Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Quick quiz:

• Who is Jaime Harrison?

Answer:

• Harrison is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee. He was in that position from January 21, 2021 until February 1, 2025. Which means he was head of the DNC when Trump beat Harris. Harrison ran for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina in 2020. He was hammered by Lindsay Graham.

Second question:

• Who is Ken Martin?

Answer:

• Martin is the current chair of the DNC, having succeeded Harrison in February. Prior to heading up the DNC, Martin was the chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. That party was formed in 1944. One of the supporters of the formation of the DFL was Hubert H. Humphrey. Humphrey was hammered by Richard Nixon in the 1968 Presidential Electoral College: 191 votes versus Nixon’s 301.

Third question:

• Who is the current visible leader of the Democratic Party?

Answer:

• I don’t know.

There had been the thought that somehow when Martin took the role at the DNC he would be out there, leading the Democrat response to whatever Trump is doing. That would be more than a full-time job.

Like him or not, you’ve got to acknowledge that Trump is certainly an active senior citizen by nearly any measure.

But maybe Martin is doing lots of things out of the broadcast, and more importantly, social media eyes. That is not good.

An argument could be made that the Lewis-Martin-like combo of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the visible face of the Democratic Party. Which is fine, assuming that the party imagines it can give up on the center and right electorate.

This is also the case with, say, Gavin Newsom. Not only do plenty of Americans look at California with more than a modicum of suspicion, but Newsom is undoubtedly a bit too slick for the majority of the voters.

James Carville had suggested that the Democrats just let Trump collapse on his own. But were that to happen (and arguably, if the markets continue to fall and the counter-tariffs take a big bite out of things like soybean sales from the great state of Louisiana (yes, we’re looking at you, Mike Johnson), then this may happen), remember:

Nature abhors a vacuum.

And the Dems would have no one in place to take the mantle of leadership. . .which would leave things in the hands of JD Vance.

Not exactly the kind of alternative that the Democrats have in mind.

But given what they haven’t done, it seems they’re not all that keen on winning.

And on that subject, remember that in 2016 Trump said:

“We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, ‘Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore, Mr. President, it’s too much.’ 

And I’ll say, ‘No it isn’t. We have to keep winning. We have to win more!’”

Even when he isn’t winning he’s still winning vis-à-vis today’s Democratic Party.

_____
FRIDAY 4/11/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

Tariffs have long been a divisive topic in economics. For decades, mainstream economists have championed free trade, arguing that tariffs — essentially a tax on imports ultimately paid by consumers — hinder economic growth by disrupting the free flow of goods across borders.

For most of my life, I’ve been a proponent of free — but fair — trade. I believed in the principle that “a rising tide lifts all boats,” and that less government intervention and lower taxes were the best ways to empower consumers. Free trade not only fosters economic efficiency but also reduces the likelihood of conflict by creating mutual interdependence among nations. In contrast, tariffs — as a form of taxation — distort markets by placing a thumb on the scale.

Yet, not everyone agrees that tariffs are the villain they’re often made out to be. Some see them as a legitimate tool to address the downsides of globalization, unfair trade practices, and the protectionist barriers used by other countries.

Let’s begin with the conventional wisdom. Economists have traditionally viewed tariffs as a net negative. When a country imposes tariffs on imported goods, it drives up prices for its own consumers. The result? Less competition, higher costs, and a drag on efficiency. Free trade, on the other hand, encourages specialization — countries focus on producing what they do best, and consumers benefit from cheaper, higher-quality products. This logic has driven decades of trade liberalization, from the creation of the World Trade Organization to sweeping agreements like NAFTA.

The data supports this view: global economic growth has surged under freer trade. However, for many Americans, the benefits of globalization have come with a bitter aftertaste — lost jobs, shuttered factories, and the growing perception that the system no longer works in their favor. This is where tariffs reenter the conversation.

When manufacturing jobs vanish in regions like the Rust Belt, the promised retraining programs and new opportunities often fail to materialize. Meanwhile, foreign competitors sometimes enjoy advantages such as lax labor standards, government subsidies, or currency manipulation — conditions that feel less like fair competition and more like exploitation.

From this perspective, tariffs become a counterpunch. The United States, with its vast consumer market, has leverage. Why not use it? Under President Trump’s “Liberation Day” declaration, tariffs were used as a tool to protect American workers and to pressure trading partners into fairer deals. Consider the trade war with China: tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods were intended to address long-standing issues like intellectual property theft and trade imbalances. Whether they succeeded fully remains a matter of debate.

