Making News: Major New Trade & Antitrust Article Now On-Line…& 3 Podcasts!

Tags

American Affairs, antitrust, Breitbart News Tonight, China, competition, i24News, Making News, monopoly, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war

I’m pleased to announce the publication of a major freelance article tying together two so-far generally separate areas of American economic policy.  Featured in the Summer issue of American Affairs, it makes the case for using trade policy to reduce the levels of foreign competition faced by U.S. businesses and workers, and using more vigorous antitrust policy to replace them with higher levels of domestic competition.  Here’s the link.

In addition, the podcast of three China trade war broadcast media interviews from last Tuesday night are now on-line.  Click here for the link to the relevant segment on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show; here for the link to my interview on Breitbart News Tonight (you need to scroll pretty far down before seeing my name); and here for my appearance on Israel’s i24News television network.

For the latter, two more steps are necessary – click on “Download” to receive an mp4 file that you can then open up.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Advertisements

Making News: Updating the China Trade War on Israeli TV and U.S. National Radio

Tags

China, Gordon G. Chang, i24News, Making News, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to be interviewed on two broadcast news programs tonight for analysis of the current state of the U.S.-China trade war, and especially the implications of China’s latest retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports.

At 8 PM EST, I’m slated to appear on the i24News network.  This Israeli television company requires a paid subscription for live on-line viewing, but you can register for a free trial subscription that will enable you to watch tonight at least at this link.  Luckily, I believe that I’ll be able to post a link to a streaming video of the segment by sometime tomorrow.

Then at 9:45 PM EST, you should be able to catch me back on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show to go over the same ground with John, and co-host Gordon G. Chang.  You can listen live on-line at this link, and as usual, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Making News: Latest National Radio Interview on China Trade Wars Now On-Line…& More!

Tags

China, globalists, Gordon G. Chang, IndustryToday.com, Making News, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade wars, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show on the U.S.-China trade conflict.  Click here for a fast-moving discussion of the fast-moving trade war, and where it could be headed, with John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and me.

Also, it was great to see IndustryToday.com re-publish my May 7 post on evidence – from the horse’s mouth – of the America Last priorities too often held by globalist pre-Trump U.S. trade negotiators.  Here’s the link.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Making News: National Radio China Trade Wars Interview Now On-Line…& More!

Tags

China, Gordon G. Chang, i24News, tariffs, Thaddeus McCotter, The Atlantic, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show providing an update on President Trump’s threatened tariff hikes and their possible impact on the U.S.-China trade conflict.  Click here for an illuminating discussion with John, me, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and former Michigan Republican Congressman Thaddeus McCotter.

Also, it was especially great to receive from i24News a link to the video of last night’s China trade interview on that Israeli television network.  Click on it, and you should be able to access the segment via the download button and then opening it up.

Finally, a useful analysis of the trade conflict appearing in an Atlantic post today featured a recent RealityChek explanation of why it’s so unlikely that the negotiators can reach a deal that serves U.S. interests.  Click here to read it.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming (and recent!) media appearances and other developments.

Making News: On National Radio Tonight to Update the China Trade Talks…& More!

Tags

Breitbart.com, China, Gordon G. Chang, IndustryToday.com, Making News, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return to John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show tonight to help John and co-host Gordon G. Chang provide an update on the fast-moving U.S.-China trade talks.  The segment is slated to start at 9 PM EST and you can listen live on-line at this link.

In addition, it was great to see my April 28 RealityChek post on encouraging new U.S. trade figures and what they say about President Trump’s tariff-centered policies re-published at IndustryToday.com.  Click here to read it.

Further, I’ve been quoted twice recently at Breitbart.com – first, in an April 10 piece on (dubious) reports of a U.S.-China agreement on enforcing a trade deal, and second, in an April 22 article on some Trump economic appointees who haven’t seemed to have gotten the America First message.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Signs That No Tariffs-Led Inflation is the New Norm

Tags

aluminum, Bureau of Labor Statistics, China, consumer price inflation, inflation, metals tariffs, steel, tariffs, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

With inflation in the United States still running below the Federal Reserve’s target lately, it’s been difficult enough for tariff fear-mongers to claim that President Trump’s levies on metals and on many Chinese-made goods are setting prices throughout the economy – or even in directly affected sectors – on fire. Yesterday, with a new month’s worth of consumer price data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it’s become practically hopeless.

