Trump

Trump
Col Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

Jim,

Your forwarded e-mail (which  several others have sent me) asks: Is Trump a gifted leader or a whacko? 

Apparently, the answer is: Both.

Trump is smart, talented and possesses the drive to get difficult and complex jobs done. He is not afraid to talk about important issues that others shrink from. He will not tolerate inane political correctness, stands his ground and both takes and directly answers questions. Those are admirable qualities and he deserves our respect for that.

He also appears whacko at times and here are seven reasons why:

Reason #7: The Federal Deficit

We have trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars of debt because Washington spends more than it takes in and the principal cause of that debt is underfunded entitlement programs.

When asked about it, what did Trump say? He said our deficit problem was driven by China. He only missed the target by about 7,000 miles and thus creating a vast credibility gap. To use a favorite “Trumpism, how stupid was that answer?

Reason #6: Speaking of China

According to the Donald, China is so strong and its leaders so smart that they are kicking our collective butts so we need Trump. Fast forward a few weeks and China pours in the equivalent of the entire 2008-09 Federal bailout of Wall Street and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to bailout the Shanghai stock market and loses everything. 

What does that prove to the Donald?  That the Chinese leaders are not very smart when it comes to the private sector? That China is less the boogey man but more a paper tiger? Heck no! 

The Donald doubles down by making the inane argument that a China that blew a $1 trillion and now has a damaged economy is still the home of the smart guys kicking our butts. 

That is not only wrong but also a clear example of someone talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Reason #5: Putin 

Trump stated that if elected then he will become Putin’s best friend. Really? 

Putin has a deep and lifetime-long hatred for America and nothing will change that. The only way to be a “best friend” of Putin is to sell out the United States. 

Reason #4 Immigration

Some of Trumps best speeches address our dysfunctional immigration system. No one does it better and we should applaud him for it. 

But too many of his solutions are at best unhelpful placeholders and at worse plain goofy. The Great Wall of China is an example of the latter. The Great Wall didn’t work so well when it counted. 

First, around 40% of the people who are here improperly did not cross the southern border so his wall is by no means THE solution in millions of cases. 

Second, the value of China’s Great Wall hinged on its purpose. As the Marines teach you, there are obstacles and barriers. An obstacle, like a wall, only slows you down while a barrier stops you. An obstacle becomes a barrier when it is covered by fire or in this case, when it is adequately guarded. How much will that cost? A massive 24-7-365 guard force will come at a very dear price. 

Trump’s “placeholder” solutions are defined by all the questions they raise. 

No one knows exactly how many illegal immigrants are here or their location. How are they to be found? 

To work, it must be a massive police hunt on a scale never seen in America.  I believe nothing could be more destructive to our democracy than the presence of a national police force so establishing one – no matter how cleverly misnamed – would create a cure far worse than the disease.

Also troubling, the detainees must be legally processed. Given the current numbers assigned to these courts, it would take a decade to process the deportations assuming a massive increase in the number of courts, several decades otherwise. 

In the meantime, how are they to be held? Where? Who guards them? Once in custody, we have to provide shelter, food, medical services, etc. What is that cost? 

Finally, there are at least four million essential jobs that an affluent America no longer deems as acceptable work. Do you know anyone who says: 

“Yeah we’re really proud of our son Jim, he will graduate from high school next year and we hope he can start a job as a seasonal farm worker?” 

Or how about: “Our daughter Susan is such a joy, we are so excited that she landed a position as a room maid at the local discount motel.”

We have become too haughty on how we see honest and honorable labor. What is the solution for that?

Reason #3: The Media and National Security Policy

OK, who likes the media outside the media and the minority that share the media’s groupthink? Well, only many in the masses of the disengaged. 

That is a primary reason why Trump is so popular with conservatives who are engaged: He looks the biased establishment media in the eye and has at it. 

 

That is outstanding but…

When asked on Meet the Press, Trump declared that he uses the news media to inform him on defense matters. Is that the same stupid and inept left wing news media he routinely belittles. Why would any serious leader formulate national security policy using that source? How whacko is that?

Reason #2: John McCain

First, Trump denies McCain is a hero then he backtracks to claim that he may be a hero but Trump doesn’t like heroes who get shot down and are taken prisoner, like the thousands of Americans who flew dangerous combat missions day in and day out and didn’t make it home in every major war of the last century. Disgusting. 

Then Trump decided he disliked McCain because of his Senate “failures” related to the VA scandals that Trump wrongly assumed McCain oversaw in the Senate. 

Two problems with that: 

First, McCain has one of the strongest Senate records when it comes to supporting our veterans. Second, McCain leads the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, he is not on the Veterans Affairs Committee that oversees veteran care and the VA.

So this guy is supposed to be president even though he doesn’t know the facts about McCain’s record on veterans or what Senate committee does what? And of course, Trump never lets his ignorance serve as a break on his nasty mouth. 

Reason #1: Obama and Trump are like Clones 

The President always believes he is the smartest man in the room and the law means what he decides it means, i.e. Obama acts like a frustrated quasi-dictator under a Constitutional system designed to exclude dictators. Finally, if you disagree with him then you are not just ignorant and simpleminded but a bad person. 

Trump also believes he is smartest man in the room, the law means what he decides it means and Trump acts like he wants to be a quasi-dictator. And like Obama, if you disagree with him then you are not just ignorant and simpleminded but a bad person as well.

