But Mainly . . . There Is No Crisis January 16, 2019January 15, 2019 Libertarian Republican Senator Rand Paul is going to Canada for surgery. Better care than he can get here. If he were Canadian, it would even be free. The largest airline in Africa, Ethiopian, becomes the first of 2019 to sign with WheelTug. (Eight airlines signed in 2018.) Will we ever see our reward? It took a quarter century for anyone to make a dime from the invention of television. More than a quarter century of imprisonment before Nelson Mandela became President of South Africa. It is straws like these at which I grasp. From Politico: The Only Impeachment Guide You’ll Ever Need. No impeachment effort should be considered until the Mueller report is released. But I liked the title of the article, hoping it might drive subliminal sales. And by the way? As Ted Koppel notes elegantly and accurately here: however Trump leaves office (assuming, unlike Putin, Xi, et al, he at some point does), he won’t be gone at all. His twitter feed and tens of millions of believers will all too likely keep him close to center stage. The norm of leaving office for quiet retirement or amazing good works (The Carter Center, The Clinton Global Initiative, The Obama Foundation) — one assumes Trump will be no more respectful of this norm than any other. But mainly, here is Fareed Zakaria, writing in the Washington Post: Let’s be clear: There is no crisis. The number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has been declining for a decade. The number of people caught trying to sneak across the southern border has been on a downward trend for almost 20 years and is lower than it was in 1973. As has often been pointed out, far more people are coming to the U.S. legally and then overstaying their visas than are crossing the southern border illegally. But it’s important to put these numbers in context. More than 52 million foreigners entered the U.S. legally in fiscal year 2017. Of this cohort, 98.7 percent left on time and in accordance with their visas. A large portion of those remaining left after a brief overstay, and the best government estimate is that maybe 0.8 percent of those who entered the country in 2017 had stayed on by mid-2018. As for terrorism, the Cato Institute has found that, from 1975 to 2017, “there have been zero people murdered or injured in terror attacks committed by illegal border crossers on U.S. soil.” As for drugs, the greatest danger comes from fentanyl and fentanyl-like substances, which are at the heart of the opioid crisis. Most of this comes from China, either shipped directly to the United States or smuggled through Canada or Mexico. Trump has addressed the root of this problem by pressing the Chinese government to crack down on fentanyl exports, a far more effective strategy than building a physical barrier along the Mexican border. Even the Drug Enforcement Administration acknowledged in a report last year that while the southern border is the conduit for most of the heroin entering the United States, the drug typically comes through legal points of entry, hidden in cars or mixed in with other goods in tractor-trailers. In other words, a wall would do little to stanch the flow. And yet, the power of the presidency is such that Trump has been able to place this issue center-stage, shut down the government, force television networks to run an error-ridden, scaremongering Oval Office address, and now perhaps invoke emergency powers. This sounds like something that would be done by Presidents Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan or Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, not the head of the world’s leading constitutional republic. When the U.S. government has created this sense of emergency and crisis in the past, it has almost always been to frighten people, expand presidential powers and muzzle opposition. From the Alien and Sedition Acts to the Red Scare to warnings about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal, the United States has experienced periods of paranoia and foolishness. We look back on them and recognize that the problems were not nearly as grave, the enemy was not nearly as strong and the United States was actually far more secure. The actions taken — suspending civil rights, interning U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent, taking the nation to war — were almost always terrible mistakes, often with disastrous long-term consequences. And yet, presidential powers have kept expanding. Modern media culture has made it easier for presidents to set the agenda, because the White House is a central and perpetual point of focus and now receives far more attention than it ever had. Trump has managed to use this reality and turn good news into bad, turn security into danger and almost single-handedly fabricate a national crisis where there is none. This whole episode highlights a problem that has become apparent in these past two years. The U.S. president has too many powers, formal and informal. This was not intended by the founders, who made Congress the dominant branch of government, and it is not how the country has been governed for much of its history. But over the past nine decades, the presidency has grown in formal and informal authority. I have been an advocate of a strong executive for most of my life. I don’t much like how Congress operates. I now realize that my views were premised on the assumption that the president would operate within the bounds of laws, norms and ethics. I now believe that an urgent task for the next few years is for Congress to write laws that explicitly limit and check the powers of the president. I would take polarization over Putinism any day. The only crisis is Trump. America suffered a devastating sneak attack December 7, 1941 — but no one questioned that it was real, or who attacked (it was not some 400-pound guy sitting on his bed); and it served to unite the country in common purpose. America suffered another sneak attack in 2016. It is tearing the country apart, shutting down the government, handing global leadership to China . . . and teaching what sorts of lessons to our kids? Against a far more powerful adversary, judo master Putin is winning, big-time.