Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist. 78th Edition. We'd like to inform you that terrible things are being done in your name, edition.

The caption comes this week from a letter the publishers of The New Republic wrote to Stalin, when one of their reporters wrote back on atrocities being committed in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. 

Crowd jeers Hageman at tense Laramie town hall. She calls them ‘hysterical.’: Wyoming’s lone congresswoman faced tough questions and angry constituents Wednesday night.

Not just Laramie, but also solidly Republican Rock Springs and Evanston.

Indeed, all over the country, when Republicans show up in their home districts.

Indeed, the event in Evanston was so notable that a populist apologist felt compelled to write an Op Ed for the Cowboy State Daily.

Jonathan Lange: Barbuto’s Miscalculation Released The Flying Monkeys

Lange you may, but probably don't, recognize as Rev. Lange of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, who has his own blog, Only Human.  He's reliably pro Trump and Pro Populist, which brings up one of the real ironies of populism, which is deeply religious people supporting a movement lead by some wildly irreligious people, as we've discussed elsewhere, so we'll only note that Trump is, in Christian terms, an adulterer living in an adulterous irregular relationship as well as being a serial liar, and Musk is an atheist.  Lange came to the attention of some in the state by opposing the successful bill to make child marriage illegal.

But we digress.

What's really notable, is that even here in deep Trump country people are really reacting to DOGE and aren't happy about it.

And that's not all they aren't happy about.

March 24, 2025

A coal mine near Kemmerer is laying off 28 workers.

Tesla chargers have been vandalized with swastikas in Rock Springs.

Kemmerer balked at an immigration detention center.

In far Western Wyoming coal continues to fail, as it will, as coal's days are over, but that hasn't caused deeply Republican Kemmerer to say "yes, we'll sign up for the deportation frenzy" and take an immigrant concentration camp.

Interesting.

Anyhow, I'll give Hageman credit for simply going to Laramie, where she must have known that she'd encounter real hostility.  But her response to a LGBTQ was really wrong headed in a city that's sought to overcome the murder of Matthew Shepard for decades.  

She called the crowd "hysterical".  They weren't hysterical, they were angry.

So far Hageman hasn't toured north of the Union Pacific, which is interesting.  I wonder why, sincerely?

Someone else who is touring is Bernie Sanders, and AoC.

They drew a crowd of 30,000 or more in Denver last week, which Sanders says is the largest crowd he's ever spoken to.

AoC is obviously considering running against the pathetic Chuck Schumer.

Also, in Colorado:

Walking the fine line of ‘all of the above’: Two Republicans from #Colorado add names to letter calling for restraint in gutting of #climate legislation — Allen Best (BigPivots.com) #ActOnClimate

One of the really interesting things that's starting to happen in the Trump world is the same thing that happened in the Socialist left world during the 20s and 30s, that being the belief that the dear leader doesn't know about what the Party is doing.  I saw this on Facebook, which is just about as far to the left as Wyomingite's normally go, from somebody who is about as far to the right as possible.

So again, in our home State of Wyoming, the left wing lunacy continues to try to rob Wyoming of more original beauty. My understanding is that the Duncan Ranch was to be used for Agriculture and ag based education only. How is it that these are even being considered?!?! Anyone that knows this area can attest to its beauty yet now, that is threatened. I warned people that the State Lands and BLM would be the next spots for these to be in the crosshairs. Those who have allowed these on their private property have opened the door for them to continue to push for this failed technology. So here it is, they want to build on public ground like it's no big deal. There are already whispers of eminent domain coming into play for the future of these cancers as well. It must stop! There is absolutely nothing green about the agenda they push. Wyoming is Oil, Gas, Coal  Agriculture, and Tourism. We are not some waistland where you can just stand your turbines up and collect a check. Our Natural Resources are the reason our State isn't bankrupt like the liberals who surround us. Why are we so worried about pandering to these other states that don't follow or respect our way of life? At one time a few years ago, the Natrona County Commissioners agreed 4 to 1 to allowing all of these turbines just North of Casper at 20 Mile Hill. They did so even tho there was standing room only in the courthouse in opposition. So now, there are windturbines in our back yard. It's sickening. Blinking lights at night as far as you can see. The beautiful sunrise that generations of my family has enjoyed for years is now ruined by towering monstrocies.  However, when it came time to vote on those commissioners who's term was up, WE THE PEOPLE replaced them. Now, we have a commission who is strong for the people. The most recent green deal that came before these new commissioners for approval got shot down 3 to 2. They understand Wyoming doesn't want this crap in our back yard.

My point is, whoever is not standing for Wyoming, needs voted out and if we want to protect our Wyoming and our tax dollars, these projects need to be met with lots of opposition by, "We The People".

The Duncan Ranch, which this individual is worried about, justifiably, is not in Natrona County.  It's in Converse County, which never saw any kind of industrial project of any kind it didn't like.  And the rancher, and that's what he is, who is upset, is justifiably upset, but he's being about as green and distributist as can be, and doesn't know it.

Anyhow, these projects weren't backed by a bunch of raving environmentalist here.

Hydrogen project major wind farm at & near Duncan Ranch, seeks state approval this week

They were backed by major heavy industry.  And by the county its in, which has supported every single one of these projects without question.  Indeed, the only County Commission which didn't support one was the Natrona County Commission, which actually was largely made up of the same people who had supported the prior ones in the county, in spite of what the Facebook fellow says.  I think there's only one new Commissioner.

Trump seems backed by billionaires.  

People don't really seem happy with what's actually occurring.

By the way, one of the things that's occurring is that the Trump Administration is going to require you appear in person to apply for Social Security. . . while they're also closing Social Security offices.  Rock Spring's office is being closed.  Casper's isn't listed, but the entire building is suggested to be sold, which could mean that Casperites would have to probably drive three hours to Cheyenne, or five to Denver.

Not to worry, no billionaire will be harmed by this decision.

