How things have changed. Time waits for no one, not even a princess or a queen! 1945.
 |
| Elizabeth is an ambulance driver in 1945 war effort. |
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Trump Comes Out ''Swinging For The Fences'' : democrats Run For Cover!
This has the progressive socialist liberal democrats running for the exits. Here someone is actually taking charge, leveling the playing field, and giving everyone a equal chance to become propsreious instead of screwing them to the wall.
Gad Zukes, Batman - if there is one thing the progressive democrats fear more then election day, it's having someone on the other side of the aisle that really cares for the people.
The New York Times 1619 Porject : Running On Empty?
Is it too late to call the ''Gray Lady'' of the print world a whore for progressive socialist liberal democrats? Maybe she is just not fit to do the job any longer, too many demands on her services over the years leaving her without form or function?
democrats Hate Success : Failure Is Just Easier to Obtain!
If there's one thing that progressive socialist liberal democrata hate more then anything else , it's success. The only thing they have been successful at is failure.
California Bans Plastice Straws : The Asylum Rewards Activism
As the asylum begins it's push to reward activists on the environment, the leadership shows just how forward thinking they are to the patient's needs. activism
Friday, August 30, 2019
G-7 Fight Against The Truth : Trump Wins Again!
Little wonder the hate for Donald Trump is so fierce and unending, he understands them and doesn't care that they hate him.
They are losers! Trump doesn't suffer fools well!
He knows he's right and so do millions of people all around the world. The rest of those people filling their collective pockets, sucking on the taxes of the world citizens are running for the exits.
Trump is winning again!
Trump’s Fight Against Progressive Agenda at the G-7 Will Pay Off
President Donald Trump successfully navigated the minefields laid for him at last weekend’s G-7 summit in France. It wasn’t easy, but in the process he pushed back against the progressive agenda in ways that will benefit him politically.
Progressive European Union bureaucrats use various techniques trying to keep the EU together and keep taxpayer money flowing to Brussels. One of their favorite ploys is to propose big government solutions to huge problems—such as climate change or inequality—that will never be completely eliminated. Such proposals translate into lifetime job security for the bureaucrats and lucrative government contracts for their “woke” corporate cronies. Bureaucrats in the U.S. government do the same thing.
In this context, it was no surprise to see French President Emmanuel Macron harp about the fires in the Amazon in the weeks leading up to the G-7. Macron started a bitter personal feud with Brazil’s new right-wing president, Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro, for all his faults (he has been called the “Trump of Brazil”), represents the same disruptive threat to the international progressive agenda that Trump does.
If the issue were really environmental policy, Macron and previous European leaders would have piped up long before now. After all, AccuWeather reports that fires during the dry season in the Amazon basin have been just as bad, or worse, in seven of the last 17 years (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2016).
Moreover, The New York Times reports that “most of the fires [in the Brazilian Amazon basin] are burning on agricultural land where the forest had already been cleared.”
Unfortunately, many of these fires were set by farmers to fertilize their fields. It’s an ancient, primitive, and backward Third World farming technique, to be sure. But it is not the destruction of virgin rain forest.
There are also fires being set by peasant farmers in Bolivia’s Amazon basin so that they may take advantage of jungle land given to them by leftist Bolivian President Evo Morales as part of his ongoing wealth re-distribution schemes.
Funny though, we heard plenty about the “villainous” Bolsonaro at the G-7, but nary a peep about Morales.
In any case, all of these facts didn’t stop the climate change lobby and its mainstream media cheerleaders from whipping up some hysteria about Bolsonaro’s supposed war on the environment.
The fact that these attacks came in the run-up to the G-7 gave away the game: The real target was Trump, who pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. In this case, Bolsonaro was just a proxy for Trump.
And who stands to gain from that Paris agreement? Well, France does, for starters. Where better to establish a gigantic public sector clearinghouse to supervise the sale to fossil fuel sinners of carbon indulgences? And who would staff that huge secretariat? You guessed it: French bureaucrats with lifetime job security.
