Awareness | Debate | Action
Elevate your social consciousness and become the problem that forces change
Feeling liberated yet?
People of a certain age will remember Yosemite Sam chasing Bugs Bunny around with a shotgun, blasting holes in walls, ceilings, and windows while completely missing his target. It’s the perfect metaphor for Trump’s tariff policy announced this week.
Trump is acting as if tariffs were a form of warfare, and he’s “fighting back” against the countries that have “taken advantage of us.” This is how he’s behaving like Yosemite Sam with his blunderbuss, shooting everywhere and just making a mess while missing the target altogether.
He’s not only throwing wild tariffs on every country that trades with America (except Russia), but he also put a flat 10% tariff on every product imported into the United States (except from Russia).
Additionally, this sort of rhetoric — and making tariffs country-specific instead of product-specific — is what drives trade wars that also run the risk of increasing the danger of actual wars.
If Trump had any understanding of tariffs outside of his simplistic “you hurt us, we hurt you” worldview, he’d realize the best way to accomplish his stated goal of bringing manufacturing back to this country can be tariffs, but only when they are done carefully and selectively.
“Shooting” at countries instead of at products is not only hostile; it’s also generally counterproductive except, literally, during time of war.
Further demonstrating Trump‘s ignorance about the difference between business-based tariffs on products and war-based tariffs on countries, his commerce secretary, billionaire Howard Lutnick, is warning countries not to engage in reciprocal tariffs or trade restrictions.
The second solid criticism of Trump’s tariff plan is that only Congress has the legal power to impose them, and that’s a good thing.
No manufacturer is going to invest billions of dollars and years of construction to build a factory here in response to a tariff thrown up on the whim of a mercurial president; they want to know that that tariff will be there for decades so they can earn back their investment.
Which is why, outside of wartime, tariffs should be specific to products, not countries.
Our Department of Commerce specifies over 17,000 separate categories of products that tariffs can be attached to, and they’re often startlingly specific. Steel, for example, has 740 sub-categories ranging from rolled steel to ingots to hundreds of items as specific as “Semi-finished iron/nonalloy steel, ≥ 0.25% carbon, rectangular/square cross-section, width ≥ 4x thickness.”
Products that we make in America, or want to make here again, should be the targets of tariffs, not the countries that make them. And while there are thousands of product categories that are amenable to tariffs, there are also things it would be stupid to put tariffs on because we don’t make them here — and don’t plan to.
For example, we don’t grow coffee in the US, but they do in Mexico; that’s why we imported 65.5 million kilograms of unroasted beans from that country in 2022. Slapping a tariff on all Mexican goods will sweep up coffee, which will only succeed in driving up inflation here, as the cost of the tariff is added to every cup in every kitchen and restaurant across America.
Bringing back manufacturing also a really good thing to do, because it’s historically been one of the most important ways that workers can find entrée into the middle class without a college education.
Sadly, though, Trump may be doing more damage than good to the cause of the middle class with his bizarre country-based tariff policy.
Trump is able to do his uninformed tariff song-and-dance because there’s a loophole in our tariff laws that allows the president — during a time of national emergency — to impose emergency tariffs. It makes sense that the president should have that flexibility in the event of another Republican Great Depression or World War III, but that isn’t what’s happening today.
Trump declared a state of emergency at the beginning of his administration specifically so he could put his tariffs into place — which means the next president can simply reverse them. Again, no CEO in her right mind is going to invest billions based on that level of uncertainty.
At least four Republican senators get this; Tuesday night, Trump did one of his signature weird 1 am screeds on his Nazi-infested social media platform, calling out Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski by name because they’re supporting a Democratic effort to end the state of emergency so Congress can reclaim its trade authority. They voted with Democrats last night and the resolution passed; it goes to the House now, where Mike Johnson will probably kill it.
If Trump had any understanding of tariffs outside of his simplistic “you hurt us, we hurt you” worldview, he’d realize the best way to accomplish his stated goal of bringing manufacturing back to this country can be tariffs, but only when they are done carefully and selectively.
But, no; understanding anything other than how to cheat on golf and your taxes, screw vendors, stiff workers, and sexually assault women is beyond his limited abilities. And, of course, running companies into bankruptcy and being bailed out by Russians. Repeatedly.
When Congress imposes tariffs there’s a far better chance they’ll stay in place long enough to assure American companies it’s worth building new factories. Instead of imposing his tariffs by fiat, Trump should have put them into the form of a proposed bill that he’d then submit to Congress.
Sadly, he’s not that smart or well-informed about history, and apparently neither are his advisors.
So, here we are with actions taken that may throw the entire world into recession, or possibly even a second Republican Great Depression.
That said, there’s also a huge risk to any Democrats who might want to play Yosemite Sam themselves, blasting away at Trump’s tariffs and missing the nuance — and the multiple truths — that make up today’s trade situation.
The simple reality is that tariffs do work to protect domestic manufacturing; they have since the founding of our republic, and are used today by every country in the world (including the US) for that purpose. (There’s a great explainer of all this, including the American history with tariffs going back to George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, here.)
And, when Reagan embraced neoliberal cuts in tariffs, negotiating the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1986 — which led to the WTO and NAFTA (also negotiated by Reagan and Bush respectively) — those two Republican presidents began the long slide of American manufacturing.
As the union guy who spoke at Trump’s event yesterday noted, anybody over 50 can remember when everything in Walmart — and pretty much everywhere else, including the cars on the dealership lots — was made in America.
Hell, Sam Walton started Walmart with the slogan “100% Made in the USA” which is also the title of his autobiography; it was only when those tariffs collapsed as a result of Clinton signing off on Reagan’s/Bush’s NAFTA and the WTO that Walton’s stores began to import from cheap-labor countries and stopped stocking American-made products.
Because of this simple reality, Democrats who simply fall back on the old neoliberal talking points that tariffs are sales taxes and that countries that trade with each other are less likely to go to war with each other (the original explicit neoliberal rationale for tariff-free trade) are risking political suicide.
It’s hard to make political arguments that use nuance, but in this case, Democrats really don’t have a choice. Having grown up in the Midwest (Michigan) I can tell you that most anybody who hails from a former manufacturing region is cheering Trump on right now.
Regardless of party.
And today’s Democrats haven’t been all that hostile to tariffs: Not only did President Biden keep Trump’s tariffs from his first term in place, he added additional tariffs of his own (although almost nobody knows it).
Biden increased tariffs on steel and aluminum products from 7.5% to 25% in 2024; his tariffs on semiconductors will rise to 50% by the end of this year; Democratic tariffs on some electric vehicles (EVs) hit 100% last year; Biden’s tariffs on lithium-ion EV batteries and magnets for EV motors will go up by 25% by 2026. After the Covid crisis, the Biden administration even put a 50% tariff on syringes and needles to jump-start domestic production, and personal protective equipment (PPE) tariffs went up 25%.
(Notice that none of those are tariffs on countries, just on products. The only country-specific tariffs Biden approved were against Russia, in response to their invading Ukraine, as a form of economic warfare.)
Opposing tariffs just because Trump loves them, in other words, isn’t just ineffective politics; it doesn’t even conform to Biden’s new Democratic trade policy.
So, here’s how modern Democrats need to talk about this situation. It’s not only good political messaging; it’s also good trade policy, as I lay out in my book The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America.
First, Democrats need to answer the question, “Why tariffs, particularly if they act as taxes on imported goods?”
That answer is easy; it’s an accurate explanation of what Trump is totally garbling: Tariffs encourage manufacturers to produce their products here in the USA instead of in cheap labor or high pollution countries.
But the “how to do it” is the critical part.
Democrats, in other words, need to differentiate between “smart tariffs” and “stupid” or “wartime tariffs,” advocating the former while ridiculing the latter.