Beyond the economic implications, tariffs carry political weight. They convey strength — a willingness to stand up for the “little guy” against the impersonal forces of globalization. This has made them particularly appealing in current US policy, especially in sectors such as steel and aluminum, which have strong constituencies in politically significant states. Tariffs are now seen not only as an economic tool but also as a matter of national security — critical to ensuring the country’s industrial capacity in the event of another global conflict.

Still, tariffs carry broad economic costs. They raise input prices for businesses and ultimately increase costs for consumers. Retaliation is another risk — as seen when American soybean farmers lost export markets during recent trade disputes. The tension is inescapable: tariffs are a high-stakes gamble, not a silver bullet.

To free-trade purists, tariffs are an outdated and blunt instrument. To others, they represent a means of reclaiming control in a global economy that has left too many behind. As international trade continues to evolve, the debate over tariffs isn’t going away. In fact, they remain a fixture in global economic policy — whether the United States embraces them or not.

Whether viewed as a strategic lever or a flawed relic, tariffs force us to confront the trade-offs in today’s deeply interconnected world.

Corbett writes about a variety of subjects, including tariffs and the economy, at My Desultory Blog.

_____
FRIDAY 4/11/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Back in April 2024, when members of Congress actually did things besides (a) robotically following their Dear Leader or (b) acting like a flock of decapitated chickens, they passed a law that gave ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns and operates TikTok, nine months to sell the social media platform.

Joe Biden signed it right away.

The bill has it that the sale was to be complete by January 19, 2025.

There was something of a sweetener in the bill for ByteDance. If there was a sale in process when the clock ran out of time, there was a three-month extension.

On January 19, there was no deal in the offing. 

TikTok went dark.

People throughout the country found themselves confused and bereft. 

But Donald Trump, Sharpie in hand, to the rescue.

Day One he signed a 75-day extension to keep the toks tiking.

That means ByteDance and whomever had until April 5.

Well, that hasn’t worked out, either.

So Trump has signed another 75-day extension.

Two things about this.

1. Congress passed a bill. The then-president signed it. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law banning TikTok. Yet Trump has simply chosen to ignore that. And the Republican-led Congress has let him do it. According to an essay published by the National Constitution Center on Article II, Section 3 by Marshall and Prakash, there is something known as the “Take Care Clause.” The authors note: “The Take Care Clause is arguably a major source of presidential power because it seemingly invests the office with broad enforcement authority. Yet, at the same time, the provision also serves as a major limitation on that power because it underscores that the executive is under a duty to faithfully execute the laws of Congress and not disregard them.” (Emphasis added) So what is Congress doing about Trump ignoring this law? Nothing.
2. The name of the bill in question is the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.” That “Foreign Adversary” bit refers to China. The reason it was enacted was because there was concern the Chinese are hoovering up all manner of data about American citizens as well as using the platform to perform acts of undue influence. Said more simply: TikTok represents a NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT—to put it as Trump should put it on Truth Social.

Why is it OK that the president (a) ignores the law and (b) permits a “Foreign Adversary” to have access to an estimated 33% of the U.S. population?

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
TUESDAY 4/8/25

... and respect for facts.

As news, analysis and debate about the Trump Tariffs continues to dominate front pages, our Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay writes in the right column about a promise the president has not kept: Ending the war in Ukraine. 

Scroll down the page with the scrollbar on the far right to read Macaulay’s latest commentary on the tariffs, “Trump Trashes Trust.” On the same page, in the left column, you’ll find comments on the tariffs by contributors Hugh Hansen, Sharon Lintner and Jim McCraw. 

Scroll further down the whole page to read “Elon Musk Makes Himself Proud” by our new contributing pundit, Jerry Lanson, in the left column opposite Macaulay’s “Feel Better Yet?” in the right column. 

Scroll a bit farther to read a debate between Lanson, with “Defending Democracy is Not a Partisan Issue” on the left and Rich Corbett’s “A Partisan Weapon in Disguise” on the right. 

These issues are ripe and waiting for your civil response.

Email your civil COMMENTS on center column news & analysis, and/or any of the commentaries and opinions expressed in the right and left columns, to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings (regardless of your opinion on the given issue) in the subject line.

… and respect for facts. As news, analysis and debate about the Trump Tariffs continues to dominate front […]

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

We are still reeling from the consequences of the massive Trump Taxes (a.k.a., tariffs).

