The Obama Legacy

Much has been made over the last week, both favorably and unfavorably, of the magnitude of President Donald Trump’s erasure of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) legacy.

I disagree with that coverage.  Trump has been mitigating, if not correcting, as many of Obama’s errors as he can, but he’s done nothing about Obama’s legacy, which includes the following far from exhaustive list:

  • apologizing to the world for our successes
  • bowing to world leaders, deeply on several occasions
  • alienating our friends and toadying up to our enemies
    • attacking Israel for insisting on defending itself
    • demanding that Israel accept the pre-1967 borders as the Obama administration’s price of peace
    • excusing Hamas terrorism against Israel
    • turning his back on Iraq
    • telling Great Britain to take their bust of Winston Churchill and….
    • telling Great Britain that if they leave the EU they can’t count on trade deals with the US any time soon
  • insisting that Daesh was a JV team and then refusing to confront them when they exploded over Iraq and Syria
  • drawing red lines in Syria over al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own civilians and then ducking away from those lines
  • creating the JCPOA, to which even French President Francois Hollande objected at the time
  • his State Department’s too expensive “Reset” with Russia
  • acquiescing to Russian occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine
  • acquiescing to People’s Republic of China’s seizure of the South China Sea
  • acquiescing to northern Korea’s nuclear weapons expansion in the name of “strategic patience”
  • agreeing the Paris Climate Accord
  • passing Obamacare
  • passing Dodd-Frank
  • routinely governing by diktat Executive Order rather than working through Congress

While many of these failures have yet to be addressed, substantial progress is being made.

No, Obama’s legacy is intact.  It’s a legacy of deep, abject, and unbroken failure.

The Irrationality of the European Left

It’s epitomized by a carefully unsigned piece in Spiegel Online, coming only from “Der Spiegel Staff.”  After you’ve read it, you’ll see why the author(s) were too embarrassed to sign their names to it.

…Trump’s Tuesday announcement that the US was withdrawing from the nuclear agreement with Iran, one of the core pieces of international diplomacy in recent years….

Indeed it was.  And it was one of the core pieces of failure in international diplomacy.  Even the authors’ term “nuclear agreement” gives the game away.  All the JCPOA accomplished was the codifying of Iran’s right and ability to obtain nuclear weapons—the “agreement” expires, after all, in a few short years; even were Iran abiding by it, after that expiration, they would be free to develop nuclear weapons with no further hindering from the international community.  But we can’t even know Iran is abiding, since the “agreement” bars inspections, particularly of military bases, which is where weapons development occurs.  The only inspections the “agreement” allows is of sites for which Iran will give permission, and then only after the inspectors say “pretty please” some months in advance.

Oh, and we paid Iran the princely sum of $140 billion—in cash—for the privilege of being snookered by them.  American money, too, keep in mind.  France, Germany, and Great Britain paid not a cent or a pence into that fund.

The risk [from our withdrawal] is very real that the move will worsen tensions in an already unstable Middle East and lead to an American-led war against Iran.

The instability is Iran’s doing, and no one else’s.  See their recent unprovoked Quds Force attack on Israeli installations.  See their use of their militias inside Iraq to keep that nation unstable.  See their funneling of money and weapons to their client terrorist organization, Hezbollah.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was quick to threaten a return to industrial-scale uranium enrichment and few doubt that such an eventuality could lead to conflict.

We don’t know that Iran isn’t already enriching apace.  See “inspections” above.

An attack on the Iran deal is an attack on the pride of European foreign policy.

This is risible.  If Europe feels like its foreign policy is under attack, it’s only their hysteria getting in the way of their thinking.  They’re united in their insistence, in the present case, on staying in the Iran nuclear weapons deal—the anonymous authors of the piece at the link brag about that.

She [EU High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini] then appealed to Iran to continue to adhere to the deal. “Stay true to your commitments, as we will stay true to ours.”

This ignores a basic fact: Iran isn’t in the deal, and it has made no commitments regarding the deal.  Iran has not signed the JCPOA.

Trump has humiliated Europe to a greater degree than any US president before him. Macron fawned over him recently in the White House, Merkel swung by for a working lunch and British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson also made the trip across the Atlantic in an attempt to save the deal and somehow find some kind of a compromise.

Humiliated?  Because our government, after listening very carefully to these leaders, decided no to do what they instructed him to do or asked him to do?  This is precious snowflakery at its best.

In Aachen on Tuesday, Merkel essentially repeated the sentences she uttered last year during an appearance in Bavaria: “Europe can no longer rely on the US. It must take its fate into its own hands.”

Here is Merkel joining Mogherini in foolishness.  Europe has been freeloading off the US ever since its economic and political recovery from the ravages of Europe’s roll in the wars of the mid-20th century.  Ever since that time, Europe has been at least morally obligated to see to its own fate, and they’ve been shirking their duty.

The anonymous piece goes on in that vein, but you get the idea.

