Building that economic wall
Incomprehensible: Thursday, President Donald Trump announced 5% tariffs on products from Mexico beginning June 10, which will rise 5% each month until they hit 25% in October.
The idea behind this extortion — er, strategic policy decision — is to make Americans pay more for all the products we buy from our southern neighbor in order to pressure Mexico into stemming the migrant crisis at the border.
Don’t understand the logic?
Neither do we.
Last year, the U.S. imported $346 billion in goods from Mexico. A 5% tariff will cost consumers more than $17 billion a year; by the time tariffs hit 25%, consumers could be burned to the tune of $100 billion.
Want to buy a car or truck built there — say, a Ford Fusion or Nissan Sentra or Dodge Ram? If its sticker price is $40,000, that’ll cost you an extra $1,500 as of the summer, an extra $7,500 by the fall.
Do you eat food? We thought so. Prepare to pay more for blackberries (95% of which are from Mexico), tomatoes (60% from Mexico) and asparagus (75% from Mexico) consumed in the United States come from Mexico.
If the tariffs don’t change consumption habits, U.S. consumers are stuck with an onerous tax.
If they do change those habits, thus hurting the Mexican economy? Expect more people crossing the southern border.
All of this is happening, mind you, as Trump is pressing Congress to approve his NAFTA replacement treaty, which he calls “the most important trade deal we’ve ever made, by far.”
As we said: Incomprehensible.
— New York Daily News
Lowering the Barr
Attorney General Bill Barr — who magically turned a detailed and damning report on a two-year investigation by special counsel Bob Mueller into a cursory brief exonerating President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice — is deeply disingenuous in claiming Mueller “could’ve reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity” on obstruction of justice.
Oh?
Throughout this process, Mueller remained the model of reticence and sober judgment, despite scurrilous tweets that he was engaged in a “witch hunt.” Wednesday, he explained how he scrupulously followed DOJ policy by neither indicting a sitting president nor asserting criminal behavior which could not be adjudicated — while honestly saying he couldn’t definitively assert no criminal actions occurred.
Had Mueller played judge and jury, asserting, “Yes, President Trump committed obstruction, but he can’t be indicted because of DOJ policy,” he would’ve been drawn, quartered and served to sharks released into the Potomac.
Barr, meanwhile, told Congress on May 1: “We accepted the special counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis … in reaching our conclusion.” Friday, he flipped: “We didn’t agree with … a lot of the legal analysis in the report … So we applied what we thought was the right law.”
Mueller has been consistent and professional from the start. Barr’s been the opposite: arbitrary in word and deed — consistent only in the political defense of one Donald J. Trump.
— New York Daily News