Salem Political Snark

Bill Maher manipulated by Trump during dinner at the White House

I've watched Bill Maher for many years, beginning with his Politically Incorrect show and continuing through his Real Time show on HBO. It seems clear that Maher has gotten more conservative, or at least, is considerably more critical of Democrats than he used to be.

I still enjoy Maher's show.

I just find myself frequently getting irritated with him when Maher does his false equivalence thing: taking some isolated incident of progressive "wokeness" and making it sound like this is more serious than, say, Trump wrecking the economy, trashing the constitution, and behaving as a wanna-be dictator.

The past few weeks, my Irritation Button has gotten pushed when Maher talks on Real Time about his recent dinner with Trump, Kid Rock, and Dana White at the White House. The invitation came at the request of Kid Rock. Trump didn't sound thrilled about it in a pre-dinner post on Truth Social.

You can read a transcript of Maher's report on his show of how the White House dinner went. It's obvious that Trump manipulated Maher, but Maher apparently was so awestruck at meeting Trump he left his critical thinking on the White House steps.

I'm just reporting exactly what I saw over two and a half hours. I went into the mine, and that's what's down there. A crazy person doesn't live in the White House. A person who plays a crazy person on TV a lot lives there, which I know is (expletive) up. It's just not as (expletive) up as I thought it was.

So somehow Maher concludes from his two and a half hour dinner at the White House that the "measured and gracious" Trump on display during those 150 minutes proves that Trump actually isn't the crazy, hateful, lying, vindictive, ignorant, authoritarian that Americans have come to know (and hate) for over ten years, ever since Trump descended the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his presidential run.

Nope, Bill Maher saw the real Trump, and it isn't the public Trump. Astonishingly, Maher doesn't consider that it is much more likely that the opposite is true: the side of Trump shown to Maher during the private White House dinner was the play-acting Trump, and the real Trump is who we see in his public appearances.

This Reddit post is right on.

From the Epstein tapes and Trumps autobiography this is actually pretty normal behavior for Trump at the beginning of his relationships with people.

Epstein describes Trump as an excellent manipulator that could make the ugliest girl at the party feel beautiful. This is his preferred method of networking.

Much like how an abusive sexual partner will love bomb someone at the beginning of the relationship, then go on to demand more and more concessions from them as the relationship develops.

This is how his ex-wives and former friends describe him as well.

As is another Reddit post:

I watched the video. He basically says "Trump wasn't a crazy person when I met him in person, he just seems to play one on TV. That surprised me and I'm happy about that."

In what way should I take that statement, exactly? Should I be happy that Trump is only pretending to be a crazy person whenever he makes public statements? Should I be happy that Trump is privately more of a slightly normal person, but not publicly? Should I be happy that Trump treats some people better than most people?

Because none of those things make me happy or make me feel good about any of this.

We have to judge someone by their actions, not by how they privately treat you behind closed doors. Especially the president. "But he was nice to me in private" just isn't an argument for anything here, regardless of whether it is even true.

And if that wasn't the point of Maher, what was his point?

Not to mention, all of this feels like a setup for him to slowly become more of a Trump guy. Let's see if the becomes less critical of Trump in the coming months. Let's see if he uses the usual "I know he sounds crazy here but he's just acting for his base so it's not that bad!" argument going forward.

Expert on authoritarianism says Trump is moving closer to state terror

I remember well, because it was just a few months ago, when political commentators ridiculed Kamala Harris for placing so much emphasis on preserving democracy in the face of Trump when it was simply obvious that the main problem facing Americans was inflation.

Meaning, it was more important for the Harris campaign to talk about the price of eggs than the price of freedom. 

Now it is clear that Harris was correct and the pundits were wrong. For Trump is acting more like an authoritarian and wanna-be dictator than was expected by Trump critics like me -- and I expected things to be really bad if Trump won, just not as bad as they're turning out to be.

Here's a sampling of what Trump has been up to, dismantling democracy-wise, in the roughly three months since he took office.

-- Firing many thousands of federal workers in illegal ways that make a mockery of civil service rules.
-- Dismantling government agencies established by Congress.
-- Instructing the Justice Department without any evidence of wrongdoing to investigate people critical of Trump.
-- Extorting free legal work for his administration from large law firms whose attorneys represented causes Trump didn't like.
-- Demanding Harvard and other universities agree to government control of the institutions if they want to keep billions in federal grants that fund important research.
-- Imposing massive widespread tariffs that threaten the world's economy without authority to do this.
-- Disappearing immigrants with a right to be in this country to a prison in El Salvador without the due process required by law.