Europe must, indeed, see to its own future in accordance with its own imperatives.  We’re happy to help them, and we’re happy to contribute to the political, economic, and military defense of Europe.  But that’s not helped by, for instance, Germany’s toadying up to Putin in their snit over our withdrawal from a dangerously bad “deal.”

Academic Preparedness

New York City has a program, Expanded Success Initiative, that was intended to improve the city’s K-12 “black and Latino males'” (apparently, the girls just don’t matter in New York City) performance.  It’s failing; although, the piece at the link is more optimistic than that.

Students…reported better school relationships and more fair treatment than peers in comparable schools outside the program.[]

Socialization does matter in a child’s development; however….

[A]cademic outcomes and suspension rates remained roughly similar to those in the comparison schools.

Academics are the primary purpose of schools.  ESI improved nothing important.

But here’s the kicker, completely missed by the WSJ piece:

Among the first cohort of black and Latino males in the initiative, about 71% graduated high school, 17% hit state benchmarks signifying college-readiness….

In what universe do these numbers make sense?  Leaving aside the poor graduation rate, how does a student graduate from high school without being prepared for higher education?  I’ve long disputed that college is a necessary next step for high school graduates, but a student not academically prepared for that step isn’t prepared for community college or trade school, nor is he (or she!) prepared to go straight into the work place in any job other than ditch digging or burger flipping.

Fiduciary Duty

State and local governments are at it again.  Or still.

The value of investments by public pension funds declined last quarter, widening the gap between what these funds say they will earn and what they actually earn.  Pension fund managers—especially government pension fund managers—must make annual “estimates” (they’re actually politically self-serving pie-in-the-sky claims) of the market returns they expect to make on the funds under their nominal care.  These WAGs determine the amount of money “the government that is affiliated with the pension fund must pay into it”.

(Aside: notice the directionality of that emphasis.  The state or local government (and the Federal government with its own public pension funds) is an affiliate of the fund; the fund is not a benefit provided by the government.  Which controls what, now?)

But these fiduciary money managers have been off, and not just occasionally.  They’ve consistently overstated the returns they claim they’ll get compared to the returns they actually get.  Currently, these worthies are claiming they’ll get a return of 7.25% on the taxpayers’ monies with which they’re entrusted and from which they’re promising the funds’ beneficiaries retirement payouts.  The reality is that these worthies have only been able to get 6.49% on average over the last 20 years.

That difference—0.0076%–that’s just chump change; who cares?  Us taxpayers should, and so should the funds’ retirees.  On a $1 million investment—a tiny fraction of many of state-level pension funds, but a significant part of most county- and city-level pension funds, the three-quarters of one per cent difference over those 20 years works out to a more than $4 million dollar difference.

Where’s the money?

How is this not a violation of fiduciary duty?

“It Does Because It Does”

The dishonesty of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s case against ex- and brief-Trump Campaign Manager is made manifest in the opening questions Eastern District of Virginia Federal Judge TS Ellis III and Michael Dreeben’s (arguing for the Mueller side) answers.

Ellis noted

Apparently, if I look at the indictment, none of that information has anything to do with links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump. That seems to me to be obvious because they all long predate any contact or any affiliation of this defendant with the campaign.

Then, after a long soliloquy regarding the rationale for a prosecutor indicting a lesser player on lesser charges in order to squeeze that player into extruding information on a larger player, Ellis asked,

Where am I wrong in that regard?

Dreeben: The issue before you is Manafort’s motion to dismiss the charges.

Ellis: Yes, now answer my question.

Dreeben: “our investigatory scope does cover the activities [of the indictment]”

Ellis: Answer my question.

Dreeben: “the authorization for the special counsel to investigate matters is described generally in the appointment order on May”

Ellis: Yes, I have that letter.  Answer my question.  How does that letter include the indictment?

Dreeben: “So the authorization order permits….”

Ellis: “You’re running away from my question again. You know, I’m focused on the indictment that is here.”

Dreeben: “Well, Your Honor, we are the Justice Department.”

And there it is.  Mueller’s team flatly refused to explain how indictments related to 13-year-old events in Ukraine are tied in to an investigation of the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia, choosing instead to be deliberately evasive.  Here, by the way, are the public parts of the Mueller Special Counsel Authorization Letter (my title for the thing), as quoted by Ellis:

Sub-paragraph b(i):

any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.

Sub-paragraph b(ii):

any matters that arose or may arise directly from the [Mueller] investigation.

Nothing in there about any allegedly nefarious activities in Ukraine.  “Arose or may arise” from the Mueller investigation means exactly that.  Stuff from outside the investigation—the Manafort money laundering charges, for instance—aren’t part of the investigation.  And so Dreeben’s implication that Ellis should just sit down and shut up: “We are the Justice Department.”

Which only emphasizes the Special Counsel’s team’s evasions.

The transcript can be read here.