The View from Right Field

Fact-Checking President Trump: Does It Really Make Any Difference?

The Washington Post fact-checked Donald Trump’s interview with The New York Times on Thursday and came up “24 false or misleading claims” “in a 30-minute interview.”  The Post is constantly fact-checking President Trump.  In fact, the Post does this so often, I sort of wonder what the purpose of it is anymore.

Clearly, anybody who wants to know realizes that President Trump gets a lot of things wrong.  I don’t know whether he is lying (in the sense he knows what is right and he is saying something else anyway) or he really thinks what he is saying is right (even though it isn’t).  I think I would rather that it was the former, i.e., he knows what the facts are but he says something else anyway, than that he really doesn’t know what is correct.  But I understand people can differ on that point.

Smart Diplomacy Is More Than Just a Phrase

With President Trump’s new national security strategy coming out, Andrew Browne writes in The Wall Street Journal¹ about the potential risk and challenge of a rising China

“How would a U.S.-China military standoff in the South China Sea play out?

In one hypothetical scenario – laid out by the Australian strategic-studies professor Hugh White – Chinese ships defy U.S. warnings and steam toward a Chinese-built reef in disputed waters.

In the Situation Room, the U.S. president is briefed on his options.  Sinking a Chinese vessel is one.  But it may lead to war – conceivably a nuclear exchange. 

‘General, tell the Navy to pull our ships back and let the Chinese pass,’ the president orders.  ‘I’m not willing to risk a major war.’

Sexual Harassment in the DOJ and FBI Under Which President?

The Washington Post published a lengthy article yesterday on sexual harassment in the Department of Justice and the FBI.  According to the Post:

“The Justice Department has ‘systemic’ problems in how it handles sexual harassment complaints, with those found to have acted improperly often not receiving appropriate punishment, and the issue requires ‘high level action,’ according to the department’s inspector general.

Is Vladimir Putin Having Buyer’s Remorse?

The Democrats’ story of the 2016 presidential election has been that (i) Vladimir Putin hacked and otherwise interfered with the election to elect Donald Trump president or (ii) President Trump and his campaign colluded and conspired with the Russians – or maybe both.  Even The Washington Post says that the second is not proven (“yet” is the operative word for the Post), but it’s not stopping the Democrats from believing it. 

According to the Democrats, the Russians were trying to help Donald Trump because President Putin really disliked Hillary Clinton (for, inter alia, her comments, while Secretary of State, about Russia’s presidential election in 2012 and because of all the nice things Mr. Trump was saying about President Putin and Russia during the campaign.

What Christmas Is All About

My annual Christmas Eve post:

Charlie Brown:  "Isn’t there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?"

Linus: "Sure, Charlie Brown, I can tell you what Christmas is all about.  Lights, please?

"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them.  And they were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior, which is Christ the Lord.  And this shall be a sign unto you.  Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.’  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, good will toward men.’

"That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.”

My annual Christmas Eve post:

Charlie Brown:  "Isn’t there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?"

Linus: "Sure, Charlie Brown, I can tell you what Christmas is all about.  Lights, please?

The Risk of Government Just Goes On and On

Megan McArdle rips, fairly, on the tax bill for, inter alia, fiscal irresponsibility (is this the time to be increasing the deficit and the debt?) and the way the individual tax cuts are being passed and then being repealed in 2025 (or so).  It is my understanding that, to be able to pass the bill without a filibuster in the Senate, the bill has to, among other things, not increase the deficit ten years out.  Therefore, the bill provides for the individual cuts to expire before the end of the ten-year period – but with the expectation that they will be extended at that point.  Which is what happened to the George W. Bush tax cuts passed in 2001.  The Democrats extended them in 2010.

Still, this is lousy way to write a tax bill.  While it is perhaps likely the cuts will be extended, who knows.  Is it fair to expect people to plan for the future when they don’t know what tax rules are going to be?  It is hard enough with Congress changing the tax laws every couple years.  The tax bill adds even more to Congress’s normal, somewhat scatterbrained approach.

Ending Net Neutrality Pushes Us Back to the Dark Days – of 2015

Those opposing the repeal of the “Net Neutrality” rules adopted by the FCC in 2015, which were adopted at the direction of the White House¹ (so much for the FCC being an independent agency), have warned of consequences for the Internet almost as bad as those coming from climate change.  Internet service providers will control what we are allowed to see; they’ll favor their own content over others; the Internet as we know it will end.

Except, all the FCC’s repeal of the net neutrality rules does it to put us back where we were before February 26, 2015, when the FCC adopted the rules that Barack Obama wanted.  It’s a little hard to see how going back to where we were less than three years ago is as horrible as net neutrality proponents are saying.

Mosul and Hillary Clinton’s Campaign: Winning, Losing, and Figuring Out Why

On Saturday, The Wall Street Journal reported on an assessment prepared by U.S. and British military officers of the successful effort to take Mosul back from Islamic State forces.  The top U.S. general in the effort, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, ordered the review.  The Journal noted:

“It is common for the military to analyze the lessons of its operations, but its examination of the hard-fought Mosul campaign has particular relevance.  The battle was a test of a new type of warfare the U.S. has employed in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan in recent years – one in which most ground combat is done by indigenous forces with Americans providing advisers and firepower.”

While the campaign was successful, the report looked at not only what worked, but also what didn’t.  For example:

Nudges, Sludges, and Who Gets to Decide

Using insights from behavioral economics, Shlomo Benartzi and Richard Thaler wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal about ways to get workers to save more for retirement.¹  The basic idea is to make it easier for people to do the right thing.

For example, instead of making workers choose to join a retirement plan, they suggest putting them in the plan automatically and letting them opt out if they want to.  Also, instead of putting people in at a low contribution rate and letting them decide to contribute more, they say to start people at a higher amount and let them cut back if they want to.  And to get workders to increase the amount they are saving, get them to agree now to automatically increase the amount they save in the future, for example, when raise time comes around.  These things, which the authors call “nudges,” actually do get people to save more.

Afghanistan: It Seems to be Getting Better

The Wall Street Journal had a lengthy article in Monday’s paper¹ about the success Afghan and U.S. forces are having in and around Achin, southeast of Kabul, near the border with Pakistan.  ISIS (aka Islamic State²) fighters moved into Afghanistan, and especially this area, in 2014, as ISIS was expanding in Syria and Iraq – and as the U.S. was leaving Afghanistan, per President Obama’s timetable.

In the last year, however, the U.S. has moved away from President Obama’s idea of fixing a timetable for departure.  Instead of leaving based on the calendar, we will be leaving based on results.