Some people are saying that Trump campaigned on tariffs, so why should it be a surprise that he has imposed them?

While that is true, no one thought that they would be calculated in such an obviously ridiculous way.

Still, he said he would. He did. And now we have to deal with the consequences. 

But there is something else that he said — repeatedly — during the campaign, something that has life and death consequences.

In 2023 he told Fox News “I will have it”— the war in Ukraine — “solved within one day.”

In a CNN town hall, also in 2023, he said, “They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done in 24 hours.”

And he repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he would have peace in the region “while I’m still president elect.”

The war still rages.

He has spoken with Putin.

He had that hugely distasteful meeting — distasteful from the point of view that that isn’t how we treat our guests in the United States of America, particularly guests who are the leaders of a democracy that is being attacked relentlessly by a former superpower that, incidentally, has not been an ally of the United States for well over half a century — with Zelenskyy.

It is now some two-and-a-half months since Trump has been elected president.

It is more than 150 days since he was president-elect.

And the war continues.

==

On April 5, 2025, the remains of four US soldiers from the 1^st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division who died in a training exercise were returned to the US at Dover Air Force Base.

Their names are:

•Troy Knutson-Collins

•Jose Duenez Jr.

•Edvin Franco

•Dante Taitano

Donald Trump did not attend the ceremony.

Instead, he was at the LIV Golf Miami tournament held at Trump National Doral Miami.

Shameful.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
MONDAY 4/7/25

Comments from our contributing pundits …

Learning by Experience

I feel wealthier already! With Congress having cut its own hamstrings, I think most likely we'll get to learn by experience. I'm neither an economist nor a successful businessman (just like the president!) but I find it hard to imagine major "retro" industries (e.g. textile manufacturing) rebuilding in the US on as politically shaky a basis as Trump's tariffs.

--Hugh Hansen

Bleak House

Many ramifications of this Tariff War have yet to be seen. Today, tomorrow and maybe even over the next week we will make our purchases with little change noted. However, as items are restocked and this continues, we are looking at dramatic changes in our economy that may never be fixed in our lifetime. 

We have lost the feeling of security that living in America always gave us. Our future is now cloaked in fear of what comes next. It seems we cannot have faith in the stock market, and how do we even trust banks? Do we resort to putting money under the mattress and waiting to see if the economy stabilizes? This fear will lead to even more problems as people become leery of investing. 

At this point, it just seems bleak.

--Sharon Lintner

Trump Hates America

The president hates America because it did not re-elect him when it had the chance in 2020, and now he is exacting his revenge on the entire American population with these ridiculous, destructive tariffs. He and his millionaire-billionaire buddies will all be fine, because they are loaded, but the rest of us are going to suffer needlessly and for a long time to come. When did a presidential whim qualify as an emergency? What ever happened to Congress and the Supreme Court? We are screwed.

--Jim McCraw

_____________________________________________

Welcome to civil media, where we encourage your participation in these discussions and debates. Right now, we’re especially interested in your reaction to “Liberation Day,” President Trump’s heavy tariffs imposed on our erstwhile trade partners. 

Are inevitable higher prices worth the long-term gain in US manufacturing Trump promises? Should Trump have let Bidenomics play out and claim its falling inflation and low unemployment for his own?

Email your civil COMMENTS on center column news & analysis, and/or any of the commentaries and opinions expressed in the right and left columns, to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings (regardless of your opinion on the given issue) in the subject line.

_____
THURSDAY 4/3/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

While most of us are watching our investments and savings collapse because of the savage-yet-ridiculous tariffs that Trump and his team of economists who must have received their degrees from Trump University, there is an effect of what is going on that is getting little attention, mainly because it is hard to fathom how anything as stupid as applying wide-spread tariffs and so we are thinking more about what it is that we need to stock up on, like toilet paper (a key component of Charmin et al. is northern bleached softwood kraft pulp which mainly comes from Canada).

It is that Trump is turning many countries in the world against us.

The attacks he’s made on Canada and Mexico are unfathomable. Remember, he negotiated the US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, the replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he excoriated more than the Biden family, Hillary, and every legitimate working journalist.

On January 30, 2020, after USMCA had been signed, Trump went to an auto parts plant in suburban Detroit and crowed:

“The USMCA is the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law.  It’s the best agreement we’ve ever made, and we have others coming.”

