On August 22, a new set of US tariffs went into effect. Those tariffs charge American buyers of Canadian goods — 569 categories of stuff including dairy, alcohol, electronics, furniture, building materials, and other items, amounting to a usual annual value of nearly $25 billion — an extra 50%.

Let me re-state and clarify that:

In order to supposedly punish Canada for supposedly discriminatory trade measures, US president Donald Trump wants to charge Americans a potential $12.5 billion in new taxes. I say “potential” because that 50% Trump tax hike will price many Americans out of the goods in question; the previous year’s $25 billion in imports will go down.

By way of “retaliation,” the Canadian government has announced it will tax Canadian buyers of US goods, according to finance minister François-Philippe Champagne , “dollar for dollar, rate for rate.”

To which Trump replied with a prospective doubling of auto and steel tariffs and the renaming of Lake Ontario to “Lake America.”

Trade wars are odd in that the dueling governments’ weapon of choice is confiscatory taxation imposed on their own citizens.

“I’m mad at you — I’m going to break my son’s arm.”

“Oh yeah? Well fine, I’ll break my wife’s leg — how ya like them apples?”

“You’ve done it now — I’m dousing my whole family in gasoline and lighting a match!”

When I point out how idiotic all that is, a few doofs come back at me with: “Buy American — problem solved.”

But no, buying American doesn’t solve your problem as a consumer. You’re going to pay more, whether you pay it directly  to Uncle Sam or not.

Suppose you  … well, no, let’s talk about me.

I had plans for a small construction project this fall. I was going to buy lumber for it next month and work on it at a leisurely pace through September and October. One of the ingredients: Plywood.

Lots of lumber comes from Canada, and these new tariffs will affect building materials, so I moved up my timetable and had the plywood delivered yesterday. It happens to be southern yellow pine plywood, grown and cut in the good ol’ USA. But you can bet the price will be going up anyway, due to the tariffs.

If Canadian lumber gets 50% more expensive, American producers can raise their own prices to any amount lower than that new, higher price and remain competitive. The increased demand for their  domestic supply versus Canadian goods will also tend to make it a seller’s market unless they’re built out to produce a lot more than normal, very quickly.

Which, I’ve often opined, usually seems to be the whole point. Politically connected industries make bank not by competing, but by getting their friends in government to make sure they don’t HAVE to compete.

These days, I’m less sure. Trump’s tariff antics don’t come off as following that corrupt logic. In fact, they don’t seem to be rooted in any logic at all. They look a lot more like a toddler’s unpredictable, unappeasable tantrums.

But either way, you pay and America loses.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In late 1861, Union soldiers in Bloomfield, Missouri, found the local newspaper’s office empty and decided to put it to good use. Stars and Stripes covered the activities of the three Illinois regiments. Their commander in chief, of course, was US president Abraham Lincoln.

Over time, the paper gained direct funding from the military, but with supposed “editorial independence,” and a mission “to provide first-hand reporting from bases around the world and unbiased, credible news to America’s military.” Those who worked in uniform abroad through two world wars and after, often not in a position to visit a newspaper stand or receive news via TV or radio, could read Stars and Stripes (I read it in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm).

On August 21, US defense secretary Pete Hegseth fired the paper’s publisher, editor-in-chief, and a top reporter after they publicly commented on Department of Defense “interference” with the newspaper’s “independence.”

Once again, Abraham Lincoln — or at least the aircraft carrier named for him — played a central role as Hegseth whined over the paper’s coverage of complaints from deployed sailors’ families concerning the material and mental health situation aboard that vessel.

The firings aren’t really as sudden as they might seem to those not following closely over time.

The first Trump administration floated a plan to shutter Stars and Stripes, but backed down after a “bipartisan” backlash. With Hegseth at the helm in Trump’s second time around, DoD rages frequently against “woke distractions” in its reportage, firing its ombudsman in May for noticing that attempts to change it into a “morale booster” instead of a news outlet are “contrary to the news organization’s mission.”

So, here’s the thing: Who pays the piper, calls the tune.

Stars and Stripes is largely funded by, and its operations and distribution are almost completely enabled by, the US government. “Editorial independence” may sound like a wonderful idea, but there’s always been a leash. We’re just watching the leash get shorter.

Thankfully, the collar at the end of that leash only strangles Stars and Stripes.

These days, even troops aboard ships at sea and at remote firebases in hostile territory have far greater contact with the outside world, most of the time, than even civilians at home enjoyed 50, let alone 150, years ago.

Cell phones. Email. Web access. Zoom. It’s not 100% there, 100% of the time, but neither was Stars and Stripes.

Pete Hegseth can cry if he wants to. He can throw himself on the floor and threaten to hold his breath until he turns blue. The troops will get still their news, whether he likes it or not. They’ll get the kind of coverage they want to get, not just the kind he wants them to get.

And because all that technology runs two-way, they can also REPORT the news they want covered without consulting him first as he obviously expects Stars and Stripes to.

The military news coverage, and consumption, of the future will look a lot more like WikiLeaks than like Stars and Stripes.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Our national debt just hit 40 TRILLION DOLLARS!” some guy tweeted on August 19. “This is bad. Congress needs to get spending under control and BALANCE THE BUDGET. Americans deserve better.”

That does sound like a good idea. But coming from US Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), it’s just hot air.

A “Readers added context they thought people might want to know”  below the tweet informs us that “Scott voted for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which raised the statutory debt limit by $5 trillion and is projected by CBO to increase deficits by $3.4 trillion over 10 years.”

That vote is not an outlier.

Over the course of Scott’s relatively short career in the US Senate — he took office in 2019 and is now in his second term — he’s voted for trillions of dollars in deficit spending, especially military spending.

Since Scott took office, the US government’s debt has gone from $16 trillion to $40 trillion.

His party has controlled the US Senate throughout his tenure, and the House of Representatives for about half of that tenure.

Not one thin dime gets borrowed or spent unless the both the House and Senate pass a bill, and the margins are often close enough that one or two votes — including Scott’s — decide the outcome.

Scott’s perennial “someone should do something!” tweets on the debt might be good politics, but even a cursory look at his actions demonstrates that he’s someone NOT doing something.

If he was serious on the subject, he’d introduce a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution, and predicate all his future votes on whether or not the Senate and House have approved that amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. If they haven’t, he votes against spending, full stop.

Which, frankly, would be better politics than all the whining about a problem he continually chooses to be part of.

Let’s consider the first three words of his latest tweet: “Our national debt.”

“Our?”

If he means the debt run up by the US House of Representative, US Senate, and president, well, yes, there’s the problem.

But in reality, he’s using that word in an attempt to rope the rest of us into responsibility for his poor financial decisions.

He and 535 other politicians borrowed that money. You didn’t. I didn’t. Nor did we co-sign his loan applications.

It’s not “our” debt, even though he’s promised his creditors to beat the payments on it out of us in the future.

Yes, we’ll suffer when — not if — the US government defaults. And Rick Scott will have been one of the authors of our pain. But that doesn’t make it “ours.”

Any member of Congress who postures about the “national debt,” but pretends it’s “our debt” while constantly voting to increase that debt and failing to support — in action, not just words — a balanced budget amendment is gaslighting his or her constituents.

I’m not optimistic about the political future, but conditioning your votes on a balanced budget amendment sponsorship/support pledge from the candidates isn’t a terrible idea.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY