The American Spectator : Trump the Protectionist

Text Size

Trump the Protectionist

By Ross Kaminsky on 4.14.11 @ 6:08AM

The real problem with a Donald Trump candidacy.

Donald Trump’s media frenzy-causing questions about Barack Obama’s birth certificate are distracting us from important policy positions of the potential candidate.

Trump made news Monday when he was said in an interview that he would “probably” run as an independent candidate if he does not get the Republican nomination. It may be a gambit to try to increase voters’ likelihood of supporting him in a GOP primary, or he may really mean it. With Trump, one never knows. (I continue to believe he will not run at all.)

While some are tactically pleased with Trump’s actions bringing up the birth certificate question — again, more because it shows Obama’s evasiveness than because of any certainty about where Obama was born — Trump should not be the Republican nominee. More importantly, he must be dissuaded from running as an independent, an act which could decimate the chance of beating Barack Obama.

Trump realizes that an independent run would split the conservative vote and says it concerns him. He says that someone could win as an independent these days, which I think is unlikely unless the Republicans nominate a dead person. (For a pretty good parallel situation, look at the results in Colorado’s recent gubernatorial election where a popular independent lost to the Democrat with an all-but-dead Republican still getting 11% of the vote.) Trump also says he won’t run unless he thinks he can win. It is incumbent upon conservatives and libertarians to make sure he knows he can’t.

Anyone responding to a poll — or at least anyone who does not want a second Obama term — must respond that he or she would not support Trump as an independent candidate in any circumstance. And any Republican considering supporting him should withhold such support, whether financial or otherwise, until Trump renounces the path of an independent candidacy.

The reasons for this are not just about party and vote-splitting. It’s about Trump and his beliefs. His positions, few of which are actually known, are great pandering sound bites to the economic illiterates who represent the majority of the nation (and essentially the entire Democratic Party). But particularly when it comes to foreign trade Trump is not just wrong but dangerously wrong.

Regarding China, Trump says he’d aim to slap a 25% import tariff on their products if China doesn’t “shape up.” I had to laugh when he said “I’m for free trade” right afterwards, repeating “I’m all for free trade, but it has to be fair trade.” The term “fair trade” is code for unfree trade, period.

Trump argues that a trade deficit with a country means that American trade with that country is bad for America, that the amount of a trade deficit represents the amount of damage to America. He says that America has “lost” the amount of the trade deficit.

This characterization is wrong and, to put it plainly, idiotic.

I have a trade deficit with Walmart, Target, Safeway, and Toys ‘R’ Us. Does that mean I should not be permitted to trade with them? And, just as with money going to a foreign country, dollars I spend in those stores must, either now or later, come back into to the U.S. economy in the form of physical or financial investment.

When a Wall Street Journal interviewer suggested (at about 12:20 into the interview) that Trump’s view is “protectionism,” he said that if the other country has a trade surplus with the U.S. then “I want to be protected.” Think about what that means: It means that if China has a $275 billion trade surplus with the U.S., Trump would try to tax our imports from China by enough to recover that money, raising the prices of everything we buy that is made in China. If tariffs are placed on Chinese goods (or any other goods), all or nearly all of that tax will simply go to raise the price on the tag in the store. The idea that the Chinese will pay the tax is ridiculous; they’re already operating on small margins in low-value-added manufactured goods with prices squeezed to rock bottom by Walmart and others. No, it just means all our prices will go up.

Therefore, either we will buy the same quantity of stuff and spend more money, leaving less money for education, health care, home improvement, travel, or whatever, or we’ll spend the same quantity of money and have fewer of the things we want (or some combination of both).

By the way, based on 2010 data, in order to recover the complete value of the trade “deficit” with China, and assuming that massive price increases would not cause people to buy less, the tariff required to eliminated the trade deficit would be 75%, not 25%. In reality, there is no tariff level that would eliminate our trade deficit with China: as the tariff goes up, the price tags go up, so people will stop buying and the tax collected will drop precipitously. Furthermore, if we imposed any substantial tariff, the Chinese would respond by blocking American imports, thus eliminating much, most, or all of the “gain” from the tariffs.

I can’t stress this enough: The trade “deficit” with a foreign country is not an analogue to our budget deficit, which is a net loss to Americans because it represents money that must be extracted from taxpayers either now or later. I understand the confusion among the general public, generated in part because of the use of the word “deficit” in both cases and in part because of populist econo-moron politicians playing the age-old xenophobe card to advance their sorry political careers. (You hear me, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer?)

In a way, the trade deficit represents savings to the American consumer — always the “forgotten man” when it comes to politicos pandering for votes. Every time you buy something made in China, it represents a choice (made by you or by the store you’re shopping at or both) to provide you a product with a desirable ratio of benefit to cost, at a particular level of quality and intangibles like brand cachet.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (119) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Craig| 4.14.11 @ 6:27AM

Thank you! You are the first one to bring up something other than the birth certificate issue. Though I do want people in elected office with business experience, I realize that many very successful businesspeople are terribly ignorant of basic economics. Trump is one of them.

I'd like to see him continue his birth certificate crusade for a while (it really makes the libs squirm) and then go back to making money and employing people. That's where he can help his country most.

Bruce Anderson | 4.14.11 @ 2:16PM

Be it that I am one that would like to See Obama put out of office sooner then Term Limits an Voting would be so, I do not see anyone in Congress Pushing to Put him out Via the Views of treason Like Send ing Aid to the foes of our Allies in Times of War as we are in Two or More nAtions with the very Culture that seeks to drive out the Jews land rights views as with the matter of Gaza the land Belongs to the Jews End of Story, Obama views is a repeat of World War Two!
I Sight http://www.tellchildrenthetruth.com/arafat_en.htm And http://www.hillsdale.edu/image....._Jan11.pdf

Another Side of such Congress Should and or could push is the Unconstitutional views of Obama that took us to war with Libya, with out a vote of Congress, It is More or less Like Bosnia and Clinton that gave us 9-11-2001 after Clinton refused to Stop Osma Bin Laden from the views of the cia that told them we know where he is get the vote of Congress and Stop him.

The other side is this push to leave the Borders unsecured and IIlegals get Tax Dollars without inforcement of say SELECTIVE SERVICE as judges seek to let IIlegals known threat Sue Legal Americans Ie the Ranchers Case and the Late Judge Roll, As Supporters of Obama & Eric holder & say Like Mayor Mark Kruzan of Bloomington Indiana seek to push or BAck Boy Cots and Anti Self Defense views!

HR 308
We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the
lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable
for his actions." - Ronald Reagan

HR 2640 Veterans Disarmament Act & S 2084 dereliction of duty to the Oath of office as the leadership of common defense Direct Criminal Constitutional Contempt of Court The Supreme Court ruled such Bans Unconstitutional, fight back with tort claims and Sovereign law that constitutes a true state of law and freedom set forth by our framers, United States Title 42 United States Code section 1983 Supreme Court has Upheld this the right of self defense 5-4 Am McDonald v. Chicago,
When the Leadership of common defense seeks to dis arm we the people in a time of war its called Treason,

on January 01- Day 04 2011, a $33 million Dollar Tort Claim to Suit City of Bloomington Monroe County Indiana Elected & Appointed for Direct Constitutional Contempt. For the Unconstitutional Restraint of 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech & Redress of Grievance. Taxation without representation is tyranny! So Out lined in the rules of Public Comment So passed & unconstitutionally upheld.

Views In Question to be Challenged Rules of Public Comment Rule Number 5, Rule Number 1. Rule Number 2
In the this tort Claim Notes was made to address the Treasonous views of the city of Bloomington Indiana to insight We the people backs a boy cot of Arizona's right of self defense to secure the unsecured
Borders,to Hault the Action of Known threat to ward off threats to Legal Americans! They Held no Town Hall back In may 17 2010 before as such!

I sigh the Gibbons v. Ogden 9 Wheaton 1 1824 case,
Gibbons V. Ogden} 9 Wheaton 1 (1824). Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall, Upholds Only Congress can regulate Inter States Commerce

It has been said that they were sovereign, {“The States”} were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a “League”!
The States Tax System was the only one force able with or with out a War being fought on United States Soil, The federal system was to be voluntary unless a war was so being fought on “United States Soil” Both views was for to pay for again the Common defense to protect the United States or the Common “League” in form of the National defense leads by the executive Branch of Government common defense League. From threats!
To rejects Such is Treason
Laws Sighted: {United States Title 42 United States Code Section 1983} & the International Maritime Jurisdiction

Obama views are not for American's ! I am really liking Mr. Trumps views or Suggestion , for Nothing Obama has said thus far I have heard tells me he wants to let congress the real voice of we the people be heard to refine the infrastructur...e of the United States and the use of our Natural resources! if we do not and some thing like what happened with say Japan if such would happen and our Internal infrastructure is not secured we would have Bigger problems, I am not a tree huger per say yet I Understand how to can my own food to me that is a mind set that needs to be Suggestion! Mr. Limbaugh your right! Keep telling the people the real truths, Force Congress to use what we have Stop sending money to other Nations some we are at war with to keep things Like oil Coming, for crying out loud we are at war with Islam why in the name of Almighty would he without restraint send Millions in Aid to Gaza to back Hamas to secure Oil from the Middle East, That is the same views from hitler that created in part World War Two, Gaza Belongs to our Allies the Jews Stop send ing aid Treason to people we are At War With, When is Congress going to wake up and Understand they are Head of We the people Obama is Nothing more then a figure head without such, they need to Stop making his views out to be as like a King!-----I think I know understand why the framers Wanted All Taxes to Voluntary and Why The federal Tax System is to be voluntary read the the very bottem of the 1040, the history in part was no War On U.S. Soil No Federal Taxes! As i understand the federal taxes he want Higher is the federal tax base to pay for the use of over seas Natural resources!

Bruce Anderson | 4.14.11 @ 2:26PM

I so Add this is an out rage as because of the Back Log of Cases of Veteran left being rejected just do penssion's left homeless many on ever decreasing food Stamps, I sight such with in some cases in Some States the Back Log problems that is ever increasing because of the views of Clinton the draft Dodgers rewrite of the Draft Act back in the 1990's, that was in part done to get out of taking care many Veterans made worse because of the Military personnel records burned in the fire of 1973 , , repository of over 56 million military records 9700 Page Avenue in St. Louis, Missouri

Bruce Anderson | 4.14.11 @ 2:51PM

Views In Question to be Challenged like Rules of Public Comment Rule Number 5, Rule Number 1. Rule Number 2, 6 Out lined below!
http://bloomington.in.gov/medi.....f/7507.pdf

Bloomington Indiana Mayoral Challenger Hamilton Has said he would I para Sight,:) Sights a proposal for codes of ethics panel!

agreed, I would reject anyone to be Paid to be on such Panel & I feel anyone on it should be Elected not Appointed, & have term limits of Two year, We already have such a panel its Call Town Hall Meetings The Problem is Dictaitorship views that reFuses to let open debates happen over restrainment of Time and how manytimes the Public maybe able to Speak at town Halls,

btim| 4.14.11 @ 6:36AM

Completely wide open, "free trade" is naive. Some "protectionism" is a good thing - if one wants to remain a sovereign country, instead of the course we're on, that of the liberal dream of one world, one government, no nations.

So some protectionism is common sense. Just ask the Chinese, the Japanese, the Germans, etc.

FTM| 4.14.11 @ 11:07AM

Free trade isn't the problem the way that most folks interperate the phrase "Free Trade." That means that folks from other places sell here and folks from here sell other places.

Now, what actually happens is that other folks can sell here and folks here are prohibited from selling anywhere but here.

Case in point, wine produced in California can not be exported to the EU but EU winemakers can export to the US. There are lots of examples. Toyota for example, imports about half of what they sell in the US and manufacture the rest here. On the other hand, Chrysler, Ford and GM aren't allowed to export a car to Japan.

Another case in point, state governments pay foreign auto manufacturers to build cars in their states through tax easements and incentives and the like. Then talking out of the other side of their mouth tell Chrysler, Ford and GM that the need to "Learn to Compete."

The concept of free trade as it is currently practiced seems to be designed to drain away the wealth of America. Just like H. Ross Perot said that it would. As a countermeasure to the issue I would propose Mr. Perot's answer and meet the importers at the pier with the same restrictions and duties that Amercan Made goods are met with in their own countries.

I hope that the next political administration in this country has the will to tell GreenPeace and the Sierra Club to sit down and shut up. Then tell the oil company guys to drill a bunch of holes and build some refineries and next tell the manufacturing folks to get busy and build a bunch of factories and let's get this economy on the road.

President Obama's administration hasn't been a complete loss, President Obama has at practically every turn given a masterful demonstration of how not to run a counrty. Another accomplishment has been to make the Carter Adminisatration look less incompetant. Time for President Obama to quietly go away and let the folks that know how get this economy back on track.

LMajito| 4.14.11 @ 6:40AM

So Mr. Kaminsky thinks that the USA has free trade with China? Yep but it is only one way daddio...from the far east to the US...the other way around does not work...and this is pretty much with every other nation the US has engaged in 'free' trade agreements.

Trump is right that the US needs to quit using diplomats to negotiate treaties...all these instances results in USA getting bohic...try to sell a product in China...good luck...but wait a minute Ross just trades in derivatives, the garbage that caused the '08 financial slip and the Hanks/George solution(read theft of us taxpayers so wall st bankers still live)...so of course he wants more of the same...

however the American middle class deserves better than the Rosses of this world that want to fill their wallets and America be dammed...don't care what happens as long as the bonuses are met...

Trump has found an ear because he makes sense in the China, Korea and OPEC...it is high time that the political whores and their ilk get run out of town and let some Americans that want America for the Americans first...let Ross move to Shanghai and continue his pillage of other nations wealth (try to do in China what he does in Wall St and he'll end up at the wrong side of a Type 56)

Ross Kaminsky | 4.14.11 @ 10:48AM

LMajito,

I have one-way free-trade with Walmart, Target, supermarkets, my local sports teams, Apple Computer, and many others. What are they supposed to buy from me to reduce my trade deficit with them?

Why is China any different? We import several times more than we export to them. My question is SO WHAT???

They are not pillaging our wealth, as you put it. They get dollars and then have to buy stocks, bonds, real estate, or otherwise invest the US, or else sell their dollars to someone else who will. Just because the dollars temporarily leave our borders does not mean they are lost.

In short, you have no idea what you're talking about, which is exactly what Trump, Dobbs, and people like them count on.

John in SoCal| 4.14.11 @ 12:59PM

Mr. Kaminsky,

Walmart, Target, and your supermarket are not sovereign nations. They are retailers who employ people in the local community and therefore return at least a portion of our wealth, even though they purchase the goods they sell to us from the least expensive source, which is usually an overseas manufacturer (that trend seems to be changing, as the American people have awakened and are now beginning to apply their own version of protectionism).

When a foreign entity sells goods or services in the United States, most or all of that money ends up being reinvested in the foreign worker, or that country's economy, or in the case of communist nations such as China, much of it ends up in some party official's hidden 'retirement fund'. That wealth never returns to us.

This would be all well and good, if American goods and services enjoyed the same access to foreign markets the foreign interests have been given to ours. This is not the case, however. The model of "free trade" Americans have been and are still being subjected to is "we buy, they sell." Our wealth flows out, theirs does not flow in. Thirty years of watching the U.S. manufacturing sector vanish overseas has opened most people's eyes to the reality of the "free trade" model that you are still promoting. LMajito isn't the one who's confused here.

As for Donald, when a man who has the experience of having made and lost more than one fortune speaks on economics, I am much more likely to listen to him than an armchair economist. As to whether I would want him in the White House or not, that is another matter.

Big Tony| 4.14.11 @ 1:43PM

Mr. Kominsky
I agree with you in part, what Mr. Trump is advocating is simply a consumption tax via another name just like the VAT tax Obama is or was advocating. If no relief from income or FICA tax is offered I too believe the import, excise tax whatever you want to call it is a bad idea. Has anyone gauged Mr. Trump as to whether this tax is to be offset elsewhere or is just another tax in addition to the ones we are already paying?

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.14.11 @ 3:34PM

Without China making everything cheap, more people would realize how much our currency has devalued.

GW| 4.15.11 @ 2:03AM

You lost the argument when you used the word "xenophobe." As a proud xenophobe, I, like Trump, are interested in putting American interests first, not Wall Street's. Middle America is hoodwinked into the fake "free trade" you speak of. Until American companies can sell freely to Asia, we should be as xenophobic as they are.

Thripshaw| 4.14.11 @ 2:55PM

All developed nations have gone through a phase of protectionism. That's how they achieve first world status. Protectionism may not work in Ross Kaminsky's theories, but it works in practice.

If protectionism is so bad, why are the Chinese practicing it? They must be very stupid compared to the geniuses that destroyed the manufacturing base of the US.

Run, Donald, Run!

Mr ED| 4.14.11 @ 7:39AM

I believe the Donald has become a "leading" candidate is because he has the cohones to breach the carefully constructed information ramparts of the MSM which place "out of bounds" any serious discussions of Obamesiahs eligibility or his stiffing of the American people as to his personal records of all types. The Leftists in the MSM - being true to form - Have determined that anyone wanting to know anything about Obamesiahs birth certificate, college records, personal details of all types, are on par with those other social outcasts, the UFO believers. Conservatives are looking for ANYONE who will do battle with the Lib/Political/RINO/MSM Elite establishment head-on. Conservatives are tired and disgusted by their supposed standard bearers wilting under the pressure of the Leftist/RINO politics-of-personal-destruction assault machine and then playing footsie with the Leftist evil. The co-opted "conservative" (Think Maverick McLame) hopes to be able to thread the needle between appearing to be a supposed "conservative" to the base and at the same time being one who is more Liberal (or at least aquiescent to Libs) than a genuinely conservative candidate. That way the Lib leaning "conservative" politician - the one who will bend to Lib pressure from the MSM - gets elected when the real conservative politician does not. Thats the MSM "making a difference!!!" and that is their job in Liberalville.