Postscript:

From Rep Hageman's newsletter:

Rock Springs Social Security Office Update

Late last week, we began receiving calls from constituents concerned by a media article reporting that the Rock Springs Social Security Office was closing. I immediately reached out to the agency and was able to confirm that the allegation was inaccurate. The agency has canceled the lease for an ancillary hearing room it no longer uses, and those hearings will now be held at an alternative location, but the office itself will remain open. You can read more about the new SSA efficiencies here.

Last edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist. 77th Edition. A bridge too far?

Labels: Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, Russo Ukrainian War, The Second Trump Administration, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Zelinsky, Zeitgeist

Crowd jeers Hageman at tense Laramie town hall. She calls them ‘hysterical.’

Crowd jeers Hageman at tense Laramie town hall. She calls them ‘hysterical.’: Wyoming’s lone congresswoman faced tough questions and angry constituents Wednesday night.

This has been happening a lot, although it sounds like it was particularly the case in Laramie. 

DOGE is the talk of Wyoming. What are state leaders saying and doing about the Elon Musk-led cuts?

DOGE is the talk of Wyoming. What are state leaders saying and doing about the Elon Musk-led cuts?: Alongside ample praise for slashed U.S. government spending, Wyoming's governor and congressional delegation have offered sympathy and, in some cases, worked quietly to ease impacts on a state that’s half federal land.

The Hageman speech to the legislature. Deconstruction and Analysis. Part Two. The budget is a mess, but how it can really be fixed.

Brünnhilde is visited by her Valkyrie sister Waltraute in Götterdämmerung.  Did Harriet Hageman appear with her sword and magic helmet to correctly warn of us of impending fiscal doom? "The ring upon thy hand ... ah, be implored!  For Wotan fling it away!" 

Okay, what about the second part of this speech. 

The dire economic warning part.

The Hageman speech to the legislature. Deconstruction and Analysis. Part One.

Just yesterday, in our overlong, Lex Anteinternet: The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. The Legislat... thread, I posted the following:

Harriet Hageman appeared to address the House.

The early portion of Hageman's address deals with the new rules that the House is operating under, some of which are a restoration of old rules, as is noted.

The back portion is a call for extreme budget cuts.  Without saying as much, it would seem that you can take hints that this would include Social Security, but perhaps I'm just reading that into the speech and it isn't there.

It then goes into the legislative session.

Are we correctly being forewarned about Die Nornen?  That'd be scary.

Maybe we should be scared.

Hageman was not precise in her warning that Waltraute ought to hurl the ring away, but the gist of it is that we're spending way beyond our means, government wise, and we can't keep doing it forever.

I agree with that, and that's always been my position.  I'd note that since Reagan left office, it's only been the position of the Republicans when they're not in office. They're all about fiscal responsibility then, but when they are in office in Washington D.C., the fleet's in, they have shore leave, the Rockettes are appearing downtown. . . Woo Hoo!

Given that, it's a little hard for me to take the GOP seriously on this.

Indeed, quite frankly, listening to Republican declarations that "we need to be really careful on how we spend money" has gotten a lot like listening to an evangelical preacher warn us about the dangers of dancing and drink when we were just downing Makers Mark with him the prior night at the "Ol Elephant Saloon".  Your sort of want to say, "um, didn't you buy me a tumbler of Makers last night, and didn't I see you dancing with Billie Jean. . . .?"

Hmmmm. . . 

The other thing is that it seems that the House of Representatives seems to have suddenly confused itself with the House of Commons and believe that Kevin McCarthy is the Prime Minister, rather than just the Speaker of the House.  In terms of actual power to influence directions, he's much more limited than he's presently pretending.  Indeed, he risks going down right now as a flaming failure who might end up a footnote in a biography on Nancy Pelosi.

None of which means that hte dire warning might not be right.

Well, it might be, but she's not really terribly accurate in her statements.

I agree that the government can't spend for ever, and I do think the budget should be balanced. Does that require massive universal cuts to achieve?

No, it really doesn't.

Actually, given the scale of the budget and the of the economy, relatively moderate cuts combined with rational tax increases would cover it.  You could easily generate a surplus that way too.   If you were hired by the Federal Government as the CFO, that's exactly what you'd do. Any halfway competent CFO would do just that.

So why didn't she call for that?

Easy enough.  Unlike John Howard Hermann, we're not talking about economics, we're talking about money.

John Howard Hermann: We aren't even talking about money! We're talking about economics.

Hail Caesar!

Economically, this is easy to achieve, at least right now.  So much money is spent, so much money is brought in.  You need to spend less, or bring in more, or both.  Doing both, if you control the expenditures and the income, is fairly easy. And that'd be easy here, fiscally.

Republicans hate the income part, however, as it requires them to concede a dear dear belief, which is that tax is theft and that by leaving lots and lots of surplus money at the upper end of the income scale the rich reinvest it in businesses, rather than buying Twitter and wrecking it, or going to hang out with Jeffrey Epstein and a passel of underage girls.

We already know from past experience that you can tax the very wealthy up around 50%, and it won't drive them to Argentina or cause them to tank the economy.  Indeed, we did that for years and years before the "rising tide lifts all boats, even the ones with big gaping holes in them" theory of economics came to prevail. We started cutting upper tax rates with Ronald Reagan, and we haven't stopped.

We need to, and it needs to go back to the 1940 to 1960 type rates.

We can also tax a lot of surplus and idle wealth quite easily. We just don't.  People buying pure luxury itemss, third houses, McLaren cars and the like, can pony up.  

My guess is that Harriet Hageman, however, isn't going to go to Susan Gore and say, "wowsers Susan, these are some nice digs here in your compound. .  now let's talk about taxing you a little more. . . "

Not hardly.

But it ain't just Republicans.

Democrats never saw a spending program they didn't like.  Americans are so used to spending programs that have come into existence over the years in through relatively liberal (usually) Federal projects that they really have no idea whatsoever what they all are, and people have come to support them as rights.