That last item is especially concerning, because Trump is ignoring an order by the Supreme Court to facilitate the return of Kilmar Ábrego García from the El Salvador prison because administration officials acknowledged that he was mistakenly deported to the notoriously dangerous prison.

Any other president would have taken steps to remove Garcia from the prison, bring him back to the United States, and have his case reviewed by courts. But Trump is refusing to comply with the unanimous Supreme Court order, which sets the stage for a constitutional crisis.

Timothy Snyder is an expert on authoritarianism who has written books on this subject, including On Tyranny, which I enjoyed a lot. Today he published a substack essay, "State Terror: A Brief Guide for Americans." It is, well, terrifying for those of us who don't want to lose our hard-won democracy.

Here's an excerpt.

Yesterday the president defied a Supreme Court ruling to return a man who was mistakenly sent to a gulag in another country, celebrated the suffering of this innocent person, and spoke of sending Americans to foreign concentration camps.

This is the beginning of an American policy of state terror, and it has to be identified as such to be stopped.

So let’s begin with language, because language is very important. When the state carries out criminal terror against its own people, it calls them the “criminals” or the “terrorists.” During the 1930s, this was the normal practice. Looking back, we refer to Stalin’s “Great Terror,” but at the time it was the Stalinists who controlled the language.

Today in Berlin stands an important museum called "Topography of Terror"; during the era it documents, it was the Jews and the chosen enemies of the regime who were called "terrorists." Yesterday in the White House, the Salvadoran president showed the way, referring to Kilmar Abrego Garcia as a "terrorist" without any basis whatsoever. The Americans treated him as a criminal, even though he was charged with no crime.

The first part of controlling the language is inverting the meaning: whatever the government does is good, because by definition its victims are the "criminals" and the "terrorists." The second part is deterring the press, or anyone else, from challenging the perversion by associating anyone who objects with crime and terror. This was the role Stephen Miller played when he said yesterday in the White House that reporters "want foreign terrorists in the country who kidnap women and children."

The control of language is necessary to undermine a legal or constitutional order. Our rule of law begins with notions such as the people and their rights. If politicians shift the framework to "criminals" and "terrorism," then they are shifting the purpose of the state.

In the United States, we are governed by a Constitution. Basic to the Constitution is habeas corpus, the notion that the government cannot seize your body without a legal justification for doing so. If that does not hold, then nothing else does. If we have the law, then violence may not be committed by one person against another on the basis of namecalling or strong feelings. This applies to everyone, above all to the president, whose constitutional function is to enforce the laws.

Trump spoke of asking Attorney General Pam Bondi to find legal ways to abduct Americans and leave them in foreign concentration camps. But by "legal" what is meant are ways of escaping law, not applying it.

It is that anti-constitutional escapism that enables abuse. State terror involves not just the malignant development of state organs of oppression, such as masked men in black vans, but also the withdrawal of the state from its role as a guardian of law.

What aspiring tyrants present as "strength," the ability to terrorize innocent people, rests on what might be seen as a more fundamental weakness, which is the withdrawal of the state from the principle of the rule of law. When we have law, we are all stronger; when we lack law, everyone is weaker except for the very few who can direct the coercive power of the state against the rest of us.

In the history of state terror, the escape from law into coercion takes three forms, all of which were on display, incipiently, in the White House yesterday: the leader principle; the state of exception; and the zone of statelessness.

The leader principle, or in German Führerprinzip, is the idea that a single individual directly represents the people, and that therefore all of his actions are by definition legal and proper. In discussions in the White House and thereafter, we see this notion being advanced. Trump's advisors claim that what he is doing is popular.

The claim (as in legal filings) that the president is acting from a personal "mandate" from the people has the same problem. Asked on Fox News about the abduction of Americans and their transfer to foreign gulags, Attorney General Pam Bondi said that “these are Americans he is saying who have committed the most heinous crimes in our country.” If it comes down to what “he is saying,” then he is a dictator and the U.S. is a dictatorship. Trump spoke of the need to deport people who "hate our country" or who are "stupid."

The second escape from law is the state of exception. In principle, the Soviet Union was governed by law. Before its greatest exercises of terror, however, the Soviet authorities declared for themselves states of exception. This meant that, on the territory of the Soviet Union itself, it was "legal" (in Bondi's and in Trump's sense) to abduct people and send them to concentration camps: authorities claimed that there was some sort of threat, and so protections could be withdrawn and procedures set aside.