The MSM / Lib / RINO establishment IS the story every day and that axis of evil will have to be taken head-on and crushed. The MSM players who provide the public faces for the Lib MSM effort will also have to have their careers destroyed and be publically villified and humilliated as the partisan hacks they are. I believe they know instinctively that it will happen, and some are electing to opt out of their roles as Lib mouthpieces now before the Lib MSM assault machine is destroyed and them along with it. The hyperpartisan MSM hacks who care only about themselves and their ability to carry the Lib message to the public on the behalf of their even more Liberal betters can read the writing on the public wall.

Conservatives in increasing numbers are becoming acutely aware of the Lib / MSM axis of evil and are actively and carefully looking for politicians who will speak the truth and not just the approved scripted lies of the MSM. THIS is why the Donald - who I am not a particular fan of by the way - has gotten so much traction so quickly. He has breached the ramparts of the falsely constructed Liberal information Bastille and shown the Lib MSM to be the coniving, biased and untrustworthy scum they have always been. What the Donald has done is show the way and the MSM who helped create the Donald as a public personality don't really know how to deal with him. The Lib / MSM establishment knows the Donald is intimately aware of their whole schtick and their usual routine of personal destruction activities will not pressure the Donald, because he is inured to their bleating assaults on his character. The Donald will not recant his blasphemies.

S. Ruger| 4.14.11 @ 8:09AM

Bravo, Mr. Ed, ... very well said!

russel| 4.14.11 @ 10:34AM

Ditto . To make it short , the Trumpster is the only one who could beat zero . It's totally irrelevant what Donald is other than that . We are DEAD if we get the incompetent won in there for a second term . Split the party vote ? . No , nominate him and throw out the rest of the losers who are lining up .

Truth is King| 4.14.11 @ 5:31PM

Paul Ryan could beat him. Trump belongs on the Apprentice show~ Ryan has a real plan. Won't Trump be just another Perot, causing Obama to win?
Just like writing in your brother-in-law on the ballot.

Clint| 4.14.11 @ 9:05PM

More like You RINO-CINO Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie Voting for The Serial Traitor to Conservatism, John McCain.

Tell Us about McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, Gang of 14, Opposing The 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts,Tarp.

Margie| 4.15.11 @ 6:27PM

Serial Traitors to conservatism are those who would rather see Obama re elected than vote for a Republican because he is a lousy two-bit Neo-Nazi hack from Stormfront.

Thripshaw| 4.14.11 @ 3:08PM

The Donald is pounding Obama harder than any milquetoast establishment Republican is capable of doing. We all know that the MSM equates any criticism of Obama with racism (ask the Tea Party.)

The Donald has thick skin and is immune to the phony racism charge. He also connects to the average man in the street with his blunt, no-nonsense style.

How ridiculous for globalist traitor Ross Kaminsky to tell America-firster Trump he has no right to run. Neo-Trotskyite jackasses like Ross fanatically repress dissenting viewpoints and tirelessly smear patriotic Americans.

jg bennet| 4.14.11 @ 7:32PM

And then there is this.....
trump appeals to a wider swath of the electorate from wing nut birthers, the tea party, unions and disillusioned obama voters like me. that is amazing and republicans call 70% of their voters and trump an idiot when there is a weak democratic president that he can drum.

The NBC/WSJ internals show something is working for Trump. He draws mainly from voters with no college degree, and leads among both Tea Party supporters and “very conservative” Republicans, but his appeal, whatever it is, isn’t limited to the right wing. He’s also the top candidate among independents and Democrats who plan to vote in Republican primaries, as some states, including New Hampshire, allow.

Intelligent Design| 4.14.11 @ 7:59AM

If Trump were elected he would have an immediate problem. Every time he got off or got on Marine One, his hairdo would be destroyed. Decidedly un-presidential.

mames| 4.14.11 @ 11:20AM

AN ethical/moral Trump is a pipe dream.

Black Eagle| 4.14.11 @ 1:28PM

BHO was supposed to be the "ethical, moral" candidate. I am always amused how frequently those who beat their chest in public about such things get caught with their hands in the cash register, or peeking at kiddie-porn on the internet, etc. At least Trump won't have the incentive to be stealing cash, and lacking the characteristics of a messiah, we will know his warts and blemishes. He loves America, which has done well for him. I cannot say the same for many of the RINOS and certainly not for BHO, who is in fact a cloaked Marxist Islamist, with a fake biography from start to finish. Mr. Kaminsky has it all wrong on that. His bio is of central concern, and we ordinary sots are sick of all the apologism BHO gets from both liberals and (phoney?) conservatives who want to say that such subjects are "distracting" or "irrelevant".

skedaddle| 4.14.11 @ 8:11AM

If Mr. Kaminsky reflects the attitudes of the establishment Repub. Party, they're going to lose in 2012. I won't vote for more blather that covers up the giant sucking sound that is our wealth leaving the country for cheap junk from China. China might send some of the money back, but as obligations with more money to be made off it, thus compounding the problem. Most middle class people would like a little protection. The country worked alot better when more of our stuff was made here. Trump understands this.

skip| 4.14.11 @ 4:26PM

"Most middle class people would like a little protection. The country worked alot better when more of our stuff was made here."

You mean a time when a company could make a profit, while absorbing the labor costs of a productive labor force without union extortion abetted by politicians, in a free market without regulatory extortion abetted by politicians, and meeting all tax liabilities without facing the highest global coporate rates extorted by politicians?

That time?

Mike Rogers| 4.14.11 @ 8:41AM

Kaminsky has it right - Protectionists are bad news. Protectionists during a recession are REALLY bad news (consider Smoot-Hawley). Trump is Perot without the squeaky voice - superficially appealing, nice story about jobs being exported, but no real understanding of why, and of course, an EGO big enough to run as an independent and re-elect Obama (who he supported in round 1, by the way).
I agree that the country would be better off if more stuff was produced here, but it's not just the labor costs, indeed, it isn't even mostly the labor costs - it's our tax and regulatory structure. Make it more appealing to do business here, and more business will be done here, it's that simple. Even domestically, we can see the shift of manufacturing from the rust belt to the south for lower taxes, less regulations, and right-to-work laws - it's not rocket science.
If you want a real businessman who made his money (and made a lot of others rich) by making businesses successful, look at Herman Cain - now THAT's leadership ability.

S. Ruger| 4.14.11 @ 9:07AM

The piece says, "Trump argues that a trade deficit with a country means that American trade with that country is bad for America..."

This is willfully oversimplified. Mr. Kaminsky ignores the fact that we have dismantled our industrial base and shipped it abroad, all because we like to get a cheap deal from countries that don't have to pay to protect their environments or their workers. We either have to apply tariffs (20-25%) to level the playing field or eliminate our own labor, safety, and environmental regulations.

Yes, prices would rise in the U.S., but so would industrial activity, government revenue, wages, and standard of living.

It appears that Mr. Kaminsky had the global corporate chip implanted in his brain and its battery is still going. Aren't the rapacious profits of the mega-corps that derived from unfettered harvesting of America's industrial infrastructure finally drying up? The jobs sure are.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.14.11 @ 10:51AM

S Ruger, if you look at the data, you will see that we produce more stuff than ever in real $ terms. We just produce different stuff than in the past, letting other countries produce more low-value-added, low-profit products while we move up the scale to higher value products.

Your call for tariffs is dangerous and stupid, to put it plainly. What is wrong with getting a "cheap deal"? Wouldn't you rather buy something for less so you can have more money to buy something else with or send your kids to a better school or go to a better doctor, etc?

S. Ruger| 4.14.11 @ 12:23PM

Well, I'll accept the "stupid," since I accused you of having robot hardware in your head.

I think you're looking at the dollar values of what we produce here, and that would include agricultural products and a lot of services. The former counts as real stuff (with ever few jobs involved), but the latter not. We no longer make TVs, cameras, very many appliances, personal computers,... the list goes on and on. Even many of our firearms are made in Italy, Turkey, and Brazil. Making real stuff is what gives a country strength, not shuffling paper, practicing law, or selling things to one another. The service economy rests on top of the "making real stuff" economy, and we're losing the real end of the equation.

Oh sure, we all like to buy things cheaply, but are we selling out the country long-term by doing so?

Larry| 4.14.11 @ 11:53PM

Boy, that is a hot one. Are we selling out the country by buying things cheaply? No, I don't think so. And I can't agree with you, S Ruger, that services don't count as "real stuff." Not if you've ever needed your landscape redone, or you get accused wrongly of a heinous crime, or your plumbing fixed, or a whole host of other services that make living in this country even more convenient than ever.

And when you finally get on a fixed income, or your non-fixed income is ravaged by inflation, you will appreciate buying things more cheaply. I think this debate more of a tempest in a teapot. Americans have in their entire history argued about tariffs and protectionism. In the early days of this country, it may have been justified. Now, however, it is an overblown thing.

Until Americans are willing to work harder and work for lower wages like the rest of the world does these days, then we can talk about bringing "real stuff" manufacturing home (if that categorization is even correct; I think not, really). I, for one, do not want to work harder for lower wages. So, I do not mind the so-called "trade deficit." It is simply a different world economy now.

