Trending
People who know me personally probably have heard me gripe about ridiculous comments and tweets made by both President Trump and candidate Trump in the last couple years.
I'm guessing Trump haters and Trump supporters have probably felt the same way at some point -- depending on whatever his latest message or rant might have been at the time.
But someone recently suggested that it might be more important to consider what Trump does rather than what he says. And as I read arguments on both sides of the latest debate over Trump's new steel and aluminum import tariff plan, I agree, at least for now, with that suggestion.
Experts who debate every national issue routinely sound off on why every economic, domestic or foreign policy plan will either solve all of America's problems or lead to the demise of our world as we know it.
In the case of the tariff plan, opponents argue tariffs will trigger a trade war that America will lose or that tariffs will destroy American jobs and crash the economy.
Supporters, however, say it's less about a potential trade war and more about America defending itself in trade just as it would against military aggression.
Each side, of course, argues he or she is unequivocally correct and maintains that in time, we all will come to see that.
I say, we must study facts of the past and consider the present before we try to predict the future.
We reported this week that the U.S. trade deficit rose in January to $56.6 billion, the highest level since October 2008 when it was $60.2 billion.
Pat Buchanan relayed some historical facts in last week's syndicated column: The U.S. relied on tariffs to convert from an agricultural economy in 1800 to the mightiest manufacturing power on earth by 1900. Bismarck's Germany, born in 1871, followed the U.S. example, and swept past free trade Britain before World War I. And since George H. W. Bush was president, we have run $12 trillion in trade deficits. Between 2000 and 2010, we lost 55,000 factories and 6 million manufacturing jobs.
Trump has placed blame for this growing gap on abusive practices by U.S. trading partners and on bad trade deals that put American companies at a disadvantage or encouraged them to move factories overseas.
Despite that, past presidents feared taking a stand. They lamented declines in steel and aluminum industries, but were unwilling to take action.
Perhaps they worried, like Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week, about "unintended consequences," or believed, like Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, that the move was a "very risky action" that could put agricultural and manufacturing jobs at risk. Ohio's Republican Sen. Rob Portman also opposed the action, saying a "more balanced" and "targeted" approach was preferable because broad-based tariffs "will unnecessarily invite retaliation in the form of tariffs against U.S. exports."
But Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, saw it differently, and stressed the importance of doing something to stop other nations from destroying our jobs.
I grew up in Johnstown, Pa., a vibrant steel city at the time that, much like Warren and Youngstown, has now stalled economically. Blast furnaces all over the Mahoning Valley, including the last one that had stood in Warren, have been razed. There is a reason northeast Ohio is now referred to as the "rust belt."
But the business of steel production is not unimportant or obsolete. It still is vitally important to our nation and our economy's present and future.
Remember, these tariffs are an assertive step for the "America First" agenda that was instrumental in getting Trump elected.
So, I say, let's try it.
Taxing certain products to ensure fair trade and America's viability is not opposition of a global economy. Rather it's insistence on fair play. What's so wrong with that?
blinert@tribtoday.com