In fact, the big takeaway is that these March data closely resemble February’s. The only significant evidence of steel and aluminum tariffs-led inflation is found in canned fruits and vegetables – where it’s far from airtight – and in large household appliances, which include large laundry machines which have faced their own additional set of tariffs since early 2018. When it comes to products impacted notably by the China tariffs, the price changes are once more all over the board – which strongly indicates that the tariffs themselves haven’t been in the inflation driver’s seat.

As usual, the first table in these monthly consumer inflation analyses presents the price changes for metals-using products. They deserve pride of place for now because they’ve been in effect for more than a year, and because it’s easy to identify metals-using products.

Before zeroing in on the canned stuff, it’s worth mentioning that I found one more data point yesterday morning – inflation numbers for laundry equipment specifically. Some of these products could be the machines used by commercial cleaning operations as opposed to households, but they do sharpen the picture some. In addition, keep in mind that, since so many of the products affected by the metals and China tariffs are food products, the “core inflation” control group figures I’m using measure price changes minus energy – as opposed to the most widely use core data, which strip out both food and energy.

But back to the steel- and aluminum-related figures: Here they are for the February-March, 2019 period (the latest monthly numbers), and for last April to the present (the stretch during which the metals tariffs have been in place), as well as the year-on-year numbers for last April and this March (which provide some indication of trends over time). As usual, the results for tariffs-affected products (e.g., canned foods) are presented along with those of control goods (e.g., non-canned foods) to glean further insights into the tariffs’ effects.

                                 Feb.-March      Since April      y/y April            y/y March

core inflation:        +0.17 percent   +1.93 percent   +2.01 percent   +2.05 percent

fresh fruits             +1.56 percent   +3.55 percent    -0.43 percent   +4.25 percent

& vegs:

fresh fruits:            +1.21 percent   +0.65 percent   +1.38 percent   +1.37 percent

fresh vegetables:    +1.97 percent   +6.98 percent   -2.50 percent   +7.66 percent

processed fruits      +1.57 percent   +1.68 percent   -0.44 percent   +2.72 percent

& vegs:

canned fruits          +1.74 percent    +5.20 percent   -0.14 percent   +6.01 percent

& vegs:

canned fruits:         +3.02 percent    +4.99 percent   -1.60 percent   +8.60 percent

canned vegs:          +1.26 percent    +4.63 percent  +1.00 percent   +5.04 percent

soups:                     -1.33 percent     -0.16 percent    -0.38 percent   +0.54 percent

malt beverages       -0.62 percent    +1.77 percent   +0.84 percent   +1.84 percent

at home:

alcoholic                +0.20 percent    +1.34 percent   +2.17 percent   +1.46 percent

beverages away:

non-frozen, non-    -0.15 percent    +3.30 percent    -0.52 percent    +3.03 percent

-carbonated non-

alcoholic drinks:

carbonated drinks: +0.69 percent    +5.44 percent   +0.04 percent    +5.44 percent

juices & non-         +0.02 percent    +4.17 percent    -0.26 percent    +4.01 percent

alcoholic drinks:

new cars/trucks:    +0.46 percent     +1.13 percent    -1.61 percent    +0.74 percent

motor vehicle        +0.25 percent     +2.08 percent    -0.74 percent    +1.79 percent

parts:

appliances:             -0.76 percent     +2.80 percent   +0.27 percent    +4.83 percent

major appliances:   -2.02 percent     +4.59 percent   +1.55 percent    +8.80 percent

laundry                   -1.02 percent    +0.65 percent  +10.00 percent    +2.80 percent

equipment:

non-electric            -0.76 percent      -0.59 percent    -1.45 percent     -1.56 percent

cookware & tableware:

tools, hardware,     -0.63 percent      +0.86 percent   +0.19 percent    +1.22 percent

outdoor equipment:

The various fruits and vegetables results make a reasonable case that companies in those sectors have been able to pass along some hefty price increases for canned products to consumers. Specifically, except for the April year-on-year changes, all of the figures for canned fruits and canned vegetables show considerably faster price increases than for fresh fruits and vegetables, and even for their processed counterparts (some of which go into frozen or jarred, not canned, products).