Sheila| 4.14.11 @ 12:23PM

Ross Kaminsky, not everyone is like the Asians and the Jews, obsessed with sending their kids to "brand-name" schools (such as Harvard, established by protestants to train ministers, and now approximately 55% Jewish and Asian). A better doctor, for me, is a White - someone who didn't get into (or out of) medical school based on affirmative action.

Your sneering at those who decry the dismantling of this country's productive base is utterly predictable. The only "stuff" we produce, let alone export, is raw materials (such as a third-rate, colonial nation) and/or ever more lawyers or health-care "specialists." Oh, and let's not forget bilingual teachers. "Free trade" is like democracy - a right-liberal code word that means hitting the cliff at just a slightly slower speed than the leftists have in mind.

Sam Levi| 4.14.11 @ 2:03PM

Sheila, That is dangerously close to anti-semitism.
I am a Jew, and a white. I am not a Jewish-American. I am an American. While many of my fellow jews are completely stupid in their liberal views, please don't lump us like that. I am all for drilling here, impeaching Obama, dismantling the DOE, DoEd, the EPA, and repealing NAFTA

Thripshaw| 4.14.11 @ 3:25PM

Right, pointing out the fact that Jews and Asians are approximately half of the student body of Harvard is anti-semitism. We must never tell the truth that Jews are the most economically successful group in the country. Instead we must pretend at all times that Jews are a powerless, oppressed minority. Give me a break.

Sheila| 4.14.11 @ 5:08PM

Anti-semitism: The belief, by non-Jews, that Jews can be criticized like anyone else.

loulou| 4.14.11 @ 8:24PM

Criticizing them for what? For being smart? Are Asians and Jews supposed to pretend they're stupider than you?

loulou| 4.14.11 @ 2:31PM

Sheila, you must be aware that Jews and Asians have their admissions limited by a quota system.

If the top colleges and professional schools went by test scores and grades there would be many more Jews and Asians attending. Instead, their numbers are limited to produce "diversity."

No offense, but you don't sound too bright.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.14.11 @ 3:15PM

Care to provide a link outlining these quotas?

Thripshaw| 4.14.11 @ 3:17PM

What? Jews have no quota! The typical Harvard freshman class is 25% Jewish, and 25% non-Jewish white. Jews are massively overrepresented compared to their 2% of the population. Non-Jewish whites are massively underrepresented.

Jews benefit tremendously from affirmative action because they take half of the "white" slots. Try to have a little knowledge of a subject before posting in future so yo don't sound so ridiculous!

Margie| 4.15.11 @ 6:29PM

Sheila herself says she's a "Race Realist." And a White Nationalist.

Are you also on the Neo-Nazi bandwagon?

Lucky Garnett| 4.14.11 @ 4:22PM

Mr. Kaminsky,

When I went shopping for a comforter I went with the intention of not buying one 'made in China'. I was willing to spend considerably more money so I could have a better quality product which would last longer. I went to 3 different stores and could not find a comforter at these stores NOT 'made in china'. They were cheap and you could tell wouldn't last beyond a a couple of years.
I'd rather buy quality products made in this country and spend a little more if need be.
I hate CHEAP quality and that's all the Chinese produce all the while screwing us.

George True| 4.14.11 @ 9:11AM

This guy Obama has paid out millions of dollars to make the paper trail of his entire life just completely disappear. It's not just the missing birth certificate. It is also the disappeared records of his adoption by Lolo Soetero, his school records from Indonesia, his records from Occidental College, his records from Columbia and Hervard Universities, his passport records, his fraudulent selective service registration, his multiple fraudulent Social Security numbers, his records as the co-chair (with Bill Ayers) of the failed Chicago Annenburg Challenge "charity", and his records as a state senator in Illinois. All of it either "disappeared" or off limits.

Any rational person would conclude that he is obviously hiding something. Either something criminal, or something that would destroy him politically, or more likely both. And it is positively maddening that in addition to the completely co-opted MSM putting all this behind a firewall, even the Republicans themselves have decided that thou shalt not even so much as ask about such things. By virtue of the fact that Obama is hiding his entire past, it is abundantly obvious that he is as crooked and phony as they come. If anybody would start pulling at the threads, the entire false construct that is Obama would start to unravel. It is the sure way of beating him.

I have great respect for you Mr Kaminsky, but on this topic I must respectfully disagree. This issue is not a distraction, it is THE core issue. Never in American history have we had a president who has erased his entire past, until now. And we have an entire political party and an entire co-opted media who are fully complicit in the coverup. This is the central issue of this campaign, and the Republicans are pretending it does not exist.

Mr Trump is performing a great service to his country by putting this issue front and center. It would be a perfect opportunity for other Republicans to pile on, but instead they are running for cover. We the people know what Lincoln must have felt when he could not get any of his generals to actually wage war.

I will make a prediction. Obama will have an unprecedented amount of money for his campaign, a billion dollars I have heard. He also still has the media on his side. That all by itself is probably good for a 10 point difference on election day. In spite of the fact that he is a Marxist, and he has destroyed our economy, and his unfavorables are high right now, he will still eke out a win next year. Unless enough Republicans go straight at him about the birth certificate and related issues. If Republicans will put on the full court press on this issue, they will win. If they do not, Obama will win.

Trump is doing all of us a great service. It sickens me that nobody else has the cojones to join him.

John Navratil| 4.14.11 @ 9:48AM

Mr. True,

You are quite right. If the voters recognize Obama's behaviour for what it is they will never re-elect him. That's the message "What are you hiding and why?"

Ross Kaminsky | 4.14.11 @ 10:52AM

George,

You and I are not far apart on this. If you go to my blog at http://rossputin.com today, you'll see my thoughts on Trump and the birth certificate issue.

That said, my point is that Trump should not be our president because his beliefs are stupid and dangerous when it comes to economics.

mames| 4.14.11 @ 11:24AM

Good blog on the birth certificate. Obama as in so many other issues is a natural born liar and a very evil man.

russel| 4.14.11 @ 3:48PM

Mr. Kaminsky , as I said and most agree , your point is irrelevant . It's like arguing about the bar tab on the Titanic . Also , Trump does not have economic " beliefs " , he's a billionaire for crying out loud . He understands economics like breathing . He does business with the Chinese to the tune of millions of dollars . We will have economic ruin if BHO is allowed to continue . Now THERE is someone who is stupid and dangerous . Get after him and do something constructive .

Larry| 4.14.11 @ 11:57PM

George, if I thought that Trump was the only candidate who could possibly beat Obama, I might agree with you. But Mr. Trump has many flaws, and has had a whole host of bad deals and financial problems he has brought upon himself over time. I think him vulnerable on a lot of fronts, and would rather not see him commit a version of public political suicide on a grand scale. Maybe he can be a good Secretary of Commerce. But not President. Please.

darrell judd| 4.14.11 @ 9:13AM

Wow. AmSpec has a professional derivatives trader commenting on economics. Deja Vue all over again. China doesn't trade. It's not capitalist. It's not free. The number of conservatives who will sell out everything chasing dollars is a wake up call. As was 2008. Capitalists like Mr. Kaminsky are in the process of having the U.S. commit suicide via capitalism. Selling China the rope. Mr. Trump is responding to that because he has real world experience and some strategic competence.

Big Tony| 4.14.11 @ 9:18AM

Mr. Kaminsky's comments have a grain of truth but only tell part of the story. Lefted out are the following facts: China offers no Intellectual Property protection for the goods and services offer by American companies and trade with China is largely and often one way or one time so they can reverse engineer something and sell it back to us or keep it themselves. Another fact not mentioned is our country needs tax revenue from somewhere. I would be willing to support import tariffs if and only if the Constitutional Amendment allowing for taxation of income were repealed first.

mames| 4.14.11 @ 11:27AM

There is no such thing as free trade or fair trade with a communist country. Trade among only free countries will drive those that are not free to be so.

logan| 4.14.11 @ 9:32AM

Trade is good, no doubt and I don't believe govt. should so control business as to dictate whether a firm can relocate or not or exactly how a firm should produce it's goods or services.

That said, as stated above, some common sensed "protectionism" can be prudent, less we lose ourselves as a country and merely become a loose "region" full of people with no allegiance to our heritage and our nation, except to make a fast buck.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.14.11 @ 10:52AM

Logan,

Please offer any evidence of free trade causing the problems you suggest.

logan| 4.14.11 @ 3:25PM

I had in mind the point when we were considering letting foreign nations/companies build weapons for our armed forces. The free trade fetishists all insisted that Airbus build the US Air Force's new tanker aircraft instead of Boeing. Outsourcing our defense to others is foolish in my judgement.

Furthermore, one can not deny our industrial base is much weakened, than it was just twenty years ago. I think we all see the foolishness of trying to simply become a "service" economy. Service yes but we most surely need engineering and manufacturing as well.

Sparrowhawk| 4.14.11 @ 9:32AM

"I have a trade deficit with Walmart, Target, Safeway, and Toys 'R' Us. Does that mean I should not be permitted to trade with them?"