He went on to say:

“Over the next five years, the USMCA is projected to increase purchases of American auto parts by $23 billion a year, and automotive investment by at least $34 billion.  And it’s the very first trade agreement in decades endorsed by American labor.  We even had — the unions endorsed this, the labor endorsed it.  We had tremendous support all down the line: farmers, manufacturers, labor unions.  This is a great deal and a brilliantly drawn-out deal.”

And now so far as he’s concerned, it doesn’t matter.

He’s slapping tariffs on our neighbors to the north and south.

Now prior to “Liberation Day” (liberate people from their savings?), Trump argued that he was penalizing the two countries because of illegal aliens coming across the borders and fentanyl.

While the amount of fentanyl coming from Mexico in 2024 was sizeable — there were some 21,000 pounds intercepted at the border, so presumably a whole lot more came over — the amount of fentanyl intercepted at the U.S.-Canadian border? 

Forty-three pounds.

Or 0.21% of the drug intercepted at the Mexican border.

But the question that needs to be considered is why applying punitive tariffs is a solution that could be solved by all parties doing a better job at stopping people and drugs from coming over the borders — tariffs that have negative consequences on American citizens?

Now it seems that Trump simply maintains that the rest of the world somehow owes us for simply taking part in the network of global trade.

To be sure, the US has the largest economy in the world. The nominal GDP is on the order of $30.34 trillion.

The European Union is second, at $20.29 trillion.

China is third, with a nominal GDP of $19.53 trillion.

Here’s some math that I’ll do because clearly that is also not a forte of Team Trump economists:

$20.29 trillion + $19.53 trillion = $39.82 trillion

$39.82 trillion > $30.34 trillion

Of course, this is not to suggest that the two economies would join. The EU has its troubles with China, too.

But it is to say that to the extent that Trump is pissing off people in other countries with his unhinged economics those people are likely to start cooperating in ways that they once cooperated with. . .the US.

It has been reported that China, South Korea and Japan are in discussions to create an alliance to deal with aspects of the U.S. tariffs. 

About a week ago that was nearly unimaginable.

Trump will go away at some point. Let’s say he’s replaced by the most internationalist president possible.

What is the likelihood that the rest of the world will have trust in the United States?

Not high.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings. His columns also appear in our Substack newsletter.

_____________________________________________

Tariff on Canadian Fentanyl?

Yes, that’s a thing. At least, it’s a thing Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called out in the Senate’s 51-48 vote on a joint resolution the libertarian politician co-sponsored with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) to end the Trump administration’s “emergency” tariffs on various Canadian goods in reaction to fentanyl coming south across the border into the US. 

Without naming Trump, Paul said; “One of the social media posts today said there was going to be a tariff on fentanyl. Really? Do you think the drug dealers are going to pay a tariff on fentanyl? Fentanyl’s not being tariffed.”

•••

That’s social media for you. This is civil media, and we invite – even encourage – your participation in these discussions and debates. Email your civil COMMENTS on center column news & analysis, and/or any of the commentaries and opinions expressed in the right and left columns, to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings (regardless of your opinion on the given issue) in the subject line.

_____
FRIDAY 4/4/25
THURSDAY 4/3/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

A few days ago, he announced that in just two weeks he’ll be close to cutting $1 trillion from the federal government. It’s a dubious claim. Musk lies a good bit, and the courts are slowing his most egregious moves.

What’s more, cutting jobs doesn’t always mean saving money. Crippling reductions in the Internal Revenue staff, for example, could cause the government to collect 10% less in taxes in 2025, The Washington Post reports. That translates to $500 billion.

But for the moment, let’s grant Musk his not-so-little lie. Let’s instead focus on the fact that his slash-and-burn tactics could hurt the country for decades.

The timing of this assessment matters because Musk blanketed Wisconsin with money and braggadocio for days in advance of Tuesday’s vote for a new Supreme Court justice there. He himself became a central campaign issue.

So what has DOGE – his infamous Department of Government Efficiency – actually done?

I would argue that its record is not pretty, though it can be hard to parse where DOGE ends and agency-inspired reshuffling starts. What’s clear, however, is that parts of the American government are beginning to look like the rubble of the Myanmar earthquake.

Social Security

Musk’s DOGE wants to reduce the agency’s workforce by 7,000 workers. It is already at its lowest level in 50 years. Former Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley warns that the odds of a “system collapse” are high. More cuts may yet come.

The Brookings Institute writes that individual retirement accounts could be targeted, an ominous warning.