No wonder Macron took the lead on putting climate on the G-7 agenda.
Macron also pulled the last-minute dirty trick of inviting the Iranian foreign minister to the G-7 meeting to embarrass Trump. The French and the Germans are still angry about Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal that they and President Barack Obama signed.
The U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran by Trump have made it difficult for the Europeans to sell their high-tech manufactured goods to the brutal regime in Tehran. Apparently they are not much bothered by Iran posing an existential threat to Israel. After all, there’s money to be made selling to Iran.
Trump was right to push back against climate and the other “niche” agenda items (as the White House described them) and insist that the G-7 leaders focus on the big economic policy questions. That necessary and useful discussion to coordinate economic policies at the G-7 took place under the large shadow cast by China.
Trump has reasserted American leadership in the world, most especially by taking on the increasingly aggressive and predatory actions of China under President Xi Jinping that have upended the global trading system.
China has also committed other “deadly sins” (as White House trade adviser Peter Navarro would say), including the theft of intellectual property, forced tech transfers, and cyberwarfare. And China’s actions affect not just the United States but market-based democracies all over the world. The other G-7 leaders were probably privately delighted that the U.S. has finally taken the lead in confronting Beijing.
It’s lonely at the top, as Trump was reminded yet again at another summit. But it’s a fight worth fighting, for America and for the free world.
Originally published by Fox News
University Fires Doctor For Having An Opinion On Gender Dysphoria : The Collective Has Spoken!
 |
He has a different opinion then the collective and so must be
destroyed!
|
There cannot be two different opinions on anything. It is the progressive way or no way at all.
When hate infests the debate, the debate is over!
Academia Today ‘Not for Faint-Hearted,’ Says Professor Who Lost His Job for Talking About Gender
Academia today “is not for the faint-hearted,” says a veteran professor who was head of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Louisville School of Medicine until he was demoted and then let go for making public comments on gender identity.
“You know, I really was an academic physician, not a politician. I wasn’t there with an agenda or an activist position,” Dr. Allan Josephson, who also was a professor of psychiatry, told The Daily Signal in a recent phone interview.
“And what I want to do is what I started to do years ago, [which] is practice child and adolescent psychiatry [and] do it as well as I could. And universities who have people like myself there must respect my free speech rights, regardless of what I would say.”
That’s not how it turned out for Josephson, a medical doctor in his mid-60s who previously was on the faculties of schools of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia and the University of Minnesota.
While still a division chief at the University of Louisville, he spoke in October 2017 at The Heritage Foundation as part of a panel discussion on “Gender Dysphoria in Children: Understanding the Science and Medicine.”
After hearing about his remarks, four or five fellow University of Louisville faculty members who worked with Josephson asked the university to discipline or punish him.
Seven weeks after his appearance at Heritage, university officials demoted Josephson from division chief to faculty member in the division he had headed for nearly 15 years. Ultimately, the public university in Kentucky let him go as of June 30, after announcing in February that it would not renew his contract.
“I experienced a lot of hostility [in] my work environment, and that continued for well over a year and my contract wasn’t renewed,” Josephson told The Daily Signal, which is Heritage’s multimedia news organization. “And this was in spite of the fact that I’d had perfect marks on the two most recent performance evaluations, and my perspective was asking probing questions as part of an academic job description.”
Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal nonprofit that works to protect religious liberty, notes that Josephson “had earned perfect marks on his 2014, 2015, and 2016 annual reviews.” The organization filed a federal lawsuit in May against University of Louisville administrators on behalf of Josephson.
“Doing those kind of things shouldn’t disqualify me for academic service,” Josephson said of the speaking engagement at Heritage. “We were allowed to do that in a university appointment. We’re encouraged to do that, to be out teaching, if you will, to the community.”
Travis Barham, legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said:
''When Dr. Josephson spoke at The Heritage Foundation, he simply noted, based on his research and clinical experience, that when treating children with gender dysphoria, medical professionals should first seek to understand and treat the psychological issues that often cause this confusion before pursuing more radical, aggressive treatments.
''That is how other psychological issues in children are treated, let alone ones where the more radical treatments pose such grave and permanent consequences. The university made it clear that it was these views that precipitated everything that happened later.
Watch the video : https://youtu.be/GOniPhuyXeY
“The university typically does not comment on pending litigation,” John R. Karman III, the school’s director of media relations, said in an email to The Daily Signal.
The case likely will be heard in court, although the University of Louisville filed a motion to dismiss a portion of it, said Tyson Langhofer, director of Alliance Defending Freedom’s Center for Academic Freedom.
Josephson, who lives in the Louisville area with his wife Jeri, said it’s important for academics who are younger than himself to have the courage to speak up. “I had the backdrop of a successful career,” Josephson told The Daily Signal. “The challenge for many academics right now, particularly those who are younger, is that their careers could be on the line.”
“They have not been able to do all they wanted to do. And so it really is challenging, and each case is different,” he said.
Josephson maintains that those with conservative views on gender dysphoria should be able to express those views without fear of retribution. “I can’t make any general statements,” Josephson said of the challenge, but added: “I do think, though, it is important if you feel something within you not to be silent. Find a way to express yourself, as best you can find people who might be academically open to discuss this. But this is not for the faint-hearted.”
Many universities no longer are marketplaces of ideas, he said, but instead vacuums where only one point of view is recognized and accepted.
“Universities are supposed to be places where you can exchange ideas and vigorous discussion, go back and forth,” Josephson said. “This marketplace of ideas as a metaphor is great, and that’s how science proceeds. That’s how we make progress. Unfortunately, many academic settings, including my own, are becoming more of an activist setting—meaning you’re not testing ideas, promoting the results of research; you’re asking for someone to agree with you, essentially.”
Josephson cautioned that universities need to stop being about groupthink and instead embrace debate and differences of opinion.
“Tolerance is a two-way street; you’ve got to go back and forth,” he said. “That’s what universities are.”
Biology Of Male And Female Is In The DNA : It Cannot Be Changed!
Research has already been done over the years that indicates male biology cannot be changed by drugs and surgery to appoint that the male body will not be stronger then the female body. That is, the male biology is in the DNA and that cannot be changed.
Males and females are different and will always be different.
Biologically Male College Runner Switches to Women’s Team for Senior Year
A biologically male runner in the NCAA’s top division is competing in women’s cross country this fall. June Eastwood, who identifies as a transgender woman, will represent the University of Montana at a cross country meet Saturday.
Eastwood competed on the men’s track and cross country teams through May 2018, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle reported. “I felt like I still had more years in me, and that I would regret it later on if I didn’t at least try to do what I am doing,” Eastwood told the local paper, describing the decision to compete on the women’s team.
“Our goal is to be supportive of all student athletes. I understand there will be varying opinions,” University Athletic Director Kent Haslam told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email. “We have followed the NCAA bylaws and policies in place when it comes to inclusion of transgender student-athletes and participation in intercollegiate athletic competition.”
“I am not in a position to know if June will gain an unfair advantage. It is not my area of expertise and therefore we rely on the policies as set by the NCAA,” Haslam added.
NCAA policy requires male runners who identify as transgender women to suppress testosterone levels for a full calendar year before competing in women’s athletics. The NCAA published an explainer in 2011 calling it “not well founded” to assume “that being born with a male body automatically gives a transgender woman an unfair advantage when competing against non-transgender women.”
Male athletes who identify as transgender women have an “intolerable” advantage over their female competitors, even after suppressing their testosterone levels, a June paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics concluded. Eastwood’s personal bests as a male runner would shatter records in the women’s category, running blog LetsRun noted.
Eastwood’s switch to the women’s team comes as male athletes have racked up victories in women’s athletics.
Franklin Pierce University runner CeCe Telfer, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman, won an NCAA Division II women’s track and field championship in May. Telfer competed on the men’s team before switching to women’s events.
Telfer denied having an unfair advantage over female runners in a June interview with ESPN. “If anything, me competing against cisgender females is a disadvantage because my body is going through so many medical implications, like it’s going through biochemistry changes,” Telfer told ESPN.
Two biologically male runners, both of whom identify as transgender girls, have dominated girls’ high school track in Connecticut. One of their female competitors, Selina Soule, has spoken out against the male runners’ advantages.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Trumps Tariffs Causing Economic Problems? : Thumb Suckers Run Scared!
Oh woo is me! It's just not who we are, right? What?, deny our selves something because it cost too much? Say it aint so!!!!
Time to step up to the plate and begin to understand that it's not just about me, but the country. All of the good intentions of the past have failed, catastrophically! How many $billions of dollars have we been screwed out of by the Chinese over the last several decades or even generations because taking the tough way forward was just to hard, too stressful!
But no matter, playing hard ball is just too scary. Hiding in the closet with our collective thumbs in our mouths, whimpering about how unfair it is!
Trump’s Latest Tariffs Are Putting the Economy on Edge
President Donald Trump announced last week he will add an additional 5% tariff on all Chinese products bought by Americans.
This comes on top of an existing 25% tariff on $250 billion worth of products from China, and an additional tax on roughly $160 billion worth of goods is set to start Sept. 1.
Given that U.S.-China negotiations are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, Americans should expect to pay another tax on roughly $140 billion worth of goods starting Dec. 15. By the end of the year, everything Americans buy from companies in China worth roughly $500 billion in annual imports will cost an additional 15% to 25%, or more.
By now, the recent escalation of tariffs should come as little surprise to anyone. The administration has continued to increase taxes on Chinese imports over the last year without hesitation.
The president has become so reliant on tariffs as a negotiating tool that there’s little room left to discuss other more effective policies to deal with China’s misbehaviors—policies that don’t involve taxing American consumers.
Yet as the U.S. becomes more desperate for a deal with China, the president’s tough negotiating style is only likely to harden. In fact, Trump still has room to increase the tariff rate on $300 billion worth of Chinese imports from 15% to 25%. To think—a president can levy a 10% tax with as much ease as sending a tweet while Congress sits idle.
He could increase the tariff rate even further, but that would require more time through regulatory procedures.
Trump’s recent decision to further increase taxes wasn’t entirely random. It came after Chinese officials announced Friday morning their plans to levy their own tariffs on U.S. imports.
For the last year, Chinese officials have consistently responded to U.S. tariffs with their own tariffs. It’s why China has its own tariffs on $110 billion worth of U.S. imports, and it’s why U.S. farmers have lost significant market share in China.
This most recent announcement by Chinese officials seemed to upset Trump the most.
Perhaps it was timing. China’s announcement was delayed since Chinese leaders were away for most of August. Or perhaps it was because Trump was on his way to the G-7 meeting in France to talk about trade and he wanted to set an example.
Regardless of his reasoning, on Friday, the president’s decision to boost tariffs sent markets into a frenzy. In addition to the new tariffs, Trump suggested he could go even further by ordering U.S. businesses to find an alternative to China.
As of 2018, U.S. companies have directly invested $117 billion in China. Meanwhile, U.S. companies reliant on trade with China would start to close, given the immediate shock to their supply chains.
It would also have a major negative impact on the global economy. It’s not for nothing that economists are warning the U.S.-China trade war has the potential to tip much of the global economy into a recession.
Given the size of China’s market, even if American companies could be directed out of China, plenty of America’s economic partners would easily assume the abandoned American share.
To think, this whole trade war with China started because the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office determined Chinese policies and practices, including cyber theft, are a cost (not a loss) of $50 billion a year for the U.S. economy.
When the president references the billions China is taking out of the U.S., as he did at the G-7 meeting, he’s actually talking about the trade deficit. This is in no sense a “loss” or “theft”; it’s commercial exchange. It’s no more China stealing from us than the grocery store steals from you when you buy bread.