You might want to look closely at what you're buying there, because I'm betting that, with the (usual) exception of food, what you are buying is from China, not from an American supplier to those stores.

"And, just as with money going to a foreign country, dollars I spend in those stores must, either now or later, come back into to the U.S. economy in the form of physical or financial investment."

Yes, indeed... physical or financial investments like China buying up more and more American land, American buildings, and American intellectual property... that is, the intellectual property they haven't already stolen.

"Every time you buy something made in China, it represents a choice..."

Yes, a choice... to make it more expensive for American companies to make the very same 'something,' and more economical for them to import it and export our nation's wealth.

...but that has already been addressed by previous comments.

Sparrowhawk| 4.14.11 @ 9:37AM

"In reality, there is no tariff level that would eliminate our trade deficit with China: as the tariff goes up, the price tags go up, so people will stop buying and the tax collected will drop precipitously. Furthermore, if we imposed any substantial tariff, the Chinese would respond by blocking American imports, thus eliminating much, most, or all of the "gain" from the tariffs."

If the people will stop buying because the tariffs inflate the prices, that in and of itself will eliminate the trade deficit. If people don't stop buying, the US government can take their pound of flesh there instead of from my income.

Win, win.

Anthony| 4.14.11 @ 9:38AM

I'm glad Trump has brought up the birth certificate issue as well. I'm sick and tired of all the "best and brightest" telling the rest of us birthers how stupid we look.
Well my answer is simple, and this applies to latest capitulator, Gov. Mitt. Please, all you smarter than hell people, tell us what you know and how you know it, so the rest of us rubes can be let in on the secret as well.
That said, as for Trump's run for president, I sure as hell hope it's nothing more than just a publicity stunt, which he craves and seeks like a junkie on a daily basis.
Problem is, the lefty media will continue to play him up, hoping for another Perot, to save Obozo's bacon.
Trump could have been a serious contender but the man is nothing but a showboat and an ego driven narcissist. For now, Trump knows the lefty media will remain silent on all his dark past, to keep the wedge in the game.

Dareisay| 4.14.11 @ 9:52AM

As a Conservative, I disagree with you, and agree with Mr. Trump!

There is a new study out about this topic from MIT

It should be read by all:

"Our study suggests that the rapid increase in U.S. imports of Chinese goods during the past two decades has had a substantial impact on employment and household incomes, benefits program enrollments, and transfer payments in local labor markets exposed to increased import competition. These effects extend far outside the manufacturing sector, and they imply substantial changes in worker and household welfare."

Read more: Economists 'shocked' by jobs-to-China report http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f.....z1JVNu2YXQ

So, unemployed workers, that have lost their jobs to China, are using up more tax dollars in entitlements, than anything we gain in FREE trade!

Many that support and write about FREE trade, should know, there is an awakening amongst the public, and it is against FREE trade...including many Conservatives.....and if our Republican politicians don't listen, they will lose votes!

Ross Kaminsky | 4.14.11 @ 10:54AM

If free trade were really bad for jobs, unemployment would have spiked after NAFTA. But it didn't. Even in the "rust belt" states which were scared of NAFTA, the unemployment rate did not touch the level that it was in the month before NAFTA was enacted until this recession.

mames| 4.14.11 @ 11:30AM

What kind of employment?

Shermans riding again!| 4.14.11 @ 9:53AM

All these critics of the Donald yet no alternitive.

Larry| 4.15.11 @ 12:04AM

I'm hoping that either Chris Christie changes his mind and runs, or that Paul Ryan will give a thought to running. Better yet, Sarah Palin!!

simon templar| 4.14.11 @ 10:06AM

The Progs have the race card and the Republicans the protectionist card. Look, Kaminsky, every nation in this world except the US protects its economic interest and looks for the best deal for itself....even communist countries like China. Free trade is fair trade not the sickening, traitorous, insane horseshit coming out of Washington DC. If you want to question Trump's qualification for President try focusing on his relationships with certain Chicago politicians rather than this lame, inaccurate, and cheap shot like protectionism.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.14.11 @ 10:55AM

Simon,

What is more important than protectionism? Do you know any history of the Great Depression? It's far more critical than who Trump knows or doesn't know.

Furthermore, please tell me whose interest is protected by protectionism? No, don't, I'll tell you: a few producers who give money to politicians, at the expense of an entire nation of consumers who could have more choice and better prices if trade were free.

simon templar| 4.14.11 @ 1:27PM

No one here is advocating protectionism as a blanket economic policy. Furthermore, you took Trumps comments about threatening a tarriff out of context. He was asked what he would do to intellectual property theft, manipulation of currency, and the poisonious manufactured products coming from China. He said he would have tough behind closed door meetings that might include such a threat if necessary. Your ignoring the larger issues here regarding this one side and dangerous economic relationship with a real enemy of free markets, capitalism, and this Nation. This economic relationship is a fostian bargain and we are sure to pay severely one day for it. Furthermore, his realationships are critical as they tell us more about him than his rhetoric. Have you learned nothing from the latest Impostor in the white house? Criticize this guy, yes, vet him yes, look into his background and see iof it matches up with his rhetoric. We are looking for a real person with honesty, integrity, and solutions, and a past that reflects that.

simon templar| 4.14.11 @ 1:31PM

Sorry about the spelling mistakes..sometimes all thumbs on my keyboard.

simon templar| 4.14.11 @ 10:14AM

By the way, Kaminsky, anyone with any intellectual honesty on this subject of free trade with China knows that this relationship with communist China that we have established economically is insane. Free trade..free market..what a joke...it is not happening..wish it was.

Wally| 4.14.11 @ 10:35AM

Never underestimate Trump. If he wants it, he will win it. He is still the smartest guy in the room.

mames| 4.14.11 @ 11:33AM

You have got to be kidding. He may be the best scammer in the room, the best manipulator but the smartest? NO, no.

Troll| 4.15.11 @ 1:20PM

I completely agree. Barack (Barry) Hussein Obama (Soetoro)(Dunham) is the smartest guy in the room.

Really.

Mike H.| 4.14.11 @ 10:45AM

Mr. Kaminsky -- What about China manipulating their currency? You didn't mention that. It is another topic the Donald has been pushing and rightly so.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.14.11 @ 10:57AM

Mike,

I think economics professor and PhD Don Boudreaux explained this well in a letter to the NY Times:

To the Editor:

In his op-ed on U.S -China trade relations and the allegedly undervalued renminbi, Stephen Roach notes that “President Obama, in a private meeting with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, was reported to have made it very clear that the United States is, indeed, prepared to take forceful actions if China doesn’t budge on this critical issue” ("Cultivating the Chinese Consumer,” Sept. 29).

Translation of Mr. Obama’s threat to the Chinese Prime Minister: “If you don’t stop abusively taxing your citizens in order to grant unjust privileges to your favorite industries, we will more-abusively tax our citizens in order to grant unjust privileges to our favorite industries.”

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Mike H.| 4.14.11 @ 12:49PM

Mr. Kaminsky,

Not sure I follow you. What does your response have to do with how Donald Trump would handle China manipulating their currency?

Are you implying he would do something positive in this area?

Paul from SA| 4.14.11 @ 10:49AM

A trade deficit is a sign of wealth. I wish I had a 100% trade deficit with Lamborghini.

Trade will never be fair or equal, even within our own states. Compare Texas and California.

It's my money to spend as I want (excluding explosives, etc.) and I don't want a bunch of liberals telling me how to spend my hard-earned money.

Liberals are anti-free trade; conservatives are for free trade.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.14.11 @ 10:58AM

Paul,

Hallelujah, brother!

jg bennet| 4.14.11 @ 11:56AM

You got it backwards. Liberals are all about free trade and Republicans used to be against it.

Neoliberalism describes a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that stresses the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets, and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state.

The term "neoliberalism" has also come into wide use in cultural studies to describe an internationally prevailing ideological paradigm that leads to social, cultural, and political practices and policies that use the language of markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from governments and corporations onto individuals and to extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social and affective relationships.

Republicans dominated American politics until around the early 20th century. President William McKinley stated the United States' stance under the Republican Party as thus:

"Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefiting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest'…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."

**Northern Progressives sought free trade to undermine the power base of Republicans** –

Woodrow Wilson would admit as much in a speech to Congress. A brief resurgence by Republicans in the 1920s was disastrous for them. Woodrow Wilson’s ideological understudy, Franklin Roosevelt, would essentially blame the Great Depression upon the protectionist policies exemplified by the previous Republican President, Herbert Hoover……….

So if a “socialist” Democrat like FDR supported free trade and was against protectionism to undermine the Republicans why is it that Republicans so staunchly support it today? Look at CATO, Heritage et al…

Larry| 4.15.11 @ 12:11AM

William McKinley lived in a different economic world. And I'm not even sure that these policies didn't hold the U.S. back some even then. FDR, contrary to popular belief, was not an ardent supporter of free trade per se. If he had been, we would have had NAFTA or its equivalent well before World War II.