It’s true that fresh produce prices as a whole have generally been rising much faster than core prices. But in their canned form, their prices take another big jump up – strongly indicating that something about the canning matters greatly. Moreover, even though the inflation rate in fresh vegetables is leaving in the dust that for fresh fruits, the canning effect is very apparent for fruits as well, especially over time.

It’s also true that the canning effect is much less pronounced for other food groups – like soups and beverages. But here the data is less definitive, largely because these inflation figures also include products sold in forms other than metal cans. And as observed in previous posts, the markets for these products tend to differ significantly as well – which inevitably impacts pricing power.

Yet this March, a generalized “metals-effect” argument once more falls apart upon examining the price trends in non-food products, whether for motor vehicles and their parts; household cookware and tableware; and tools, hardware, and outdoor equipment. Obviously other developments, and perhaps many other developments are playing bigger roles.

The glaring exception is in those double-tariffed laundry machines. Even here, however, that new laundry equipment category I just found reveals major year-on-year price deceleration between last April (ten percent) and this March (2.80 percent). And the March monthly prices were weak across the board in appliances.

The China tariffs continue to present an even more complicated picture for at least three reasons. First, for the following consumer products, last October was the first full month they were in effect. Second, the goods on the U.S. Trade Representative’s list for those levies are categorized using the different classification system than that used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to gauge prices. As a result, the match-ups are far from exact. And third, the China-specific price effects for different products can be differ dramatically – according to the scale of the Chinese presence in a particular product market.

Nonetheless, here’s the China data for February-March, since last October, and for October and March year-on-year.

                                   Feb.-March         Since Oct.        Oct. y/y           March y/y

core inflation:          +0.17 percent    +0.99 percent   +2.02 percent    +2.05 percent

food:                        +0.28 percent    +1.45 percent   +1.21 percent   +2.12 percent

frozen/freeze-          +1.18 percent     -0.72 percent    -0.46 percent    -0.59 percent

dried prepared  foods:

fish/seafood:             -1.04 percent     +0.79 percent   +2.82 percent  +2.70 percent

processed fish/          -0.51 percent     +0.40 percent   +1.46 percent  +2.76 percent

seafood:

frozen fish/seafood:  -0.46 percent    +0.78 percent    -0.15 percent   +3.29 percent

fruits/vegs:                +1.57 percent    +3.43 percent    -0.32 percent   +3.91 percent

fresh fruits/               +1.56 percent    +3.71 percent    -0.38 percent   +4.25 percent

vegetables:

fresh fruits:               +1.21 percent    +2.51 percent    -1.40 percent   +1.37 percent

fresh vegs:                +1.97 percent    +5.07 percent   +0.81 percent   +7.66 percent

processed                  +1.57 percent    +2.37 percent    -0.06 percent   +2.72 percent

fruits/vegs:

frozen fruits/vegs:    +0.76 percent   +0.25 percent     -2.72 percent   -1.26 percent

non-carbonated/        -0.15 percent   +1.91 percent     +1.23 percent  +3.03 percent

non-frozen juices/drinks:

personal care             -0.27 percent   +0.64 percent     +1.52 percent  +1.25 percent

products:

household                  -0.04 percent   +0.74 percent    +0.69 percent   +1.46 percent

furnishings:

recreation goods:       -0.74 percent   -1.55 percent     -3.51 percent    -7.28 percent

men’s sportswear:      -1.04 percent   -2.54 percent    +1.47 percent   +1.98 percent

women’s                   +2.90 percent   +0.35 percent     -5.08 percent   -1.55 percent

sportswear:

computers,               +0.54 percent    -1.17 percent     -4.09 percent   -3.30 percent

peripherals, etc.:

window/floor           +0.44 percent    -1.96 percent    +0.74 percent   -1.83 percent

coverings:

furniture &              +0.17 percent    +1.38 percent    +1.26 percent   +3.27 percent

bedding:

appliances:               -0.76 percent     -0.58 percent    +4.82 percent   +4.83 percent

major appliances:    -2.02 percent      -0.34 percent   +8.08 percent   +8.80 percent

laundry equipmt:     -1.02 percent     -5.05 percent  +10.00 percent   +8.76 percent

misc appliances:      -0.29 percent     -1.33 percent    +3.25 percent   +2.56 percent

non-electric             -0.76 percent     -0.49 percent     -0.51 percent    -1.56 percent

cookware/tableware

tools/hardware        -0.63 percent    +1.27 percent     +0.39 percent   +1.22 percent

