Voice For Liberty

Tag: Donald J. Trump

  • Trump-supporting QAnon seen as public security threat

    Trump-supporting QAnon seen as public security threat

    QAnon, a conspiracy theory group mentioned favorably by President Donald J. Trump and embraced by other Republican leaders, represents a public security threat, according to the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

    President Donald J. Trump has mentioned favorably the conspiracy theory group QAnon. 1 A branch of the United States Government, however, sees QAnon differently, describing it as “the bizarre assemblage of far-right conspiracy theories that holds that U.S. President Donald Trump is waging a secret war against an international cabal of satanic pedophiles seems to present a far lesser threat to public security.”

    At the United States Military Academy at West Point, there is a research center that, in its own description, “educates, advises, and conducts research to equip present and future leaders with the intellectual tools necessary to understand the challenges of terrorism and counterterrorism.” In its July publication, a research paper describes QAnon as a threat to public safety, with the potential to become a domestic terror threat.

    Here is the abstract from The QAnon Conspiracy Theory: A Security Threat in the Making? 2

    The QAnon conspiracy theory, which emerged in 2017, has quickly risen to prominence in the United States. A survey of cases of individuals who have allegedly or apparently been radicalized to criminal acts with a nexus to violence by QAnon, including one case that saw a guilty plea on a terrorism charge, makes clear that QAnon represents a public security threat with the potential in the future to become a more impactful domestic terror threat. This is true especially given that conspiracy theories have a track record of propelling terrorist violence elsewhere in the West as well as QAnon’s more recent influence on mainstream political discourse.

    The heavily-researched and footnoted article may be read at The QAnon Conspiracy Theory: A Security Threat in the Making?

    —
    Notes

    1. Q During the pandemic, the QAnon movement has been — appears to be gaining a lot of followers. Can you talk about what you think about that and what you have to say to people who are following this movement right now?

      THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t know much about the movement, other than I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate, but I don’t know much about the movement. I have heard that it is gaining in popularity. And from what I hear, it’s — these are people that, when they watch the streets of Portland, when they watch what happened in New York City in just the last six or seven months — but this was starting even four years ago when I came here. Almost four years; can you believe it?

      These are people that don’t like seeing what’s going on in places like Portland and places like Chicago and New York and other cities and states. And I’ve heard these are people that love our country, and they just don’t like seeing it.

      So I don’t know, really, anything about it other than they do, supposedly, like me. And they also would like to see problems in these areas — like, especially the areas that we’re talking about — go away. Because there’s no reason the Democrats can’t run a city. And if they can’t, we will send in all of the federal — whether it’s troops or law enforcement, whatever they’d like — we’ll send them in. We’ll straighten out their problem in 24 hours or less.

      Okay?

      The White House. Remarks by President Trump in Press Briefing | August 19, 2020. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-briefing-august-19-2020/. ↩

    2. Combating Terrorism Center. The QAnon Conspiracy Theory: A Security Threat in the Making? July, 2020. Available at https://ctc.usma.edu/the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-a-security-threat-in-the-making/. ↩
  • Tariffs, after all, are paid by Americans

    Tariffs, after all, are paid by Americans

    Action taken in April by President Donald J. Trump confirms: The tariffs he imposed on China are paid by Americans.

    In April, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order titled “Executive Order on National Emergency Authority to Temporarily Extend Deadlines for Certain Estimated Payments.” It is also known as Executive Order 13916.

    The order is opaque: “(b) The Secretary shall consider taking appropriate action under section 1318(a) of title 19, United States Code, to temporarily extend deadlines, for importers suffering significant financial hardship because of COVID-19, for the estimated payments described therein, other than those assessed pursuant to sections 1671, 1673, 1862, 2251, and 2411 of title 19, United States Code.” 1

    Unless you know what Section 1318(a) of title 19, United States Code holds, and you know the meaning of the sections that hold exceptions, the executive order doesn’t mean much. The Congressional Research Service can help. 2 In its analysis, it says:

    On April 18, 2020, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13916 to provide the Secretary of the Treasury temporary emergency authority under Section 318(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1318(a), as amended) to extend deadlines for certain estimated payments of taxes, duties, and fees “for importers suffering significant financial hardship because of COVID-19.” Section 318(a) allows the President to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to extend payment deadlines during a period of national emergency proclaimed pursuant to the National Emergencies Act.

