Donald Trump will accept Republican nomination again days after surviving an assassination attempt

posted in: Politics | 0

MILWAUKEE — Donald Trump takes the stage Thursday at the Republican National Convention to accept his party’s nomination again and give his first speech since he was cut off mid-sentence by a flurry of gunfire in an assassination attempt at a rally in Pennsylvania.

Trump’s address will conclude the four-day convention in Milwaukee. He appeared each of the first three days with a white bandage on his ear, covering a wound he sustained in the Saturday shooting.

His moment of survival has shaped the week, even as convention organizers insisted they would continue with their program as planned less than 48 hours after the shooting. Speakers and delegates have repeatedly chanted “Fight, fight, fight!” in homage to Trump’s words as he got to his feet and pumped his fist after Secret Service agents killed the gunman. And some of his supporters have started sporting their own makeshift bandages on the convention floor.

Speakers attributed Trump’s survival to divine intervention and paid tribute to victim Corey Comperatore, who died after shielding his wife and daughter from gunfire at the rally.

“Instead of a day of celebration, this could have been a day of heartache and mourning,” Trump’s vice presidential pick, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in his speech to the convention on Wednesday.

In his first prime-time speech since becoming the nominee for vice president, Vance spoke of growing up poor in Kentucky and Ohio, his mother addicted to drugs and his father absent, and of how he later joined the military and went on to the highest levels of U.S. politics.

Donald Trump Jr. spoke movingly Wednesday about his father’s bravery, saying he showed “for all the world” that “the next American president has the heart of a lion.” But he toggled back and forth between talking about his father as a symbol of national unity and slamming his enemies.

“When he stood up with blood on his face and the flag at his back the world saw a spirit that could never be broken,” Trump Jr. said.

The convention has tried to give voice to the fear and frustration of conservatives while also trying to promote the former president as a symbol of hope for all voters.

The convention has showcased a Republican Party reshaped by Trump since he shocked the GOP establishment and won the hearts of the party’s grassroots on his way to the party’s 2016 nomination. Rivals Trump has vanquished — including Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — put aside their past criticisms and gave him their unqualified support.

Even Vance, Trump’s pick to carry his movement into the next generation, was once a fierce critic who suggested in a private message since made public that Trump could be “America’s Hitler.”

Trump has not spoken in public since the shooting, though he’s given interviews off camera. But he referenced it during a private fundraiser on Wednesday, according to a clip of his remarks recorded on a cellphone and obtained by PBS News.

“I got lucky,” he said. “God was with me.”

Related Articles

National Politics |


E.J. Fagan: Despite Trump’s denials, he and Project 2025 are close

National Politics |


Other voices: Collective security works — NATO at 75 has been a success in keeping the peace

National Politics |


The stepped-up security around Trump is apparent, with agents walling him off from RNC crowds

National Politics |


‘Fight, fight, fight!’ or ‘UNITE’? At historic moment, Trump faces rhetorical choice

National Politics |


‘Of all the places’: Deep red Butler, Pennsylvania, grapples with Trump assassination attempt

Tyler Cowen: Why is Sweden paying grandparents to babysit? The reasoning is … reasonable

posted in: Society | 0

At first glance, the policy sounds absurd, especially to many Americans: In Sweden, grandparents are now eligible for government subsidies to babysit their grandchildren. As a proud grandparent myself, I would be willing to pay to babysit my grandkids. (I don’t have to, but I would.) It would feel wrong to accept government money for my services.

And even in the Swedish context, the program seems excessive. The country has long had first-rate and well-subsidized child-care facilities, which is another reason not to pay grandparents anything, and Sweden already has high levels of government spending and taxation. Is this additional benefit — and expenditure — really what it needs?

But sometimes even apparently foolish ideas have compelling rationales — so compelling, in fact, that you begin to rethink whether they’re foolish at all. These are often the cases that require the hardest thinking.

If you look at Sweden’s policy closely, it adheres pretty well to some basic economic principles: namely, the notion of so-called Pareto improvements, which benefit all parties involved.

Start with the fact that Swedish parents currently receive extensive paid leave upon the birth of a child, and so it can be said they are already paid to look after their children. Whether or not you agree with that policy, it is longstanding and well-established. Take it as a given.

Now imagine that you are an ambitious Swedish doctor or lawyer, climbing the career ladder, and are self-aware enough to realize you do not always have entirely the right degree of natural patience necessary for parenting. In that case, you might prefer to go back to work following the birth of your child. Under the status quo ex ante, you could not work and draw your normal salary and still get the full child-care benefit, even though some child benefits are paid automatically.

There is thus a potential inefficiency in the system. You may stay at home just to get the money, even when an alternate arrangement might be better for everyone.

Now add grandparents to this equation. If the grandparents can be paid to take care of your child, all of a sudden the extended family as a whole doesn’t lose the money by having the parent go back to work. Instead, that money is transferred to the grandparents, so the work disincentive is diminished.

And economists will tell you that the parents and grandparents can do their own settling up. If the grandparents are well-to-do, for instance, and eager to spend time with their grandkids, they might funnel some of that money back to the parents or the child, either directly or indirectly. In some cases, on net, the grandparents may not end up getting paid anything at all.

In essence, you can think of this policy as a model designed to maximize gains from trade.

One side effect is that, to the extent the parent who returns to work is a high earner, government tax revenue will increase. That will help pay for the policy, partially if not entirely.