People could be abducted in black vans and executed or sent to a camp, "legally," in the sense that the law had been set aside. The notion of the state of exception, important to Soviet practice, was at the center of Nazi theory. As the leading Nazi thinker Carl Schmitt argued, the sovereign is the person who can make an exception. If we are living in normal times, then we think we should be governed by law. But if politicians can use words to make us think that these are exceptional times, then we might accept their lawlessness.

A simple way to escape from law is to move people bodily into a physical zone of exception in which the law (it is claimed) does not apply. Other methods take more time. It is possible to pass laws that deprive people of their rights in their own country. It is possible to carve out spaces on one's own territory where the law does not function. These spaces are concentration camps. In the end, authorities can choose, as in Nazi Germany, to physically remove their citizens into zones beyond their own countries in which they can simply declare that the law does not matter.

This exploitation of purported stateless zones was the main line of the history of the Holocaust. Under Hitler, the Germans did have concentration camps on their own territory, and they did reduce Jews to second-class citizenship, and they did live under a permanent state of exception. But, in the main, the mass murder of German Jews was achieved by their abduction and forced rendition to sites beyond prewar German territory where, German authorities claimed, there was no law.

A probing of this statelessness approach was on display yesterday, as Trump and his advisors claimed that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal resident of the United States whom US authorities abducted by mistake and sent to a concentration camp in El Salvador, was now beyond the reach of American law. This is state terror: the state is presented as "strong" in its oppression of a person, but as weak in its ability to respect or enforce law.

The idea that the United States can send you to places from which it cannot bring you back is the theoretical basis for a doctrine of statelessness. Call it the Rubio Doctrine: in the words of the secretary of state, "the foreign policy of the United States is conducted by the President of the United States, not by a court." But what that implies is that people forcibly transported beyond the boundaries of the United States can be incarcerated or killed for no reason. That would be "foreign policy."

Trump gives in on tariffs after trying to wreck U.S. and world economy

MSNBC's Chris Hayes had a nice way of describing Trump's 90-day pause on his tariffs today: it was like an arsonist setting a building on fire, then returning to the scene of his crime and telling bystanders that  it was good only two-thirds of the structure was destroyed. (Not an exact quote, but I got the basics right.)

In the first four business days after Trump revealed his totally screwy "reciprocal" tariffs on almost every country, including those that have zero tariffs on United States imports, our stock market graded his tariff policy with a big F for fail by sinking like a stone, eliminating over $6 trillion in wealth. Today the market gained around a third of that back.

The market was poised for a more dangerous decline to mark the tariffs going into effect. What freaked out investors, Trump's advisors, and eventually Trump himself was how the bond market was reacting to the tariffs.

Usually when stocks have had a large drop, the price of Treasury bonds increases due to investors seeking safety and a guaranteed return. But today the yield of the 10-year Treasury bond increased substantially due to a marked decline in the price of the bond. 

That's very unusual. Basically it meant that around the world, including here in the United States, investors were losing faith in our nation. Instead of being a safe haven, government bonds were being treated as if they had been issued by a Third World developing country.

A New York Times story describes how Trump realized that he needed to change course of tariffs, fast. 

For the past week, President Trump has been urging calm in the face of the financial chaos that he created and resisting calls for him to rethink his approach.

“I know what the hell I’m doing,” he told Republicans on Tuesday as the massive tariffs he had imposed sent global markets into a tailspin. “BE COOL!” he said in a social media post on Wednesday morning. “Everything is going to work out well.”

At 9:37 a.m. Wednesday, the president was still bullish on his policy, posting on Truth Social: “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!”

But in the end, it was the markets that got him to reverse course.

The economic turmoil, particularly a rapid rise in government bond yields, caused Mr. Trump to blink on Wednesday afternoon and pause his “reciprocal” tariffs for most countries for the next 90 days, according to four people with direct knowledge of the president’s decision.

...Mr. Bessent played a significant role in steering the president toward the pause. But the real credit, Mr. Trump’s advisers admit privately, should go to the bond markets. Mr. Trump’s decision was driven by fear that his tariffs gamble could quickly turn into a financial crisis. And unlike the two previous crashes of the past 20 years — the global financial crisis of 2008 and the pandemic of 2020 — this crisis would have been directly attributable to only one man.

...The tariffs had triggered a sharp sell-off in U.S. government bond markets and the dollar, which investors usually see as safe-haven assets in times of turmoil. After Mr. Trump announced the new tariffs last week, economists on Wall Street quickly raised their forecasts for inflation and lowered those for growth, with many warnings about a recession. Trillions of dollars of stock market value vanished in a matter of days.

