While we wait for the midterm election results, I’ve been struck by how the election has largely focused on one issue: “affordability.” Everyone knows prices have risen sharply, starting in the Biden administration. Since January 2021, prices have risen 28.32% cumulatively. Wages during the same period rose only 22.7%, at best. No wonder people feel they’re falling behind at month’s end:

What we’re not hearing is how we first arrest the rise and then bring prices down from either major party. “I feel yor pain,” worked for Clinton; we need more now.

I’ve pointed out that the Law of Supply and Demand tells us that when demand exceeds supply, prices rise because too many dollars chase too few goods and services. The Federal Reserve (FED) can tighten the money supply until demand falls. FED Chairman Paul Volcker did that to stop the Great Inflation of the 1970s, but it caused a painful recession, with unemployment hitting almost 11%. Cutting demand in this way can feel worse to many than the inflation.

It wasn’t until we eased supply constraints by lowering capital taxes and deregulating key areas that supply met demand, real growth followed, and inflation was tamed. I’ve written about all this before, but have our two major parties seen the light?

Subsidizing everything from groceries to healthcare only increases demand. Price controls on basics such as rent distort supply. Yet that seems to be the bedrock of Democratic policies.

Republican policies are nothing if not contradictory. Cutting taxes on capital and cutting regulations will encourage supply growth, but tariffs disrupt supply. Constant tariff changes create confusion and stop business planning. If someone, like farmers, is really suffering from retaliation, send them money. Sounds like the Democrats.

The one area both seem to agree on is ending the Iran War. There’s no doubt the conflict has added to inflation, with a sharp rise in petroleum-based products and natural gas. However, neither has a plan to obtain an acceptable peace.

Beyond knocking off much of Iran’s leadership and destroying a lot of its military assets, the administration in the beginning lacked a coherent plan for what came next. The resulting standoff, with two major trade routes in constant jeopardy, keeps prices high.

Now we hear the administration is planning heavy attacks after the midterms. Another carrier group is on the way, possibly to add more firepower. It is fair to ask: to what purpose?

Operation Epic Fury in February showed a serious absence of planning. Without any land component, regime change wasn’t in the cards. As I assumed at the time, arming and training an uprising within the Islamic Republic was a mandatory piece.

Of course, having enough munitions was a given. Imagine D-Day, and we ran out of ammunition- unthinkable. Yet our bases and allies lacked defensive missiles. One reason was that we failed to take note of how the Ukrainian war revolved around ballistic missiles and drone masses.

If we resume heavy attacks on Iran, will it show we rectified the flaws in the February plan? If there is a well-supported uprising, plenty of anti-missile and drone interceptors, coupled with U.S. drone superiority, we can have the success we should’ve had in February. If not, why would it have a better outcome?

American ground troops were never part of our planning, and they likely won’t be now. We can’t keep most of our navy there forever. Are we just going to drop a bunch of ordnance and declare victory, and go home, leaving the Middle East in turmoil? So far, the only ones really suffering are the Iranian people. I thought those were the ones we were supposed to help.

A bad sign that our munition problem is nowhere near solved is that we basically have cut Ukraine off from Patriot missiles because we don’t have enough in the Middle East now. Had we forced Russia earlier to make peace on that front, we wouldn’t be faced with Russia aiding Iran with missiles and targeting information; for some reason, President Trump favors Putin to his own detriment.

Democrats look to return to the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, but that agreement, if still in effect, would be approaching the time when that nation would have the bomb. In any case, Iran cheated. What’s their plan other than leaving the Middle East?

Trump seems just as committed to tariffs as ever. No matter how clear the facts are that the levies have raised prices, he’s not about to change a policy that has defined him for decades.

One might conclude Democrats would undo the tariffs as soon as they’re able, but that hasn’t been the case in the past. Even though Joe Biden campaigned on repealing Trump’s first-term tariffs, he in fact kept most of them and even added some.

The problem with protectionist policies is that they create an animated constituency among the protected. Companies and labor unions that benefit big time from reduced competition will campaign hard to keep their protection intact.

Once the election results are in, we will probably find that little or nothing will happen to solve the problems. Politicians may recognize what troubles the electorate, but they have no idea how to fix it. All the campaigning and money spent, and nothing changes.

The problem is that both parties share the same philosophical base, which leads to the same government-led solutions. As I’ve said before, the Democrats have only solutions that have proven unworkable in the past.

Trump, who gives the Republicans their marching orders, moves in one direction with bands blaring, only to change direction with equal fanfare. Promise lower prices, only to put massive price-raising tariffs in place. Avoid long, expensive foreign wars, yet here we are in a Middle East war with no end in sight. A war that could only raise prices. Remove impediments to supply, such as in housing, only to have his deportation campaign result in a labor shortage.

Until the politicians in either party come up with workable solutions, maybe something that worked in the past, our elections will continue to be exercises in futility.