One Sentence Thought About trump's Big State of the Disunion Speech Tonight

Oh gods, he's going to declare war on Mexico and Canada and then activate the selective service draft to make every white guy under 25 into his cannon fodder while surrendering every tank and artillery we got to Russia so BFF Putin can finish off Ukraine, isn't he? 

The Rattling of Sabers

trump's not even in the White House (again) and he's already causing our diplomatic corps and foreign policy experts to reach for the nearest bottles of Jack Daniels with his social media announcements raging against our neighboring nations and long-standing allies.

trump's fauxrage towards Mexico remains ongoing, left over from all of his "we're gonna build a wall to keep out the rapists and drug gangs" grandstanding during his first tenure. Since this November, trump openly plans to issue painful tariffs - painful for the United States, not Mexico - on our southern neighbors as retaliation for what he claims is an "ongoing invasion" of America. Mixed in with that are more unsettling threats to order U.S. military strikes on drug cartel locations across Mexico, violating their sovereignty and likely killing a high number of civilians. The kind of acts that lead to open wars.

Toss into this mix how trump repeatedly "jokes" about annexing Canada but does so as part of his ongoing - and spreading - obsession with raising tariffs on our major trade partners. It doesn't help that a number of Far Right pundits and MAGA followers fantasize about invading Canada (much like the War Hawks of 1812).

Now in the news, trump is making demands - threats - towards Panama regarding control of the canal, a vital shipping route between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Coverage from the recent Turning Point USA conference has trump beating the war drums to "take back" control of the region (via Julio Ricardo Varela at MSNBC):

President-elect Donald Trump blurted out another outrageous promise at a Turning Point USA event Sunday in Phoenix: He now wants the Panama Canal back. Trump claimed that Panama’s shipping fees were “ridiculous” and threatened to demand the canal’s return if these fees aren't reduced.

“I can proudly proclaim that the Golden Age of America is upon us,” Trump said. “There’s a spirit that we have now that we didn’t have just a short while ago.”

Trump’s invocation of a “Golden Age” will always excite his supporters, who thrill at his call to “Make America Great Again.” But for much of Latin America, the era that slogan harks back to was defined by U.S. imperialism and exploitation. Panama knows this history better than most, having endured decades of American control over a canal that defines not just the country’s economy but its very identity.

Trump’s notion to take back the canal is not just inflammatory. It risks reigniting tensions between the U.S. and many Latin American countries, after those countries have worked hard to move past fears about American intrusions on their sovereignty. Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino swiftly rebuked Trump, stating, “Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjoining zone is Panama’s and will remain so. The sovereignty and independence of our country is non-negotiable.”

If trump even hopes to build any foreign relations successes, he's burning bridges before he can cross them. /headdesk

And for the love of God, trump is making noises - again - about wanting to buy - or worse, seize - Greenland away from Denmark, a nation not in the mood to make any deals now or ever.

Just how many nations does trump want to anger / alienate / piss off before Inauguration Day?

If there is a simple or well-meaning reason for all of this, trump's behaviors and statements are all part of the blustering and bullying he inflicts on everybody when he thinks he's "negotiating" his deals. This is his game plan: 

1. Blow up any existing deal to cause chaos,
2. Bully everyone he has to make deals with,
3. Force them - or wear them down - to accept deals that pretty much were the same as before except trump himself gets a bigger piece of the action,
4. Claim he's the greatest deal-maker of all time.

I honestly don't believe any of that ever worked in his - or America's - favor every time he tried bullying his way to deals as President. trump did all of this when he blew up NAFTA to force Canada and Mexico into negotiating a new trade deal... that pretty much was the same deal but with stricter labor provisions that Democrats in Congress pushed through in 2019. trump's administration had a rougher go of it throughout their foreign policy efforts, because trump was not able to bully other nations into giving up more to him. One of the few foreign policy deals trump did accomplish... was signing a peace deal with the Afghani Taliban that gave them everything they wanted - prisoners freed, and the opportunity to take over Afghanistan within a year - while trump left Biden holding the blame.

For all the talk about military strikes into Mexico and "territorial expansion" as part of trump's agenda for 2025, he had talked like that before and never really followed through. trump DID expand a bombing / drone strikes campaign across the Middle East - especially an attack on an Iranian military leader while he was visiting Iraq - and at one point openly discussed missile strikes and possible invasion of Iran itself, but when push came to shove trump did not engage in direct warfare or military action against the nations he kept threatening. Hell, he turned into North Korea's best buddy when Kim Jong Il sent trump love letters.

However...

Back in trump's first term, trump had to rely on established political and military leaders within the government - his Joint Chiefs, his national security advisors, and foreign policy Cabinet figures - who counseled towards caution and who kept talking trump out of his more violent proposals. Going into his second term, trump is not relying on any of those people and is tapping some of the more... volatile talking heads on Fox Not-News who are less inclined to urge caution (and more inclined to sadistic punishment of others).

One of the things trump and his team remain focused on is a mass deportation plan to round up, imprison, and exile millions of "undocumented" Latinos (and Asians, Africans, and anybody else not-White) with the likelihood of just yeeting all those millions across the Mexican border in violation of the Constitution, international human rights treaties, and basic human decency.

It also runs into a wall of logistical headaches, as that deportation plan requires more manpower, facilities, and resources than our immigration services - and even local law enforcement - can provide. Which is why trump is all too eager to deploy the U.S. military to cover those logistical issues, even though the armed forces are not designed - or required by law - to perform those actions.

The only way trump can get around those legal constraints would be to invoke a national emergency - this is where his alarmist rhetoric of "invasion by illegals" comes into play - and what better way than to use executive powers to declare us in a state of war with the nations - Mexico and most of Central and South America - where most undocumented workers come from? Not only would that allow trump and his cohorts to federalize the National Guards - even the ones from Democratic states - but it would also serve as a big stick to threaten Mexico into either giving into trump's demands to accept the mass deportations or risk U.S. invasion to force them to.

Thing is, Mexico is going to do whatever is in their best interests, not trump's. Even submitting to trump's will in this matter for the short term would be a strain on Mexico's own resources and capabilities, not without financial concessions that trump and his wingnut allies will likely refuse to give. Even the risk and costs of war with a global superpower might prove a more palatable outcome for Mexicans...

...as well as the rest of Central and South America whose populations will be greatly affected by trump's deportation plan and who may well ally with Mexico, giving them the political - and military - support they would need.

As much as American arrogance will convince us that we're the world's greatest military, our own recent attempts at war - the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq - demonstrated our own abilities have their limits. Much like I noted before about the costs and hazards of a potential invasion of Iran, any war against Mexico has its own risks. 

We won't have the advantages of distance: This would be a straight-on border clash along a wide border that Mexico can exploit as much as the U.S. can. We won't have any advantages of allies: trump's overt belligerence and open inhumanity towards migrants would alienate every potential support even if he tries to insist on help from NATO or other treaty groups. Canada - and much of the UK Commonwealth across the Caribbean - would likely ally with Mexico, which is where the American wingnut threats to "annex Canada" would come back to bite America in the ass.

This may all be alarmist and unnecessary. Again, trump proved before he is more bluster than action. The problem is that this time, trump is more determined than ever to resolve his fixation - his rage and racist hatred - on an immigration "problem" he swore to end.

If "fixing it" requires going to war, trump will go there.

And Gods help us - not just Mexico, maybe not just Canada and/or Panama - all if he does.

The Problems with trump's Tariffs

This week's trumpian chaos focused a lot on his threat to impose broad and heavy tariffs on three of our major trade partners of Canada, Mexico, and China, something that the economic experts warn would trigger more inflation than U.S. voters realize and escalate retaliation and trade wars across the globe.

