trump

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 →

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 →