“Put tariffs on products, not on countries” would be a great start, for example.
Our dim-witted president is being called out on his shoot-from-the-hip tariff policy from both left and right. The country is confused, and needs to understand what is going on and how it will impact their future.
Democrats must therefore take a clear position in favor of smart, targeted tariffs — on individual products rather than countries — like Biden did.
And then they must point out that Trump’s obsession with slapping punitive tariffs on countries (except on Russian products) stupidly risks utterly crashing our economy — and possibly even the world’s economy — while starting a trade war that nobody will win.
And, tragically, it’s all being done not for any good reason, but just because Trump is not that bright.
Dear Columbia University Acting President Claire Shipman, School of International and Public Affairs Dean Keren Yarhi-Milo, Columbia University Trustees, SIPA Administrators, and SIPA Program Heads:
I am writing to you on my own behalf, as an individual alumna of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA).
It has been 27 days, and SIPA has not meaningfully spoken up for Mahmoud Khalil.
On Saturday, March 29—SIPA Alumni Day 2025—rather than celebrating the school and our association with it, a number of SIPA alumni including myself held a press conference and protest at 1:00 pm outside the Columbia gates at 116th St. and Amsterdam Avenue. We condemned SIPA's collusion with the Trump administration (including ICE and DHS) and the NYPD, and the school's failure to act against the Israeli-U.S. genocide of the Palestinian people by:
As you are no doubt aware, the protest was extensively covered by local, regional, national, and international press outlets, including Democracy Now!, The Guardian, ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Post, Daily News, Fox News, AJ+ (Al Jazeera Plus), The Palestine Chronicle, Middle East Eye, and many more.
Among the many points that were made at the press conference, we alumni made clear that the false conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and the false conflation of Judaism and Zionism by Columbia University, are, in fact, cynical antisemitic ploys that put Jews and all people in danger.
Acting President Shipman: In your first message to the Columbia University community, you wrote, "...to our alumni community, I want to emphasize how important you are to the strength of our institution. Your engagement is critical, and I look forward to your partnership."
However, past statements that you, Ms. Shipman, have made as co-chair of the Board of Trustees do not suggest that common ground can be found. Are you interested in taking rapid steps to change course by:
If so, perhaps the large and rapidly increasing number of alumni who are deeply alienated by the university would believe common ground might be found.
Speaking for myself, I have no optimism on any of these scores. I believe Columbia has become, in the words of Professor Rashid Khalidi in an article for The Guardian on March 25, "Vichy on the Hudson." I believe it has damaged its reputation beyond repair. Far more than capitulating to American fascism, I believe Columbia is collaborating with it, colluding with it, and emboldening it, thereby putting at risk not just countless other institutions of higher learning across the country, but our society, global humanitarian values, and the lives of the Palestinian people as well.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Scarlott, SIPA MIA '86 (renounced degree)
It’s the Donald Double Whammy.
Grocery price are not “coming down fast,” as U.S. President Donald Trump promised. And Trump’s tariffs are about to boost the price of everything we buy that’s imported—from cars to gasoline to clothing to shoes to computers, cellphones, toys and, yes, groceries, too. America imports one-fifth of our food from abroad, and tariffs will make fruits and vegetables more costly.
Two of the false promises Trump made during the election will be haunting us.
Trump did not tell inflation-afflicted voters before November that a vote for Trump was a vote for more pain.
First, he pledged to fix inflation. The economy was issue number one for most voters, and Trump attributed his victory to Americans’ anger over food prices. He promised “inflation will vanish completely,” and vowed “prices will come down... and they’ll come down fast... with everything.”
“When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One.” Right up to election day, Trump assured us, “A vote for Trump means your groceries will be cheaper.”
Trump never revealed his plan for dealing with inflation because he had no plan. And after the election, he admitted prices were not going to come down. “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up,” he acknowledged a few weeks later. “Very hard.”