& outdoor equipment:

household               +0.83 percent    +1.24 percent    +1.79 percent    +3.33 percent

cleaning products:

televisions:              -4.20 percent   -10.91 percent   -17.95 percent   -19.28 percent

misc video equip:    -0.03 percent    +4.41 percent     -3.87 percent    +1.79 percent

pets & pet               +0.26 percent    +1.76 percent    +0.91 percent    +2.81 percent

products:

sporting goods:      +1.00 percent    +3.04 percent    +1.71 percent    +0.25 percent

photo equipment     -0.05 percent    -1.29 percent      -4.94 percent    -5.70 percent

& supplies

sewing machines/   +2.51 percent +12.51 percent     -2.08 percent  +10.32 percent

fabrics:

motor vehicle          +0.25 percent   +1.27 percent    +1.25 percent    +1.79 percent

parts:

tires:                        +0.15 percent   +2.28 percent    +0.03 percent    +1.08 percent

stationery/               +0.28 percent   +4.53 percent     -6.48 percent     -0.01 percent

gift wrap:

Even in sectors with a prominent Chinese presence, like apparel of consumer electronics, any kind of price-hiking tariff effect is elusive, at very best. In fact, in virtually all the products below, inflation has been decidedly weaker than in the core control group, and deflation is apparent in many.

Comparing the two year-on-year figures does reveal some accelerating inflation (or weakening deflation). This is especially clear in the food-related categories (including the broad food control group) and in some non-food segments (like household furnishings, men’s and women’s sportswear, computers and peripherals, furniture and bedding, stationery, sewing machines and fabrics). But softening prices can be seen in recreational goods, sporting goods, personal care products, window and floor coverings, televisions, miscellaneous appliances, and several others.

Since these tariffs-related price data began coming in, I’ve been saying that although inflationary effects haven’t yet shown up, they could always appear in the coming months. Roughly a year after the metals tariffs have been in place, it’s now time to start suggesting that the no tariff-led inflation situation is becoming the New Norm.

Making News: China Trade Talks National Radio Interview Podcast Now On-Line…& More!

Tags

China, Gordon G. Chang, IndustryToday.com, Making News, The John Batchelor Show, TheDailyBeast.com, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade talks, trade wars, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast of my Thursday night interview on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show is now on-line.  Click here for a timely update on the fast-moving U.S.-China trade talks provided by John, me, and co-host Gordon G. Chang.

And to follow up, yesterday, the Daily Beast website posted Gordon’s column on the somewhat surprising result of these talks’ latest round – which ended with no announcement that a deal has been concluded or is close enough to warrant scheduling a U.S.-China signing summit.  Here’s the link.

Also, it was great to see IndustryToday.com last week reprint my recent post on the encouraging latest set of monthly U.S. trade figures released by the Census Bureau.  Click here to see it.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Im-Politic: Mueller, Barr, and Beyond

Tags

2016 election, Access Hollywood tape, Adam Schiff, collusion, Constitution, executive privilege, high crimes and misdemeanors, Im-Politic, impeachment, James Comey, Jerrold Nadler, Justice Department, Mueller Report, Nancy Pelosi, obstruction of justice, removal, Robert Mueller, Roger Stone, Russia, Russia-Gate, Special Counsel, Trump, Trump-Russia, William P. Barr

Yesterday, Attorney General William P. Barr released his summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump presidential campaign’s “links and/or coordination” with the Russian government, and of related obstruction of justice charges. The big takeaways: In the Mueller report’s own words, the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”; and (in the Attorney General’s words), Mueller and his team “ultimately decided not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” regarding a number of Presidential actions that “potentially” raised obstruction of justice concerns.

