“TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A.,” US president Donald Trump whined in an October 23 Truth Social post (all-caps treatment, of course, his). “Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.”

The egregious behavior in question? Telling the truth about tariffs in a $75 million ad campaign. Or, rather, having the late US president Ronald Reagan do so, in his own words:

“Over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer …. markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.”

Letting Ronald Reagan talk to Americans about tariffs, Trump  raged the next day, constitutes “trying to illegally influence the United States Supreme Court” on the non-question of whether Trump enjoys personal legal authority to impose massive tax hikes on American consumers whenever the urge strikes.

Spoiler alert: He enjoys no such authority (the Constitution assigns taxing authority to Congress, not the president).

Nor is it illegal for Canadian politicians, Ronald Reagan, or anyone else to let Americans know that, in addition to themselves being illegal, his tariff policies are stupid, evil, and economically ruinous.

The US government’s tariff revenues jumped to a record $29.6 billion in July, and may end up hitting $350 billion per year.

Trump would like you to believe that those revenues are magic free money, paid by unspecified philanthropists from other countries and somehow accruing to your benefit when the US Treasury collects them.

In fact, tariffs come out of YOUR pocket in the form of higher prices if you can get the goods you want, less consumer choice because you often can’t, and fewer opportunities for you or your employer to sell in foreign markets as other governments “retaliate” with tariffs, or even embargoes, of their own.

Estimates vary — in large part because Trump’s tariffs rates seem to change by the minute on the basis of his whims and tantrums — but over the last few months he’s hiked your household’s annual tax bill by at least $2,500, and probably closer to $5,000.

That’s a lot of money to spend humoring one guy’s “throw myself on the floor and hold my breath ’til I turn blue” approach to trade/tax policy.

Ontario premier Doug Ford, the politician behind the ad campaign, says he’ll end it after Major League Baseball’s World Series.

But now you know the truth. Don’t forget it.

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

Citing two Trump administration officials, NBC News reports that “the entire East Wing of the White House will be demolished ‘within days'” to make room for something called either (depending on who you ask) the White House State Ballroom or the Donald J. Trump Ballroom at the White House — a 90,000-square-foot, 900-capacity party venue.

Concept illustrations, as one might expect with any Trump project, resemble storyboards from a prospective The Simpsons Take Versailles! film.

Because the project is to be funded with influence buys … er, “donations” — from Trump’s would-be big business cronies, one person recently told me how great it is that “the people” will get a beautiful ballroom at “no expense to the taxpayer.” Really? When do my wife and I get an invite to strut our tango stuff there?

Unlike some, I’m not bothered by the kitschy concept art (it’s Trump, whaddayagonnado?), the partial demolition of the White House (I’d be glad to see the whole thing gone for good), or the corporate influence-buying (at least with Trump it’s all done right out in the open).

However, it seems to me that this is the kind of government project that cries out for public input, comments, and suggestions, and I have an alternative proposal to offer:

First, once the East Wing is demolished, leave it demolished.

Second, if the rest of the building isn’t going to come down too, deed the remaining ruin to a non-profit, funded entirely by voluntary donations, with the mission of running it as a museum.

While I’d prefer to see those two things as part of a larger package based on the historical fate of Carthage, I’ll try to take a more moderate line here, based on the presumption that we’re going to let the federal government exist a little while longer. So:

Third, either fund an allowance for Trump and future presidents to rent small apartments of their choice, or lease (in perpetuity, or until we dissolve the US government) a suite at the Willard Hotel as living quarters for presidential households.

Fourth, set aside some office space in the Capitol Complex for the use of the president and his or her staff.

Not a LOT of office space, mind you — just enough for the president and staff to do their constitutionally mandated duties, which are mainly minor administrative and ceremonial functions.

For ceremonial functions that draw crowds, give the president scheduling priority for use of Lafayette Square. I’m sure the government can find a few pop-up canopies and a suitable caterer. Burrito bar, anyone? Someone tell JD Vance to pick up a couple of kegs of domestic beer. Ask Linda McMahon to drag the cornhole set out of her garage. Karaoke after dinner!

This whole “the president is so special” thing has gotten way out of hand. Time to trim the fat. Let the White House stand if we must, I guess, but turn it into a reminder of our past errors rather than a symbol of pretend current greatness.

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

Man carrying child’s body in Gaza. Fars Media Corporation.  Attribution 4.0 International license.

“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will,” Union general William Tecumseh Sherman wrote in an 1864 letter warning the citizens of Atlanta — which his advancing army had just occupied — to evacuate. “War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.”

Over the last two years, Sherman’s words come to mind whenever an opponent of Israel and/or supporter of the Palestinians confidently asserts that the violence in Gaza is “not a war” because it is so terrible.

It IS a war, and that’s why it’s so terrible.

Let us, as we should, acknowledge that the Israeli regime’s goal in Gaza is genocide or, at a minimum, the only slightly less odious project of “ethnic cleansing.” There’s zero room for doubt, given Israeli officials’ open public statements, that they want the Palestinian Arabs now living in Gaza either killed off or exiled en masse to make room for Israeli “settlement” of the area.

That’s the objective.

War is the means of achieving that objective, and war is a process of killing people.

That many of the dead in all wars, and most of the dead in this one, are civilian non-combatants, doesn’t turn those wars into non-wars. It just turns them into worse wars. It’s right there in the terminology. The killings of civilian non-combatants aren’t just “crimes,” they’re “war crimes.”

One dodge the “this isn’t a war, it’s [insert term of opprobrium here]” crowd often resorts to is a claimed disproportion in the size and power of the forces involved.

By that criterion, there’s never been a war in all of human history. In every war, all sides attempt to bring overwhelming force to bear on opponents they hope won’t bring as much. “God,”  Comte de Bussy-Rabutin observed, “is usually on the side of the big squadrons against the small.”

That truth applies at both the tactical and strategic levels. In the attacks of October 7, 2023, for example, Hamas attempted to take on a bigger overall opponent in smaller parts through the tactical element of surprise.

To which Israel responded with overwhelming force at all points, because it had the people and weapons to do so. And still does — the supposed “ceasefire” has barely reduced its tempo of operations and hasn’t changed its clear objectives.

Trying to separate war from the genocide and ethnic cleansing that often accompanies it is cheap moralizing for propaganda points.

War, again per Sherman, is all hell.

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