As an example, when I was a kid, there was no Federal Department of Education. Education was 100% a state concern.  In FY 2023, the Department of Education had $89.76 Billion distributed among its ten subcomponents, which is a fair chunk of change, and that's only a single example.

It's tempting to believe, and some fiscal conservatives will tend to claim, that if we cut out all the fluff and added on budgetary items, the budget would balance.  While what the GOP wants to do would require that, and indeed it is required realistically, that still  doesn't get you there.  The big bear is non-discretionary spending.

You can get a bit of an insight into that here:

Much Ado About Debt

Oh oh.

Here are the Congressional Budget Office's infographs on the topic for 2021, first with discretionary spending.

And here's the graph of non discretionary spending:

As you can see, the list of items that Congress has placed beyond itself, and then refused to find a way to pay for, is something like five times the size of what it can control through annual appropriations.

In other words, there's no earthly way to pay for everything the Federal Government is funding through spending cuts alone.

None.

That's why Republicans hint at going after non-discretionary funding.  But because people like it, that's also why they hint, but won't flat out admit it, usually.  You aren't very likely to have Harriet Hageman or anyone else say, "wow, Medicare is expensive, let's cut it".

Indeed, programs like Medicare have been big budget inflators.  Richard Nixon, going down in flames due to Watergate, still retained enough political savvy to give a gift that kept on giving, with that one.

Once you give a benefit like that to people, there's no taking it away.  The Affordable Health Care Act certainly has proven that, and the COVID relief bills came close to being a Uniform Basic Income that wouldn't go away, and is still impacting the economy.  The point is not that these need to be cut, they likely cannot be, realistically.

You have to tax to pay for them.

Republicans in the House thinking that they're going to cut into Social Security or Medicare might as well plan on having pony rides on the moon.  Ain't happening.  Americans are used to these programs and are entirely acclimated to depending upon them. The only way that programs of that type every go away is due to massive societal disaster, which is ironically enough the way they tend to come into being in the first place.  You can't now tell people who are Social Security that something they were depending on for their entire lives needs to be drastically reduced. And all the youngsters who didn't care much about Nixon and his geezer centric Medicare bill in 74 sure do now.

Lots of conservative economists will, at this point, say something like "hold on there buckwheat, that would hurt the economy".  They'll propose just growing the economy out of this problem.  That actually is completely true, up to a certain point, but at some point you just can't do it.  Cutting back and tightening the belt makes sense if you can actually expect to be able to live within your means. But if you are far beyond them already, that's not going to happen.  It also won't happen if there's simply no moral hazard for anyone in the Federal economy, and right now there isn't.  I.e., it's easy to think "Free lunches for house cats?  Why not. . ." right up until somebody raises taxes to pay for it.

Indeed, one way that taxes could be raised would be simply to raise user fees for things. Some budget items are already paid for this way.  Hunters and fishermen pretty much pay for the entire U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, as well as state agencies, through excise taxes, user fees and hunting licenses, for example.  The U.S. Department of Transportation could be paid for this way as well.  The U.S. Post Office, while not a great example, funds itself.   That won't address mandatory spending directly, but if departments that task specific civil roles can be funding that way, general taxes don't have to fund them.

If you expand this out, there's no good reason that health related expenditures, which include a fair amount of the non discretionary spending, can't be covered by excises. Alcohol excises could pay for nearly 100% of alcohol related diseases.  Tobacco related excises could pay for 100% of tobacco caused illnesses.  A tax on marijuana, which is tricky as it remains illegal at the Federal level, could be imposed on the increasing amount of health and crime expendistures it causes.  All this, moreover, is just as not everyone drinks, smokes, or uses dope.

The level at which a person might wish to do this inevitably gets tied up with social concerns.  Some would say, well, if you are going to do that, are you going to tax firearms and ammunition manufacturers to cover health care costs derived from shootings?  Are you going to tax automobile manufacturers to cover costs related to automobile accidents?

I might.

Now, the working deficit right now is $421,409,781,344.

That's a lot of cash.

Here's a Federal chart on the deficite for FY 2022.

.S. Deficit Compared to Revenue and Spending, FY 2022

The FY 2022 chart is really instructive, as what that tells us is that the deficit frankly isn't that huge in the annual budget.  yes, that's a big number, but the revenue figure nearly covers.  We only had to make up $1.38 Trillion to balance in FY 2022, and that was a COVID mess year.

Elon Musk has an annual income of $2,400,000,000.

Let's put these figures side by side.

For FY 2022 the deficit and Elon Musk's annual income were:

$1,380,000,000,000.

$0,002,400,000,000.

So, obviously if you taxed Elon 100% of this income, you wouldn't cover the deficit.

But, if you taxed him at 50% of his income, it does make an actual dent in the deficit, and there are plenty of billionaires around to tax.

And of course if you cut out half of the Department of Education's budget, keeping in mind it didn't even exist for most of the Post War period, you've cut into it an appreciable amount.

So, what does this tell us.

Well, folks like Harriet Hageman who call for "deep, deep, cuts" to the budget to fix the presumed crisis are wrong.

And folks like Robert Reich who call for big taxes on the wealthy are wrong.

Both are partially right, but only partially.

Shouldn't they know that?

Of course, they should, and they likely do, but if Hageman admits it, that means that people who are making $500,000 or more per year are going to pay more, and some a lot more, in taxes.  Hageman's former client, Susan Gore, for example, might look at her family company, which makes $3,800,000,000 in annual income ponying up more cash and having her annual income taxes higher as well.

The rich don't like that.

And Robert Reich won't like it either, as this would mean that funding Every Brown Bear Gets A Sandwich and the like won't happen.

All in all, it would be a big turn to the right, and it'd hurt the left, but it would also mean that programs that already exist, such as noted above, would be sound, and the hard right has never liked them.  In their heart of hearts, they'd make them go away based on the concept that everyone in society, including the bootless, can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Finally, what about the claim that only three countries have "fixed" their budgetary crisis?

M'eh, that's hogwash.