A more resounding defeat for the legions of Democrats, Republican and conservative Never-Trump-ers, and Trump haters in the Mainstream Media can scarcely be imagined for two major reasons. First, according to Barr, not only did the Special Counsel investigation fail to find any Trump campaign conspiracy or coordination with the Russian interference effort. It concluded that such actions never took place “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Second, although Mueller and his staff (in their words) made sure to state that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime [i.e., obstruction], it also does not exonerate him,” the failure to recommend such charges is stunning. After all, this hasn’t been a team of investigators that’s been exactly reluctant to hand down such indictments – including for so-called process crimes that are clearly serious in normal circumstances, but that look especially dubious now considering the failure to find any underlying crime.

Constitutionally speaking, where this leaves remaining desires in Congress and throughout the country to impeach the President is way up in the air right now. For as the impeachers – and others – have often rightly reminded us, the Constitution doesn’t define the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that can warrant impeachment (and removal from office) aside from “treason” and “bribery.” Therefore, from a Constitutional standpoint, there’s a strong case to be made that impeachment and removal can take place in the absence of a criminal offense, and that the process is above all else political (a term I’m not using pejoratively in this case).

As a result, any lawmaker deciding to proceed along these lines even after the above Mueller conclusions would be acting completely within his rights and even arguably fulfilling one of his highest duties. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D.-New York) was right when he stated:

“The job of Congress is much broader than the job of the special counsel. The special counsel is looking and can only look for crimes. We have to protect the rule of law, we have to look for abuses of power, we have to look for obstructions of justice, we have to look for corruption in the exercise of power which may not be crimes.”

Indeed, that’s why Congress has been granted broad oversight authority over Executive Branch actions and policies. It’s a central feature of the checks and balances principle at the heart of the country’s Constitutional government.

Similarly, however, because impeachment is an ultimately political process, House Democrats (whose control of the chamber empowers them to initiate such proceedings) will have to make ultimately political decisions whether to go ahead, how far to take these matters, and the extent to which they’re willing to permit impeachment to dominate their agenda and the public perceptions they create. As I see it, those Democrats chomping at the bit to head down this road remain far from the starting gate, especially given House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s judgment well before this weekend’s events that Mr. Trump “is just not worth” impeaching. The same conclusion applies to the determination of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California), Chair of the House Intelligence Committee to keep examining whether the President “is somehow compromised by a foreign power.”

Yet for all the comment and analysis flooding out this afternoon, there’s still one question I think needs more attention: When exactly did the Mueller team recognize that neither the collusion nor the obstruction allegations wouldn’t pan out? More specifically, did this situation became clear to the Mueller team before last year’s U.S. midterm elections?

Here’s what I’m driving at: The entire Special Counsel exercise was launched to find answers to some of the biggest and scariest questions ever raised in American history. Like whether a successful candidate for President and/or influential members of his campaign cooperated with an unfriendly foreign power to win the White House – which raises the possibility (as per Schiff above) of a President doing that power’s bidding for fear of blackmail. And don’t forget the allegations that Mr. Trump obstructed justice in order to cover up these actions and relationships, and that Moscow has him over a barrel for a second reason – due to financial transactions that kept the President’s business empire afloat before and during his White House run.

Given these astronomical stakes, of course all Americans of good will would want to leave no stone unturned. But there inevitably comes a point at which the stones start looking like pebbles, inherently incapable of hiding much. In that vein, Mueller has indicted plenty of Russians and some Americans, but as even the Trump-loathing Vox.com notes, none of these found that “Trump advisers criminally conspired with Russian officials to impact the election.” Indeed, the last such Trump-er brought up for charges was Roger Stone (in January) – and the Stone actions that caught Mueller’s attention (between July and October, 2016) came a year after Stone officially left the Trump campaign.

In other words, it looks as if sometime in the second half of 2018, Mueller’s investigation was reaching a point of diminishing returns. Did Mueller and his staff continue their business as usual (including keeping their findings closely held) because they had strong reasons to believe that major revelations were just around the corner? That would be highly unusual, for at least according to Barr, none of them panned out.