It’s bad enough the administration continues to increase taxes on Americans, but to suggest the president can command U.S. businesses where they can and cannot invest is against the principles of a free market economy.
This administration can do better.
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Facebook's Blacklist : Conservatives Under The Bus!
To avoid living on your knees, never ever vote democrat again. As Ronny Reagan said ,'The lose of freedom is just one election away'.
Google’s Secretive Blacklists
Thank goodness the Big Tech giant hasn’t taken over the newspaper syndication business yet. Twenty years of column writing have allowed me to break news and disseminate my opinions without the tyranny of social justice algorithms downgrading or whitewashing my words.
But given the toxic metastasis of social media in every aspect of our lives, especially for those who make their living exercising the First Amendment, it may only be a matter of time before this column somehow falls prey to the Google Ministry of Truth, too.
Armed with internal memos and emails, former Google software engineer Zachary Vorhies exposed how MichelleMalkin.com (online since 1999) was placed on a news blacklist banning my content from appearing on news feeds accessed through Android Google products. I do not advocate violence, publish porn, or indulge in vulgarity or profanity (other than my occasional references to Beltway crapweasels). But I triggered the Google Social Credit System and there’s no going back.
My apparent sin: independently growing a large organic following of readers on the internet who share my mainstream conservative views on immigration, jihad, education, social issues, economic policy, faith, and more.
Other conservative victims of the Google ban hammer include: Twitchy (a Twitter aggregation site I founded in 2012), FrontPage Magazine (founded by prolific conservative author and journalist David Horowitz), The Daily Caller (founded by Fox News host and journalist Tucker Carlson), Legal Insurrection (founded by Cornell University law professor and investigative blogger William Jacobson), NewsBusters (founded by Media Research Center in 2005), The Gateway Pundit (founded by grassroots social media pioneer Jim Hoft in 2004), the American Thinker (another of the veteran conservative blogs founded in 2003 by Thomas Lifson), LifeNews.com (an independent, pro-life news site founded in 1992 by Steven Ertelt), the Catholic News Agency, and The Christian Post.
I suspect, because so many of the blacklisted sites belong to the original generation of conservative bloggers, that Google’s ideology-based censorship significantly predates the timeframe of the documents that Vorhies (who worked at Google for eight years) shared with Project Veritas.
Indeed, my first substantiated censorship by Google/YouTube, which was covered by The New York Times, occurred 13 years ago in 2006. Around that time, it also became clear to me that humans, not algorithms, were manipulating Google Images to prioritize unspeakably crude photoshopped images of me disseminated by left-wing misogynists. And not long after, my heavily trafficked blog posts started dropping off the search engine radar altogether.
Several previous Google insiders have confirmed that the Big Tech giant discriminates against right-leaning journalists, pundits, and personalities—not to mention free-thinking employees within its own workforce who’ve been persecuted, fired, and even harassed by police for their whistleblowing.
Leaked documents also show that a small cadre of meddling social justice overlords at Google Central Command manually manipulate search engine results—despite the company elite’s brazen denial of the practice at a recent congressional hearing.
In the early days of New Media, entrepreneurs on the left, right, and center rallied around the transparency and open access mantra, “Information just wants to be free.”
Now, in the wholly disingenuous names of “trust” and “safety,” the overlords of the internet want to throttle information with which they disagree. Google employees actively demote content on YouTube deemed “controversial queries,” according to internal documents from Vorhies, including the following phrases:
Abortion is barbaric.
Abortion is wrong.
Abortion is murdering.
Abortion is a crime.
“Do vaccines cause autism,” “climate change hoax,” and “Girl speaks about the danger in Germany due to rape refugees” were also all red-flagged as dangerously “fringe” by the Google P.C. police. So was President Donald Trump’s factual statement that immigration chaos has led to “people that are from all over that are killers and rapists and they’re coming into this country,” which one open borders employee complained was “explicit bias” that “we should take a stand on.”
So they’re for foreign killers and rapists coming into this country? Noted.
Internal staff complaints catalyze search engine manipulation, so political agitation among Google employees is a harbinger of speech clampdowns to come.
Just last week, more than 1,000 Google employees lobbied the company to shun any contract work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Given that Google works with the hate racket and smear machine known as the Southern Poverty Law Center, you bet I’m worried that my immigration blog and column archives (not to mention all my reporting on the treasonous Silicon Valley CEOs in my upcoming book, “Open Borders Inc.”) will trip the Google Social Credit wire.
With Google’s homegrown menaces squelching our freedom of expression, damaging our reputations and livelihoods through slimy and secretive blacklists, and hampering our ability to do honest research—not to mention mining student data in schools by tethering children to Google apps/email/Chromebooks and holding their academic progress hostage to Google’s high-tech leash—who needs foreign enemies?
China ain’t got nuthin’ on America’s “Don’t Be Evil” thought control freaks.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
Dog Takes Charge : Won't Fetch! (Video)
This is so good where a dog takes charge. Even those that can't find any humor in life like most progressive socialist liberal democrats, will find this amusing.
Google Sued By PragerU : Google Denies Access to Conservatives
 |
| Conservatives under attack by Google for content on freedom. |
Social media giants like Google are progressive liberal socialists whos intentions are to eliminate any and all discussion concerning our founding as a nation and install themselves as the controlling all powerful faction for society.
Remember Barrrack's statement on ''transformation of America'' back in 2008? And that the CEO of Google paid more then 200 trips to the White House while Barrrrack was there? How come do ya think?
Google Defends YouTube Restrictions on PragerU’s Educational Videos in Federal Court
A lawyer representing PragerU in federal court says Google’s reasons for denying some viewers access to videos produced by the conservative education organization on the tech giant’s YouTube subsidiary defy belief.
“To suggest that PragerU’s content is obscene, violent, hate speech is an absolute insult to the intelligence of the American public and people like yourself, who are willing to enter the important political dialogue,” Peter Obstler, PragerU’s lead attorney, told reporters and others at a press conference Tuesday in Seattle.
Obstler spoke to reporters after both sides presented oral arguments in Prager University v. Google LLC before the Seattle-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The legal battle by the organization co-founded by commentator and talk radio host Dennis Prager began in October 2017. Prager University, known as PragerU, filed a lawsuit against Google after YouTube placed more than 100 of its videos in “restricted” mode, flagging them as “dangerous” or “derogatory,” according to a press release from PragerU.
“‘Restricted’ means that families that have a filter to avoid pornography and violence cannot see that video,” Prager told a Senate subcommittee in a July hearing.
PragerU said in the press release that it filed the suit because Google and YouTube have restricted 10% of its video content and “maintains that the organization’s videos have been restricted, not because they are explicit, vulgar or obscene in nature, or inappropriate for children in any way, but rather because they promote conservative ideas.”
The videos categorized as restricted cover a range of topics, including the Ten Commandments, tolerance, climate change, free speech, and fake news, and tend to be three to five minutes in length.
Obstler said the organization, which focuses on teaching America’s founding principles and institutions and has more than 2 million YouTube subscribers, is ready to take the case as far as the Supreme Court.
“We will be back, but I am optimistic that we got a very fair hearing with three very able judges today,” Obstler said. “I believe they will do the right thing, and I believe that we will survive in federal court.”
The Daily Signal asked Google for comment on the court case, but it declined to comment on the record. Google’s defenders argue that all PragerU videos are available to the 98% of YouTube users who haven’t enabled the “restricted” mode. PragerU supporters counter that the remaining 2% number in the millions.
Supporters of Google’s stance also argue that those on various parts of the political spectrum can point to examples where they believe YouTube treated their videos unfairly, usually because of the “restricted” mode created for more mature content.
Pete Wilson, a former U.S. senator and governor of California, also spoke at the press conference, saying he is hopeful that PragerU will prevail. Wilson’s law firm represents the organization. “My hope, at least my optimistic expectation … is that this court may give us that second chance,” Wilson said.