    In essence, this allows American importers to delay paying tariffs on imported goods. Paying these tariffs at the time of import — in other words, the normal procedure — would be a financial hardship, according to the executive order.

    This goes to the question of who pays tariffs. On the trade war with China, President Trump and his trade advisors say it is China who pays, mostly. On May 5, 2019, the president stated this:

    For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA of 25% on 50 Billion Dollars of High Tech, and 10% on 200 Billion Dollars of other goods. These payments are partially responsible for our great economic results. The 10% will go up to 25% on Friday. 325 Billions Dollars of additional goods sent to us by China remain untaxed, but will be shortly, at a rate of 25%. The Tariffs paid to the USA have had little impact on product cost, mostly borne by China. The Trade Deal with China continues, but too slowly, as they attempt to renegotiate. No! 3

    China pays tariffs to the USA, according to Trump.

    Recently Peter Navarro, who serves as Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator, said this:

    “So far, and it will continue this way, China is paying the tariffs, not the American public. Chinese producers pay these tariffs. We have seen this.” 4

    Navarro went on to explain that China bears the burden of the tariffs through lower prices, lower exports, and lower profits. The Chinese government, he said, has lower growth, a higher unemployment rate, less tax revenue, and a devalued currency.

    China is paying the tariffs, not the American public, according to Trump’s top trade economist and advisor.

    But if the claims of Trump and Navarro are true, why do American companies need relief from paying tariffs?

    Or, if China is paying the tariffs, why are we giving that country relief from paying?

    As Eric Boehm recently wrote:

    It took a pandemic for the White House to admit a basic economic reality: Tariffs on goods imported into the United States are paid by Americans. That’s something that pretty much everyone outside of President Donald Trump and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro already knew. But for nearly two years—ever since Trump launched his trade wars in March 2018—the president and his defenders have stubbornly claimed, contra both theory and evidence, that the duties are absorbed by China and other exporters.

    Despite that insistence, Trump on April 18 signed an executive order that will grant some American businesses a three-month deferral on paying tariffs. This will provide some “payment flexibility” for American importers facing “significant financial hardship” due to the COVID-19 outbreak and an ongoing economic shutdown, the administration said.

    —
    Notes

    1. The White House. Executive Order on National Emergency Authority to Temporarily Extend Deadlines for Certain Estimated Payments. April 19, 2020. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-national-emergency-authority-temporarily-extend-deadlines-certain-estimated-payments/. Or, in the Federal Register, see Executive Order 13916 of April 18, 2020, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/23/2020-08846/national-emergency-authority-to-temporarily-extend-deadlines-for-certain-estimated-payments. ↩
    2. Congressional Research Service. TemporaryDeferment of Import Duty Payments. April 30, 2020. Available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11371. ↩
    3. Twitter, available at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1125069835044573186. ↩
    4. Fox Business Network. Peter Navarro: Chinese producers pay for these tariffs. Jun 21, 2019. Video available at https://youtu.be/QS789wEu4Mg. ↩
  • Before pandemic, Trump economy created jobs

    Before pandemic, Trump economy created jobs

    There is no doubt that the United States economy has created many jobs since Donald J. Trump became president. How does the record compare with the previous administration?

    This chart holds plots of cumulative nonfarm jobs created over two periods of 37 months each. One line starts with February 2017, the first full month of the Trump administration. It ends with February 2020, the last month not affected by the response to the pandemic.

    The other line starts with January 2014, which covers the last 37 months of the previous president’s administration.

    Question: Which line belongs to each president?

    No matter which administration’s line is blue and which is grey, I think the conclusion we can make is that one president did a good job of maintaining the positive trend of his predecessor, and that’s a great accomplishment.

    This data is from Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is part of the United States Department of Labor. The data series is CES0000000001, described as “All employees, thousands, total nonfarm, seasonally adjusted.” It is produced each month as part of the Current Employment Statistics survey. It is the most commonly cited employment series that is released monthly.

    Here’s another look at the same data. This chart uses the same BLS data series, with the chart created by FRED, a service of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. I’ve added notations marking the start and end of each 37 month period. The heavy blue line shows the number of jobs, with the scale on the left. Once the economy started recovering from the Great Recession, the line is nearly straight. Without a scale or legend, it is not easy to see where a new administration took office in January 2017.

    Click for larger.

    The light red line plots the percent change in jobs from the same month of the previous year. Its scale is on the right. When its value is positive, the economy is adding jobs, as has been the case since sometime in 2010. Since 2015 this line has been on a gentle downward trend, meaning that while the economy is adding jobs, it is doing so at a slower rate. In 2019 the trend was mostly flat.