Why is it that Americans presume that all of the economic benefit in the world is either due to them or at their expense? Stop the whining nonsense. Protectionism of any type is bad news for our economy at this point in our history.

Russ| 4.14.11 @ 1:24PM

When China steals our exact products and duplicates them, then sells them to us at prices they can afford because the designs are stolen, is that free trade? Yes they do this and I have seen it myself with something I bought. I had no idea they had completely cloned a $300 product down to the last screw. I needed a special saw for a small home project and didn't want to spend $300 for cutting a hundred pieces of trim so I bought a cheap saw from China, figuring it would be good enough for this small use. Then I found it was a clone, an exact copy, of a Makita saw.

That's not free trade in my book.

jg bennet| 4.14.11 @ 6:25PM

read this article it is spooooky. another consequence of this nixonian neoliberalism that republicans worship like god.

A senior manager at a company that churns out metals routinely used in U.S. smart bombs pauses in mid-sentence when his phone rings: a Wall Street stockbroker looking for information. He makes a note to have an assistant call back -- someone who is fluent in English, not just Chinese.

“It’s a seller’s market now,” says Bai Baosheng, 43, puffing a cigarette in his office in Baotou, China, where his company sells bags of powder containing a metallic element known as neodymium, vital in tiny magnets that direct the fins of bombs dropped by U.S. Air Force jets in Afghanistan.

A generation after Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping made mastering neodymium and 16 other elements known as rare earths a priority, China dominates the market, with far-reaching effects ranging from global trade friction to U.S. job losses and threats to national security.

The U.S. handed its main economic rival power to dictate access to these building blocks of modern weapons by ceding control of prices and supply, according to dozens of interviews with industry executives, congressional leaders and policy experts.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....opoly.html

From the mid-60’s to the mid-80’s, global rare earth mining was dominated by the Mountain Pass mine in California. The mine closed in 2002, after a series of radioactive wastewater leaks raised environmental concerns, and after increased Chinese production — partially due to state intervention and partially due to a lack of environmental controls — had begun to undercut U.S. prices.

Meanwhile, U.S. manufacturers that relied on rare earths found it easier to be closer to the source, and also relocated. In 2004, a company called Magnequench — a huge producer of permanent magnets that require rare earths and that are crucial components in the guidance systems of cruise missiles — closed its plant in Indiana and moved its facilities to China.

DEFENSE DEPT. 2008 DISMISSAL OF PROBLEM

According to the Department of Defense's 2008 "Foreign Sources of Supply" report:

The Department incorporates foreign items and components into many important systems, and in some cases the Department may be dependent upon foreign suppliers for these items. However, this does not mean the Department suffers from a foreign vulnerability. Foreign dependence usually does not equate to foreign vulnerability.

The Department is not vulnerable if it is dependent on reliable foreign suppliers, just as it is not vulnerable when it is dependent on reliable domestic suppliers. The Department of Defense is not aware of any foreign vulnerabilities within its supply chains.

The issue largely escaped the notice of the public, and was not treated as a serious problem by the U.S. government....

But why was a vulnerability, now seen as requiring quick and decisive action, not addressed for so many years?

Some experts argue that the free-market trade policies the U.S. has pursued did exactly what they were meant to do, and the current U.S. predicament shows that those trade policies may have been misguided.

YA THINK?

Larry| 4.15.11 @ 12:14AM

You've never heard of reverse engineering? This happens all of the time now. If, in fact, they have stolen patents and illegally reproduce patented items, the World Trade Organization has remedies for that, and we have remedies as well, and they don't necessarily involve punitive tariffs.

But a lot of the reverse engineering that the Chinese have done is not from stolen or violated patents. All you have to do is buy stuff and pick it apart and look at it. Or you can go on the Internet and read up about how something is made. That is a change that does have consequences.

Donna| 4.14.11 @ 10:58AM

Ross, you have no clue. Instead of trying to get the Donald out of the race-you should write how to support his efforts. Makes me wonder why you wrote this piece in the first place other than you're clueless.

jg bennet| 4.14.11 @ 11:03AM

Hmm protectionism is bad eh?

Free trade in America is the policy of economics developed by American slave holding states and protectionism is a northern, manufacturing issue. Although not as animating an issue as slavery, differences in trade between the two regions contributed to the Civil War and remain a point of national difference even today.

Historically, southern slave holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization, and supported having the right to purchase manufactured goods from any nation. Thus they called themselves free traders.

Trump is THE NEW REAGAN!! Read it from CATO institute....

May 30, 1988
The Reagan Record On Trade:
Rhetoric Vs. Reality THE CATO INSTITUTE

by Sheldon L. Richman

Executive Summary

When President Reagan imposed a 100 percent tariff on selected Japanese electronics in 1987, he and the press gave the impression that this was an act of desperation. Pictured was a long-forbearing president whose patience was exhausted by the recalcitrant and conniving Japanese. After trying for years to elicit some fairness out of them, went the story, the usually good-natured president had finally had enough.

When newspapers and television networks announced the tariffs, the media reminded the public that such restraints were imposed by a staunch free trader. The less-than-subtle message was that if "Free Trader" Ronald Reagan thought the tariff necessary, then Japan surely deserved it. After more than seven years in office, Ronald Reagan is still widely regarded as a devoted free trader. A typical reference is that of Mark Shields, a Washington Post columnist, to Reagan's "blind devotion to the doctrine of free trade."

If President Reagan has a devotion to free trade, it surely must be blind, because he has been off the mark most of the time. Only short memories and a refusal to believe one's own eyes would account for the view that President Reagan is a free trader. Calling oneself a free trader is not the same thing as being a free trader. Nor does a free- trade position mean that the president, but not Congress, should have the power to impose trade sanctions. Instead, a president deserves the title of free trader only if his efforts demonstrate an attempt to remove trade barriers at home and prevent the imposition of new ones.

By this standard, the Reagan administration has failed to promote free trade. Ronald Reagan by his actions has become the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover, the heavyweight champion of protectionists.

THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS HERE http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html

jg bennet| 4.14.11 @ 11:12AM

You are using the tired old argument that even the pope of economics has discounted.

“I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws, or crafts its advanced treatises, if I can write its economics textbooks.” So said one of the greatest textbook writers of them all, Paul Samuelson.
But even Samuelson didn’t live forever—he died in 2009 aged 94—and now others decide what the rising generation is reading. It is a fair bet that, on one of the most critical issues of modern economic policy, his successors’ books would not meet with the master’s approval. That issue is trade.
Although Samuelson spent most of his life promoting unqualified free trade, he came close in his declining years to admitting he was wrong. In a paper in 2004, he suggested that there might be some circumstances in which a nation did not benefit from free trade. His analysis was carefully hedged; but, given his unique status not only as a textbook writer but as the first American economist to win a Nobel Prize, the effect on the faithful was as if the pope had conceded there might not be a God after all.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/beyond-free-trade/

Who started the free debacle?

In 1973 when the “Kennedy” Round concluded under President Richard Nixon cut U.S. tariffs to all time lows, which moved the United States further in the free market direction, and away from its American School economic system and moved toward the British.

A president who shook hands with Mao then got ran out of office put the trade structure together that we live by today. No wonder we are almost in ruin the South Won!. There is a whole lot of Nixon and slaveholder mentality in every free trade deal we sign.

Check out 1974 on the debt link below, we started our exponential debt growth and trade deficits shortly after Nixon switched to the British economic system.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....histo4.htm

axbucxdu| 4.14.11 @ 12:46PM

Free Trade or not, follow the fiat money instead. The key act was Nixon closing the gold window. The idiot. The Triffin Dilemma spells out the inevitable consequences.

jg bennet| 4.14.11 @ 6:32PM

nixon also enacted the trade act of 1974 which gives huge power to the president on trade.

the donald can take that law nixon created to tear down protection and reverse it all on command.

if the donald wants tariffs he will have tariffs and there is nothing congress can do.

thank you richard nixon!

The Trade Act of 1974
The act delegated significant power to the president to invoke measures to protect American industries from increased imports from other nations, whether or not injury was being caused by unfair trade practices.
The act’s primary importance lies in Title II, Section 201, which gives the PRESIDENT the authority to take actions to protect U.S. businesses from injury caused by increased quantities of imports, even though the increase in imports violates no ban on unfair trade practices.

THE PRESIDENT CAN JUST DO IT

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE ACT
Article II of the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to vest authority to conduct foreign policy in the president, but Article 8, Section 1 gives Congress the power to lay and collect duties and the power to regulate foreign commerce.

***Therefore the power to regulate trade with other nations must be delegated by Congress to the president.***

Section 301 expanded presidential authority to retaliate against trade practices by other nations that unfairly burden or restrict U.S. commerce, whether through high tariffs or through nontariff trade barriers.

The president may suspend trade concessions, impose new higher tariff rates on a selective basis

Impact of the Act
Primarily because of Section 301, the Trade Act has been used more to open foreign markets to U.S. exports and investments than to protect American industries from unfair competition.

Section 301 is a unilateral provision in U.S. law that can be invoked irrespective of any remedies available under the multilateral GATT or WTO.

loulou| 4.14.11 @ 11:38AM

The real problem with Trump for the GOP elites is that he is not a statist.

At least the man is not a cowering pantywaist. And why have the groveling Republicans not brought up Obama's eligibility/citizenship problems?

Does the Constitution not count anymore?

George S| 4.14.11 @ 12:02PM

Trump's view on protectionism is protecting his own interests. When Americans buy more products made overseas than they sell, we get a trade deficit. However, Americans get the products, and China (et al) get and HOLD the cash. Ergo, no "deficit". When foreigners then invest that money back into the United States (real estate, bonds, durable goods, etc.) that signifies a confidence in the American economic system, sustaining the value of the dollar and provides economic activity that creates American jobs. It is when the United States borrows that cash reserve foreigners hold that we get into debt.

Trump doesn't see it that way; he thinks that money taken out of American hands is gone forever. If it was, then there would be no reason to trade. Money that is held in foreign hands is no different that money held in American hands. As long as it is circulated back, there is economic activity. Because the labor rate overseas is cheaper, more money finds its way there than here. But it doesn't matter as long as it is held and spent here instead of us borrowing it to fund entitlements and other government largesse.

Trumps problem is that he wants to be in the middle of that cash flow to direct it himself rather than the ones who earned it. If we want a trade deficit to disappear, we have to compete at the same marginal labor rate as foreigners (try getting Americans out of bed for that one). Or, we force higher prices on the American public to pay for overinflated self worth, regulatory restraints and a confiscatory tax code.

Protectionism is another transfer the wealth to the Ruling Class scheme.

jg bennet| 4.14.11 @ 12:15PM

When was the lat time you were in China?

I lived there for years and believe me they invest those billions in their country not here. Though they did just drop a billion dollars on oil leases in Texas with our money. Drill here drill now? Sure if you are Chinese.

HOUSTON - State-owned Chinese energy giant CNOOC is buying a multibillion-dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields, potentially testing the political waters for further expansion into U.S. energy reserves.
With the announcement Monday that it would pay up to $2.2 billion for a one-third stake in Chesapeake Energy assets, CNOOC lays claim to a share of properties that eventually could produce up to half a million barrels a day of oil equivalent.
It also might pick up some American know-how about tapping the hard-to-get deposits trapped in dense shale rock formations, analysts said.
As part of the deal, the largest purchase of an interest in U.S. energy assets by a Chinese company, CNOOC has agreed to pay about $1.1 billion for a chunk of Chesapeake's assets in the Eagle Ford, a broad oil and gas formation that runs largely from southwest of San Antonio to the Mexican border.

Oh and then there is this....

According to Forbes, the United States has lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. Hundreds of formerly thriving industries in the United States are being totally wiped out.

George S| 4.14.11 @ 2:42PM

I was never in China. Excuse my ignorance but if we lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001 because of China, then where did we get those millions of new jobs in that same time period? Sure, industries close... and new ones open. Happens all the time in the unforgiving free market when one is not as efficient as the others.

Who cares where China spends the money for the goods sold here? Americans consumed those goods after freely paying for them. Suppose you own a toy store and you pay a dentist $1,000 for dental work. That dentist uses that money to buy toys for his kids. Must he come to your store to balance trade? No, you paid for a service -- not for reciprocity. Another toy store gets the money and GDP still increased the same amount. Even if your stock is made in Japan or China makes no difference to your bottom line. Nor does it make a difference to the trucker who delivers them, nor to the company that makes those trucks, nor to the construction workers who makes the company headquarters of the truck maker, nor to the oil company worker who refines the oil for the truck, nor for the factory workers who make the refining equipment, nor for the workers who make the tools to build the refinery, or to the millions of others who have a stake in your store and others selling toys.

Why can't we make those toys here? We could but it would be more expensive, which means you sell less, which impacts the millions of other tasks that make toys delivered to you possible. How? Well, there is the cost of labor, maintained artificially high by federal labor laws (NLRB, OSHA, etc.) Also, there are unions, whose economic function is to make labor scarce, hence more expensive. Then there is the EPA. Try building a factory with all those permit requirements and the capital needed for administrative and legal fees, not to mention the years it takes for those agencies to drag their feet. Then there are the obligatory environmental law suits and the environmental impact statements. Then there are the myriad of corporate tax laws. Then there are health care management costs. Ad nauseum. This is what kills manufacturing; the cheaper labor from overseas do not have these roadblocks. Hence they are more efficient and the prices are cheaper and more goods are sold. Creating jobs in the process that would not exist if there were no toy factories.

Even if this is the way Trump wants to eliminate the trade deficit, it will not work because higher salaries in the production of goods here at home at the same cheaper import prices will not be possible unless people are willing to work for less money.

jg bennet| 4.14.11 @ 6:05PM

Spoken like a true neoliberal...

But what you are saying is that we have become a nation of cheapskates and that is a good thing?

Republican Theodore Roosevelt said, "Thank God I am not a free-trader. In this country pernicious indulgence in the doctrine of free trade seems inevitably to produce fatty degeneration of the moral fiber."
&
"Protection, which guards and develops our industries, is a cardinal policy of the Republican Party. The measure of protection should always at least equal the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad."

davelnaf| 4.14.11 @ 12:08PM

Trump may have misspoken in regard to what amounts to the most egregious things the Chicoms do to take advantage of our open society. Chinese manipulation of their currency, technology theft, and private intellectual property rights theft, and the like are far more harmful than the trade deficit. For more than a generation they have undertaken a deliberate long-term policy as a nation to get what they could from the US, principally in order to relieve themselves of the burden of paying for R&D research, which isn’t cheap. On a not less insignificant note they have a 'quality' problem, in that their products are only as good as they have to be and if there is a way for them to reduce the quality of a product for the purpose of increasing profits they will do it. The “Made in China” label too often means a product is a cheap product rather than a quality one.

To say that Trump would not make a good president because he is ‘inexperienced’ would be like saying that the professional politicians in Washington are far more capable than he simply because they have tons of experience at being professional politicians.

David| 4.14.11 @ 12:48PM

Mr. Kaminsky,

I was going to write up a by point by point reply to your questions, but I can see that would be completely useless.

You are a free-trade ideologue whose answers to any points, ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about, dumba$$!’

You are not interested in constructive debate. You have already made up your mind, and its decided. Arguing with you is like arguing with a democrat or a communist. Your ideology is your religion.

We do in fact know what we’re talking about. It’s just we disagree with you on EVERYTHING! We are not blinded by our religion..er…ideology to any countervailing arguments. Our points are not simply to be dismissed because they disagree with your own. It does not mean we are ignorant. It means we just DISAGREE!

I know in your mind your thinking, ‘How dare this ignorant peasant disagree with the inevitable historical dialectic. Cant I see that this is Allahs will!’

Im just amazed someone like you was allowed to write such an article in this magazine.

Sincerely,

David March

skip| 4.14.11 @ 3:29PM

Mr. Marsh,

I offer to rebut on behalf of Mr. Kaminsky, on a point by point basis, any countervailing arguments of debate on free trade, and put your concerns of bias to rest.

My initial problem is that among your more than one hundred fifty words I can't find any.

Russ| 4.14.11 @ 1:16PM

Free trade is one thing; allowing ourselves to be used and abused is another. I purchased an inexpensive sliding miter saw for a small home project I was doing - and after I bought it I discovered that it was an exact clone of an American made-and-designed brand-name product. Even names and numbers of every part on the 'exploded drawing' matched the American product.

China should not be allowed to steal our products and then undercut our businesses by selling them to us at prices they can afford with cheap labor and no cost to design or develop. And it would be a refreshing change to have someone in the White House who understand business and the economy, instead of spouting tired platitudes and pushing failed philosophies upon us.

simon templar| 4.14.11 @ 1:35PM

Free trade is one thing; allowing ourselves to be used and abused is another.
Russ, thank you. You summed it up succinctly in the first sentence.

George S| 4.14.11 @ 3:23PM

But you made your purchase based on price! You needed a miter saw but would not pay the American made price. You demanded cheaper and China supplied. What if the cost of miter saws were only made here and the cost, say, triples since the employees are unionized and are paid higher wages and benefits and a portion of the price has to pay regulatory compliance costs? You and others may not pay the price as there are other alternatives -- a jig and a handsaw would do the same job. Less units sold equals less economic activity all the way around. Just because there are good jobs doesn't mean the consumer will buy their products. Unless they have no choice.

russel| 4.14.11 @ 4:04PM

China did not " steal " anything . Their law is this : if you move your company there , they have all rights pertaining to it . This ' cloning ' you refer to is done with any product . Blame our American government , which has forced companies to relocate because of the never ending cost to do business here . Rules and regulations to no end , for starters . Next time , check where your tool was built BEFORE you buy . I bot a new RIDGID chop saw made in Taiwan and it's a work of art .

simon templar| 4.14.11 @ 8:48PM

Yeah, it is called communistic nationalizing of a company..where I come from..that is theft of private property, not freedom, nor free trade. Taiwan was a free nation..and capitalistic until China recently annexed it. Yes, we are blaming this government.