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: The Green New Deal January 15, 2019January 15, 2019 [File your 4th quarterly estimated tax today (if any money is due). Here are the forms and instructions. You can skip this if you file your complete return by January 31.] Yesterday, I suggested that Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are not the unhinged lefties they are made out to be. Warren, the former moderate Republican, is in fact an ardent — enlightened — capitalist. So what about AOC? Unhinged? Well, for starters, she “believes in” science. That makes her more hinged than many of her Republican colleagues. From the Society for Science: . . . In 2007, Alexandria placed second in the International Science and Engineering Fair in the Microbiology category with her project on the effect of antioxidants on roundworms. . . . Alexandria chose compounds with the highest cited number of antioxidant capabilities and observed how they impacted longevity of the roundworms. In some cases, lifespan was prolonged for as many as 33 days, almost doubling the nematode’s normal lifespan. Her findings indicated that antioxidants could potentially help prevent degenerative illnesses induced by oxidative stress. Science was Alexandria’s first passion. According to an interview with the New Yorker, she had aspired to be an obstetrician-gynecologist, yet even as a young scientist, she saw politics in science research. As her high school science teacher Michael Blueglass recounted to the New York Times, “she was interested in research to help people in all areas, including developing nations, not just for the people with money.” Alexandria went on to attend Boston University, where she started out as a science major, but later graduated with a degree in economics and international relations. In Congress, Alexandria will certainly make use of the skills that helped her succeed in science fair: communication and public speaking skills in addition to persistence and a logical approach to problem solving. You can watch her recent interview on CBS News’ 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper where she discusses her upbringing and what brought her to Capitol Hill. As you’ve probably seen, Ocasio-Cortez advocates for the Green New Deal. Something about eating free-range broccoli and composting your dryer lint, one presumes. (OK, I kid: it’s organic broccoli.) And yes: we should eat less meat and compost our dryer lint. Much less meat, in fact. But in case this is new to you, take 3 minutes to find out what the Green New Deal actually is — because you might find yourself advocating for it, too. As explained by a Nobel-winning economist: “The grassroots movement behind the Green New Deal offers a ray of hope to the badly battered establishment: they should embrace it, flesh it out, and make it part of the progressive agenda. We need something positive to save us from the ugly wave of populism, nativism, and proto-fascism that is sweeping the world.” In full: From Yellow Vests to the Green New Deal Jan 7, 2019 Joseph E. Stiglitz NEW YORK – It’s old news that large segments of society have become deeply unhappy with what they see as “the establishment,” especially the political class. The “Yellow Vest” protests in France, triggered by President Emmanuel Macron’s move to hike fuel taxes in the name of combating climate change, are but the latest example of the scale of this alienation. There are good reasons for today’s disgruntlement: four decades of promises by political leaders of both the center left and center right, espousing the neoliberal faith that globalization, financialization, deregulation, privatization, and a host of related reforms would bring unprecedented prosperity, have gone unfulfilled. While a tiny elite seems to have done very well, large swaths of the population have fallen out of the middle class and plunged into a new world of vulnerability and insecurity. Even leaders in countries with low but increasing inequality have felt their public’s wrath.1 By the numbers, France looks better than most, but it is perceptions, not numbers, that matter; even in France, which avoided some of the extremism of the Reagan-Thatcher era, things are not going well for many. When taxes on the very wealthy are lowered, but raised for ordinary citizens to meet budgetary demands (whether from far-off Brussels or from well-off financiers), it should come as no surprise that some are angry. The Yellow Vests’ refrain speaks to their concerns: “The government talks about the end of the world. We are worried about the end of the month.” There is, in short, a gross mistrust in governments and politicians, which means that asking for sacrifices today in exchange for the promise of a better life tomorrow won’t pass muster. And this is especially true of “trickle down” policies: tax cuts for the rich that eventually are supposed to benefit everyone else. When I was at the World Bank, the first lesson in policy reform was that sequencing and pacing matter. The promise of the Green New Deal that is now being championed by progressives in the United States gets both of these elements right. The Green New Deal is premised on three