In the days following, there had been a good amount of punditry and pushback on the matter, during which trump's people walked back the comments or tried to reframe the topic. There are think pieces about how trump might be "bluffing," that he's trying to force the likes of Mexico and Canada to the negotiation table - much like how trump shredded the existing NAFTA deal to force a new USMCA agreement that barely changed anything - to gain more concessions he didn't get then.

My view on all this is to consider taking trump at face value when it comes to tariffs. he's had a long history of loving the concept of them, and he had spoken - early and often - that trade wars are "good and easy to win". And it's not even a trade war trump seems focused on: he talked during the 2024 campaign about the McKinley Tariffs of 1890 and how such tariffs could replace income tax as the government's main source of revenue.

There's no chess game here: trump genuinely wants to increase tariffs because he views them as win-win.

trump - and his pro-tariff allies in his transition team - refuse to see the larger historical trends surrounding tariffs, trade wars, and their impacts on economic stability. The non-profit Tax Foundation published Erica York's report looking into how other factors in the 1890s countered the negative economic impacts of the McKinley Tariffs... factors that were NOT in play during the later tariffs of the 1930s:

As a review, tariffs are a type of excise tax (a narrowly targeted consumption tax) applied to domestic consumption of foreign-produced goods. Since the depths of the Great Depression and the collapse in global trade after the 1930 Hawley-Smoot tariffs, US policy shifted away from restrictive tariffs in favor of multilateral cooperation to reduce tariffs (as economist Douglas Irwin explains in his book Clashing Over Commerce).

That shift in policy sent the average tariff rate on a downward path, from highs of 59.1 percent on tariffed goods and 19.8 percent on all imported goods during the Great Depression to an average of 4.7 percent on tariffed goods and 1.4 percent on all imported goods in 2017...

As Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, McKinley shepherded the Tariff Act of 1890 into law. At the time, the federal government was running a budget surplus of nearly 50 percent, and tariff revenues substantially outpaced government spending. The McKinley tariff was designed to fix that problem, moving sugar (which accounted for a large share of revenues) to the “duty free” list, providing direct subsidies to sugar producers (to replace the benefit of tariffs and increase spending), and raising tariffs on a variety of other imports.

The McKinley tariff and higher government spending brought a swift backlash, earning the Republican-controlled Congress the nickname of “Billion Dollar Congress,” and leading to Republican defeats in the 1890 midterm elections (McKinley himself lost his reelection). In 1892, while monetary and banking policies were larger issues, Democrats ran heavily against the protectionist tariffs and the “Billion Dollar Congress,” and won unified control of government.

Democrats did not get to make good on their promises to address protectionist tariffs immediately, because the nation fell into a deep recession (caused by monetary policies). In late 1893 and early 1894, Democrats took up the tariff issue, but as the bill worked its way through Congress, it strayed from its original goals: a House amendment added an income tax, Senate amendments added back many protectionist tariffs, and ultimately, President Cleveland allowed the law to take effect without his signature.

Dissatisfaction with the broader state of the economy, still in a monetary-policy-related downturn, led to a Republican sweep in the 1894 midterm elections and the election of Republican President McKinley in 1896. Just four months after convening, Republicans sent a new tariff bill, the Dingley Act of 1897, to McKinley, raising protective tariffs even higher than the Tariff Act of 1890.

Many at the time credited tariffs for the economic recovery that soon took shape. Likewise, Trump often credits these high tariffs with the industrial growth of the US during the period.

But as economist Doug Irwin explains, around the same time as the new tariffs were enacted, the global supply of gold began to increase, easing the monetary conditions responsible for the economic downturn and bringing about a recovery.

Further, many economic historians have cautioned that impressive growth in the late 1800s and early 1900s cannot be explained by high tariffs. Instead, labor force growth and capital accumulation—neither of which have strong links to tariffs—are responsible for America’s fast growth during this period. If anything, it is possible that the high protective tariffs of the late 19th century somewhat hindered America’s economic growth.

Ironically that period saw a massive increase in immigration, which fueled that labor force growth. Something that trump and his anti-immigrant allies are going to undermine the same time they'll push their tariffs plans. York and Irwin both point out how our gold reserves expanded - that Klondike Gold Rush by the by - back in a time when the gold standard established our currency's value. We won't have those resources today to balance out the economic chaos that trump's tariffs will unleash.

trump's agenda to replace our current income tax system - which would be a massive boon to the uber-rich - with tariffs would be a disaster all its own. Kimberly Clausing and Maurice Obstfeld at the Peterson Institute for International Economics - a nonprofit think tank - looks at the numbers on that:

To be sure, when Trump vents before friendly audiences, one has to take it with a large grain of salt. But a partial substitution of tariffs for income tax revenues is nearly inevitable under a Trump presidency. He has repeatedly proposed increased tariffs, including a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all trading partners as well as 60 percent or higher tariffs on goods from China. He has also called for extending the tax cuts enacted in 2017, which are due to expire next year, a step that could easily cost as much $5 trillion over ten years. And Trump has suggested further cuts, particularly on the corporate side...

Can tariffs replace the income tax?

Simply put, NO. Tariffs are levied on imported goods, which totaled $3.1 trillion in 2023. The income tax is levied on incomes, which exceed $20 trillion; the US government raises about $2 trillion in individual and corporate income taxes at present. It is literally impossible for tariffs to fully replace income taxes. Tariff rates would have to be implausibly high on such a small base of imports to replace the income tax, and as tax rates rose, the base itself would shrink as imports fall, making Trump’s $2 trillion goal unattainable.

A recent Peterson Institute policy brief calculated that revenues from Trump’s 10 percent/60 percent tariff proposals would total about $225 billion per year in current dollars. This figure is certainly an overestimate because it does not account for lower economic growth due to the inevitable economic shocks caused by retaliation against US exporters and the losses suffered by the import-dependent manufacturing sector. Exporters would also be hit by an appreciating dollar...

Another consideration that comes into play is that the United States already raises about $50 billion from tariffs on imports. That amount reduces the revenue potential of new tariffs relative to figure 1. In addition, a tariff as large as 50 percent would create very large distortions in Americans’ economic activity (moving resources away from sectors where the United States has a comparative advantage and toward sectors where it is less efficient), while increasing tax avoidance and evasion (including shopping abroad, smuggling, lobbying government officials for exemptions, etc.)...

trump is looking to replace an established - and deep - means of revenues for our federal government and installing a revenue source that's neither deep nor reliable. If we want to talk about "running government like a business," this is akin to price-hiking your goods or services to where you lose your customers who refuse to pay even if you're the only business in town.

Now you can see how trump kept driving his own casinos into bankruptcy.

If there's any good news about all this tariffs speculation is that for anything tariff increase on a large scale, trump could be stymied by the existing USMCA agreement as well as a Congress - even one that's Republican-controlled - that's not about to commit political suicide like this.

However, we exist in a new reality where the Supreme Court expanded presidential powers to where trump could get away with ANYthing without Congressional approval under the umbrella of "official acts." And given how he'd unilaterally forced tariffs during his first term, he's going to want to do that again, this time with more devastating results.

Thanks again, 75 million voters. You unleashed this economic chaos on us. I only hope the Tariff Leopards eat you first.

The Trade Bully (w/Update)

How the hell is our national economy even keeping its head above water when trump is intentionally trying to drown everybody???

This past week he made the decision to expand his tariff wars - no longer content to smash against the Chinese market and the Euro market and the Canadian market - by interrupting an ongoing trade deal with Mexico with a plan to up tariffs with Mexico by five percent every month until Mexico "stops sending illegals across the border."

trump is pretty much rolling two of his signature issues into one big mess: Convinced Mexico is intentionally sending families and asylum seekers into the United States, trump wants to punish them for it by nuking the multi-billion dollar business we've got going with our closest trading partner. As David A. Graham notes at the Atlantic:

Now comes Trump’s latest move, the 5 percent tariff, which could rise over time if Mexico doesn’t comply. It’s a more modest version of an earlier threat to levy a 25 percent tariff on all Mexican goods, but it has still created chaos. U.S. companies are scrambling to figure out how to deal with the tariff, Republican lawmakers are critical, and Mexico is responding with anger and defiance...

There is the chance that the tariff (or some other trick) will actually succeed, but the prospects seem dim. Agreeing to Trump’s demands would likely be politically untenable for Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Even if it were not, it’s unclear how much ability López Obrador has to stop illegal immigration through Mexico. After all, the American experience shows that border security is not so easy—especially without resorting to violence or inhumane tactics. It’s not even clear what would count as success in Trump’s view; his declaration says that Mexico must “dramatically reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the United States,” without naming quantitative targets...

This is merely trump at his most basic: An ignorant bully who thinks all he has to do is humiliate his opponents to achieve his success. But he keeps exposing his ignorance when it comes to immigration, and he's showing no understanding of the economic realities of trade and tariff that he's supposed to be good at.

For starters, look back at the first paragraph I quote from Graham. The thing about tariffs is that they are fees (taxes) imposed by companies here in the United States. The foreign countries at the other end are not taxed, they are merely hampered from dealing more openly with U.S. businesses. They'll lose some business and profits... but they can - and have - move on to trading partners in other countries (Hi, Brazil!).

What trump is doing is punishing US, people here at home, which shows up in higher costs for goods that go towards agriculture and manufacturing. Our auto industry in particular is getting killed by trump's tariffs. Like I said, I'm amazed our economy hasn't collapsed yet in the year since trump started his trade wars.

And as always, trump is doing this purely on impulse (or with Stephen Miller whispering his racist agenda into trump's ear) (via CNBC's Kayla Tausche and Tusker Higgins):

President Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary and top trade advisor opposed his surprise plan to impose new tariffs on Mexican imports, according to a source close to the White House who said the idea was pushed by immigration hawk Stephen Miller.

The announcement came as Trump was “riled up” by conservative radio commentary about the recent surge in border crossings, according to the source...

trump is not doing this based on research or the recommendation of informed advisors and experts: he's doing this out of pure rage stoked by those who know how to - and enjoy - pushing trump's buttons.

There is no thought into the consequences. There is no long-term assessment of damages done by these moves. Only the satisfaction of trying to hurt other people.

Problem is, trump and his lackeys are hurting more people than they realize. The impact of many of the border states - on a lot of Red States, period - is pretty severe. Via Andy Kiersz at Business Insider:

Friday morning, stocks were falling in industries like auto manufacturing, which has supply chains distributed across North America that could be seriously interrupted by increased trade barriers between the US and Mexico. Chipotle, which relies on imports of avocados and other produce from Mexico, also saw a drop in its stock price...

If the proposed tariffs come into effect, certain states where trade with Mexico makes up a big part of the economy could be hardest hit.

Big state economies that border Mexico exported a large volume of goods to that country in 2017. Texas had nearly $98 billion in exports, and California had nearly $27 billion. While it doesn't border Mexico, auto-industry supply chains contribute to Michigan's $12.5 billion in exports in that year...

Kiersz' article has two maps showing the imports and exports between Mexico and the states. Texas is the biggest partner on both maps, with other Red States Arizona, Louisiana, and Florida as the next hardest hit (with Ohio, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky in that grouping). The Blue state hit the hardest would be California... which is still not good for the nation overall because that state is one of our biggest money-makers. Hurting Cali's economy hurts us all no matter what.

But does trump truly care?

No.

All trump wants is political wins, in order to back up - even if he lies about it all, he still wants to show off - his ongoing rally cries to his angry racist base.