Plenty of countries have fixed economic imbalance, including ones that spend a lot more on social programs than the United States.

Canada runs a mild deficit and spends a lot more on social programs, per capita, that have real effect than the United States does.  Germany, Switzerland, and South Korea often post budget surpluses.  Japan runs a mild deficit and is projected to increase military spending while achieving a balanced budget by 2026.   New Zealand, cited by Hageman, tends to balance.  New Zealand has national health care and national tort coverage.

What are these countries doing that we aren't?

Taxing.

Related Threads:

The Hageman speech to the legislature. Deconstruction and Analysis. Part One.

The Hageman speech to the legislature. Deconstruction and Analysis. Part One.

Just yesterday, in our overlong, Lex Anteinternet: The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. The Legislat... thread, I posted the following:

Harriet Hageman appeared to address the House.

The early portion of Hageman's address deals with the new rules that the House is operating under, some of which are a restoration of old rules, as is noted.

The back portion is a call for extreme budget cuts.  Without saying as much, it would seem that you can take hints that this would include Social Security, but perhaps I'm just reading that into the speech and it isn't there.

It then goes into the legislative session.

I didn't really do a deep dive into it, but maybe that's worthwhile.  This is the first big public address Hageman has given, and she took a much different approach than Senator Barrasso did, who gave a cheerful, very much at ease speech. Indeed, I've seen Barrasso speak before, but I've actually never seen him speak when he didn't sound stilted.  This is an exception.  He didn't try to talk politics in it.

Hageman did.

Hageman's speech isn't long, and it may be broken down basically into two parts.  What she claims the House has already accomplished, and fiscal concerns.  She was pretty blunt in it.

I'll start by noting that I probably didn't give the speech the due it deserves for a simple reason.  I think that Liz Cheney's claim that Hageman was exhibiting "tragic opportunism" by running is correct.  I find it a bit hard to take anyone seriously who is crying out from the hill they just climbed with the bloody knife of the body they just stabbed in the back in their hands.  

But maybe in the world of politics, metaphorically killing your friends is just the norm.  Well, it isn't, but it does occur.

Okay, the speech.

The first part of it addresses a whole bunch of House procedural changes which do make the Speaker less of a dictator and do force members of the House to show up and do their jobs. Frankly, I think those reversions to prior times are a good thing, and they needed to be done.  I don't like the fact that they came about due to the far right, but I have to note that in lauding these changes Hageman doesn't give credit to where it is due, which is the far right. She is a member of the far right, but the changes or reversions cited were things that were brought about by the Freedom Caucus opponents of McCarthy.  She stuck with McCarthy the entire time.

I'm not sure what to make of that, but there's an element of riding your opponent's horse in that.

Are these good things?

Well, even though I don't like the group that brought them about, they are.

A portion of this speech that seems to relate to fiscal matters, which we'll get to in a second post, dealt with oil and coal.  

It's now become a state mantra that the nation needs Wyoming's oil and coal.

Prior to the U.S. Civil War, a common claim in the South is that the North would never fight the South as it needed its cotton, and indeed the whole world did.

Apparently, Southerners had never heard of sheep.

Or Egyptian cotton.

Just as Wyomingites apparently just won't believe that wind, solar, and ultimately nuclear, are going to, well, as Everett McGill had it in Oh Brother, Where Art Thou; "Yes, sir, the South is gonna change. Everything's gonna be put on electricity and run on a paying basis."

Everything is on a paying basis already, and that statement applies to the whole country in the context of technological evolution.

Windmills and memorial.  Might as well be coal's grave.

We've addressed it before, but coal has been on its way out for well over a century now.  It's so clear, that we've basically gone from the "cool menthol filters make these cigarettes safe for anyone" stage of things to the "I don't care if everyone in my family smokes, and they all have lung cancer, people get lung cancer from other things too. . . " stage of this argument.  Yes, you can still light up a pack of "

Exceedingly creepy, and more than a little unrealistic, Lucky Strike advertisement from 1952.  Yes, cigarettes won't hurt you.  And yes, you can wish the entire nation back into the coal age. And yes, this young woman didn't die of lung cancer by 1972.  Or. . . . ?

To put it mildly, the same group of folks who thought that passing a resolution banning electric cars to be sent to the Governor of California on the basis that, "that'll show them", seems to think we can just hold our breaths and turn blue and it'll be 1973 again, or perhaps we can just force everyone to use coal whether they want to nor not.

Just not going to happen.  It's already not happening, all on its own.

Flat out denial of an economic trend is dangerous.

A lot of tobacco farmers are farming something else now.

Remembered by Irrelevance.

 

WyoFile's Kerry Drake wrote an editorial worth reading, entitled:

History will judge Cheney, Hageman by their Trump choices

Wyoming’s U.S. Rep. elect hasn’t been sworn in yet, but it’s already clear that she hitched her wagon to the wrong jackass.

It's a great article, with many good observations, but Drake is reading his audience, the Wyoming voter, incorrectly.

And that's a tragedy.

Drake is correct about this:

Hageman, by contrast, has now irrevocably tied her political identity to backing Trump’s lies about the “rigged” election. Even if she wanted to abandon him, Hageman cannot simply walk away. You don’t just shuck off those handcuffs when you get tired of wearing them.

No, Hageman has made the political calculation to double down on her support, even as many incumbent Republican lawmakers distance themselves from Trump after the GOP’s disastrous midterm election results. Our freshman congresswoman doesn’t have much choice.

And this:

She hitched her wagon to what she thought was the most powerful horse in the field. Now the world is quickly realizing her rotund orange steed was a jackass all along. And Cheney is leading it to the glue factory.

But will "Wyoming's" voters wake up, and will it make a difference to Hageman?

Not a chance.

Nor will it matter to her supporters.

Hageman will go on to be reliably right of the right for the rest of her political career.  In her early 60s, she'll be there for at least 16 years, and have little influence on anything.  

In the meantime, something occurred to me.