But if the investigation was producing such modest results after so many witnesses interviewed and search warrants executed (approximately 500 each, according to Barr), subpoenas issued (more than 2,800), and communications records obtained (more than 230), shouldn’t Mueller have let the public know that sooner rather than later? Especially considering that a major vote was coming up in November? These questions deserve to be asked even if Mueller was pursuing a typical prosecutorial strategy of targeting little fish first in the hope that they’d flip and disclose misdeed by progressively bigger fish.

Granted, several policy statements can be cited making clear that the determination of the Justice Department (the final authority over Special Counsel investigations) to avoid even creating the appearance of interfering with elections in any way. As this shown in this analysis, “interference” includes issuing reports shortly before elections (a standard previous Special Counsels, and former FBI Director James Comey in 2016, failed to meet). But the informal “60-Day Rule” cited here still would have enabled Mueller to issue some kind of statement (perhaps an interim report?) by Labor Day. I’d sure appreciate him explaining why this option wasn’t chosen, and if it was even considered.

Of course, it’s true that the President faces legal jeopardy on a variety of other matters, ranging in seriousness from hush money payoffs to floozies (which supposedly violated campaign finance laws) New York-area examinations of his inaugural committee’s fund-raising and of his family’s charitable foundation and of the possibility of insurance fraud to a groping accusation dating from 2007. But do these collectively, much less individually, endanger the Trump presidency? Given the President’s victory shortly after the release of remarks on the Access Hollywood tape suggesting sexual assault, that’s doubtful, especially with the Russia collusion and obstruction charges out of the way legally speaking.

Focusing on doubts concerning Barr’s decision to drop criminal obstruction charges against Trump seems no more promising. After all, authorizing Congress to seek impeachment for actions that are not crimes is essential because, as per the Nadler statement above, offenses like abusing power and creating conflicts of interest can endanger democracy and the public interest even if they violate no specific statutes. But obstruction of justice is a defined crime. Therefore, the failures of not only Barr but Mueller to indict on this score would require an obstruction-centric impeachment drive to insist that a political definition of guilt outweighs its clearcut legal counterpart. Good luck coming up with a politically riskier, more divisive course of action.

What about next steps? I strongly favor release as soon as possible of as much the actual Mueller report as consistent with the need to protect intelligence sources and methods. Watergate-era precedents seem to refute the idea that any materials violating executive privilege must be excluded. As Nadler rightly reminds, the Supreme Court’s Nixon tape case ruling specified that this Constitutional principle can’t be justified to hide wrongdoing. Nor do I have strong objections to publishing information either in the report’s body or in supporting documents that might invade the privacy or impugn the reputations of unindicted individuals (including the President). I would imagine that Barr and Congressional Democrats have enough common sense and decency to agree on which disclosures would harm the truly innocent. But the public should definitely have the right to know whether or not the President has surrounded himself with fools and knaves – and/or has acted this way himself.

Ultimately, however, I feel confident that Mr. Trump will survive these disclosures as handily as the non-aforementioned Mueller investigations. After all, a critical mass of the American people was ready to entrust Mr. Trump with the powers of the highest office in the land knowing full well he was no angel personally or in business. I strongly suspect he’ll fare equally well in 2020 now that it’s as clear as possible that, whatever his flaws, he was never the Manchurian Candidate or a Nixonian-style crook.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Trump’s Acting Like Uncle Sucker on Alliance Burden-Sharing

Tags

alliances, allies, America First, Blob, Bloomberg.com, burden sharing, Europe, globalism, Japan, NATO, North Atlantic treaty Organization, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, South Korea, Trump

While much of the world is on pins and needles wondering whether President Trump will reach a big trade deal with China and how it will impact the U.S. economy and global commerce, Mr. Trump’s negotiating reputation has also been on the line on another major international front – America’s relations with its top security allies. And the latest reported developments add to the evidence that he’s going to fail miserably.

According to a March 8 Bloomberg.com article, the Trump administration is planning to insist that countries hosting American troops pay the full cost of these deployments, along with an extra 50 percent of that full cost for what’s described as the “privilege” of enjoying American protection.

