economy

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 →

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 →

The Real Trump

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

We finally have the Supreme Court tariff decision. Even though they took too long in a faster-moving world, it is as predicted. The Court ruled that all tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal in a 6-to-3 decision. The majority acknowledged what the first article of our Constitution clearly states: that duties (tariffs), like all taxes, are the exclusive province of Congress.

Predictably, the President threw a hissy fit. His main ire fell on two of the justices he appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett,, even going so far as saying their families are ashamed of them or should be. At the same time, he praised the three conservative judges who backed the tariffs, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. The latter wrote the key dissenting opinion. He made three points: the statute gives unlimited tariff power, the linking tariff power to the ability to conduct foreign affairs, and refunding the money would be “messy.

All three justices claim to be Scalia originalists, meaning simply applying the original intent of the law. What is confusing about the original intent of the first article of the Constitution that gives the power of the purse, including duties, exclusively to Congress? The thinking behind this traces back through British history and law, and the framers’ intent is crystal clear. What part of “no taxation without representation” don’t they understand? The majority in Chief Justice’s opinion stated the obvious.

The contention that the President needs the power to impose a punishing tax on U.S. citizens to conduct foreign affairs would be news to the Founding Fathers. This idea is like a child demanding his way, or he’ll hurt himself. As two recent studies have shown, Americans, not foreigners, pay 90% of the tariffs.

Continue reading →

Head-scratchers

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Stopping Inflation, Uncategorized , , , ,

Confusion rules. Has there been a time when, other than wars or economic reversals, everything was so up in the air? In just the last couple of weeks, we’ve had a meltdown over frozen Greenland, a fleet racing to the Middle East for possible military action against Iran, and the appointment of a Federal Reserve chairman philosophically at odds with the President, who appointed him. All with worldwide implications. What can we make of all this?

We’ve gone from giving the U.S. Greenland or else, to we’ll work things out—no big deal. Wait, wasn’t our need to possess Greenland a necessity for national defense? As I pointed out in the last post, we already had access to everything in Greenland that we would ever need. We antagonized our allies for no discernible end. Will Trump return to his demands again down the road?

The administration is correct in acknowledging the Arctic’s rapidly increasing importance. Still, as others and I pointed out, China has more to fear from us regarding the new Arctic trade routes than we do from it. This map makes it obvious where the choke point for both routes lies, and it isn’t Greenland. It is already part of the U.S., our state of Alaska:

As you can see, both new shorter routes run through the Bering Strait, which Alaska dominates. A reasonably strong Alaska military position could close the strait to China’s trade, and China would have to pay hell to regain passage there, even if they could. After all, China would have to move its forces a great distance under to attack, only to find a well-positioned enemy. If we take the proper military steps in Alaska, we, not China, possess the leverage in the Arctic.

Given this strategic fact, Trump’s campaign to grab Greenland was about his legacy, rather than national defense. We’ll determine the cost of his vanity later.

Continue reading →

No Predictions, Just Clues

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

As I alluded to in my last post, I was optimistic a year ago. Wrong on a lot, but I had some idea of how things might go. Right now, I have to admit, I’m clueless. The Ukraine War still rages. We’re bombing boats on the high seas and suspected terrorist sites in Nigeria. Not exactly peace on earth.

Inflation is still uncomfortably high. The national debt gets scarier by the minute. Employment is dicey, and manufacturing jobs are falling. Consumer sentiment is weak:

Yet the stock market keeps hitting new highs, and the economy is growing. What gives? Darned if I know, given today’s crosscurrents. I’ll share the clues I’m looking for that clarify the situation.

The first, expected early in 2026, is the Supreme Court’s ruling on the executive branch’s tariff powers. So many of Trump’s second-term actions depend on his ability to slap tariffs on anyone at will; any limits will change the face of his administration. Without knowing what restrictions the court will put on the executive, it’s hard to plan.

If the court narrowly decides that the law underlying the tariffs fails to cover them, but no further, the administration can invoke another law and reimpose the tariffs. Those who are negatively affected will sue again, and we’re back to square one, confused. Previously, I complained that the court was taking way too much time to decide a fundamental constitutional question: Does the first article of the Constitution mean what it clearly states, only Congress has the power to levy tariffs?

Continue reading →