The logic for this policy may hold all the more for single parents. In that case, the costs of giving up work may be even higher, since on a single income climbing the career ladder and investing in future earnings will be all the more important. Enlisting aid from grandparents may also be more necessary, given the higher burdens on a single caregiver. A defender of the policy would cite these accommodative benefits, whereas a critic might allege they encourage single parenthood too much.

More broadly, fiscal conservatives might point out that the policy still costs some money upfront, while social conservatives might argue that it commodifies family relationships. The policy’s supporters, on the other hand, might note that it can help some people get back to work and also make the grandparents happier. The children might benefit too.

As for myself, I am still unsure whether this new policy is a good idea, though it has stronger virtues and benefits than I first thought. But I am all the more certain of one final lesson: Framing is everything. The very same policy, described in different terms, can sound eminently reasonable or badly out of whack. Keep that in mind next time you are tempted to render a quick verdict on someone else’s idea.

Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of economics at George Mason University and host of the Marginal Revolution blog.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Marty Lueken: Popularity of private school choice is booming

Opinion |


Cory Franklin: Anthony Fauci made mistakes during the pandemic, but prosecution isn’t warranted

Opinion |


Shadi Bartsch-Zimmer: It’s time to end the two-cultures era between science and the humanities

Opinion |


Singal, Jena: It’s not just hype. AI could revolutionize diagnosis in medicine

Opinion |


David Brooks: The deep source of Trump’s appeal

Other voices: Collective security works — NATO at 75 has been a success in keeping the peace

posted in: Politics | 0

Overshadowed by the wonderings about President Joe Biden’s vigor was the actual purpose of the NATO alliance’s 75th anniversary summit in Washington last week. It marked three quarters of a century since Harry Truman hosted leaders of 10 nations from Western Europe, as well as Canada, to create a new, permanent defense pact in 1949.

America had had allies before going back to the Revolutionary War, when the French came to the aid of the rebellious colonists (and to thwart their British rivals). And there were many military partnerships in the years that followed, most extensively during World War II, when the Allies fought Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan on battlefields across the planet under the banner of the United Nations, which led to the birth of the world body. But all those groupings coalesced during wartime.

The new North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was, as the National Archives put it, the “first peacetime military alliance ever concluded by the United States.” In doing so, the nation was going directly against the admonition of George Washington, who in his 1796 farewell address, wrote: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

Washington, who relied on French assistance to beat the Redcoats, noted that to have a “respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.” But NATO was not to be temporary.

George thought that the Atlantic Ocean would insulate the U.S. from Europe’s chaos, but as Truman said when he spoke to the assembled foreign ministers, “Twice in recent years, nations have felt the sickening blow of unprovoked aggression. Our peoples, to whom our governments are responsible, demand that these things shall not happen again.”

Of the treaty they were signing: “It is a simple document, but if it had existed in 1914 and in 1939, supported by the nations who are represented here today, I believe it would have prevented the acts of aggression which led to two world wars. The nations represented here have known the tragedy of those two wars.”

Truman was an artillery officer in combat in France during World War I (when it was called “The Great War”). A generation later, he was commander in chief when World War II ended.

Half of the original 12 NATO countries — France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark and Norway — had been overrun and occupied by Nazi Germany and were only liberated from the genocidal regime’s jackboot four years earlier. Britain was never conquered by Hitler and with the Americans and Canadians, brought freedom back to the Continent.

Italy had overthrown their own dictator and declared war on Germany, while the last two members, Iceland and Portugal, provided valuable bases to Atlantic convoys during the war. All 12 members pledged to protect each other if attacked.

When Soviet troops invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, NATO could not defend them. After the Iron Curtain fell, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia joined NATO, along with others from the former East Bloc. Today the membership has grown to 32, with the accession of Sweden on March 7, which followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

NATO vows an “irreversible path” to Ukraine’s membership. When that happens, Ukraine will be protected like the rest.

— The New York Daily News

Related Articles

Opinion |


Marty Lueken: Popularity of private school choice is booming

Opinion |


Cory Franklin: Anthony Fauci made mistakes during the pandemic, but prosecution isn’t warranted

Opinion |


Shadi Bartsch-Zimmer: It’s time to end the two-cultures era between science and the humanities

Opinion |


Singal, Jena: It’s not just hype. AI could revolutionize diagnosis in medicine

Opinion |


David Brooks: The deep source of Trump’s appeal

Chef Brian Ingram of Hope Breakfast, others to compete on ‘Beat Bobby Flay’

posted in: News | 0

Local chef on national TV alert: Chef Brian Ingram of Hope Breakfast Bar, The Gnome and The Apostle Supper Club will be on Food Network’s “Beat Bobby Flay” on Aug. 1.

The chef will be cooking — what else? — breakfast foods against Flay and Atlanta-based chef Dayana Joseph.

The judges for the episode are “Top Chef” alum Joe Sasto, Food Network regular James Briscione and Bronx-based chef and internet personality Mama Tanya.

Ingram will host a viewing party at 7 p.m. Aug. 1 at The Gnome, 498 Selby Ave., St. Paul.

Related Articles

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Historic restaurant Forepaugh’s to reopen later this summer

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Gray Duck Tavern, downtown St. Paul restaurant in building up for sale, abruptly closes

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Stillwater restaurant Thai Basil to close Sunday

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Small Bites Review: Qamaria Yemeni Coffee, new in Little Canada, serves top-notch drinks until classic-Middle-East late hours

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


How America became the capital of great pizza