American politicians love to boast of their nation’s status as the world’s premier “representative democracy,” and to lecture other, presumably less enlightened, countries on the importance of representative political institutions. Going by the numbers (which admittedly don’t tell the whole story), there’s good reason to question whether such preening is justified. Among the world’s states, the United States ranks third in population, but 25th in the number of members comprising its national legislative bodies.

The US has more than a thousand times the population of Iceland,  but our House and Senate combined have fewer than ten times as many members as its single-house legislature, the Althing. Icelanders get one representative for every 5,037 inhabitants. Americans get one US Representative or US Senator for every 596,060 inhabitants.

In terms of the ratio of legislators to population, only the European Union and India are “less representative.” Yes, that’s right. The US comes in behind such exemplars of “representative democracy” as China, North Korea,  Russia, Syria, Cuba, and Egypt when it comes to representation.

Of course, it’s reasonable to question the “democracy” part of the “representative democracy” equation for some of those countries compared to the US.  After all, the US would never use authoritarian measures like gerrymandering and restrictive ballot access laws to ensure that only two parties, or even one, have a shot at winning a seat, right? Oh, wait …

The size of the US Senate is fixed in the Constitution at two Senators per state. But the US House of Representatives is constitutionally only limited to a maximum of one Representative per 30,000 inhabitants. A House based on that number would have 11,000 members.

Why, in its wisdom, has Congress fixed the number of US Representatives at 435 since 1929?

The supposed reason is that a larger legislature has a harder time getting things done. Yet the 24 countries besting the US on raw legislator numbers seem to manage. And even if the excuse was true, it might well be a feature, not a bug.

The real reason is, of course, greed for power. No member of Congress wants to dilute the weight of his or her own vote from one in 435 to one in, say, a thousand. On the other hand, no member of Congress wants to risk being downsized back to private life if that number is reduced.

If we want to really do “representative democracy” instead of just posturing and play-acting, a good starting point would be for Congress to increase the size of the House to 1,000 members, and for the states to end the foul practices of gerrymandering and giving special ballot access privileges to two anointed “major” parties.

Or we could stop pretending our “democracy” is more “representative” than Zimbabwe’s or Nicaragua’s.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• • “How ‘representative’ is American democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Spring Hope, North Carolina Enterprise, 04/21/21
  • “How ‘representative’ is American democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Wilson, North Carolina Times, 04/21/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Reno, Nevada Gazette Journal, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Des Moines, Iowa Register, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, St. George, Utah Daily Spectrum, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Fort Collins, Colorado Coloradoan, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Nashville, Tennesee Tennessean, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Detroit, Michigan Free Press, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Fon du Lac, Wisconsin Reporter, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Indianapolis, Indiana Star, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Rochester, New York Democrat & Chronicle, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, El Paso, Texas Times, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, USA Today, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Cincinnati, Ohio Enquirer, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, The Arizona Republic, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Muncie, Indiana Star Press, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, DeRidder, Louisiana Beauregard Daily News, 04/23/21
  • “How representative is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Providence, Rhode Island Journal, 04/23/21
  • “How ‘Representative’ is US Democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Gaffney, South Carolina Ledger, 04/23/21
  • “How ‘Representative’ is US Democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 04/23/21
  • “Just how ‘representative’ is US democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Havasu City, Arizona News-Herald, 05/23/21
  • “U.S. democracy less ‘representative’ than you’d think,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Rocky Mount, North Carolina Telegram [web and print], 04/25/21
  • “How ‘representative’ is US democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Gainesville, Florida Sun, 04/26/21 (web), 05/02/21 (print)
  • “How ‘Representative’ is US Democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 05/01/21
  • “How ‘representative’ is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Sterling Heights, Michigan News-Herald, 05/07/21
  • “How ‘representative’ is U.S. democracy?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Dearborn, Michigan Press & Guide, 05/07/21

On April 13, US president Joe Biden spoke by phone with Russian president Vladimir Putin, whom he has previously referred to, in pot/kettle fashion, as a “killer.” During the call, Biden proposed a summit between the two in the near future.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Russian chess legend and political exile Garry Kasparov denounces the idea: “A summit? With a killer? In one stroke, Mr. Biden gave Mr. Putin exactly what he craves, equal status with the president of the United States.”

Kasparov is mistaken. Putin already enjoys that equal status. He  rules a country spanning two continents, with a population of 150 million. He commands a nuclear arsenal rivaling that of the US, and armed forces of similar size but with a seemingly much better 21st century record of accomplishing their objectives instead of getting bogged down in decades-long “counter-insurgency” and “nation-building” quagmires ending in embarrassing defeats.

Even if we accept as undiluted truth every bad thing Kasparov tells us about Putin — that he’s a dictator kept in power by oligarchs, that he ruthlessly suppresses domestic political opposition, that his regime meddles in US elections and hacks US computer systems, and that his support for independent republics which seceded from Ukraine after the US-backed coup there in 2014 is a de facto invasion and occupation of Ukraine itself — those things establish, rather than contradict, the fact that Putin is a key actor on the world political stage.

Nor, no matter what we think of Putin, can we deny that the Russian Federation would have real and vexing grievances with the US whether he was running things or not.

In 1990, as eastern Europe’s communist regimes began to disintegrate, western diplomats assured their Russian counterparts that peaceful dissolution of the Warsaw Pact would not result in NATO’s expansion eastward.  They broke their word. NATO has since gobbled up much of the territory in question, impinging Russia’s sphere of influence and massing militarily on its borders. From the Russian perspective, the pro-NATO coup in Ukraine was apparently the last straw.

At the moment, the Russia-Ukraine conflict is more or less  “frozen.” But if it thaws toward war pitting US and NATO troops against Russian forces there likely won’t be any winners.

In 1958, British prime minister Harold Mcmillan, paraphrasing predecessor Winston Churchill, held that “jaw-jaw is better than war-war.” He was right. Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin need to have a long, serious talk.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “A Biden-Putin Summit: Jaw-Jaw is Better than War-War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 04/19/21
• “A Biden-Putin Summit: Jaw-jaw is better than war-war,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  Hopkinsville, Kentucky Eagle Post, 04/20/21
• “A Biden-Putin Summit: Jaw-Jaw Is Better Than War-War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Antiwar.com, 04/20/21
• “Jaw-jaw better than war-war,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Orangeburg, South Carolina Times & Democrat, 04/21/21
• “A Biden-Putin Summit: Jaw-Jaw is Better than War-War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 04/22/21
• “A Biden-Putin summit: Jaw-jaw is better than war-war,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Virgin Islands Daily News, 04/23/21
• “A Biden-Putin Summit: Jaw-Jaw is Better than War-War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 04/27/21
• “A Biden-Putin Summit: Jaw-Jaw is Better than War-War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Seoul, Republic of Korea Times, 04/21

As the debate over President Joe Biden’s infrastructure proposals heats up, Roll Call reports that “[a] new caucus pressing for repeal of the $10,000 limitation on state and local tax deductions boasts the support of more than one-third of Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee.”

The SALT cap, implemented when Donald Trump was president and the GOP still held congressional majorities, is a “man bites dog” issue that places Democrats and Republicans opposite their usual supposed sides.

Simply put, the SALT deduction allows you to deduct state and local taxes from your “gross adjusted” income for federal tax purposes. The SALT cap limits those deductions to $10,000 per year.

Republicans usually posture as advocates of low taxes, especially on the upper end of the income scale, reasoning from the Reagan-era “supply side” (or what Democrats sardonically call “trickle-down”) premise that doing so encourages investment and creates “a rising tide that lifts all boats.”

Democrats usually advocate making wealthier Americans pick up “their fair share” of government’s tab, a “fair share”  they tend to define as bigger, both in raw numbers and as income percentages, for the wealthier  (Republicans sardonically call it “soaking the rich”).

When it comes to the SALT cap, though, the parties  (mostly — New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a notable exception to the rule) switch sides, and some are willing to hold the infrastructure deal hostage over it.

Why? Because an unlimited SALT deduction means that state governments get a sort of free ride on their own tax rates. A wealthy New Yorker or Californian who pays, say, $50,000 in state taxes can knock that $50,000 off of her federal taxable income.

The $10,000 SALT cap might encourage that wealthy New Yorker or Californian to consider moving out of New York or California, to a state with lower taxes (Florida or Texas, for example) and taking her prospective state tax payments with her.

It’s no accident that the two high-tax states I mention are “blue” Democratic states and the two low-tax states  are “red” Republican states. The two parties’ tax philosophies are, generally speaking, mirrored at the state level.

The ability to move between states is way of “pricing” tax policy. Too high, people move out. Low enough, people move in. The SALT cap encourages people and their wealth to move from “blue” states to “red” states.

It’s shouldn’t surprise anyone that in this case, the Republican line becomes “make them pay their fair share!” while the Democratic line becomes “not like THAT!”

I don’t like taxes. You probably don’t either.  But if we’re going to have them, federal tax policy shouldn’t be manipulated to artificially benefit tax-happy state governments. The SALT deduction shouldn’t be capped. It should be eliminated.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Congressional Democrats to Biden: Pour some SALT on that infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Hopkinsville, Kentucky New Era, 04/16/21
• “Congressional Democrats to Biden: Pour some SALT on that infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Claremont, New Hampshire Eagle Times, 04/17/21
• “Congressional Democrats to Biden: Pour Some SALT on That Infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 04/19/21
• “Dems: Pour Some SALT on That Infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  Queens, New York Ledger [web and print], 04/20/21
• “Dems: Pour Some SALT on That Infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  Queens, New York Examiner [web and print], 04/20/21
• “Dems: Pour Some SALT on That Infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Forest Hills / Rego Park, New York Times [web and print], 04/20/21
• “Dems: Pour Some SALT on That Infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  Brookly, New York Downtown Star [web and print], 04/20/21
• “Dems: Pour Some SALT on That Infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  New York Leader / Observer [web and print], 04/20/21
• “Dems: Pour Some SALT on That Infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  Long Island City / Astoria, New York Journal [web and print], 04/20/21
• “Dems: Pour Some SALT on That Infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  Greenpoint, New York Star [web and print], 04/20/21
• “Dems: Pour Some SALT on That Infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  Glendale, New York Register [web and print], 04/20/21
• “Pour some SALT on that infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Richmond, Virginia Legacy [web and print], 04/21/21
• “Congressional Democrats to Biden: Pour Some SALT on That Infrastructure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 04/24/21