Presidential debates are a quirky aspect of modern American politics. In theory, they are the closest thing to political combat, a rare opportunity for political leaders to publicly contrast differences in ideology and vision for the country. In reality, presidential debates have become something more akin to pop culture, with actors repeating lines they don’t believe in, achieving a desired reaction from various popular audiences. 

[Editor’s Note: This week, a new ruling from the US Supreme court chipped away at the administrative powers of the federal bureaucracy. The case, Loper Bright Ent. vs. Raimondo, largely overturned the 1984 Chevron ruling which had solidified the bureaucracy’s power to interpret laws for itself.

I attended a neighborhood association meeting recently on the inner west side of San Antonio. The concerns were probably not unlike those of residents in other United States urban centers: crime, public intoxication, vagrancy, etc.

One that drew a notable response from the local councilwoman was the cost of housing. This issue provides a good example of how actions of the federal government trickle down and leave collateral damage in our neighborhoods.

Immediately after taking office, the president of Argentina, Javier Milei, signed a decree and reduced the number of ministries from twenty-two to nine. Although tens of thousands of public employees have been disposed of since then, the celebrated reduction is still symbolic, because it only ordered some ministries to absorb others and did not reduce public employment significantly. Milei has managed to achieve five budget surpluses so far. Public works have ceased to be financed to an important degree.