Obstler said the case is vitally important because it is closely related to the First Amendment right of free speech.
“Civil dialogue and civil discourse in an open way is the only thing that can keep our democracy going,” Obstler said.
CBO : Traiffs Rising Prices Hurt Consumers. So The Hell What!!!
It wouldn't be so sad that this author is raging about how the cost of consumer items are going up but not that being screwed by China to the tune of 10's of $billions of dollars every year for decades means nothing.
Who the hell are these people???
Oh No!~!! You can't deny an American anything they want any time they want it, right? The America consumer is suffering under the attack by Trump's attempts to bring some commons sense to our trade agreements with China? Say it aint so!!
Just the idea that the America consumer will have to pay the higher prices of make other decisions while the president battles the bad guys. Heaven forbid that an American must suffer such indignities to have to deny themselves one single thing in life!!!
Give me a break!! America is growing faster then ever, more people employed then ever of all races and genders, living better then ever but still it's not good enough?
The Proof Is In: Tariffs Are Hurting the US
The Congressional Budget Office released its updated budget outlook last week, and it confirmed what analysts have said about U.S. trade policy for the last two years: The Trump administration’s tariffs are hurting the U.S. economy.
First, let’s review how these tariffs came about.
In early 2018, President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on roughly $9 billion worth of imports, which included solar products and washing machines. Later that year, about $25 billion worth of steel and aluminum imports were subject to new tariffs.
Then over the last 13 months, the president targeted more than $200 billion worth of imports from China, and another $300 billion worth of Chinese imports are set to see higher tariffs by the end of 2019. The most recent round is not factored into the Congressional Budget Office’s report.
In 2020, more than $500 billion worth of U.S. imports will face higher tariffs than in 2017.
The Congressional Budget Office points out three ways that these tariffs are hurting the economy.
1. Making goods more expensive and reducing purchasing power.
Tariffs are like a sales tax on imports. While White House trade adviser Peter Navarro has claimed that China is paying the tariffs, the reality is that American businesses and consumers bear the cost. The Congressional Budget Office acknowledged that “a larger share of the cost of the tariffs than previously estimated is passed along to U.S. importers.”
2. Increasing business uncertainty.
Businesses thrive on certainty and the ability to plan five, 10, and even 20 years into the future. When unexpected costs arise, or if regulations to receive tariff-free treatment change, plans must adapt. Capital that may have been reserved for business expansion may need to be reallocated to pay the higher costs.
A turbulent economic environment can also deter investment, and new rules can require businesses to “make costly adjustments to their supply chains.”
3. Possibly causing retaliation.
While U.S. tariffs are taxes on Americans, retaliatory tariffs can also be damaging because they can reduce market access. This is especially true if the country imposing retaliation has access to supply of the goods in question from another source.
U.S. agricultural products are a prime example, but rather than resolving the trade conflict, the Trump administration has chosen to use American tax dollars to provide subsidies to certain producers.
As a result of each of these factors, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tariffs will “reduce the level of real U.S. GDP by 0.3% by 2020 [and] real income for the average household by 0.4% by 2020.” A negative effect is also expected for real consumption and real private investment of 0.3% and 1.3%, respectively.
American businesses have already paid more than $32 billion in new taxes, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average family could lose roughly $580 in 2020. Another estimate by JP Morgan finds that Americans could lose as much as $1,000 following the additional tariffs on Chinese imports in 2019.
While the president argues that China’s economy is hurting more than the U.S., after more than a year it is very clear that neither country has gained from the conflict.
The American people surely have not experienced new freedoms or benefits. Instead they are facing higher prices, which will only continue to rise as the next round of tariffs are imposed in the coming months.
It is far past time that the Trump administration admit that tariffs are a failed policy, and that in fact, they are counterproductive to achieving strong economic growth.
All tariffs imposed should be eliminated and the administration should turn to pro-growth economic policies that work, such as lower taxes, fewer regulations, and free trade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
