trump

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 →

Trumpland

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

President Trump has loudly demanded ownership of Greenland as a matter of crucial national defence. Highlighting Greenland’s role in Arctic trade routes and national defense, he drew a dire picture.

Our U.N. ambassador, Mike Waltz, made the administration’s case on several TV shows by claiming that, in the event of problems in the Arctic, the Island doesn’t even have an icebreaker—no wonder they need us.

To understand the situation, we need to know why the Arctic is becoming so important. This map should help:

With warming temperatures, two significant new trade routes are emerging. The Northern Sea Route, which mainly runs through Russian waters, and the Northwest Passage, which runs by Greenland, Canada, and the U.S. (Alaska). As I pointed out in my post, “What’s Trump Thinking,” The Former is of the utmost importance to China. A shorter route to Europe, accessible to Russian resources, is the future. That’s why China isn’t about to allow Russia to change alliances without a painful response.

The search for a Northwest Passage dates back centuries, driven by obvious commercial advantages. Now it’s happening. As with any critical trade route, it needs protection. It’s still the Arctic, so commercial and military vessels will need icebreaker support. As NATO allies, Denmark, Canada, and the U.S. should have no problem establishing bases and patrols as required.

Of course, Ambassador Waltz is correct in highlighting the need for Icebreakers. Still, you can’t look to the U.S. We have two or three ancient icebreakers that may or may not be available in a time of need. We’ve ordered a couple from Finland, hopefully for delivery in 2028. Presently, the Northwest Passage depends on Canada’s 18 capable ships, with even more modern ones on the way. With the increasing importance of icebreakers, note that Denmark has more than the U.S.:

With the safety of the Northwest Passage more dependent on Canada than the U.S., let’s look at Trump’s other military arguments for U.S. ownership of Greenland. We need the Island for the Golden Dome defence system, but that’s just an upgrade to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which includes bases across the frozen north of the U.S., Canada, and Greenland.

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 →

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 →

Hopes Dashed in ’25

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

A year ago, I was still befuddled by the Democrats having secured the Republican Presidential nomination for the weakest candidate, Donald Trump, by burying him in bogus lawsuits. That made him a sympathetic figure to many and sucking all the media attention away from his competition. Democrats nominated the only person who could manage to lose big. While pondering this turn of events, I had to come to terms with the fact that Trump was back.

As I pointed out at the time, the outlook could be very positive. After all, Trump’s first term employed supply-side economics to cut taxes on capital and work to reduce onerous regulations. These actions have led to solid pre-COVID growth. Increasing supply is the best way to tackle the high inflation engendered by the Biden administration’s heavy spending. A government-directed economy was shoveling vast sums into the fight against “climate change.” Covid relief swallowed more billions.

Daming the river of wild spending to reduce demand growth, while pumping up supply, worked for Reagan in subduing double-digit inflation and promised to work for Trump. Sure, Trump had added some things to his campaign, such as no tax on tips, overtime, and Social Security, which are not supply-side, but on balance, things looked to be improving on the economic front.

After Trump’s peaceful first term, the war in Ukraine and in the Middle East raged under Biden after his disastrous Afghan withdrawal. In the campaign, Trump promised to bring peace quickly to both areas.

Millions of illegal aliens streamed across our southern border, with the Biden administration just throwing up its hands. Americans know they need immigrants, but not in this way. Trump promised to get control of the border.

The Trump Administration has taken action in all three areas, but it’s unpopular:

The question is why? While other essential problem areas, such as education and healthcare, exist, these three are most directly under the president’s control. The states dominate education, and neither party has a handle on reasonably priced healthcare.

While Trump, in his first term, imposed tariffs on a few products, such as steel and aluminum, and forced a revision of the NAFTA trade treaty with Canada and Mexico, the administration granted many tariff exemptions, and the new treaty had only minor changes. This time around, Trump has wielded tariffs like a club, hitting everyone in the room.

One thing we know about tariffs is that they don’t lower prices—quite the opposite. Claiming crisis conditions and national security, Trump last spring imposed the highest tariffs on imports since the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs—coffee from Brazil and chocolates from Switzerland were deemed existential threats.

Continue reading →