By January, Trump confirmed that inflation was not his No. 1 issue, and by Inauguration Day, he ceased talking about it at all. Prices did not start coming down on Day One, and still haven’t on Day 75. They won’t because of his second false claim.
Trump promised that the tariffs he imposed would be paid by other countries, not by American consumers: “It’s not going to be a cost to you, it’s going to be a cost to another country.”
“I am going to put tariffs on other countries’ [goods] coming into our country and that has nothing to do with taxes to us.”
Trump knew this was wrong. As the right-leaning Tax Foundation explained, a tariff is simply “a tax on people who buy things from foreign businesses.” The conservative Cato Institute reports “overwhelming evidence that Americans bore the brunt” of Trump’s first-term tariffs and will do so again.
And now, finally, Trump admits it himself. When confronted with the fact that his 25% tariff on autos and auto parts will cause prices to surge, Trump did not dispute that tariff costs would rest on the backs of American consumers. Instead, he cheered!
“I couldn’t care less,” said Trump. “I hope they raise their prices, because if they do, people are going to buy American-made cars.”
Trump understands perfectly well that tariffs are not “a cost to another country.” He no longer says, “It’s not going to be a cost to you.” Now he says Americans will feel “some pain,” but that it’s a good thing.
Trump did not tell inflation-afflicted voters before November that a vote for Trump was a vote for more pain.
Can Trump’s tariffs increase manufacturing in the United States by forcing us to buy American-made cars? Economists are dubious. To begin, there aren’t any 100% “American-made cars.” “Almost 60% of the parts used in vehicles that are assembled in the country” are imported.
Auto manufacturers created a system based on free trade among the U.S., Mexico, and Canada in which parts made in any of the three countries may freely move among the others. Then cars assembled in one country may be sold into another.
Half of the parts in a “made-in-the-USA” Cadillac are manufactured in Mexico. Thirty percent of the parts in an Acura assembled in Mexico come from the U.S. or Canada.
Trump claims the trade agreement underlying this system is “unfair” and that Mexico and Canada “took advantage of the United States.” “Who would ever sign a thing like this?” Trump recently asked.
Donald Trump, actually. The U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) was negotiated and signed by Trump on November 30, 2018. Then, he hailed USMCA as “a colossal victory for our farmers, ranchers, energy workers, factory workers, and American workers in all 50 states.”
“An especially big win for American auto workers,” Trump bragged. “The USMCA is the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law.”
Back then it was “incredible,” “the best agreement we’ve ever made.” Now it’s a target for Trump’s irrational tariff mania. What will come of tariffs on everything we buy from abroad? Unemployment, as cars and other goods become more expensive and demand plummets. More unemployment as other countries retaliate with tariffs that bar American exports. And more inflation, with China, Canada, and Mexico tariffs alone costing the typical household $1,600 to $2,000 a year.
Trump has moved on from his false promises. And American families are left to bear the costs.
In his Rose Garden announcement of sweeping new "reciprocal tariffs," President Donald Trump held aloft a misleading chart that claimed to give a breakdown of the tariffs other countries charge the U.S. and the corresponding tariff that the U.S. will now impose against those countries.
The post Trump’s Misleading Tariff Chart appeared first on FactCheck.org.
President Donald Trump said in a March 30 interview that "there are methods" for him to serve a third term in the White House, and a Daily Mail article referred to a "loophole" in the 22nd Amendment that would make it possible. But legal experts told us the "loophole" legal argument is "implausible" and "defeats the clear intent" of the amendment.
The post Legal Scholars Dispute Constitutional ‘Loophole’ for a Third Trump Term appeared first on FactCheck.org.
Misinformation is nothing new. It has, however, become ubiquitous and, in some cases, more difficult and time-consuming than ever to debunk. Here's our advice on how to identify bogus posts and factual distortions.
The post How to Combat Misinformation appeared first on FactCheck.org.
