As I write this, Vice President Kamala Harris has successfully dodged any open questions on her policies and plans for being president. Her one very short, edited and prepared joint “interview” with her vice-presidential candidate revealed really one important statement: “My values haven’t changed.”
Which means these summer flip-flops and back flips are suspiciously like politicians pandering—or covering real positions—to fool voters to win an election. We’ve got to think her far left supporters, on issues like “climate change,” open borders, crime lenience, spending and government solutions to problems and perceived problems, are counting on her allegiance to long-term positions. Behind the curtain, we assume she’s winking at them while posing for the public.
The debate between former President Donald Trump and Harris hasn’t happened as I write. We’ll see how a week of debate prep will substitute for teleprompters and if Trump can exhibit patience and hammer policies.
Congress is back at “work” and the big focus is on the usual game of chicken for the slackers who never get their homework done on time. They haven’t passed the 12 spending bills their job entails. So, a continuing resolution (CR) at current levels is likely. The Republicans are going for a slimmed down package, a CR extending until the end of March—for a new Congress to deal with—and inclusion of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act attached to the bill. The threat of a (partial) government shutdown is the incentive.
The Democrats are going for a CR expiring in November or December, so they can cram more spending in during the lame duck session. They are gunning for an almost-Christmas omnibus monster bill. Their strategy is to load a gargantuan sleigh full of spending with the threat of Christmas Eve in D.C. instead of home for the holidays. The omnibus bills popularized by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are a key reason for today’s $35 trillion in debt. And too many Republicans have been complicit in the spending crimes.
The SAVE Act would require some form of “documentary” proof of citizenship to register to vote in a federal election. The Democrats are labeling the bill as unnecessary because the law already says one has to be a citizen to vote. They’re hoping you won’t notice that saying you are a citizen on a form and having to actually provide proof of citizenship are two different things. Many states don’t require written proof. Of course, Democrats already have some backup, as some states have been handing out driver’s licenses to anyone who can see over the steering wheel.
At present, the farm bill is not expected to be in the government funding bill. That could present some difficulties with authority for some provisions expiring on Sept. 30.
Unfortunately, misleading is a primary activity in politics. Trump’s reciprocal trade musings have been trumpeted by his opposition as a 10% tax on everything and “raising taxes” on the middle class.
What he and his advisors have discussed is not tariffs on goods from countries we have a free-trade agreement with. Tariffs could be put on countries who set tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers or restricted access to their markets for our goods. As Trump mostly used them—tools to get concessions and access—they should be short-term or threats, to negotiate fair access both directions.
But John Carney of the Breitbart Business Digest shared some information based on Trump tariff data that put a new light on tariffs in the modern world. The forces of competition on prices and the imperative for countries to export into the large, rich American market puts downward pressure on prices to our consumers. Importers absorb some of the cost of tariffs but in turn, there is pressure on input costs for the exporter because it is competition and what consumers will pay (demand) that sets prices.
The particulars regarding an industry can differ and affect how a tariff affects consumer prices. A domestic industry with a near-monopolistic dominant or very few players can raise prices if a protective tariff is enacted. But if the industry is competitive and tariffs like Trump’s are placed on goods from a state-run, state-subsidized system like China, the tariff tends to even the playing field. Prices on durable goods during Trump’s term increased 1.4%, with all tariffs costing a family $100/family/year. — Steve Dittmer, WLJ columnist
(Steve Dittmer is the author of the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation newsletter. Views in the column do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of WLJ or its editorial staff.)