observations: First, there are unutilized and underutilized resources – especially human talent – that can be used effectively. Second, if there were more demand for those with low and medium skills, their wages and standards of living would rise. Third, a good environment is an essential part of human well-being, today and in the future. If the challenges of climate change are not met today, huge burdens will be imposed on the next generation. It is just wrong for this generation to pass these costs on to the next. It is better to leave a legacy of financial debts, which our children can somehow manage, than to hand down a possibly unmanageable environmental disaster. Almost 90 years ago, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt responded to the Great Depression with his New Deal, a bold package of reforms that touched almost every aspect of the American economy. But it is more than the symbolism of the New Deal that is being invoked now. It is its animating purpose: putting people back to work, in the way that FDR did for the US, with its crushing unemployment of the time. Back then, that meant investments in rural electrification, roads, and dams. Economists have debated how effective the New Deal was – its spending was probably too low and not sustained enough to generate the kind of recovery the economy needed. Nonetheless, it left a lasting legacy by transforming the country at a crucial time. So, too, for a Green New Deal: It can provide public transportation, linking people with jobs, and retrofit the economy to meet the challenge of climate change. At the same time, these investments themselves will create jobs. It has long been recognized that decarbonization, if done correctly, would be a great job creator, as the economy prepares itself for a world with renewable energy. Of course, some jobs– for example, those of the 53,000 coal miners in the US – will be lost, and programs are needed to retrain such workers for other jobs. But to return to the refrain: sequencing and pacing matter. It would have made more sense to begin with creating new jobs before the old jobs were destroyed, to ensure that the profits of the oil and coal companies were taxed, and the hidden subsidies they receive eliminated, before asking those who are barely getting by to pony up more. The Green New Deal sends a positive message of what government can do, for this generation of citizens and the next. It can deliver today what those who are suffering today need most – good jobs. And it can deliver the protections from climate change that are needed for the future. The Green New Deal will have to be broadened, and this is especially true in countries like the US, where many ordinary citizens lack access to good education, adequate health care, or decent housing. The grassroots movement behind the Green New Deal offers a ray of hope to the badly battered establishment: they should embrace it, flesh it out, and make it part of the progressive agenda. We need something positive to save us from the ugly wave of populism, nativism, and proto-fascism that is sweeping the world. One need not agree with every position AOC takes or everything she says or tweets to welcome her passion and eagerness to make progress on the challenges we face.
Elizabeth Warren: Not Who You Think January 14, 2019January 13, 2019 Before you buy into the notion that Elizabeth Warren — and, for that matter, young Alexandria Ocasio-Cortzez — are unhinged lefties, here are a couple of things you may not have known. Elizabeth Warren was a moderate Republican until her forties. “”I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore,” she explains. A young hedge-funder who just maxed out to her campaign tells me that “everything she’s advocating for is about protecting and promoting capitalism, in which she ardently believes. It’s just that something has gotten very messed up over the past few decades and it’s led to markets not functioning in ways that promote the public interest. For example, read Jonathan Tepper’s new book The Myth of Capitalism for its description of the collapse of antitrust enforcement. Antitrust enforcement is not at odds with free markets; it’s necessary for free markets to function. Without it, capitalism will become untenable over time and you’ll end up with public demand for straight-up socialists. Warren has been an advocate for a capitalism that works for her whole career. Watch this excellent documentary in which she and the great right-wing personal finance radio personality Dave Ramsey address the ways in which a perversion of markets is hurting people. The idea that promoting capitalism requires no price be paid by companies like Wells Fargo or the for-profit colleges is nuts. Her proposals are about promoting a return to the institutions of capitalism that led to the greatest period of widespread prosperity in global history. For instance, her proposal that workers have minority representation on corporate boards is about promoting the traditional role of public company boards. Contra what Paul Singer et al would like the public to think, corporate boards are not supposed to represent exclusively the interests of shareholders. This belief has led to the rise of predatory capitalism that hurts everyone, including, in the end, the shareholders. See Lynn Stout’s The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public. In short, Warren is the only candidate who has devoted her entire career to fighting for the most important issue in America: free markets that work.” Tomorrow: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. [As to the shutdown, can someone please send this to Ann Coulter? Four minutes of common sense from the Mexican border.]
1958 Clairvoyance January 11, 2019January 10, 2019 Must-see, on the off chance you haven’t: A 1958 TV show, fact-checked by Snopes — it’s real! — about a con man named Trump trying to sell a wall by stoking fear. The clip is only a couple of minutes long. Or watch the entire episode. Amazing. Steve Morgan: “This article simply amplifies the fury we feel in Texas. Hurricane Harvey recovery still hasn’t been completed. Many folks that suffered total losses were denied FEMA funds. Now that ‘money has been found’ that was designated for infrastructure repairs in Puerto Rico, Texas, and California, Trump wants to divert it to the Wall?” Paul Abrams: “Anyone who believes Trumpf will follow the law when he and/or his kids are indicted do not grasp how different narcissist sociopaths are from normality: What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency.” Some of you sent suggestions for fixing yesterday’s sonnet. Thank you. It now rhymes! Carl sent a cartoon showing the Statue of Liberty with a donkey head (i.e.: a Democrat) saying: “Give me your undetected, undocumented, and unchecked masses yearning for free stuff.” He seemed to like that. Yet it seems such an insult to his fellow human beings. They walk thousands of miles seeking asylum from horrible circumstances, hoping to scrub Carl’s motel toilet, pick his lettuce, or trim his hedges . . . hoping to give their kids a decent life. So turning them away, if that’s what Carl and the cartoonist decide must be done, should at least be a subject of heartbreak — not mockery — don’t you think? Though seeking asylum is currently 100% legal under U.S. law, Republicans have decided to follow Trump, not Jesus or the law, in their response to the downtrodden. And Carl and the cartoonist have decided to mock them. Funny stuff.
Two Sonnets And An Investment Strategy January 10, 2019January 10, 2019 Goldman Sachs begins its current 104-page Outlook, “American Preeminence in a Rattled World,” with a sonnet whose final lines you surely know: The New Colossus Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” — Emma Lazarus (1849–1887) Updated for 2019 (by me, not Goldman): Asylum seekers, beacon bound — turn back; You must turn around. Thousands of miles to plead your case — turn back; We’re now a different place. This golden land you now are nearing — turn back; You’ll get no hearing. Kids in tow, we won’t engage them — turn back; We’ll grab and cage them. (And if somehow you sneak them thru — your precious cargo — Look for a job at Mar-a-Lago.) Goldman Sachs thinks (to summarize the 104 pages): American economic preeminence is likely to persist; stay largely invested in U.S. equities this year. My for-profit strategy is to diversify and keep expenses low (click here for a 296-page elaboration). My non-profit strategy revolves around electing Democrats . . . to empower an Obama/Biden-like vision for the world (to shorthand it) rather than a Bush/Cheney vision or a Trump/Pence/McConnell vision. I put no resources into fighting Democrats (i.e., primaries). I put only a little into state and local races — mainly: governors, secretaries of state and A.G.’s. (New York City has a dozen fine progressives running for Public advocate. I wish them all well but decline their requests. They don’t make national policy or lifetime judicial appointments.) I give relatively little to individual candidates, much as I want them to win: a) The candidates over-spend on advertising, in my view (their consultants often get a slice; and, being human, they want to make their case on TV and respond to attacks) . . . b. Yet, elections these days, I think, are mainly about turn-out, not persuasion. Great TV ads are not going to persuade many people to switch tribes. Candidates can’t abandon advertising, of course; but I see little risk they will underspend on TV. The smart money, it seems to me, goes into the ground game – organizing for massive registration and turn-out of folks who will surely vote our way IF THEY VOTE. 4. I give mainly to the DNC because this is the DNC’s focus: enabling a massive turnout. I feel particularly good supporting the DNC now that Tom Perez runs it. (President Obama considered him one of his very most effective Cabinet secretaries.) And now that Raffi Krikorian is Tom’s CTO. (Ex-head of global infrastructure for Twitter, wooed away by Uber to lead the team that delivered their self-driving car, he is a tech super star – the kind we never had before.) 5. A massive turn-out is so much more efficient than targeting specific races. If we get our folks to the polls, they typically vote for ALL our candidates – even when they know nothing about them, just that they’re Democrats. 6. I give early – a year’s worth last week – because (a) relatively few others do, so that’s when it’s most needed; (b) the longer organizers have to recruit, train, and inspire volunteers, the larger the snowball grows. I don’t want to let the Republicans keep building to beat us in 2020 while we take a break and start all over again next year. In case you want to join “the January Club” (not a real thing: just the way I think of those of us who give at the start of each year), click here. I’ll see whatever you do the minute you do it, to say thanks. “History has its eyes on us.” Melodramatic but true.
