news

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 →

Twins In The Twin Cities

Dave Davis Uncategorized , , , ,

Donald Trump won the 2024 election on his promise to stop the mass migration across our southern Border. High-profile crimes highlighted that many bad people were among those entering the country. Stopping the flood and removing the bad actors from our country is a big part of Trump’s mandate. The Administration secured the Southern Border and then began rounding up bad actors.

In most places, especially in red states, local authorities worked with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to remove those they apprehended. So far, so good. However, the scope of the deportations expanded significantly. A presidential advisor was said to demand 3,000 deportations a day. The short-order cook, or the dry-waller, who had been here for years without problems, suddenly became a target.

Not prepared for this wide net, we didn’t want to see our neighbors, employees, and people we depend on taken away. Fear spread. We wanted the bad people out, but not our neighbors with clean records.

Many places claimed Sanctuary City status and refused to work with federal authorities, even to get rid of criminals. Letting them back out on the street, rather than deporting them, is a questionable stance, but the deporting of law-abiding, but illegal migrants, changed perceptions. A Trump underwater issue, the expansion appalled most Americans.

At a time when the U.S. is facing declining population growth, this is terrible timing to kick out millions of working taxpayers. Regardless of the initial costs, most who have been here for years are now positive additions. We’ve educated many dreamers who were brought here as children by their parents. Why kick them out when they’re now paying off? Why adopt such an unpopular position? Whatever the initial costs, the security net, and education expenses are in the past, and the payoff is now and into the future. This action is bad. policy. Americans favor immigration:

So why has the Administration taken this tactic? It’s playing to its anti-immigration base. Presidential advisor Steven Miller is the voice of this base, with media support from the likes of Tucker Carlson, Laura Loomer, and Steve Bannon. Crossing the base can doom a political career. The committed turnout in primaries puts anyone who disagrees with them in a challenging position, allowing this faction to punch well above its weight. The result is a political Party saddled with a bad, unpopular policy.

Continue reading →

The Pursuit Of Happiness

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Long Journey to "More", Uncategorized , , , ,

While waiting for the long-overdue Supreme Court Tariff ruling, I’ve had time to reflect on why so many Americans have either a dim view or little knowledge of our capitalist economic system. How can a simple, common-sense system be misunderstood by so many?

I’ve been reading Zhang Weiying’s “The Logic of the Market: An Insider’s View of Chinese Economic Reform” to better understand how the Chinese economy compares to our own. Most economists talk in jargon, but the Author explains capitalism in terms of happiness rather than marginal returns and GDP.

In capitalism, people engage in consensual exchange. Consumers and suppliers freely exchange a wide range of goods. As each gets what they asked for, both are happy. You go to the supermarket, you get what you want, and the store gets paid. Both of you win.

However, if goods or cash change hands with only one party happy and the other sad, it’s robbery. Think about that. Someone points a gun at you, demanding your stuff. The thief is happy, but you’re really sad. The point of human interaction is shared satisfaction, rather than gloom.

The gauging of happiness and sadness in society to determine whether an action is successful or just a thief. can be applied to both governance and economics. Most commercial transactions in free-market economies result in happiness for all the participants. You go to Costco, get a hot dog, and fill your cart with goods you value. At checkout, both you and Costco are happy.

Continue reading →

Trump: Inept Colonialist?

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Shades of the British in India, we depose a Leader favorable to our enemies, leaving the existing government compliant to our rule. Trump seized and deposed Venezuela’s leader and set up a colonial relationship with the remainder of his government.

Facing an overwhelming force, those in charge of the nation surrendered control of their primary asset, oil, to the U.S. We will take the oil and market it. Whatever amount we decide to share with Venezuela must be used to purchase U.S.-made goods.

These terms sound like our colonial relationship with King George’s Britain. Control of our trade lay with the mother country. We could only buy from British manufacturers. Our Declaration of Independence leaves no doubt about what we thought of the situation. Now, Trump has taken on George III’s mantle.

At least past colonial Empires went after places that produced stuff that didn’t compete with their home products. Tobacco, indigo, sugar, and tea didn’t grow in Britain or France. These mercantilist nations made money by selling colonial produce and by monopolizing the sale of manufactured goods to their colonies.

Isn’t someone in the present administration aware that the U.S. is the world’s top oil producer? It’s as if, when England was the largest wool exporter, it deposed a foreign leader to expand his nation’s wool production. One could see eliminating a competitor, but Trump only talks about rapidly expanding Venezuela’s output. Even crazy George III could see the flaws in this policy.

Continue reading →

A Discussion Starter

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Gathering in Atlanta for Thanksgiving, no one ventured anything along political lines until our son’s 86-year-old mother-in-law asked everyone what they thought of Majorie Taylor Green (MTG), the controversial Georgia Republican representative. Everyone chimed in. She is everyone’s hero for standing up to President Trump, including the family Democrats. She’s even on the left-wing “The Week” magazine, contesting Trump:

This reaction shows far-out positions race across media at the speed of light, while we shun actual policy discussions. Name the first twenty politicians you think of. Sure, you’ll include Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Clintons and Obamas.

Still, beyond them, you’re likely to name the likes of Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, A.O.C., Zohran Mamdani, Jasmine Crockett, Pete Hegseth, Sean Duffy, and J.D. Vance. What do they all have in common? They’re all media savvy. It may not be too strong to say that the media brought them to their present prominence.

While we are well aware of these people, none of us associates them with any deep, well-reasoned policy positions. To be sure, they have policies, free buses, little or no immigration, high tariffs, and price controls, but none of them provides a well-reasoned defense of their positions, leaving the tasks to others. Think tanks and media outlets are left to make their positions seem coherent.

Contrast that with Reagan’s radio talks, spelling out and selling his policies. Clinton and Carter were policy wonks.

Continue reading →