Back in the 2008 primary season I wrote a short post featuring sci-fi author Robert Heinlein’s advice on how to vote without needing to do extensive research on a candidate’s political positions, history, etc.
If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.
(Curiously, that post continues to be one of the most-searched after on this site.)
For the 2016 primary season, I encourage you to take Heinlein’s advice and apply it to the following bits of information.
Paul Krugman, the liberal economist and New York Times columnist, said Monday that leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is right on taxation and economic policy.
In a Times op-ed, Krugman wrote that Trump is correct to embrace a tax hike on the rich and speak out in favor of universal healthcare. He added that conservatives — who are now slamming Trump’s proposals — were wrong to warn about the ill economic impacts of those policies ahead of the 2012 election.
Elizabeth Warren has endorsed Donald Trump — on taxes, anyway.
Warren, the Massachusetts senator and populist champion, said Tuesday that she supports Trump’s proposal to levy higher taxes on the rich.
“There are a lot of places where he gets out and talks about important things,” Warren said during an appearance on “The View.” “Donald Trump and I both agree that there ought to be more taxation of the billionaires, the people who are making their money on Wall Street.”
If you’re a GOP primary voter who’s concerned with our ever-larger and more intrusive federal government, then think twice about for whom you cast your ballot.
For those of you who are unsure of the wisdom of the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics (who almost exclusively opines on subjects completely unrelated to the discipline for which he won the award), consider this: