Trump must stay the course on tariffs. They're ensuring fairness
By: Rick Santorum
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Donald Trump is wholly justified for taking on China's unfair trading schemes and economic imperialism. But like any war, it will not be pain-free.
In response to Trump's new 20% tariff on imports from China, the People's Republic has imposed retaliatory tariffs on American farm products, blacklisted 15 U.S. companies, and completely cut off lumber imports.
Businesses that import Chinese goods will pass those costs onto American consumers. Businesses that sell their products to China may have to lower their prices or find new buyers. And anyone with a 401(k) or stock portfolio is already feeling the sting of the stock market losses these actions have incurred.
These developments offer Democrats an obvious line of attack: "Republicans ran on 'Bidenflation,' then raised prices on American families. Vote them out and we'll kill the tariffs."
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered a bold response in a recent speech to the Economic Club of New York. "Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream," he said. "The American dream is rooted in the concept that any citizen can achieve prosperity, upward mobility, and economic security. For too long, the designers of multilateral trade deals have lost sight of this."
Bessent is correct. When Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush established free trade with China, there was hope that this would bring China into the market economy and away from militant communism. That did not happen, but the harm to American manufacturing and the communities it sustained turned out to be far worse than anyone suspected. The Democrats' response to this economic devastation was to charge the winners higher taxes and compensate the losers with government handouts.
A quarter century later, their plan has worked. According to the Economic Innovation Group, between 2000 and 2022, the share of U.S. counties that drew more than a quarter of household income from government programs rose from around 10% to over 50%. The brightest minds from these (mostly rural) counties increasingly flee to big cities, leaving their hometowns even worse off. "Deaths of despair" from alcohol, fentanyl, and suicide have skyrocketed.
Democrats love to gloat about how wealthy blue states and cities "subsidize" these Trump-voting "welfare queens." What they're less willing to admit is that these communities' dependence on government programs is a direct result of the neoliberal trade policy both parties pursued until Trump came along.
Rather than end the tariffs, which are sorely needed to reverse decades of wrongdoing, Trump is using traditional conservative tactics more boldly than any of his predecessors to tackle their possible inflationary effects.
Cutting agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development and the Department of Education, eliminating former President Joe Biden's counterproductive and misguided green energy policies, and ending the expansion of the welfare state that occurred under COVID-19 will lower the deficit, interest rates, and inflation, which all hurt middle America and make us weaker.
Rolling back regulations will also create jobs, spur economic growth, and make our companies more competitive. At the end of his first term, Trump boasted that he had cut eight regulations for every new one. This time around, he's going for a 10:1 ratio.
Reforming the permitting process for new oil, natural gas, and nuclear projects will drive down the cost of energy, which in turn will drive down the cost of just about everything. It will also reduce dependence on foreign energy, which is important when considering that Ontario Premier Doug Ford recently imposed a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to the U.S. in response to Trump's tariffs. Ford should never have had that leverage in the first place.
Trump's antitrust enforcers returning the U.S. to the consumer welfare standard — the Biden-revoked standard that ensures the federal government only blocks mergers and acquisitions that harm consumers — will also lower prices for American consumers while making it easier for U.S. companies to compete with China.
The Trump Department of Justice should start by ending the challenge to the Hewlett Packard Enterprise-Juniper merger, a deal that would create an American telecommunications giant capable of competing with state-subsidized Chinese juggernaut Huawei (which has 30% of the globe's telecom and 5G market share, far more than any U.S. company). Huawei's dominance is a problem because Congress and the Department of Defense have stated the company's tech has backdoors that can be exploited by the Chinese Communist Party. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Antitrust Division chief Gail Slater allowing more competition with Huawei would slow the expansion of Chinese soft power in the developing world, undercutting the country's quest for military dominance through 5G and tech dominance.
Congress and the administration will need to rebuild our industrial base and reorient the U.S. economy more toward production that creates family-sustaining jobs, an audacious goal that won't be possible without a little short-term disruption.
When the consumer confidence index dips and Republicans start getting spooked, they should remember that blue-collar Americans gave them a mandate to make their lives better. These people don't want cheap Chinese trinkets. They want good jobs, stable families, and thriving communities. It's time to give them what they voted for.
Tags
Who is online
35 visitors
“Our nation’s trade policy should be driving a race-to-the-top in terms of labor standards across North America, not forcing U.S. workers to compete with low-road Mexican companies that pay their workers pennies on the dollar in a race-to-the-bottom,”
Paying a lot more (taxes) for imported goods is fair?
It seems as though those who initiated tariffs long ago are now concerned about Americans paying more for their products.
Interesting.
Do you support Trump's tariffs? Do you buy his claim that this will bring manufacturing back to the USA and increase the wealth of the average citizen?
Do you support Trump damaging most every international relationship with his antagonistic threats and subsequent belligerent tariffs?
Do you think that Trump is doing the right thing to fulfill one of his primary campaign promises to lower prices?
Yes, I believe in trade parity.
Do you buy his claim that this will bring manufacturing back to the USA and increase the wealth of the average citizen?
That will take time. It took 70 years of unfair trading to deindustrialize the US.
Do you support Trump damaging most every international relationship with his antagonistic threats and subsequent belligerent tariffs?
Every nation strives to serve its own interest. The tariffs happen to be fair, and it is up to each nation to choose. It will be their choice to fight a trade war or end tariffs.
Do you think that Trump is doing the right thing to fulfill one of his primary campaign promises to lower prices?
I do. I know it runs counter to US trade policy since the end of WWII, but I think it is the change that is long overdue.
A trade deficit with a particular country is not necessarily bad. Trade is not supposed to be “balanced” with every single nation individually — that’s not how global economics works. Trump has a very simplistic understanding of this. He is a terrible source for guidance on trade.
What matters is aggregate trade. The desire is to be a net exporter overall or at least have strong domestic production and diversified sources for key imports. Trying to force balance with each nation is a confused Trump political soundbite, not a sensible strategy. Some countries are important for tech, others for clothing, raw materials, etc. — the value of a trading relationship is far more complex than a simplistic balance of imports vs exports.
Our focus should be making sure we are not overly dependent on any one country, especially for critical goods. That means building up domestic options and spreading out our trade partners so we have options.
Traditional, labor-intensive manufacturing is almost certainly NOT going to return in a significant way — what is more likely is advanced, high-tech manufacturing in certain strategic areas. Modern USA manufacturing will be highly automated with AI and robotics. Not a lot of human jobs. We need to use our current strengths and that means focusing on our intellectual and material resources to provide that which the planet needs most. I suggest renewable energy and energy technologies — solar, fusion, hydraulic, tidal, ...., and smart grids, battery tech, advanced materials, etc.
You dodged my question: "Do you support Trump damaging most every international relationship with his antagonistic threats and subsequent belligerent tariffs?"
How on earth can you possibly believe Trump "is doing the right thing to fulfill one of his primary campaign promises to lower prices" ??
Exactly. The United States, as far as manufacturing is concerned, is largely moving past the 'grunt work' of yesterday. Other nations are now better 'suited' to come up in the world through that phase of professional growth and development. Why? Because they can do it cheaper and have the excess labor/population numbers. After all, we can see in this country the amount of professional work that can be accomplished through other means, thus leaving entire buildings 'gutted' of daily personnel.
Of course, this can shine a light of explanation as to why conservatives now argue that "work from home" is a bad thing. Because it does not fit their narrative for compelling people to appear to be doing MORE when physically present. That is, the country seems to have ran as it should either way.
This is the problem this nation has with its share of citizens whom want to control every aspect (professional and social) in the lives of the people of this country! They simply are not accepting of reality, when facts move to take them at a faster clip. Its a big problem in the United States.
I don't understand why many leftists believe the US should be on the losing end of trade.
Almost as if they are rooting for the failure of this country.
Probably because that is not the case.
You apparently just buy what Trump is selling. A trade deficit with a nation is not necessarily 'the losing end of trade'. You seem to not understand that each trading partner situation is different. We have typically chosen to have trade deficits with certain nations because we want lower prices. The only time the concept of imbalance is relevant is in the aggregate. As a nation, we want to export more than we import. As a whole ... in total. We want nations to depend on us, we want nations to buy what we sell and grow our GDP in the worldwide market.
But this concept is totally wrong when applied to each individual nation. Especially when it is done in a belligerent fashion and thus causes unnecessary harm in international relationships, the US image, initiates trade wars, upsets the stock market, and raises domestic prices (ultimately lowering GDP).
From an article I just wrote:
Tariffs and Trade Imbalance
Finally, there is major confusion on the notion of trade imbalance. Trump keeps claiming that the USA is being ripped off whenever we import more than we export to a country. That is a false oversimplification. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a trade imbalance with an individual nation. If consumers have a high demand for something that cannot be appropriately supplied domestically it makes good sense to enable consumers to buy imports. It does indeed make sense for a nation like the USA to export more than it imports, but to deem a trade imbalance with a particular nation as them "ripping us off" is ridiculous.
The key problem with individual nations is not necessarily imbalance, but dependence. A smart PotUS would focus not on balance with each individual trade partner but rather dependence upon them for critical items. So it does not really matter that Canada is the largest supplier of crude to the USA, what matters is how dependent we are on them. And Canada is not a problem. China, however, is. We have a critical dependence on China for certain rare Earth elements (among other things). This is entirely unhealthy and our past presidents and congresses have let this problem fester.
Instead of chasing an ill-conceived notion that a nation is ripping us off we should instead focus on developing domestic and foreign sources so that we are critically dependent on as few nations as possible.
And because of our dependence on China and the time it would take for us to become sufficiently independent, poking them gratuitously is stupidly counterproductive.
Here, here!
Yep, exactly... What do you think the tariffs are for?
Why?
We, and that includes you, don't know what the ultimate results will be. Give the negotiations and tariffs time to work.
Al least Trump is trying to do something to balance trade and make the US less reliant on nations who have for so long have taken advantage of us.
Trump's Tariffs Shake the World: 50 Countries Already Fold as 'America First' Strategy Takes Hold
That is considered "crazy talk" by some of our friends on the left.
Okay. Swell. Now since TownHall.com did not mention it: Can you tell us which of the 50 countries will be willing and essential buying partners for our goods and products (at scale) made at higher costs than they can make similar products themselves?
Same old bullshit response: 'give it time'. Open your eyes and observe what is happening.
Spend some time understanding the history of tariffs. We have a wealth of information about tariffs and their economic impact. The negative consequences are no mystery. And damage has already been done.
So 'give it time' reflects a complete lack of understanding of what has taken place, the bad consequences already in effect, and the future bad consequences (higher prices, higher interest rates, lower earnings, lower GDP, and plenty of pain for the average consumer). It assumes that Trump is a global economic genius. The idiot who bankrupted his casinos, steak, vodka, etc. businesses is assumed to be smarter than everyone else and will make this brain-dead-stupid set of actions reverse the negatives and enrich the average US citizen. Good grief man, apply just a little critical thinking.
You are just parroting Trump bullshit. Trump does not know what he is doing.
Negotiations would have been the smart way to do this. Private negotiations can include threats of tariffs. And if all else fails, the tariffs can be threatened publicly and eventually applied. Public, belligerent tariffs (and threats of same) produce all sorts of unnecessary negative side effects. And in this case, Trump has already unnecessarily damaged international relationships, triggered global trade wars, and most recently caused trillions of dollars to be lost in the stock market: "Tariffs Cause Another Stock Market Rout—Losses Approach $5 Trillion As Dow Plummets Another 2,200 Points" --
What is it going to take for you to recognize the problem? When higher prices hit (inevitable) are you going to continue to make excuses for Trump?
The majority of your post was nothing more than "I hate Trump" diatribe that does not deserve a response, therefore I choose to not opine on it.
Are you of the opinion that prices actually go down?...
For the same reason you don't sell your current house until you have a new place to live.
Mmmmmm, so play it safe?... why?... if your relatively new neighbor is p.a. and/or a belligerent mofo, seems to me your better off standing your ground and letting them know FAFO.
Play it intelligently
Because it's both stupid and expensive not to.
You probably shouldn't set your own fucking house on fire in the process.
[✘]
Fairness? You call this fairness?
Canada wanted to 'cooperate' on illegal immigration. Trump chose tariffs
LINK -> Canada Wanted To 'Cooperate' On Illegal Immigration. Trump Chose Tariffs - Buzz Of The Orient | The NewsTalkers
I commend them for finally respecting American sovereignty and strengthening their border. Unfortunately, that isn't all that is involved in this. There is also the matter of 200 % tariffs on US dairy products and other trade barriers.
The good news is that Canada and the Trump administration are still discussing a trade deal.
There is a procedure for settling differences that did NOT require tariffs to be imposed that was drafted by Trump and agreed to by both Canada and Mexico called the USMCA.
Exactly. The biggest problem is Trump's belligerent style. There was no reason to damage relationships. No reason to insult our trading partners, no reason to troll Canada with this 51st state crap.
Trump unnecessarily caused damage to our relationships and had cost trillions of dollars to be lost in the market, created unnecessary trade wars and instead of reducing prices has taken actions that will trigger inflation.
How anyone can support these actions is truly mind-blowing.
My question/s:
Thank you, CB, for explaining the truth to those whose goal is to support Trump's erronious lies and malfeasance no matter how much damage it has done and will continue to do, even to their own selves..