Tariffs
Economists warn that the tariffs could exacerbate inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods, potentially adding thousands of dollars to annual household expenses for Americans. Analysts predict a potential recession as global trade slows and retaliatory measures escalate. The Yale Budget Lab estimates long-term economic losses of $80–110 billion annually due to reduced GDP growth, which doesn't sound like a big deal to me. Germany and Australia criticized the tariffs as damaging to partnerships and lacking justification.Pxy comments on djt's argument that the tariffs are needed to correct decades of unfair trade practices:
Conclusion: A Mixed Verdict with High Stakes
Trump’s tariffs address specific, valid instances of unfair practices, particularly China’s market distortions. However, the administration’s broad-brush application to allies, flawed methodology, and disregard for consumer costs undermine their legitimacy. While sectors like manufacturing may benefit short-term, the broader economic risks—inflation, recession, and global trade fragmentation—outweigh localized gains. A targeted approach, combining tariffs on bad actors with multilateral negotiations, would better serve U.S. interests without destabilizing the global economy1 7 14. The coming months will test whether these tariffs catalyze a rebalancing of trade or ignite a destructive cycle of retaliation, cementing Trump’s trade policy as either a corrective measure or a historic miscalculation.
Q: Whaddaya think about the tariffs, good, bad or mixed?
Wheeeeee!
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
The NYT reports (not paywalled) about MAGA Republicans in the Senate plans to lie to us by saying the coming massive tax cuts will cost absolutely nothing at all:
Now, in their zeal to deliver President Trump’s domestic policy agenda in “one big beautiful bill” of spending and tax cuts, Senate Republicans are trying to steer around the parliamentarian, busting a substantial congressional norm in the process.The article quotes Molly Reynolds, an expert on congressional procedure at the Brookings Institution, as saying this about unilaterally changing Senate practices through parliamentary rulings: “We should think of this as a version of the nuclear option. If we were to get to a world where they’re just sort of ignoring the parliamentarian and not engaging all, that would be really profound change in how the Senate works, and a real erosion of rules-based legislating in the Senate.”
The strategy would allow them to avoid getting a formal thumbs up or thumbs down on their claim that extending the tax cuts that Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017 would cost nothing — a gimmick that would make it easier for them cram as many tax reductions as possible into their bill without appearing to balloon the deficit.
In recent days, all eyes have been on Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, to see whether she would bless the trick, smoothing the path for the G.O.P. bill. But on Wednesday, Republicans signaled that they planned to take extraordinary action to go around her altogether.
Rather than have Ms. MacDonough weigh in, they asserted that Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as chairman of the Budget Committee, could unilaterally decide the cost of the legislation, citing a 1974 budget law. Senate Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new budget resolution they planned to put to a vote as early as this week. And Mr. Graham declared in a statement that he considered an extension of the 2017 tax cuts to be cost-free.
Presumably, from here on out, MAGA elites in congress are simply going to lie about the federal debt. Maybe the requirement for congress to keep passing debt ceiling limit increases will become a law on the books that is simply ignored. One has to wonder, why don't Senate Repubs just get rid of the filibuster? By blowing off normal parliamentary procedure maybe they don't need to.
