Remember the “Horns”

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

War is an awful business. Once started, all sorts of things can go wrong. That’s why no one should ever go into it lightly. Yet, there are circumstances where you come to the conclusion you have no real choice but to attack.

Before you move, those who studied war, from Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, to B.H. Liddell Hart cautioned that you need a clear objective—one that eliminates the problem or problems causing your decision to go to war. In the present case, the administration determined that as long as the mullahs ruled Iran, we faced intolerable threats, from nuclear war, attacks by Iran or its allies on others in the Mideast, or disruption of major trade routes.

The timing seems right. Thanks to mainly Israeli actions, we control the air over Iran. Sanctions and the Mullahs’ mismanagement have weakened the Iranian economy to a point where businesspeople have joined the young in longing for change.

Having determined that the mullahs in power pose an existential threat, anything short of regime change won’t solve the problems. The mullahs must go.

With the objective in place, what’s our strategy for success? We pay all those military people with all those medals and ribbons to show us the path to victory. Having studied the art of war all their lives, they should know what works and what to avoid.

I didn’t spend a lifetime in the military, but I did go to a military school, where our dedicated commandant taught the required military science courses. We studied what worked, or didn’t work, throughout the ages. Using your superior numbers or resources to overpower, frankly, is wasteful and may result in a “Pyrrhic victory,” named after the King who lost so much in winning that he couldn’t continue his war against the Romans.

Continue reading →

Crisis-Real or Not

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

In my last post, I noted that the Democrats offered the same false diagnoses, leading them to propose policies that have failed in the past. Shortly after publishing, I learned of Paul Ehrlich’s passing. The Stanford biologist’s life encapsulates how misinformation underlies progressivism. Worse, these mostly highly educated people are aware of these falsehoods, but they work very hard to avoid the truth.

Paul Ehrlich may not be well known among today’s youth, but they may be contending with his effect. His book, “The Population Bomb,” written with his wife and published in 1968, sold millions of copies. The Author was a fixture on The Late Show.” Exposed to his frightening predictions of mass famine and the collapse of overpopulated societies, people worldwide changed their behavior, and some nations even adopted policies to restrict population growth.

Some found the idea of parenthood selfish and a threat to the planet. Many skipped the adventure of parenthood. As a result, many never became grandparents, and we have fewer cousins. Beyond individual decisions, some nations took stringent measures to curb population growth.

On the surface, his thesis seems plausible. If humans were allowed to breed like rabbits, they would soon outrun the planet’s ability to provide food and resources. The only possible outcome is a massive die-off.

This theory isn’t new. In 1798, Thomas Malthus observed that humans reproduced geometrically, while food resources grew only arithmetically, setting up a trap that could only lead to dire circumstances—his outwardly logical theory occurred during the Age of Reason and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.

Continue reading →

Not The Change We Need

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Don’t count on things getting better. When we’ve gone through a rough patch, we wish the next election would result in greater competence, but that’s hope over experience. The last election saw a voter revolt against the worst inflation in 40 years, wide-open borders, and the Afghan fiasco, which encouraged bad actors to start two ugly wars. The relatively solid economy and the absence of major fighting during Donald Trump’s first term fostered nostalgia.

Trump promised peace, safety, and prosperity in 2024. A little over one year in, we still have rising prices, albeit at a somewhat lower rate, violence on the streets in cities like Minneapolis, and an ever-widening war in the Middle East. Maybe we didn’t want wide open borders, letting in bad people, but we want the good contributing to our nation, treated humanely, not terrified and abruptly deported.

Given where we are, how is that election working out? More importantly, will the future election bring improvement? Plagued by high prices, poorly conceived international actions that have led to more bloodshed and increased costs, civil unrest, lawfare, executive orders that ignore Congress, and corruption, a change in leadership surely will lead to a different direction.

But will it? Everything we’re complaining about today has its roots in the prior Democratic administration: high prices, almost double-digit inflation. Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Gaza weren’t examples of international stability. The Black Lives Matter riots weren’t peaceful. Forgiving billions in student loans by executive order, the courts were Trump’s second home during the 2024 campaign, and if you wanted Biden’s attention, his son had a painting for you.

Yes, you can argue that the current Trump administration is worse in all these areas, but that is just because Trump exceeded them, not because he initiated them. Just as Trump followed and expanded on the Democrats’ path, there is no reason to believe the Democrats won’t build on and exceed the present administration in these areas. A continuing game of ” Can you top this?”

Instead of a fresh approach to our myriad of problems, the Democratic leaders with the loudest voices promise more of the same. From California to New York City, Newsome to Mandani, and all Blue spots in between, we hear the same old, same old. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, and not “paying their fair share.” Corporations, you name the place, are price-gouging, and inequality is growing by leaps and bounds.

Given these diagnoses of our problems, the solutions have a familiar ring to them. Increase taxes on those nasty billionaires and millionaires’ ill-gotten gains. In California, increasing income taxes on the “rich” isn’t enough; we have to tax their accumulated wealth. Investigate companies whose prices have moved up significantly. Stronger price controls on things like rent in New York City. Hike up the minimum wage to give everyone a raise. Close the growing gap between the haves and have-nots by increasing transfer payments.

Continue reading →

Fixing Upheavals

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Funny how things sometimes unfold in line with your thoughts. In my post two weeks ago, I pointed out that Trump’s reimposition of broad tariffs, taking effect, isn’t a sure thing. The administration promised speedy interest-bearing refunds to obtain a stay of the Court of International Trade’s (CIT) decision declaring the bulk of the president’s tariffs unconstitutional if the Government lost its appeals. Having lost in the Supreme Court, the administration now finds itself in an impossible situation.

You can bomb the hell out of the country, but you need forces on the ground to effect regime change. Nazi Germany was militarily superior to the British in WWII, but an all-out air campaign never broke them, without troops on the ground.

Last week, I wrote that the best bet to foster an armed Iranian uprising lay with the support of the Kurds on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border. However, our spotty treatment of this put-upon group might make them reluctant to bail us out:

In both cases, the administration appears not to have thought things through. Trying to slow down or block the refunds amounts to admitting it misled the courts. Now the refund case is back in the CIT, and Judge Richard Eaton has ordered the refunds. As the sole judge in charge of the refund cases, he has issued a straightforward ruling, leaving the Government no alternative but to do what it promised the courts.

Judge Eaton refused to issue a stay of his order pending the Government’s appeal. The Appeals Court has already delegated the CIT to handle the refunds, so it is unlikely to intervene. On Friday, the judge granted the Government more time after it admitted it had misled the courts and could not process the refunds immediately.

Given the Government’s history of promising speedy refunds if it loses, and then claiming it’s too difficult to issue quickly when the Supreme Court ruled against it, staying an adverse ruling in the CIT on the new 122 tariffs is anything but certain. Two dozen states are already filing suit against the new tariffs, and businesses are likely to be joined by those still suffering from the previous illegal tariffs. An injunction against their implementation is only just while awaiting a final decision.

Continue reading →

Food For Thought

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

It took only a few moments after the Supreme Court’s long-awaited tariff decision for President Trump to strike back by imposing an across-the-board 10% tariff. Within 24 hours, he increased it to 15%. Under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the tariffs remain in effect for the next 150 days. At that point, the tariff authority will expire unless Congress acts. Not to worry, the administration will have completed the mandatory work to continue the tariffs under yet another statute.

The same affected importers and others are likely to sue to prevent implementation. Still, given how long it took to secure a favorable decision on the original statute used to justify Trump’s torrent of tariffs, the administration will remain one step ahead of relief.

As for getting a refund for the illegal tariffs collected, Judge Kavanaugh, in his dissent, said that’s messy. Litigating the refunds could take years, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Nice try, Supreme Court, but the courts are just too slow to keep up with those bright administration people. Trump’s beloved tariffs will remain, while importers will grow old waiting for their refunds.

According to the administration and its media supporters, the importer’s High Court victory is just a mirage. Nothing has really changed. Trump will keep your money and keep collecting in the future.

That’s one plotline for the future of the Trump tariff regime, but there might be another script. The stage for court challenges to the administration is the Court of International Trade (CIT). This court will hear the demands of Costco, FedEx, and many others for refunds.

Continue reading →