Monthly Archives: December 2016

Op-Eds

Servergate/Hackergate: The Case of the Investigatory Double Standard

Leave a comment
Sherlock Holmes
Sherlock Holmes (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On December 9, US president Barack Obama ordered a “review” of — an investigation into — alleged Russian hacking aimed at influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election.

Supporters of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton lauded Obama’s order, which seems aimed at, well, influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

On December 19, the electors chosen by voters on November 8 will meet in their respective state capitals to choose the next president of the United States. Under the existing system, those electors are required to vote for the candidate who carried their state’s popular vote. Many Clinton supporters want the electors to instead install Clinton (or a “compromise candidate”) in a coup d’etat. They’ve added Obama’s “review” order to their arguments in favor of overthrowing the US government.

When is it proper to investigate alleged wrongdoing by, or on behalf of, powerful politicians? Apparently it depends.

In the months leading up to the popular vote, Clinton and her supporters first praised, then condemned, FBI direct James Comey.

In July, Comey announced that he would recommend against prosecuting Hillary Clinton for her criminally negligent storage of classified information on an illegal private server as Secretary of State.

Then, 11 days before the election, Comey informed Congress of possible new evidence in the matter. That evidence apparently came to naught, but the Clinton campaign blew its stack. Clinton’s supporters are still calling for Comey’s head. He’s one of their scapegoats not just for Clinton’s crimes, but for her mediocre campaign and losing performance (the other scapegoat is, of course, !THEM RUSSIANS!).

Throughout the “Servergate” controversy, Clinton’s supporters routinely complained that all inquiries into her actions constituted illicit attempts to affect the outcome of the election, and that law enforcement should back away from politically sensitive investigations near election time.

Apparently that complaint only applies when the investigation might hurt Hillary Clinton. When Donald Trump might be damaged, the week before the final vote strikes them as perfect timing for an investigation.

The publicly disclosed evidence against Clinton was overwhelming. Comey’s argument against prosecuting her came down to “well, after all, she’s Hillary Clinton.”

The publicly disclosed evidence that Vladimir Putin’s regime attempted to influence the election of the outcome other than through propaganda? Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The only thing we’ve seen so far are vague assertions about “methods consistent with” state-backed hacking. So far, the argument for an investigation that might hurt Donald Trump is “well, after all, he’s Donald Trump.”

I’m perfectly willing to believe that both Clinton and Trump are bad actors, so crooked that they require staff trained to screw their pants on for them in the morning. But when it comes to investigation timing, how about one set of rules for everyone?

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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

Op-Eds

Trump on Military Spending: An Encouraging Sign

Leave a comment
The X-35 Joint Strike Fighter demontrator perf...
The X-35 Joint Strike Fighter demonstrator performs flight tests at Edwards Air Force Base, California (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As on most issues, president-elect Donald Trump has been all over the map on military issues throughout his campaign and post-campaign pronouncements. One day he muses about disbanding NATO, the next day he promises to “rebuild” the US military, which is already by far not just the most well-funded war machine, but the most well-funded enterprise of any kind on Planet Earth (the 2017  US military budget exceeds Wal-Mart’s 2015 gross revenues by about $100 billion). He’s hard to pin down.

Still, Trump’s December 12 tweet on Lockheed’s F-35 contract is encouraging to those who’d like to see real US “defense” spending cuts.  “The F-35 program and cost is out of control,” he wrote. “Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.”

If the F-35 — called the Joint Strike Fighter because it’s supposed to be used by all US armed forces and several allies, replacing various other aircraft — ever actually rolls out ready for combat, its life cycle cost will come to more than a trillion dollars and the prices of various models will run in the range of $100 million per aircraft. For the sake of comparison, that’s more than three times the price of the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, the current US Navy and Marine Corps fighter/attack workhorse.

The F-35 is indeed one of the more insane wastes of taxpayer money in recent history. If Trump could find a way to kill the whole project, both taxpayers and the armed forces would be better off for its demise.

But even if Trump is serious, he’s in for a fight with 75 years of history. Since World War II, the primary function of the US government has been to transfer wealth from the pockets of American workers to the bank accounts of “defense” contractors like Lockheed Martin.

Even as long ago as 1960, when president Dwight Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell speech, his warning was too little, too late. American politicians already were, and still are, addicted to military spending (and to the campaign contributions it calls forth and the make-work jobs it brings to their states and districts).

Breaking that bad habit is a daunting job. Like they say in Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step is admitting you have a problem. The only problem American politicians seem to see with spending half a trillion dollars a year on the pretense of “defending” the US is that they don’t get to spend more.

Instead of singling out particular boondoggles like the F-35, Trump might have more success imposing fiscal discipline across the board. That is, demand spending cuts to the US Department of Defense’s top budget line and let DoD figure out the details of how to make do with less.

A 75% cut, phased in over ten years, sounds about right. The US government would still be the single biggest military spender on the planet, but only by about 2 1/2 times, instead of 10 times, as much as its closest competitor (China).

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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

Op-Eds

Should Trump Impose Tariffs on China and Mexico?

Leave a comment
English: (left) and meeting shortly after the ...
Willis C. Hawley (left) and Reed Smoot in April 1929, shortly before the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act passed the House of Representatives. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

guest op-ed by Robert W. McGee

Should Donald Trump impose a 35% tariff on the importation of goods from China and Mexico as he proposes to do once inaugurated? The short answer, for two reasons, is NO.

Reason number one has to do with utilitarian ethics. Nearly all studies conducted by unbiased economists have found that trade restrictions are negative-sum games: There are more losers than winners, or the total losses exceed the total gains. For every job saved, two or three jobs are destroyed, depending on the study and the underlying assumptions.

Trump proposes imposing a tariff of 35% on imports from China and Mexico. The first question to be asked is, “who ultimately pays these tariffs?” The answer is, American consumers.

But that’s not the end of the story. Even people who don’t purchase those Chinese and Mexican products are worse off as a result of the tariff. A 35% tariff on the importation of foreign goods allows American producers to raise their prices. If they raise their prices by anything less than 35%, they will gain market share. American consumers who purchase American products will have to pay these higher prices. Tariffs are a form of corporate welfare because they benefit domestic producers. They are also a tax imposed on American consumers. American producers who pressure the government to impose tariffs on foreign producers are engaged in what economists call rent-seeking — feathering their own nests at the expense of the general public.

And beyond utilitarian calculations, let’s talk about rights. President Trump should not impose a 35% tariff on the importation of Chinese or Mexican products because it violates the property and contract rights of both buyers (American consumers) and sellers (Chinese and Mexican producers).

Consumers should be free to trade what they have (cash) for what they want (goods) without government interference. If a 35% tariff is imposed, it is likely that many Chinese and Mexican products will be shut out of the U.S. market. Their prices will become prohibitively high. American consumers will no longer even have the option of purchasing these products because they will never even cross the border. If they are able to cross the border, American consumers will have to pay more to obtain them.

The only trade policy that does not violate property rights is a policy of unilateral free trade. That means no tariffs, no quotas, no punishment for selling at a price that is deemed unacceptable by some bureaucrat in Washington, no protectionist schemes like domestic content laws, and no other restrictions on trade. If consenting adults and the corporations that represent them can trade what they have for what they want without government interference, no one’s rights are violated. In all other cases, rights are violated, which is unacceptable.

Robert W. McGee has earned 13 doctorates from universities in the United States and 4 European countries. He is a professor at Fayetteville State University and a best-selling novelist. Information about his novels can be found at http://robertwmcgee.com. More than 400 of his scholarly papers may be found at http://ssrn.com/author=2139.

PUBLICATION HISTORY