I have a friend who is a fanatic Hageman supporter.  I have another who was a real Chuck Gray supporter.

What do they have in common?

Not from here, and not from any of the neighboring states.

They've imported their politics from the Midwest. . . and there's a lot of that going around.  Indeed, we have a Secretary of State that hails from far away and his district has elected a replacement for him, in the legislature, that hails from Chicago.

Wyoming has always been a very odd state in this way.  It has a highly transient population and a core of locals. But the locals themselves are divided between various regions.  And generally, for some reason, people have tended to politically look to outsiders in the state, although our current era is a real exception.  The Governor is actually a Wyomingite, as is Hageman (from the farm belt).  Lummis is as well.

Indeed, Lummis may be the best political barometer of what that local core may be thinking. She dissed Trump when most did, made up to him in spades when things were clearly going the other way, and has dumped him like a hot rock now that he's sinking fast.

Drake is right, Hageman can't do that.

But Drake is wrong to think most Wyoming voters will. The real Hageman supporters, who include an interesting group who brought their political views from somewhere else, would rather ride the Trump jackass into oblivion than admit they've been grifted.

It's sort of self satisfying, really.

But it doesn't help address anything, however.

History will judge Hageman and Cheney by their choices, and Wyoming in general. Hageman and Wyoming are going to look pretty much the same way America Firsters did by 1945.  But there were still a few America Firsters, even those who backed fascists, around in 1945.  History judged them by forgetting them, and they did in fact become pretty irrelevant politically.

As we are about to.

The 2022 Election Part XII. The General Election Race, Edition 2.

October 11, 2022

I didn't plan on doing a second one of these before the election, but the existing one got too big, so here we are. . . again.

Hopefully this is the last one in this tread, in a fairly sad election year.

The primary election really demonstrated Wyoming's lurch to the hard right with two of the state wide candidates receiving Trump endorsements, along with Harriet Hageman's whose only real issue was her loyalty to Donald Trump.  This upcoming legislative session promises, quite frankly, to be absolutely frightening and in the Congress Wyoming goes from having a respected, but not disliked in GOP circles, figure to one who will be, at least at first, a reliable GOP nullity.  In the Secretary of State office, which is the central business office for the state, a person who, back door, is widely disrespected in many circles goes into the fall completely unopposed.

And that points out the collapse of the Democratic Party in the state.  There are some notable Democrats who should be capable, in a sane situation, of easily beating a candidate like Chuck Gray, but they aren't running.

The races:

U.S. House of Representatives

Republican Party

Harriet Hageman.  Anointed by Donald Trump to take out Liz Cheney, and a late adopter of the stolen election theory, Wyoming lawyer Hageman is the favorite, albeit one who is seemingly now fairly quiet.

On that, Hageman won't even debate her Democratic challenger, which is both arrogant and rude.

Democratic Party.

Lynette Gray Bull.  Running a second time, the Native American candidate can be regarded as a "progressive" who is emphasizing her commitment to democracy, in opposition to Hageman's adoption of the stolen election story.  Gray Bull has challenged Hageman to a debate, but Hageman has rudely declined, as noted above.

Governor

Republican

Mark Gordon.

Democrat

Theresa Livingston.

Secretary of State

Republican

Chuck Gray. Gray has only been in the state for a decade and is widely held in many circles to be temperamentally and professionally unqualified for this position.

Gray, who wasn't universally popular in the legislature, focused on bogus election concerns in his campaign.  He'll take over from an even more unqualified interim Secretary of State who assumed this position when Ed Buchanan resigned to take a judicial appointment.

Democrat

None, the Democrats have defaulted in a race in which many feel the worst Republican candidate in the State's history won the GOP race, nearly assuring that the same individual will take that position. 

State Treasurer

Republican

Curt Meier won the GOP nomination for a second term.

Democrat

None.

State Auditor

Kristi Racines took this race in the Republican primary, and she seems to be the only candidate in the state that everyone likes.

Superintendent of Public Instruction

This is the only race for statewide office which actually features two qualified candidates.

Republican

Megan Delgenfelder.

Democrat

Sergio Maldonado.

Proposed Amendments to the Wyoming Constitution.

This year features two proposed amendments to the Wyoming constitution.  I'm not sure where the first one came from, but the second one is part of the general geriatric drift in the country, in which the generation that warned us to never trust anyone over 30 doesn't trust anyone under 60.

Proposed Amendment A

This proposed amendment's ballot summary states:

The Wyoming Constitution allows the state to invest state funds in equities such as the stock of corporations, but does not allow the funds of counties, cities and other political subdivisions to be invested in equities. The adoption of this amendment would allow the funds of counties, cities and other political subdivisions to be invested in equities to the extent and in the manner the legislature may allow by law. Any law authorizing the investment of specified political subdivision funds in equities would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature

The actual text of the revised statute would read as follows:

Article 16, Section 6. Loan of credit; donations prohibited; investment of funds; works of internal improvement.

(a) Neither the state nor any county, city, township, town, school district, or any other political subdivision, shall:

(i) Loan or give its credit or make donations to or in aid of any individual, association or corporation, except for necessary support of the poor; or

(ii) Subscribe to or become the owner of the capital stock of any association or corporation, except that:

(A) Funds of public employee retirement systems and the permanent funds of the state of Wyoming may be invested in such stock under conditions the legislature prescribes;

(B) The legislature may provide by law for the investment of funds not designated as permanent funds of the state in the capital stock of any association or corporation and may designate which of these funds may be invested. The legislature may prescribe different investment conditions for each fund. Any legislation establishing or increasing the percentage of any fund that may be invested under this subparagraph shall be passed only by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all the members of each of the two (2) houses voting separately.

(C) The legislature may provide by law for the investment of county, city, township, town, school district, or any other political subdivision's funds in the capital stock of any association or corporation and may designate which of these funds may be invested. The legislature may prescribe different investment conditions for each type and class of political subdivision and for each type of fund. Any legislation establishing or increasing the percentage of any fund that may be invested under this subparagraph shall be passed only by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all the members of each of the two (2) houses voting separately.

(b) The state shall not engage in any work of internal improvement unless authorized by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the people.

I'm not really sure where this comes from, and I don't know what my opinion of it is.  The theory, I guess, would be that the legislature could provide for a means for local governments to invest their funds in hopes of getting higher yields than they do from banks, which would also mean that they'd have to be able to tolerate downturns in the market.

Proposed Amendment B.

The amendment summary that will appear on the ballot states:

Currently, the Wyoming Constitution requires Wyoming Supreme Court justices and district court judges to retire upon reaching the age of seventy (70). This amendment increases the mandatory retirement age of Supreme Court justices and district court judges from age seventy (70) to age seventy-five (75).

The actual text of the amendment provides:

Article 5, Section 5. Voluntary retirement and compensation of justices and judges.

The sales pitch on this is that many highly qualified jurists are forcibly put out to pasture to do something else in their lives rather than remain on the bench until they're taken out in a body bag.

Okay, that's not quite how it's put, but that's basically it.  Added to that, if they die before the state has to pay them any retirement, the state saves some cash.

October 13, 2022

Wyoming's interim Secretary of State Karl Allred made good on his promise to address a non issue by sending letters out to County Clerk's asking them to remove drop boxes.  Only seven counties use them.

Prior Secretary of State Ed Buchanan, who abandoned the post he was elected to in order to be appointed a district court judge, thereby effectively disrupting the election leading to the GOP nomination and probable election of Chuck Gray, had encouraged their use due to COVID during the last election. Gray has promised to ban them.

Probably most people don't realize that drop boxes probably include the election machine outside of the clerk's door.  I've only seen one dropbox that was located outside of a courthouse rather than in it, but I haven't been to all of these locations.  Clerks are free to tell the unqualified to tell Allred to pound sand, and the Clerk of Laramie County, in her interview with the paper there, basically did, noting that her office already complied with the security requests that the never successfully elected Allred suggested in his cheery letter which acknowledged that prior elections had been successfully conducted.

Flag of Laramie County, Wyoming.  By Jens Pattke - http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-wy-la.html, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=58499517

While time will tell, this probably foreshadows an upcoming potentially hostile relationship between Clerks and Gray, if Gray tries to build on his "stolen election" campaign to tell the elected clerks what they can do.

Tulsi Gabbard, who left the GOP officially two days ago, has already endorsed a Trump backed Washington candidate.

According to the Tribune, a council for Casper's city council had to be shut down from speaking at a recent school board meeting when he got a bit out of control.

October 13, cont.

Governor Ron DeSantis relaxed voting rules for the areas of Florida recently impacted by a hurricane.

It should be noted that the GOP Governor has been riffing off of Trump populists, who also feel that just such actions in regard to the 2020 election resulted in it being stolen.

Hmmm. . . .

October 14, 2022

A debate of candidates for the U.S. House, save for Harriet Hageman, occurred last night.

Hageman was castigated by the other candidates for her failure to appear, which is either rude, arrogant, or cowardly.  At least one candidate called her actions cowardly.

Hageman needs to be heard from on her failure to debate, and not with the excuse that she has other more effective means of communicating with Wyomingites. So far, more or less, her campaign has been limited to the fact that she supports now subpoenaed Donald J. Trump no matter what, whereas Liz Cheney has the courage of her convictions.  Other than having united herself to Trump no matter what, there's nothing really known to distinguish her from Cheney, but the voters really haven't heard much from her otherwise in a widespread way.  Public forum's she's attended to date have been principally populated with Hageman Fans/Cheney Haters, so that does not suffice.

October 14, 2022

Long serving (37 years) Deputy Secretary of State Karen Wheeler is leaving the office. She's the second prominent member of the Secretary of State's Office to leave, with the first one expressly leaving due to Chuck Gray coming into the office.

There have been rumor that resignations would be widespread.  It would have been anticipated that this would have commenced after Chuck Gray assumed office in January, if it was going to, but with Interim Sectary Allred being of a similar mind to Gray, it may start sooner.  If it does it will create the very election crisis that Gray and Allred claimed to be dedicated to avoiding, but because of their attacks on an institution which was not in trouble.

October 15, 2022

None of the clerks replying to Allred's request have agreed to comply with it, thereby making him 100% ineffective in that effort.  Of course, the effort was pointless to begin with, but it foreshadows a likely showdown between the county clerks and incoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, who has no more authority over them than Allred does.

This is not a minor manner.  The clerks are rightfully telling Allred, and Gray by extension, to butt out.   This is likely to visit the courts in some fashion.

October 20, 2022

The Deputy Secretary of State Karen Wheeler and Election Division Director Kai Schon announced in front of the Corporations Committee of the Legislature last Friday that they're resigning after the November election.  While they termed it as being a good time to pursue other opportunities, it's pretty clear that neither wishes to serve under the likely winner, Chuck Gray, who based his campaign on fictional election security concerns.  It's no wonder that either would wish to serve under Gray, although it remains a wonder that Gray won the primary. A lack of a primary opponent means that Gray almost certainly will tragically win the office.

Both individuals are graciously remaining through the general election, and Schon indicated he'll reach out to the "Secretary Elect".

October 23, 2022

Liz Cheney appeared as a guest on Meet The Press today.  Relevant to the current election, she indicated that she's not voting for Harriet Hageman or Chuck Gray, and that anyone who is concerned about democracy, cannot.

Mary Peltola, Democratic Congressman from Alaska, received a number of Republican endorsements in that state for much the same reason.

October 25, 2022

The Natrona County School Board election is getting more attention than it normally would.

Superintendent for Public Instruction candidate Delgenfelder appeared at last night's meeting to support the district's right to make the decision to leave the book Gender Queer on the shelves, but to oppose the book itself, thereby basically taking both sides of the issue regarding the book. She suggested that it is pornographic.  The book has drawn the ire of three candidates who are members of something called "Moms For Liberty".