    The citation for this chart is U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, All Employees, Total Nonfarm [PAYEMS], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS, April 28, 2020, with author’s annotations.

    Some ask why the first chart doesn’t being with the first 37 months of the Obama administration. It’s a reasonable question. The answer is the two periods of time are not very comparable, as Obama took office during a recession, while Trump benefited from an already-growing economy — as the second chart illustrates.

  • Trump economy continues to grow

    Trump economy continues to grow

    There is no doubt that the United States economy has grown since Donald J. Trump became president. How does the growth compare with the previous administration?

    This chart holds plots of real gross domestic product (GDP) added over two periods of 12 quarters each. One line starts with the first quarter of 2017, the first quarter of the Trump administration. It ends with the fourth quarter of 2019.

    The other line starts with the first quarter of 2014, which covers the last 12 quarters of the previous president’s administration.


    Question. Which line belongs to each president’s administration?

    No matter which administration’s line is blue and which is grey, I think the conclusion we can make is that one president did a good job of maintaining the positive trend of his predecessor, and that’s a great accomplishment.

    In tabular form:

    This data is from Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce. This data is real GDP, meaning the dollar values are adjusted for the effects of inflation. The data is released quarterly, and it is not uncommon for the initial numbers to be revised. This is by far the most common source of GDP data for the United States and is extensively used.

  • Trump economy creates jobs

    Trump economy creates jobs

    There is no doubt that the United States economy has created many jobs since Donald J. Trump became president. How does the record compare with the previous administration?

    This chart holds plots of cumulative nonfarm jobs created over two periods of 34 months each. One line starts with February 2017, the first full month of the Trump administration. It ends with November 2019.

    The other line starts with April 2014, which covers the last 34 months of the previous president’s administration.

    Question: Which line belongs to each president?

    No matter which administration’s line is blue and which is grey, I think the conclusion we can make is that one president did a good job of maintaining the positive trend of his predecessor, and that’s a great accomplishment.

    Some ask why the chart doesn’t being with the first 34 months of the Obama administration. It’s a reasonable question. The answer is the two periods of time are not very comparable, as Obama took office during a recession, while Trump benefited from an already-growing economy — as the chart illustrates.

    In tabular form:

    This data is from Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is part of the United States Department of Labor. The data series is CES0000000001, described as “All employees, thousands, total nonfarm, seasonally adjusted.” It is produced each month as part of the Current Employment Statistics survey. It is the most commonly cited employment series that is released monthly.

  • Kansas Republicans should have their say

    Kansas Republicans should have their say

    Kansas Republicans should insist on having a voice in choosing the next Republican presidential nominee.

    The Kansas Republican Party has decided to deny giving rank-and-file party members a voice in choosing its presidential nominee for next year. In a release, the party says : “The Kansas Republican Party will not organize a Caucus for the 2020 election because President Trump is an elected incumbent from the Republican Party.”

    The release gives a reason: “Every time an elected incumbent Republican has run for re-election, except in 1912, the Kansas Republican Party state convention adopted a resolution instructing all delegates to vote for the elected incumbent. This has been the same standard for the Kansas Republican Party dating back to President Lincoln’s reelection ”

    This reasoning is undemocratic (small “d”).

    Kansas Republicans should have either a caucus or a primary election. To have neither, simply because the incumbent president is a Republican, deprives members of the Kansas GOP of a chance to make a decision.

    Yes, President Trump is popular with Republicans, very much so. But not everyone agrees. There are Republicans, myself included, who would prefer someone else than Donald Trump as the party’s nominee. Already, there are several credible candidates. Perhaps there will be more. For the Kansas Republican Party to assume that Trump would win the caucus or primary smacks of elitism. Party elders know best who should receive our convention delegates, it says. The vote of the people does not matter — this is the message from Kansas GOP leadership.

    I can hear the critics: “None of these have a chance to beat Trump.” That’s hardly the point. But these candidates are serious and have achieved success in politics. Some have been members of Congress and/or governors.

    Between now and March 2020 — when a caucus or primary would likely be held — things could change. Kansas Republicans need to position the state to have a voice in who is the next Republican nominee for president.

    Further, to give everyone an equal chance to have a voice, Kansas Republicans should abandon the caucus and hold a primary election. Participating in the caucus is difficult. Many people are not able to attend and cast their vote. No matter the cost to the party, Kansas should seek broad participation in its presidential nominating process. That means asking the people to make a selection, and it means a primary election instead of a caucus.