It doesn't matter if a trade war with Mexico will hit seven or eight Red States. It doesn't matter if none of this stops illegal immigration the way trump wants (Jesus. He's been caging babies in jails for two years, and families are still THAT desperate to get here).

All that matters is that trump wants to think he's winning, wants to force a fight he can't win on the hopes the other side - Mexico again - will flinch. Even when Mexico's smartest move is to let trump self-immolate and try to wait this storm out for a new saner President in 2021.

Gods help us. The way trump is managing things, the illusion of a strong economy is going to end soon. Farmers are still going bankrupt, auto makers are cutting jobs, the stimulus of job creation will dry up, the tax cuts aren't going into families' bank accounts like the GOP promised, personal debts are still scaling upward... something's going to collapse soon and take this all down.

And 62 million trump voters will cheer as they drown in the ashes.

We are so very royally extravagantly fucked.

Update 6/8/19: So at the last minute trump was able to wrangle out a deal with Mexico to avert his threat to issue tariffs. Thing is, it seems the agreed-to deal was settled months ago, and trump's claim that he is forcing Mexico to buy more American grain from farmers is a goddamn lie. So of course trump is going to run with this for another month as a "victory" until he causes another goddamn controversy.

Cinco De Mayo in 2019 Baby Time to Honor General Zaragoza and the Mexican Forces of Beer uh Puebla

But hey, do you even know WHY we celebrate Cinco De Mayo? Ellen's audience doesn't even know.

But Ellen's kind of right. The United States really only celebrates it because beer.

SO DRINK AND DRIVE RESPONSIBLY, WHITE PEOPLE. Sheesh.

Update: And it IS Revenge of the Fifth...

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Trump's Impulsive Trip to Mexico

This kinda came out of the blue last night, and I was distracted by the Florida primary voting so I didn't give it much attention, but this is what I'm waking up to.

Trump accepted an invitation to speak IN MEXICO this day, in-between a morning fundraiser in Los Angeles and then a planned "major immigration speech" in Arizona.

If you read the tweet-storm that the Balloon-Juice article highlights, this isn't exactly the sanest thing the Trump campaign's ever done.

What's the Spanish word for "straitjacket" again?

I can think of a few reasons why Trump is doing this:

1) It's a chance to preen before more cameras. His vanity compels him to do this.

2) As an impulsive creature, any off-the-wall proposal given to him will be accepted as a challenge.

3) Trump thinks this will help his "pivot" to win over White voters horrified by Trump's racist anti-Latino statements of the past year lifetime as well as stop more Latino voters from joining African-American voters in the #NeverTrump coalition.

4) The Mexican President Nieto making the offer must have thrown in an offer of a free lunch.

5) Trump's really bat-shit crazy. That BJ article links to Josh Marshall, who posits "Trump's Razor" as the reason this is happening:

...Trump's Razor helps here. It's tempting to assume that there's some angle Trump has here, some plan or understanding with Peña Nieto to make this not as silly a decision as it appears to be. I'm tempted because how could they think this was a good idea? Trump's Razor tells us to resist this temptation. "The stupidest scenario possible that can be reconciled with the available facts." I think that's what we have here. It's as stupid as it looks. Who knows? Maybe Trump will handle this deftly and it'll be a huge success. But Trump's Razor has yet to fail me...

At best? Trump comes away from the Mexico visit with a subdued, mature impression that he can handle foreign visits and provide "context" to his openly bigoted statements ("Mexicans are rapists") and positions ("Let's build a Wall and have Mexico pay for it!"). Most likely, Trump will trip over himself with a grasping, ad-libbed presentation talking about himself more than anything or anyone else ("Isn't it great that I'm here! People respect me to do this! Mexicans really love me!"). At worst, by this afternoon we'll have the luxury of watching Trump get arrested by the FBI at the Phoenix airport for having instigated a border war with Mexico.

It's a good thing I'm in meetings this afternoon. I have other things to stress about.