Predictably, the allies, along with Washington, D.C.’s bipartisan globalist foreign policy establishment are sputtering with outrage – accusing the President of viewing these security relationships as lowly “transactional” relationships focused on enhancing purely American interests rather than as vital pillars of a global liberal, democratic order that since the end of World War II has benefited the United States more indirectly by promoting worldwide peace, prosperity, and democracy. In a journal article last year, I described at length why this quintessentially globalist approach to foreign policy and national security has long been creating many more big problems than it solves for a country as fundamentally secure and prosperous as the United States.

As a result, I strongly sympathize with any efforts to overhaul America’s alliances, however many specific criticisms I may have with the President’s tactics. But the most immediate problem with the Trump strategy is that the President keeps shooting himself in the foot. Specifically, he has repeatedly undercut U.S. leverage by proclaiming that he, too, views these arrangements as crucial for America to maintain.

For example, just two months ago, Mr. Trump insisted that “We’re gonna be with NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which binds the United States militarily to Europe] 100 percent ….” Last July, he declared “…I believe in NATO. I think NATO is a very important — probably the greatest ever done.” And the previous year, he explicitly endorsed the alliance’s Article V, which legally commits the United States to come to the defense of any member under outside attack.

Regarding the American alliance with South Korea, Mr. Trump told that country’s National Assembly in November, 2017 that U.S. commitment to that country’s defense represented a line “between peace and war, between decency and depravity, between law and tyranny, between hope and total despair. It is a line that has been drawn many times, in many places, throughout history. To hold that line is a choice free nations have always had to make. We have learned together the high cost of weakness and the high stakes of its defense.” 

And that June he vowed at a Washington, D.C. press conference with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, “the United States will defend itself, always will defend itself, always, and we will always defend our allies.”

Meanwhile, shortly after his inauguration, Mr. Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe issued a statement affirming that “The unshakable U.S.-Japan Alliance is the cornerstone of peace, prosperity, and freedom in the Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. commitment to defend Japan through the full range of U.S. military capabilities, both nuclear and conventional, is unwavering.”

It’s true that the President has spoken repeatedly, both as a candidate for the White House and as a chief executive, of his desire to withdraw American troops from these countries at some unspecified point. (This archive contains an indispensable, useful comprehensive collection.) But it’s also true that Mr. Trump has endorsed the defining globalist precept that U.S. “security and prosperity [have] depended” on “pushing back” versus threats to the allies.

During his successful White House run, candidate Trump faulted Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton – a Secretary of State under President Obama – for dooming any prospects for reforming American alliances by continually touting their paramount virtues. One of these critiques (cited in the aforementioned archive) is worth quoting at length:

“Now, Hillary Clinton said: ‘I will never leave Japan. I will never leave Japan. Will never leave any of our–‘ Well now, once you say that, guess what happens? What happens? You can’t negotiate. In a deal, you always have to be prepared to walk. Hillary Clinton has said, ‘We will never, ever walk.’ That’s a wonderful phrase, but unfortunately, if I were on Saudi Arabia’s side, Germany, Japan, South Korea and others, I would say, ‘Oh, they’re never leaving, so what do we have to pay them for?’ You always have to be prepared to walk. It doesn’t mean I want to walk. And I would prefer not to walk. You have to be prepared and our country cannot afford to do what we’re doing.”

In other words, Mr. Trump was making one of his characteristic charges that his opponent – and the establishment foreign policy “Blob” to which she’s belonged — had turned the United States into an “Uncle Sucker” who’d forgotten that Washington’s top priority is looking after the American people, not foreign populations. If he doesn’t get his alliance diplomacy act together soon, this self-described master deal-maker will start deserving the same label.

Making News: Video of Today’s CNBC Segment on Today’s U.S. Trade Figures Now On-Line!

Tags

American Enterprise Institute, CNBC, James Pethokoukis, Making News, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, Trump

This morning I got a short notice invitation to appear on CNBC to dissect the new U.S. trade figures and explain the message they’re sending us about President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies.  There were so many numbers to crunch beforehand that I didn’t have a chance to send out a heads-up.  But since the network does a great job of archiving segments (and making them available for free), you can see the conversation (also featuring James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute) at this link.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.