The only difference is President Obama insults those who disagree with him in a snarky fashion while Trump employs a New York City in-your-face style. 

The Conclusion

Trump is indeed both a serious candidate and a whacko. The real question is: Will his better angels master his wild devils? If not then his candidacy is a farce.

Having written that, I will now go dig out my helmet and flack jacket and await the responses.

Semper Fi,

Mike

CALIFORNIA CRIME WAVE FOLLOWS CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

Look how well its working in Baltimore... New York City has a problem with murder, but is ten times larger than Baltimore and they are almost tied. 

CALIFORNIA CRIME WAVE FOLLOWS CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
Paul Mirengoff, Powerline

In November 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, which downgraded drug possession and many property crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor. As Debra Saunders reminds us, proponents argued that lesser punishment for low-level offenders would enhance public safety.

Unfortunately, this utterly counterintuitive notion has not panned out. In San Francisco, according to a police spokesman, theft from cars is up 47 percent this year over the same period in 2014. Auto theft is up by 17 percent. Robberies are up 23 percent. And aggravated assaults are up 2 percent. (To be fair, burglaries are down 5 percent).

How about Los Angeles? It has seen a 12.7 percent increase in the overall crime this year, according to the Los Angeles Times. Violent offenses are up 20.6 percent; property crimes by 11 percent.

Is there are a connection between Prop 47 and the California crime wave? Of course. A district attorney explains:

It used to be that if you were caught in the possession of methamphetamine, you would be arrested; you’d end up in drug court or in some other program, probably in custody receiving some type of treatment. Well, now the officers on the street just give them a ticket. . . .

The case actually gets forwarded to my office. We charge them with a crime, but they never show up to court. They get arrested again and are given another ticket for methamphetamine.

LA substance treatment rolls are down by 60 percent, according to Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell. The reason is Prop 47. As Sheriff Geoff Dean told the Ventura County Reporter, Prop 47 got drug offenders out of jail “but it also got them out of treatment.”

Dean believes the measure will increase violent crime, as substance abusers commit more robberies and assaults. Based on the figures Saunders cites, it probably already has done.

Although Prop 47 doesn’t formally decriminalize low level offenses, it does so in practice. Why bother enforcing statutes and ordinances if they carry no prison sentence? What’s the point of writing a ticket if the recipient isn’t going to show up in court?

According to Saunders, Prop 47 prompted California to release 3,700 prison inmates. Overall, the state’s prison population is down by more than 50,000 state inmates in the three-and-half years since Gov. Jerry Brown began his policy of “realignment,” of which Prop 47 is an extension.

I agree with Saunders. “A change that big cannot come without consequences,” not even if you call it “smart sentencing.”

In California, the consequences include more crime and less drug treatment. Conservatives are deluding themselves if they believe the consequences elsewhere will be less toxic.

An Uneducated Education Policy

An Uneducated Education Policy
Col. Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

All,

I was fortunate to study microeconomics as a policy tool for educators at Harvard. One case study dealt with two former British colonies [M & K] that gained independence in the same year and enjoyed roughly the same population, standard of living and post-colonial education system.

After independence, country M chose to invest in K-12 education. As resources were limited, this was done at the expense of its university system. 

Country K chose the opposite. That country created a merit-based acceptance & cost free university program. Also facing limited resources, this was done at the expense of the K-12 system.

A generation later, country M had exploded past country K. 

With a literate work force, M became a desired destination for direct foreign investment and its economy rapidly expanded. In fact, due to wealth creation, country M soon was spending more on both its K-12 and university systems than K.

Things did not go as well in K. With too many university graduates and a poorly educated workforce, the economy stagnated, unemployment rose and that led to social unrest. More telling, despite the new cost-free “merit-based” system, children of the elite still dominated the ranks of the university students. 

Why?

The elite switched their family education dollars away from college tuition towards private secondary schools, one-on-one tutoring, student enrichment programs, entrance exam preparations and the like. 

In fact, those activities proved cheaper than college tuition so the better off class had even more money in their pockets. The now-superiorly prepared children of the elite had a decisive edge over the students coming out of K's public schools and they filled the new merit system slots.

The main lesson here is that K-12 investment beats out a college free tuition policy.

Next, we also have an American example of the failure that comes from narrowly focusing on college education. 

Decades ago, the United States sought increase the number of Hispanic and African American students at our best universities and the dialogue was driven by college and university leaders -- not K-12 educators. 

They redesigned how and where they recruited, they revamped their admissions requirements, created outreach programs, etc. 

What happened? 

After decades of effort the result was an “upgrade.” Students who would have graduated from Rutgers or Cal State Fullerton found themselves at Princeton or UCLA but the overall graduation numbers remained unsatisfactorily sluggish.

The solution is obvious: If you want more Hispanic and African-American college graduates then EXPAND THE NUMER OF QUALIFYING CANDIDATES. To improve university outcomes you must improve K-12 education. 

Simply put, quality high school graduates make for a better society.

Finally, elites manage to take care of themselves and taking taxes collected from millions of non-college graduate American families to create a financial windfall for college-bound children of the better off is a SOCIAL INJUSTICE writ large.

Universal free college tuition for America is BAD policy and yes Bernie: socialism still sucks.

Semper Fi,

Mike