At 1:18 p.m. on Wednesday, Mr. Trump announced on Truth Social that he would back off the “reciprocal” tariffs for 90 days while increasing tariffs on China to 125 percent. The pause, along with leaving a 10 percent tariff rate in place for most countries, was a version of what a number of people had urged Mr. Trump to put in place for days.

Problem is, now the United States still has insanely high tariffs that will lead to higher inflation, job losses, supply chain problems, and diminished confidence in the United States as a reliable trading partner. 

Trump claimed that his tariffs were necessary to bring manufacturers back to the United States from overseas. But few corporations are going to be willing to spend big bucks on building a new plant when Trump clearly has no idea what he's doing. He could reinstate the original tariffs at any time, or he could do away with raising tariffs at any time.

Chaos isn't what American businesses were looking for from the Trump administration. They wanted a favorable business climate marked by long-term dependability. Instead, they got Trump's whims. He simply feels that other countries have been ripping us off through trade imbalances, even though there is little hard evidence of this.

The stock market probably will have lots of ups and downs as Trump's negotiations with other countries move forward over the next 90 days. I expect that there will increasing numbers of stories about disruptions caused by his 125% tariff on Chinese exports. 

Almost all of my clothes are made in China, Vietnam, or some other Asian country. They're high quality and reasonably priced. I don't want to pay more for clothes, or anything else, just because Trump has had an obsession with tariffs for many years.

Unfortunately, that obsession hasn't led to knowledge about how tariffs work. Trump is still spreading lies about tariffs imposed by the United States being paid by foreign countries. In truth, tariffs are paid by the importer, an American company, who almost always raises prices to compensate in whole or in part for the cost of the tariff.

Another New York Times story is called "An Experiment in Recklessness: Trump as Global Disrupter." It ends with:

All this suggests a failure to look around corners — which is hardly new in the American presidency. Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in June 1930, thinking they would help create jobs, then went fishing. They instead accelerated the Great Depression.

The White House insists this time the result will be the opposite. It is a huge bet, one on which not only Mr. Trump’s presidency but the fate of the global economy rests. And no one can predict where the bottom is for the markets, or where the top is for the escalation with China.

“The speed and chaos surrounding President Trump’s policy rollout have created extraordinary global economic disruption; nobody alive has ever witnessed self-induced volatility on this scale,” Ian Bremmer, the founder of the Eurasia Group, a consulting firm, wrote this week.

At the beginning of the year, the United States had the strongest economic position of any of the Group of 7 nations, he noted.

Now, he concluded, “President Trump has become the principal disrupter.”

Trump's tariffs are a loser for him no matter what he does

It's laughable when someone calls Trump a great dealmaker. Actually he's a terrible dealmaker. The only reason anyone claims this is that Trump paid someone to write a book for him called "Art of the Deal." 

His name is on the cover, even though he didn't write it, but that's a far cry from the reality: Trump is incapable of making deals because he isn't a strategic thinker and nobody trusts him to keep his word.

Look at the evidence. In his first term as president Trump failed to make any significant deals. His main claim to fame, or in this case infamy, was botching the United States response to the covid pandemic, which led to about 200,000 unnecessary deaths. 

Now, in his second term, Trump has failed to make a deal to end the Ukraine-Russia war. failed to make a deal to end the Israel-Hamas war, and is floundering in his attempt to use tariffs on other countries as a cudgel to make deals that reduce trade imbalances.

In each case, Trump has failed to stake out a consistent position that would lead to productive deals. Instead, he says one thing one day, then another thing another day, causing the leaders he's dealing with to recognize an obvious truth: Trump can't be trusted, which undermines his attempts to bend others to his will.

With the tariffs on almost every country in the world he announced last Wednesday -- Russia and North Korea escaped tariffs, which shows how much Trump loves authoritarians like himself -- it's impossible to know what goal Trump is pursuing.

It isn't fairness, because Trump imposed tariffs on countries that have zero tariffs on United States imports. It isn't reducing trade imbalances, because that's impossible to achieve (we buy lots of vanilla from Madagascar, as it isn't grown here, but Madagascar can't buy much from us, being such a poor country). It isn't bringing factory jobs back to the United States, because this would require keeping high tariffs in place for years to reassure corporations of a long-term change in tariff policy, but Trump has already begun negotiations to reduce or eliminate the tariffs he imposed five days ago.

The big problem for Trump is that regardless what he does with tariffs, he's going to be a loser.

That's what happens when a pathetically poor dealmaker tries to use blunt force to get their way without being clear about what they're trying to achieve, and without establishing a negotiating approach that could result in a win-win for both parties.