“Earnings records could be erased or altered – either maliciously or by accident,” it writes. “A president intent on retribution, for example, could manipulate the earnings records of a political opponent.”

Nearly 70 million people receive some form of Social Security. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested recently that only “fraudsters” would complain about a late check. Yet 40% of recipients rely exclusively on their Social Security checks to survive. Fraudsters?

Health Care

The Trump administration announced plans last Thursday to cut 20,000 workers in the Department of Health and Human Services, just shy of a quarter of its employees nationwide, NPR reported. The agency, headed by vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr., oversees Medicare and Medicaid, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and more.

Science and Research

Broad-based cuts in scientific and health research at universities and specialized institutions could undermine American progress and our ability to compete in areas such as AI and medical research for many years.

Nature magazine reported that a survey of more than 1,600 American scientists and researchers found that three-quarters are considering leaving the United States, most to work in Canada or Europe.

“Ask economists which of the administration’s policies they are most concerned about and many point to cuts to federal support for scientific research,” The New York Times reported Monday. “The Trump administration in recent weeks has canceled or frozen billions of dollars in federal grants made to researchers through the NIH and has moved to sharply curtail funding for academic medical centers and other institutions. It has also tried to fire hundreds of workers at the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency. And it has revoked visas of hundreds of foreign-born students. To economists, the policies threaten to undermine US competitiveness … and to leave Americans as a whole, poorer, less healthy and less productive in the decades ahead.”

Education

The Trump administration wants to shutter the Department of Education, censor books in schools and clamp down on university curricula. 

“One day they are dismantling the department [of Education], the next day they are weaponizing it,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said on Boston’s WGBH radio Tuesday. 

The Department of Education, which began in 1979, has a budget of about $100 billion. When it shuts down, services at risk will include Pell Grants that help support lower-income college students; assistance in applying for federal loans; support for students with disabilities in grades K-12; and programs intended to help school districts with disproportionate numbers of low-income students.

“This is about dismantling and abolishing what gives kids opportunity,” Weingarten said.

Veterans Affairs

Joy Marver spent 22 years serving the US government. Until a week ago, the disabled veteran was working at the Veterans Administration near Minneapolis helping retrain soldiers for civilian work and coordinating veteran burials. Then, abruptly, she got fired.

The New York Times told Marver’s story Sunday in a touching narrative titled, “She Devoted Her Life to Serving the US. Then DOGE targeted her.” Marver is one of 80,000 employees, many of them veterans, the agency plans to fire this year. The NYT noted that she suffered traumatic brain injury in Iraq. Helping others has helped her on her long road to recovery. She won an employee of the month award and was hailed as a “great employee” in October.

But Musk and his DOGE boys don’t look at people. They look at numbers, revel as they slash the bureaucracy and often demean those they’ve fired without knowing anything about them. Marver’s firing shook her to the core.

Other veterans are losing jobs, losing access to much-needed care and losing the respect they’ve clearly earned. CNN reports that the agency is considering automating call centers that veterans use to set up appointments.

“Veterans in need of life-saving care and compassion should be met with a person who understands their needs and can provide them the information and resources they seek, not a lifeless machine, a Democratic congressional staff member told CNN.

USAID

The overwhelming majority of employees at the United States Agency for International Development will have lost their jobs by this summer, CBS News reports. The agency for six decades has had bipartisan support in fighting disease and supporting development in poorer countries around the world. Its assistance also spreads good will for the United States.

Its elimination (it’s officially being absorbed by the State Department) already has had catastrophic results. Writes CNN: “More than 11,000 additional TB (tuberculosis) patients are estimated to have died in the two months since almost all USAID funding froze on January 24.” TB infections are expected to rise roundly 30% this year as a result of the cuts. That’s a single disease.

The program’s demise also has hurt American farmers – heavily Trump voters – who sold surplus grains to USAID.

Looking Ahead

If you are a numbers person and remain unmoved by these bullet points, consider the economic impact of both DOGE cuts and Trump’s tariffs.

1. Economists increasingly are talking about stagflation – rising prices and rising unemployment. The CNBC Rapid Update, an average of economists’ forecasts, projects a sickly 0.3% increase in growth in the first quarter of 2025. It was 2.3% in the last quarter of last year.

“Economic growth has flatlined so far this year,” writes Axios. “Inflation has picked up. And consumers expect both to get worse.”