Progress! January 9, 2019January 7, 2019 Last Friday: the social progress the country’s made losing its fear of high school football captains. Today: physical and technological progress. (Why does it come so much easier, despite all the higher math required, than social progress?) Physical: New York-a-philes may enjoy these then and now photos. Technological: The best of what was new in 2018 from Popular Science. We’re hurtling toward the sun at nearly half a million miles an hour . . . we have a solar-powered plane that stayed aloft for 25 days (and nights) . . . super Post-Its that stick to rough surfaces . . . an electronic mug — but is $80 too much to keep your coffee at the desired temperature all morning long?* . . . a mosquito repeller I need to try . . . pills that tell you and your doc when they’ve been swallowed, lest you go off your meds . . . a tiny heart monitor . . . a better AIDS drug . . . faster 911 response time . . . 3D-printed homes . . . vegan eggs. All very nice. But did you see Sunday’s incredible 60 Minutes segment? Xyleco will slow climate change, replacing lots of fossil fuel; reduce ocean garbage, via biodegradable plastic; impede weight gain and tooth decay, via better sugar. All this from a guy with no science education! Invisibility. Jim Burt: “Just tell POTUS his new wall has been completed and is in place: an impenetrable barrier built from the same materials used to make the Emperor’s New Clothes and fully paid for by Mexico. Congratulate him on his success. Then move on. He’ll never know the difference. He’s not detail-oriented.” Okay, maybe not that. But as the invaluable Nick Kristof explains: 2018 was by important measures the best year in human history. . . . Each day on average, about another 295,000 people around the world gained access to electricity for the first time, according to Max Roser of Oxford University and his Our World in Data website. Every day, another 305,000 were able to access clean drinking water for the first time. And each day an additional 620,000 people were able to get online for the first time. Never before has such a large portion of humanity been literate, enjoyed a middle-class cushion, lived such long lives, had access to family planning or been confident that their children would survive. Let’s hit pause on our fears and frustrations and share a nanosecond of celebration at this backdrop of progress. . . . . . . It is of course true that there are huge challenges ahead. The gains against global poverty and disease seem to be slowing, and climate change is an enormous threat to poor nations in particular. And the United States is an outlier, where life expectancy is falling, not rising as in most of the world. So there’s plenty to fret about. But a failure to acknowledge global progress can leave people feeling hopeless and ready to give up. In fact, the gains should show us what is possible and spur greater efforts to improve opportunity worldwide. . . . *Yes, it is.
“Be Kind And Be Useful” January 8, 2019January 6, 2019 This is what President Obama would tell his daughters as they grew up in the White House — “be kind and be useful.” I know, because friends just sent me Obama: An Intimate Portrait, a big coffee table book. Wonderful photos that remind one of the dignity and intelligence, decency and seriousness that ordinarily infuse the Presidency — never more so than January 20, 2009-January 19, 2017. Other than mostly-spare captions, there’s almost no text; but a brief introduction by the photographer, Pete Souza, who arguably spent more time with Obama during those years than anyone else, and who heard the President’s exhortation. It’s a picture book, but those five words — “be kind and be useful” — speak volumes.
What Are We Waiting For? January 6, 2019January 6, 2019 I promised “a different kind of progress” Friday (so stay tuned for dazzling tech stuff), but then Mel sent me this (thanks, Mel!) . . . . . . and many of you sent me David Leonhardt’s piece: Demonstrably Unfit — What Are We Waiting For? I think the Democratic leadership is right to be cautious about impeachment. Especially with the Mueller report likely just weeks away, they should wait to see what it shows. But everyone should consider what Leonhardt has to say. He begins: The presidential oath of office contains 35 words and one core promise: to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Since virtually the moment Donald J. Trump took that oath two years ago, he has been violating it. He has repeatedly put his own interests above those of the country. He has used the presidency to promote his businesses. He has accepted financial gifts from foreign countries. He has lied to the American people about his relationship with a hostile foreign government. He has tolerated cabinet officials who use their position to enrich themselves. To shield himself from accountability for all of this — and for his unscrupulous presidential campaign — he has set out to undermine the American system of checks and balances. He has called for the prosecution of his political enemies and the protection of his allies. He has attempted to obstruct justice. He has tried to shake the public’s confidence in one democratic institution after another, including the press, federal law enforcement and the federal judiciary. The unrelenting chaos that Trump creates can sometimes obscure the big picture. But the big picture is simple: The United States has never had a president as demonstrably unfit for the office as Trump. And it’s becoming clear that 2019 is likely to be dominated by a single question: What are we going to do about it? . . . Read his answer. Not least because (as argued here), Trump is More Dangerous Than Ever. Indeed, if you want to spend your whole day on this (and I realize most of you don’t), read, too, Professor Sonnenfeld’s Citizen Trump And The Boulevard Of Bedlam in Chief Executive magazine. Scary what Trump’s two favorite movies are. A powerful minority are so emotionally invested in Trump that he literally could walk down Fifth Avenue shooting people and not lose their support. Forcible removal would drive them crazy. Better would be a deal for resignation, a la the deals made with Agnew and Nixon. The precedent is surely there. Failing that, we may soon have to decide whether it’s true that in America, no one is above the law. Or whether, instead, we go the route of nations over which elected, journalist-murdering autocrats preside. Like Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, and Kim Jong-Un (elected with 100% of the vote). And have presided, like Saddam (elected with 99.99%), Mussolini . . . et al. The latter is impossible. This is America. Right?
High School Football Captains In The News January 4, 2019January 4, 2019 Twenty years ago, Corey Johnson came out to his Topsfield, Massachusetts football team. It made national news. Today, he is Speaker of the New York City Council . . . perhaps even New York’s next mayor. But that was Massachusetts. And New York. Now comes Missouri: the football captain and the water polo player. Missouri. . . . “Not only were there hundreds of people who showed up to support us, including many students from other high schools in St. Louis, but our entire school banded together, and became stronger because of it,” [the football captain] wrote in the Huffington Post. “Dozens of my school’s alumni sent in videos expressing support, along with many current students—from the LGBTQ community as well as allies—who wrote beautiful speeches and poems to show their pride. It was truly breathtaking to see so much love from not only my community, but from complete strangers.” . . . Love is love. Progress is progress. Monday: A different kind of progress. Have a great weekend!
Dubious Achievements January 3, 2019January 5, 2019 Tax cuts and deregulation. Republican triumphs. But arguably, neither has been a triumph at all. Paul Krugman: The Trump Tax Cut: Even Worse Than You’ve Heard Skeptical reporting has still been too favorable The 2017 tax cut has received pretty bad press, and rightly so. Its proponents made big promises about soaring investment and wages, and also assured everyone that it would pay for itself; none of that has happened. Yet coverage actually hasn’t been negative enough. The story you mostly read runs something like this: The tax cut has caused corporations to bring some money home, but they’ve used it for stock buybacks rather than to raise wages, and the boost to growth has been modest. That doesn’t sound great, but it’s still better than the reality: No money has, in fact, been brought home, and the tax cut has probably reduced national income. . . . Eric Lipton, et al: The Real-Life Effects of Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks For nearly two years, President Trump has pursued an aggressive, far-reaching effort, lobbied for and cheered on by industry, to free American business from what he and many of his supporters view as excessive environmental regulation. . . . at stake is the quality of the air we breathe and the food we eat, the cleanliness of the rivers that flow past us, and the pace at which the climate is changing. After decades of legislation and regulation, the environment in the United States continues to get cleaner. What has changed under Mr. Trump in most cases is [that] the pace of improvement has been slowed in a number of key areas compared to what it would have been if the Obama rules had been preserved. A third dubious achievement? Defending America from desperate asylum seekers, as we once defended her from Jews fleeing Hitler. Today, with Democrats in control of the House — and Mitt Romney in the Senate, for that matter — we just might start to do better.