weigh in on the overall judicial acumen and competence of members on the bench.

In late September, Republicans seeking to unseat all three Supreme Court Justices sent out a deceptive campaign flier in an effort to convince voters across the Commonwealth to vote “no” on their retention. The flyer was misleading in two respects.

First, the message on the front and back of the flyer states: “THREE NO VOTES WILL TERM LIMIT THE PA SUPREME COURT.” A term limit is a legal restriction on the number of terms an elected official can serve in a particular office. This restriction can only be applied by an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution.

In Pennsylvania only the highest office holders of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Treasurer, and Auditor General are subject to term limits. It is misleading to inform voters that a retention vote is somehow the same as imposing term limits.

The State Republican Party will never recommend that term limits be placed on Republican members of the Supreme Court. Their political ploy is nothing more than a deception to convince voters that it is within their power to invoke term limits. In fact, the Republican political motive is to remove Justices with whom they disagree on issues like a women’s right to choose, voting rights, workers’ rights, and access to health care.

Pennsylvania's judicial retention policy originated at the 1968 Constitutional Convention as a reform measure intended to reduce partisan political influences on the judiciary. In order to make the process as non-political as possible, the names of retention candidates appear on a separate area, at the end of the November ballot, apart from individuals running for other elective offices.

The anticipated factors for voters to consider in retaining judges were judicial performance and integrity. Length of service, former political affiliations, and political views were not to be voter considerations when the Constitutional Convention adopted a judicial retention policy.

Retention elections were adopted by Pennsylvania with the belief that most sitting judges would be retained in subsequent elections. Ten years of judicial experience is considered a priceless legal commodity. In a smaller county like Washington, each judge has gained wisdom working in the diverse areas of civil, criminal, and family court. On the Supreme Court, years of participation in complex cases is invaluable. In this year’s state retention elections, it is important for voters to know that the non-partisan Pennsylvania Bar Association has recommended all three Justices for retention.

The second Republican deception is the source of this mass mailing. The flyer states: “PAID FOR BY COMMONWEALTH PARTNERS.” An average voter would assume that Commonwealth Partners was a non-partisan reform movement seeking to limit the number of terms elected judges can serve.

In fact, Commonwealth Partners is a highly partisan Republican organization seeking to remove Democrats with whom they politically disagree. This is the partisan politics that retention elections were designed to prevent. Moreover, the Partnership is incorporated as a nonprofit, making it a so-called dark money group that is not required to reveal donors.

The chairperson of Commonwealth Partners is Matthew Brouillette, named one of the top 50 Republican influencers in Pennsylvania. Another member, Michael Turzai, is the former Republican Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

Why are Republicans involved in such an underhanded deception in what the state constitution intended to be a non-partisan retention process? If they are successful, the Supreme Court will be in chaos for two years with only two elected Democrats and two Republicans serving on the highest court. Until new Justices can stand for election in 2027, the court would be impotent in deciding redistricting, mid-term election law, and other issues.

According to Pa. Spotlight, “Judges normally don’t come close to losing retention, with most winning a new term by 30-plus percentage points.” But Spotlight also reports, “Scott Pressler, among Trump’s most vocal supporters in the Commonwealth has already hired 23 staffers and stated that this is a political election.”

Voters should not be fooled by Republican attempts to turn a retention election, intended to evaluate judicial performance, into a partisan effort to unseat political opponents.

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PANDEMIC?

 

There is little disagreement that policy errors were made during the pandemic. The problem is that Democrats, Republicans, and even scientists who specialize in public health cannot agree on what the miscalculations were or how to prevent them in the future. This result should not be unexpected.  The Pew Research Center has concluded, “The most significant pandemic of our lifetime arrived as the United States was experiencing three major societal trends: a growing divide between partisans of the left and right, decreasing trust in many institutions, and a massive splintering of the information environment.”

Democrats point to the lax preparation and prevention efforts employed by the first Trump administration. They believe there were many warning signals before COVID-19 swept across the nation. There is also criticism of the slow roll out of available vaccines in the final months of the 2020 Trump presidency.

Republicans argue that the Biden administration and governors in blue states called for “draconian” lock-down, masking, and distancing mandates that caused harm to our economic and social fabric.  They contend that elected Democrat officials gave too little priority to individual choice and did not support businesses or parents who wanted their children back in the classroom.

The only fact on which all parties agree is that “Operation Warp Speed,” a national program employed by Trump officials to quickly develop a vaccine was an unmitigated success. With vaccine production using mRNA as a delivery mechanism, scientists moved quickly to clinical and human trials. This allowed the vaccines to become the fastest ever developed and approved.

As of January 30, 2021, five of the six vaccine candidates had entered phase 3 clinical trials. Two candidates from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech received an emergency use authorization from the FDA. This decision was indispensable to lessening the effects of the pandemic. A week later, on February 5, 2021, the U.S. had over 26 million cumulative reported cases of COVID-19 and about 449,020 reported deaths.

 

In May 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an end to the public health emergency. Adequate time has now passed to permit social scientists and historians (with no political axe to grind) to review the voluminous documentation and statistical evidence generated by federal/state agencies and scientific entities.

The initiation of governmental policies to mitigate the harm is now more or less settled. On 23 January 2020, the Chinese government banned travel to and from Wuhan and enforced a national policy of quarantines in affected regions. The WHO examined this approach and bought into the Chinese model, which swiftly became conventional wisdom around the world. As a result of this thinking, America launched masking, distancing, and lockdowns on a broad scale.

This commentary will discuss a recent book that focuses on the governmental responses to COVID-19 and other strains of the virus. The publication gives a fair and honest assessment in which no political party, elected official, or federal agency escapes unscathed. It is a straight-forward report that we all need to consider in order to learn from the pandemic moving forward.

The book, In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, is the work of two public policy professors at Princeton University, Stephen Macedo and Francis Lee.  Among other favorable reviews, this study has been called “compelling” by Fareed Zakaria and “social science at its finest” by George Will.

Macedo and Lee describe how, influenced by China’s lockdown, federal agencies departed from their already existing pandemic plans that minimized the use of social distancing and masking. In making difficult choices, “follow the science without question” replaced open scientific debate and valuable input from non-scientists.

The authors found that benefits and damages were unfairly distributed. Priority was placed on avoiding hospitalization and death with little consideration of economic loss or the long-term harm caused by missing school and locking-down communities. Even when the virus started acted differently than predicted, scientific conformity replaced open debate and reasoned thought.

Macedo and Lee point to Sweden, which never mandated masks or staying at home and kept schools open. Statistics now show that Sweden had one of the lowest death rates in Europe. Initially In America, states that locked down for longer, fared no better than those that did not. However, once vaccines were readily available, red states did not do as well because vaccine skepticism increased the number of infections.

The authors conclude that: 1) the federal policies adopted largely benefited the wealthier “laptop class” and left so-called essential workers unprotected, 2) extended school closures hit the least-privileged families the hardest, and 3) science became politicized, and dissent was driven to the margins. 

On this third point, it now seems an unwarranted partisan position for Atlantic magazine to accuse the state of Georgia of performing “an experiment in human sacrifice” when the governor eased its lockdown requirements. Elected officials can often fairly weigh considerations that experts may not consider or fully appreciate.

If we are to learn anything from the pandemic, we must realize that governments need “a more honest politics of crisis policymaking, a greater willingness to acknowledge doubt and recognition of people with varying views.”

In the next crisis, Macedo and Lee warn, “we must not forget the deepest values of liberal democracy: tolerance and open-mindedness, respect for scientific evidence and its limits, a willingness to entertain uncertainty, and a commitment by the government to tell us the whole truth.”