I'd never heard of the group, but the name is a poor one and a bit ironic in some ways. Basically they're a conservative, nationwide, organization that emphasizes parental control of schools and fears that schools engage in liberal indoctrination.  I'm not going to comment on that one way or another, but the "liberty" aspect of that shows the odd misuse of that word in our current culture.

The political right accuses, in essence, the political left of being "libertine", a word that I'd wager the majority of Americans are ignorant of nowadays.

The online etymology dictionary defines liberty as follows:

late 14c., "free choice, freedom to do as one chooses," also "freedom from the bondage of sin," from Old French liberte "freedom, liberty, free will" (14c., Modern French liberté), from Latin libertatem (nominative libertas) "civil or political freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint; permission," from liber "free" (see liberal (adj.)). At first of persons; of communities, "state of being free from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic rule or control" is by late 15c.

The French notion of liberty is political equality; the English notion is personal independence. [William R. Greg, "France in January 1852" in "Miscellaneous Essays"]

Nautical sense of "leave of absence" is from 1758. The meaning "unrestrained action, conduct, or expression" (1550s) led to take liberties "go beyond the bounds of propriety" (1620s). The sense of "privileges by grant" (14c.) led to the sense of "a person's private land" (mid-15c.), within which certain special privileges may be exercised, which yielded in 18c. in both England and America a sense of "a district within a county but having its own justice of the peace," and also "a district adjacent to a city and in some degree under its municipal jurisdiction" (as in Northern Liberties of Philadelphia). Also compare Old French libertés "local rights, laws, taxes."

How much does the current use of the term, by anyone, reflect that?

That Delgenfelder would appear at the meeting is odd, frankly, as the political advantage of a Republican candidate appearing in this venue, when she seemingly doesn't need to, is an odd strategic choice.

October 26, 2022

Superintendant of Education Brian Schroeder appeared at an event earlier this week on the topic of sexualization of children in school, a topic related to the one noted immediately above.

Steve Bannon predicted that Anthony Fauci will be "hunted" following the mid terms, a particularly distrubing comment by Bannon who is out of the pokey following his contempt conviction pending appeal.

October 30, 2022

Harriet Hageman has an op ed in the Trib today in which she claims that 1) inflation, 2) high illegal immigration, 3) "record breaking human trafficing", 4) "record breaking drug running" and 5) high food costs (which would seem to be included in inflation), are all part of a "Democratic plan" to bring about a "leftist Utopia".

This places Hageman squarely in the really extreme category, rhetoric wise, and its fair to assume at this point that she probably believes what she's saying.

Hageman lashed out two days ago at University of Wyoming professors studying her tweats for "toxicity", stating:

I’ll tell you what’s ‘toxic’ . . . trying to freeze free speech with ominous warnings that ‘we’re watching you’ from pointy-headed college professors and the leftist corporate media.

Speaking of toxic, Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul was attacked by an unhinged lunatic this past week.  This has of course resulted in discussion on whether the atmosphere created by the late Trump administration and Trumpism since then has contributed to this event, as the actor had bought into all sorts of conspiracies.

Well, let's take a look at just what's noted here.  From the Trib:

In the Biden administration, we are seeing the most dangerous, most destructive administration in U.S. history. President Biden and the radical Democrats are responsible for record-breaking inflation, record-breaking illegal immigration, record-breaking human trafficking, record-breaking drug running, and record-breaking energy and food costs.

It would be one thing if these calamities were happening by accident, though it would still be tragic, but what we are enduring is actually the Democrats’ plan. Their goal is to completely upend our economy, to force people to bend to their will and compel behavioral changes to establish their leftist Utopia. We need members of Congress who will expose these nonsensical policies and fight to return us to a commonsense path that will lead us back to liberty and prosperity.

There you have it, from Wyoming's almost certain next Congressman. President Biden's administration is the most dangerous and destructive in the nation's history, out to create a left wing Utopia through all sorts of intentional bad acts.

No responsibility for rhetoric?

November 7, 2022

Cheyenne Representative Dale Zwonitzer blasted the direction the state's legislture has been heading in an interview with the Laramie Boomerang., accusing newer idealogues of being unable to read or even think.

I've heard similiar comments from legislators privately or ones who stepped down, but Zwonitzer was extremely blunt for a candidate who is not only an incumbant, but running for reelection.

Last Prior Edition:

The 2022 Election Part XII. The General Election Race, Edition 1.

Why won't Harriet Hageman debate?

Why won't Harriet Hageman debate?

Wyoming doesn't need a coward. Wyoming needs a leader, Wyoming needs a voice, Wyoming needs people who are able to stand up to anybody and anyone.

Lynette Gray Bull.

The candidates for Wyoming's lone seat to the Congress, less Harriet Hageman, debated last night.

October 14, 2022

A debate of candidates for the U.S. House, save for Harriet Hageman, occurred last night.

Hageman was castigated by the other candidates for her failure to appear, which is either rude, arrogant, or cowardly.  At least one candidate called her actions cowardly.

Hageman needs to be heard from on her failure to debate, and not with the excuse that she has other more effective means of communicating with Wyomingites. So far, more or less, her campaign has been limited to the fact that she supports now subpoenaed Donald J. Trump no matter what, whereas Liz Cheney has the courage of her convictions.  Other than having united herself to Trump no matter what, there's nothing really known to distinguish her from Cheney, but the voters really haven't heard much from her otherwise in a widespread way.  Public forum's she's attended to date have been principally populated with Hageman Fans/Cheney Haters, so that does not suffice.

How do we answer the question posed in the title of this post?

Well, the short answer is because Harriet Hageman has said "no" to a debate, but that obviously doesn't suffice.

Lawyers, which Hageman is, generally are regarded as liking to debate, or at least being comfortable with it.  Indeed, a common unthinking reply to "why should I become a lawyer" or "why did you become a lawyer" is 1) well I like to debate, and to get paid for debating, or the related 2) well I like to argue, and to get paid for arguing. . .   In truth, lots of lawyers like to do neither, but Hageman has boosted herself in her campaign by portraying herself as a wild vigilante jurist gunning down the horrible agents of Federal repression.