Are you interested in how you impact the rest of the world, or how others impact the world thereby affecting you? Do you want to do something to improve things? ... About Us
Objective journalism on the struggles of democracy in a socially stratified society.
Added by Cromag 0 Comments 0 Likes
Added by Cromag 0 Comments 0 Likes
Added by Cromag 0 Comments 0 Likes
For people with COPD, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and Asthma, Chemically Scented Products can be a major Disability Barrier. Just a quick surf on the internet shows how many people are unable to…Continue
Started by Melva Smith in Sample Title Aug 9, 2011.
Dear Fellow Activists. What do you all think about a scent-free Olympics? If you or someone you know finds scented products to be a disability barrier, you might be interested in knowing that there…Continue
Tags: COPD, Sensitivity, Allergy, Sports, barriers
Started by Melva Smith in Sample Title Jun 21, 2011.
I've been active now in a concerted way for many years, and I've worked on a number of causes and with many different people. Most of these relationships have been very positive. Activists are…Continue
Tags: organizing, activism, Ethics
Started by Cromag in Uncategorized. Last reply by Ice Goldberg Oct 21, 2009.
Posted by Cromag on December 22, 2016 at 9:08pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
A new movement is working to protect our environment through the recognition of its fundamental rights. It’s an idea whose time has come.
By Mari Margil from December 20, 2016, 4:39 pm – 8 MIN READ… ContinuePosted by Cromag on December 4, 2016 at 1:00pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
The plastic and paper bag law is ostensibly environmental legislation in hopes that a small fee will diminish the environmental impact of single-use merchant bags. It was possible to have the fee go into an environmental fund to help with diminishing the impact, but that was voted down by CA Prop 65. The resulting declining of Prop 65 is essentially saying that we cannot force the…
Posted by Cromag on May 22, 2016 at 9:55am 0 Comments 0 Likes
via Independent Science News | by Jonathan Latham, PhD
Piecemeal, and at long last, chemical manufacturers have begun removing the endocrine-disrupting plastic…
Posted by Cromag on March 15, 2015 at 12:30pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
Just because food is labeled organic doesn't mean it's what you're expecting, journalist Peter Laufer tells Salon
by Lindsay Abrams
Published Saturday, Jul 19, 2014 11:00 AM PST…
ContinuePosted by Cromag on October 23, 2014 at 2:51pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
... "So what would a radically different law-driven consciousness look like?” The question was posed over three decades ago by a University of Southern California law professor as his lecture drew to a close. “One in which Nature had rights,” he continued. “Yes, rivers, lakes, trees. . . . How could such a posture in law affect a community’s view of…
Posted by Cromag on October 15, 2014 at 12:30pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
(TEDGlobal 2014 transcript)
Why privacy matters
Glenn Greenwald was one of the first reporters to see — and write about — the Edward Snowden files, with their revelations about the United States' extensive surveillance of private citizens. In…
Posted by Cromag on March 4, 2014 at 1:00pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
By Chris Hedges March 2nd, 2014
OXFORD, England—The morning after my Feb. 20 debate at the Oxford Union, I walked from my hotel along Oxford’s narrow cobblestone streets, past its storied colleges with resplendent lawns and…
ContinuePosted by Cromag on February 28, 2014 at 3:24pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
Posted by Cromag on February 22, 2014 at 6:00pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
Reactions to Anatomy of a Deep State from the Bill Moyers Show
February 2014 - Credit: Dale Robbins
The notion of the “Deep State” as outlined by…
ContinuePosted by Cromag on January 27, 2014 at 8:00am 0 Comments 0 Likes
A specter is haunting the French humanist mind these days--a radical ecology movement that threatens to replace the idealization of humanity with an idealization of nature. Already we see "the passing of the humanist era," writes Luc Ferry, a philosopher at the Sorbonne and the University of Caen, in this prize-winning critique of that movement, a book all environmentalists ought to read. It…
1 member
1 member
2 members
|
© 2025 Created by Cromag.
Powered by