RCV| 4.14.11 @ 1:23PM

Just at a time when Congressman Ryan is trying to engage the country in a serious way with rational economic reform proposals -- whether or not one agrees with them, they are a positive, rational attempt to address important pressing issus -- others in the GOP are insistent at creating clownish sideshows by promoting the candidacy of this moral and intellectual buffoon. It only reinforces a public perception of the party as destructively schizophrenic.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 4.14.11 @ 3:46PM

I don't bother with silly moral and intellectual buffoonery when sanctimoniously moralizing on frippery matters.

Repugnant Contemptible Vile| 4.14.11 @ 4:57PM

And I don't bother with destructively schizophrenic statements real abortion Christian abortion love abortion tea party while sanctimoniously abhor compassion abortion conservatism abortion human abortion being destructive schizophrenia matters.

Paul from SA| 4.14.11 @ 1:28PM

It's all about freedom. It's my money!

Conservatives are for individual freedom --to spend their own money the way they want.

Liberals are against individual freedom -- to not allow citizens to spend their own money they way they want.

If I want to spend $100,000 to listen to Chinese children play the guitar instead of Lady GAGA, it's my choice. It's not for you to try to control me.

Final message: liberals, keep you hands off my money and my decisions!

Oldefarte| 4.14.11 @ 1:59PM

In all due respect, Ross is partially correct but so is Trump. Foreign trade with China etc is bad in the sense that [as stated] their goods are cheap, and that is because their labor/man hour is a third of this country's [due to labor unions exorbatant above market wage prices]. Cheap product prices are good for consumers, but if labor unions were eliminated in this country, more products could/would be manufactured in this country at lower prices [due to non-union pricing], which would economically benefit the US. As stated, tariffs are essentially taxes upon foreign products to discourage their importation and the tax funds from same would go to our government. If same was used to pay down the defecit/debt, so mch the better, but in reality Uncle Sam would use same for some form of extended welfare instead. Trump's idea is solely directed at forcing China to reduce selling its products to us, but his misconception is that there would, as Ross points out, be the only remaining alternative of higher priced products in this country without the corresponding mandate of labor union elimination [which is probably impossible to accompolish]. China does use their [some of] import-derived revenue from us to buy our government bonds etc, but not all of it; and same allows their government/country to greatly expand economically/financially. Some of our money spent upon imports from China is used by them to build their military hardware/missles etc [and no doubt to provide their friends like Iran, N.Korea etc with foreign aid type funding also], so Ross' scenerio is only partial in scope. The most advantageous agenda for this country would be to reduce labor union's status as much as legally possible, to replace import-manufactured products consumed with those domestically/non-union produced, and to have our consumers [and retailers such as Walmart as well] continue to reap the benefits of cheaply priced products!!!!!!!!

Wayne | 4.14.11 @ 4:19PM

I have a simple suggestion. We should put a surcharge on ALL goods that come from countries that do not meet US standards. We should make sure child labor, environmental standards, minimum wage standards all meet US standards. That way we are not encouraging US companies to abandon the US to avoid these standards.

rongordo | 4.14.11 @ 2:43PM

Can the legislative branch create tarrif laws? Or would that be congress? What Trump COULD do is use the president's bully-pulpit to continuously promote made-in-the-USA.

simon templar| 4.14.11 @ 2:48PM

Building up an enemy communist nation via corrupt American politicians that have created an unviable domestic economy that discourages domestic manufacturing, negotiates unfair treaties, allows intellectual property theft, and borrows trillions of dollars from this same enemy is PURE insanity and national suicide. Ah, but we can reap the benefits of cheap, plastic products and various trinkets! But, of course, this generation is so cynical, self obsessed, and weak it can not do anything about it but whine, throw its hands up, and bend over. Pathetic.

Wayne | 4.14.11 @ 4:16PM

Protectionism has not been a problem for decades. Ironically what tax is actually in the constitution? I believe it is the tariff.

But the pendulum will swing. We have just gone through 8 years of Bush style globalism followed by 2 years of Obama's version of globalism. For all I know the same people are behind both. The losers have been American citizens. We have paid for globalism with lives and money via IMF, the United Nations, 3 wars and millions of jobs and open borders and possibly even terrorism.

Expect nationalism to resonate and with nationalism comes an end to supporting globalism, free trade and a awakening of isolationism. And frankly the GOP establishment has no one to blame by themselves.

erotik sohbet | 4.14.11 @ 4:46PM

very nice blog admin

somnolence| 4.14.11 @ 10:59PM

After all is said and done, is Trump going to reverse the nationalization of GM?

Yosemeti Sam| 4.14.11 @ 11:04PM

Um, consider that the Leftoid media - aka PEN1 - cannot pin the tail on any one Republican potential candidate.

Laugh along at their URGENCY to do so.

Which Republican to choose to unload upon.

How darned coy of the Republicans.

Dilemma, dilemma, dilemma.

LOL.

Dee See| 4.15.11 @ 6:12AM

"These people don't even get old,
they just get stale."
-D H Lawrence
essays
1919

PLEASE STOP.

Trump represents everything that's wrong
with our soft-porn casino wampum 'culture'.

He was there, indeed, he was presiding during
the very height of the Globalist RED China
economic treason op..

In fact, by bringing
in and celebrating franchise slum values he
was a leader of it.

Since we've seen no sign of repentance, or
even much self-awareness.

His private life, such as it is, speaks for itself.

This a matter
of some importance to NON con-job serving
conservatives as far as those who would lead
them goes.

As for Ron Paul, his heart and mind seem
in more or less the right place, but as far as
the needed charisma, he scarcely has a pulse.

Everyone else is CFR /Roclefeller EUGENICS
and Globalism front op cardboard.

That's right, EVERYONE------------------------

donna| 4.15.11 @ 1:59PM

take your meds and your - baseless - rants elsewhere.

Trump is a fresh air for America, especially since he ain't running. Let him be the one to give Obummer and Dems a black eye.

Eric| 4.15.11 @ 1:11PM

I've found American Spectator's writers quite informative and logical, until this one. By comparing Donald Trump to Obama then claiming he is a danger is not only illogical but quite obviously partisan. First, Obama has not yet proved eligibility or there would not still be a problem recovering the proof from Hawaii. Second, if Trump is "dangerous" and he is merely testing the public's will then what is Obama's policy? We are so far from a representative government it is remarkable that any legitimate assessor of the nations state of affairs could possibly claim anything placed before the public to decide is a danger. Forgive me for saying that this article should have appeared on the Huffington Post, not here.

Donna| 4.15.11 @ 1:55PM

Sorry Kaminski - you little globalist - your linear economic argument for "free" trade doesn't work.

If we raised tarrif & reduced China's currency manipultaion issue, US employers would have more opportunity to be competitive.

In fact, if trade w China stopped tonight, America's jobs problem would be over. China is a net plus for the global exploiter elite, a net minus for American taxpayer and consumer.

The cheaper prices of trinkets you buy at Walmart do not make up for our destroyed standard of living of what was the middle class.

Plus, the China crap is usually not as good quality.

You probably work for Kissinger with a lame argument like the one you put forth.

axbucxdu| 4.16.11 @ 9:07PM

Go Donna! How about we try this first: Establish free trade among the states of the USA, that is minus USG and Fed regulation and then we can discuss trade offshore. In the meantime, tariff EVERY country in direct proportion to their currency manipulation.

If you have the time, check out OECD figures for (P)urchasing (P)ower (P)arity (the effective exchange rate per dollar inside a foreign country) versus official exchange rates. It's a real eye opener. Ross has the time. Too bad he hasn't spent it wisely.

Doug| 4.15.11 @ 4:07PM

This type article makes me sick. You have no clue after all these years. There is NO FREE trade. The chinese do not play by the same words you moron. And yes you do deserve to be called that.

America now, America first.

stickyrobert| 4.17.11 @ 11:20AM

Trump is doing a good thing for America by raising various issues including the China/ Korea unfair trade practices. We have to get jobs back to America. Trump should be a excellently qualified voice to speak on economic, regulatory and negotiating. Whether he really runs for President, we will have to wait and see.
For now, I take Trump at his word that we need to fix America. He is a good American and he is worried like many of us are that we are falling and we need to get fixed or else.
He is doing his part to try and help. I applaud that. I just wish he would cut the crap about how smart he is and how rich he is and how good a negotiator he is.........Just do it Donald.

Patriotic Soul| 4.17.11 @ 10:09PM

I don't understand why Tea Partiers who expect conservative purity from their members of Congress, are ignoring Trump's record of supporting liberal politicians and statements he has made in the past that show he is not a real Conservative. Just because he talks tough and says the things that Conservatives like to hear does not make him a Conservative. We need to be careful not to be duped by Trump's oratory style as the Obama voters were.

morris wise| 4.18.11 @ 5:17PM

Experienced gamblers place their bets on lucky players. Trump is a guy that has thrown the dice and turned a few million into billions. He is most qualified to be at the dice tables for America, lets support a winning gambler.

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:20PM

is good

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|51 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|56 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|105 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|30 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|48 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|20 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 4:27PM

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 3:41PM

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 3:27PM

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 3:01PM

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?