• The Washington Post quotes economists who said the sweeping tariffs Donald Trump promises to impose this week will amount to the largest peacetime tax hike in US history.
• The stock market remains shaky. 
• Donald Trump regularly praises Hungary and its autocratic leader. An interesting article in The Atlantic notes the country has become one of the poorest countries in the European Union. Productivity is dropping. Unemployment is climbing. And two-thirds of citizens describe the national education system as “bad.”

Maybe our “co-bros,” Trump and Musk, need a new model of good government.

My thanks to Taegan Goddard and his excellent website, politicalwire.com, which brought many of the articles referenced here to my attention.

_____________________________________________

Commentary Fodder

Are you taking President Trump’s comments seriously on his potentially running for a third term? 

Are you watching Tuesday’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which pits an Elon Musk-backed candidate against a George Soros-backed candidate? 

What about Wednesday, which President Trump calls “liberation day” because he is imposing a 25% tariff on all imported autos? Good or bad for the economy? 

This potentially is a big week for reader comments. But first, you have to comment after reading. 

Email your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line, so we may post them in the proper column. 

And be sure to read our Substack newsletter here.

_____
MONDAY 3/31/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

So how has Trump made things better for the average American?

Wasn’t that the reason why many people voted for him, because he promised them a Golden Age?

It was that and his deporting illegal aliens, a cadre of people whom, if you listen to him, are all murders, rapists and drug-addicts/peddlers.

As Adrian Carrasquillo reports in the Huddled Masses newsletter, on March 26 representatives of the American Business Immigration Council had meetings with members of Congress. Carrasquillo quotes Matt Teagarden, CEO of the 5,600-member Kansas Livestock Association, which is likely not some radical group, saying, “We either import workers or we import our food.”

What seems to be overlooked in the discussion of undocumented people is that according to information from the American Immigration Council, a large percentage of them work in agriculture. And based on Teagarden’s comment, they work in meat-processing, too.

While it might seem from the rhetoric of Team Trump that these people are “taking Americans’ jobs,” according to the most-recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in the US is 4.1%, which is essentially full employment.

Arguably there aren’t a whole lot of Americans available to take those jobs and the real question is how many of them would be willing to do that work.

When Trump was elected in November 2024 the Consumer Price Index — a gauge based on “a basket” of products people regularly buy — was at 2.7%. In February 2025, the CPI is 2.8%. Yes, a 0.1% increase, but not a 0.1% decrease.

This week there are supposed to be 25% tariffs on all vehicles imported to the US. Imports accounted for approximately 50% of all cars and trucks purchased by Americans in 2024.

So if 50% have an increased price (likely some percentage of 25%) and people suddenly buy the vehicles that aren’t imported, don’t the laws of supply and demand have it that those domestic products are going to get more expensive, too?  After all, a car dealer who sees increased interest in the non-tariffed cars isn’t going to simply sell them at sticker, as we saw during the COVID crisis.

Another thing that isn’t typically thought about — but will be — are those 25% tariffs that are applied to imported steel and aluminum. About 47% of the aluminum used in the US was imported. So given that, this means that things like beer cans are going to be getting more expensive.

And so will beer. According to the Beer Institute, about 18% of the beer consumed in the US is imported. Add tariff costs to that and. . . .

(Beer, incidentally, is an excellent case of why, despite what Team Trump says, other countries aren’t ripping off America. People just like the taste of Modelo, Heineken, Guinness, etc. So they buy it. No one is forcing them to drink it. Will making it more expensive make it taste any less good to them — or will it serve to drive up inflation?)

And then there are all of those DOGE activities that are (1) increasing the number of people unemployed (how is that good?) and (2) knee-capping the services that regular Americans depend on — like having someone at Social Security answer the phone.

Elon Musk may claim “waste, fraud and abuse” are rife.

But consider this: if you worked in an office, there was probably “that guy” who pilfered supplies. It wasn’t the whole staff. Just that guy. And you can pretty much be certain that whether it is a grocery store or any other product-based business you can think of, it is “that guy” who is doing dubious things, not everyone.

So why is it that literally thousands of people at various agencies are losing their jobs rather than “that guy”? Because it seems that Musk et. al. fail to understand that the US government is a service business and cutting services will reduce the amount of money spent but it will also reduce the purpose of the enterprise.

Isn’t answering a phone in a Social Security office “mission critical” when the mission is serving the people on the other end of the line?

Trump has intimated that before the wonders of tariffs kick in that Americans may “feel some pain.” The pain will be real. The wonders will be fanciful.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings, writing primarily for the right column.

_____
MONDAY 3/31/25