  • Kansas benefits from foreign trade

    Kansas benefits from foreign trade

    The Kansas economy benefits greatly from foreign trade, and we should oppose restrictions on trade.

    Bryan Riley of Heritage Foundation has contributed an extensive analysis of the benefits foreign trade brings to Kansas. Riley is Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy at Center for Trade and Economics (CTE).

    Riley notes three ways that foreign trade benefits Kansas:

    • Imports provide competitive products for Kansas consumers and manufacturers.
    • Exports benefit Kansas farmers and aerospace workers.
    • Foreign investment supports thousands of Kansas jobs.

    He recommends: “The state’s congressional delegation can best advance the interests of Kansans by opposing protectionist policies and working to remove barriers to international trade and investment.” Specifically:

    These benefits are threatened by U.S. trade barriers that protect politically well-connected companies from competition while driving up prices and threatening jobs in Kansas industries reliant on international trade.

    The state’s congressional delegation can best advance the interests of Kansans by opposing protectionist policies and working to remove barriers to international trade and investment.

    The danger to Kansas, and to the entire country, is that President-Elect Donald J. Trump campaigned on a platform of renegotiating trade agreements and imposing high tariffs if favorable agreements were not obtained. This is the opposite of free trade.

    Concluding, Riley projects a bright future for Kansas — if trade increases:

    Kansas is positioned to prosper from continued growth in trade with the rest of the world as trade barriers are reduced. Physical barriers, such as the limits imposed by canals and ports unable to handle modern cargo ships, and governmental barriers, like limits on shipping and the use of imported inputs, are falling across the globe. The state’s congressional delegation should take the lead in making sure that government-constructed impediments to trade and prosperity fall as well.

    Riley’s paper at Heritage is Trade and Prosperity in the States: The Case of Kansas. He also appeared on WichitaLiberty.TV earlier this year to discuss trade and its importance. See WichitaLiberty.TV: Heritage Foundation’s Bryan Riley on free trade.

  • Trump and school choice

    Trump and school choice

    Could a President Trump bring more school choice to Kansas?

    One of the campaign planks of President-Elect Donald J. Trump is support for school choice. Specifically, his campaign page states: “Immediately add an additional federal investment of $20 billion towards school choice. This will be done by reprioritizing existing federal dollars.”1

    In the next point: “Give states the option to allow these funds to follow the student to the public or private school they attend. Distribution of this grant will favor states that have private school choice, magnet schools and charter laws, encouraging them to participate.”

    Normally I would not be in favor of adding to federal spending, but Trump proposes to “reprioritize” existing funds. He is not specific on details.

    What could this mean to Kansas? If these funds were allocated to the states proportionally by population — as good a guess as any — Kansas would receive about $182 million. If students were awarded — for example — $5,000, this means 36,400 students could receive this benefit. This amount pays for tuition in some private schools, and goes a long way for paying for others.2 Nationally, charter schools operated on a budget of $7,131 per student in 2014.3 The State of Kansas should be happy to make up the difference, as that is far less than what the state spends now.

    The problem with this initiative is that it is targeted towards states that already have school choice programs. Kansas has a small private school scholarship whose existence may be in peril. Kansas has a law that allows for charter schools, but it is limited and designed to make charters very difficult to form.

    Targeting these funds towards states with existing school choice program is precisely backwards of what should be done. The funds should go to states that have no — or little — school choice. This will help students overcome the objection of the education establishment that hates school choice, which is that school choice drains money from traditional public schools. That argument is false, but funding from the federal government would help counter that argument.4

    Undoubtedly the public school spending lobby will develop other arguments against school choice in Kansas.

    Offsetting the increased federal spending would be reduced public school by the states, as most school funding formulas are based on the number of students.

    —
    Notes

    1. Donald J. Trump for President. Education. November 9, 2016. http://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/education/ ↩
    2. For example, see Classical School of Wichita at around $6,000 per year, Cair Paravel Latin School in Topeka at around $7,000 to $8,000 per year, and the Independent School in Wichita from $10,000 to $10,600 per year. ↩
    3. Center for Education Reform. Survey of America’s Charter Schools. http://www.edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014CharterSchoolSurveyFINAL.pdf. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. School choice and funding. http://wichitaliberty.org/education/school-choice-funding/. ↩