Harriet Hageman stopping agents of the United States Fish & Wildlife Service.

Truth be known, as a native Wyomingite, a lot of the big evil enemies she cites as having been taken on by her in her role as Litigator of the Golden West are agencies I like.  I have a hard time hating, for example, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service.  And the two times I've encountered her in a legal setting since 1990 didn't involve the Federal Government at all, although one did involve the super wealthy, who happened to be her client.  But I digress.

My point is, here, that abstaining from debating requires some sort of reason, and the reasons are few.

Before we look at those reason, we should consider something.

Hageman hasn't campaigned on any issues at all.

Her campaign was based solely on attacking Liz Cheney for voting to impeach Donald Trump and then going on to be his opponent in Congress.  Cheney stood on principles and on that, Hageman used the opportunity to advance herself, and successfully, so far.

In the process, for months she was actually very reluctant, unlike her opponents in the House race, to say that Trump won the election, which he didn't.  When pressed, she took refuge in having "questions".

Missed in that response is that it's a lawyer witness answer.  It's the classic Clintonesque "It depends on what the meaning of is, is."  It's a hair-splitting dodge.  Literally every single person on Earth can claim to have questions about the election as life is uncertain, and a person can harbor doubts about literally anything human's do, which doesn't mean they're reasonable.  A person can have questions if the sun will explode today, if you will die of a heart attack tonight, if your Welsh Corgi will suddenly remember he descends from wolves and rip your throat out, or whatever.

Bulldog editor, or perhaps as he would have preferred Irish Wolf Hound editor, of the Tribune in its glory days, Phil McCauley.  Photo linked in from his 2009 obituary.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, there isn't the Fifth Estate muscle to really run that to ground. The Tribune in the days of Phil McCauley would have harassed her on that to the point of tears, but that didn't of course occur.  She had "questions".

Well, anyhow, only at the bitter end, after being endorsed by Trump, and pressed at a Casper Politics In The Park did she relent to fully selling her soul and saying the election had been stolen.  She handily beat Cheney on that topic alone, with her enthusiastic supporters believing that she believes what they believe, thereby feeding into their beliefs for her personal advantage.

One is reminded of the classic line from A Man For All Seasons when Richard perjures himself:

Sir Thomas More: Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?

She's been really quiet since the Primary.

This assumes, of course, that she knows the truth, which frankly is my assumption.

Since that time, and after the primary election, she received a letter from forty-one Wyoming lawyers asking her to stop lying about the election being stolen.  Quixotically branded the "Wyoming 41" by the Democratic primary candidate Steve Helling, who ran as a pro Trump Democrat (his campaign made next to no sense and received next to no support), they asked her, in a private letter, to quit lying.  Her reply was practically unhinged, accusing them of being part of a nationwide plot to discredit Trumpite candidates by holding them to their oaths.  The Wyoming 41 denied that, and frankly the accusation was absurd, and in turn wrote her back, this time with 52 signators on the letter.¹   She didn't reply to that one.

And she's not replying much to anyone else in any really visible fashion.

Her current quietness may simply because she knows she's almost certain to be elected, and she just doesn't want to bother.  But if that's the case, what would it hurt. Sure, she may very well have no need to debate, but if that's the case, debating can't possibly hurt her.

Or maybe it can.

Lynette Gray Bull is a very effective speaker and preformed very well against Cheney two years ago.  At that time, she received 25% of the vote, and she'll receive more this time.  It's difficult to imagine her adding another 25% to defeat Hageman, but maybe Hageman is worried that in a debate that will bring the difference between the two into sharp focus, she might.^2 3

Since the primary, the January 6 committee has resumed and Trump is going to receive a subpoena to go to the Committee. That will appear on prime-time television, and he'll look like a strange liar.  He's going to resist going, of course.  Maybe being Trump's anointed will have just as much cache a month from now as it now does, but it's not guaranteed.  

But beyond that, maybe Hageman's real career history and the issues that raises would also come up.  She's been an enemy by her own statements of the things most Wyomingites love.  An ally only of development and use, she's unlikely to be seen as a friend of hunters, fishermen and people who just love the outdoors.  A product of southeastern Wyoming, which has generally been a hard core "it's my property stay off" portion of the state, she may well fear what that would mean.

She has the social issues of course, with Gray Bull being much to the left of her, and presumably outside the main from where most Wyomingites are, but she might also recall, given her age, a Wyoming which really wasn't very conservative on those issues.  Maybe being pro gun doesn't mean much in a state where the Democrats are also pro gun.  Maybe the remaining social issues like abortion and gender issues don't have as much cache with rank and file voters as presumed.  Maybe just raising those issues, in a public forum, on a stage in which the one candidate has children and the other doesn't, where one candidate is young, and the other isn't, and where both affect Native items in their dress, but one is indigenous, and the other isn't, creates problems she doesn't care to have come up.

And maybe she's not confident in her in own debating skills in front of an audience that isn't canned against a debater who has no choice but to debate, and who is good at it.

Anyway it's looked at, it's inexcusable.  Hageman should debate.

Footnotes:

1. The fifty-two signatures actually reflects more than 52 lawyers actually supporting the overall effort, as some of the original "Wyoming 41" didn't sign the second time as their noted public roles with various institutions was causing those institutions to receive complaints. 

2.  If Grey Bull doesn't pull in 33% this time, I'd be surprised.  That would really be only a modest increase in her toll.  Imagining 35%, or even 40%, isn't unreasonable.

3.  Hageman has given Grey Bull a gift in that Grey Bull can now accuse Hageman of being an outright coward and Hageman can do little about it.  Calling somebody out for a verbal duel can't really be adequately responded to except by engaging in a verbal duel, at which point your prior decline amounts to an admission of sorts.