Currently China, Canada, and the European Union are threatening to impose counter-tariffs on United States goods in response to Trump's heavy-handed imposition of tariffs on goods exported from their countries. Given Trump's childish approach to disputes -- if you hit me after I hit you, I'll hit you even harder -- an international trade war seems likely.

That's why economic forecasting experts have raised the risk of a recession here in the United States up to about 50-50. Worse, this probably would be a recession with dreaded "stagflation."

Meaning, higher inflation caused by tariff-induced price increases as imported goods become more expensive, and higher unemployment caused by supply chain disruptions along with a weakening of both business and consumer confidence -- totally understandable given the trillions of dollars of wealth erased in the stock market after Trump announced his tariffs.

Exacerbating Trump's tariff problem is the absolutely screwy way the so-called "reciprocal" tariffs were calculated, as I laid out in "Not a surprise: Trump's tariffs are based on lies." 

Given Trump's notorious disregard for the truth, it isn't surprising that yesterday when he revealed his so-called "reciprocal tariffs" on goods imported to the United States from other countries, massive lies were used to support his massive and economically destructive tariffs -- which amount to a gigantic tax increase on the American people. 

Noted economist Lawrence Summers has said that Trump's tariff policies are the economic equivalent of creationism: a crackpot idea that has no evidence backing it up. This makes it much more difficult for leaders of other countries to take Trump seriously when they engage in tariff negotiations with him. He basically has no good arguments to use, other than his habitual mob boss approach: "Do what I say or I'll break your kneecaps with a baseball bat."

That may work with some small powerless countries. It won't work with larger countries, whose citizens and leaders don't like to be pushed around by the United States. 

Thus we're probably in for a very bumpy road, economically. Get used to high stock market volatility with big price drops mixed in with periods of optimism, only to be followed by more declines. This is good news for Democratic chances in the 2026 midterm election. However, it's bad news for both Americans and the world.

All we can hope for is that Trump changes his mind about tariffs and realizes this is a losing proposition for him. But betting on Trump being reasonable rarely pays off, unfortunately. 

My daughter is more optimistic about Trump's tariffs than I am. Hope she's right.

My daughter is the vice-president for sales of a designer eyewear company whose products are made in a European Union country. So she's got a vested interest in how Trump's tariffs turn out, since the European Union has been slammed with a 20% tariff on exports to the United States.

There's no difference politically between my daughter and me.

We're both avid progressives who couldn't stand Trump before his rollout of an incredibly misguided attempt to undo international trade through so-called "reciprocal" tariffs that actually aren't that at all -- since Trump's deeply flawed simplistic formula used to come up with his new tariffs has nothing to do with the tariffs other countries are charging the United States, so it isn't possible to call what Trump has done "reciprocal."

We talked by phone tonight.

My daughter, who lives in southern California, went to a Hands Off! rally in Santa Ana today, while my wife attended a Salem rally. (Me, I spent the afternoon mowing the fields on our rural property, since it was a nice day and rain is coming tomorrow.) Both of the women in my life came away energized by the protests against Trump's policies, all of which suffer from the not-so-minor defect of being totally crazy.

Where my daughter and I differ is how long Trump will persist with his insane tariffs. We agree that they make no sense. The United States has been doing just fine under the current system of international trade. We're a rich country with a low unemployment rate and a declining rate of inflation. 

It isn't as if Americans are pleading to be able to work in a factory making clothes or shoes. China, Vietnam, and other Asian countries can produce these things more efficiently and less expensively than we can. So this is an example of why Trump's desire to have everything Americans need or want made in the United States is such a stupid notion.

Which gets me to how my daughter has a different view of Trump's tariffs than I do. She thinks that Trump will do away with the tariffs in a few months. I believe that Trump will be more stubborn, keeping them for considerably longer, maybe well into until 2026.

But I hope my daughter is correct. And she may well be. I can see business executives deluging Trump with complaints about what his tariffs are costing them. The only way corporations would spend large amounts of money on building plants that build what currently is being produced in other countries is if they can be sure that the tariffs will remain in place permanently, or at least for many years.

However, Trump is notoriously mercurial. He changes his mind on a whim. So it's unlikely that many corporations are going to move their production to the United States when they know that the reason for doing this -- Trump's massive tariffs on imports -- could disappear at any time.

Thus Trump is in a bind. The only way to achieve his Make Everything in America dream is to keep the tariffs in place for quite a few years. Yet if he does this, a recession (or even depression) is likely, not only in this country, but internationally. That will lead to a big Democratic victory in the 2026 midterms and deepen Trump's reputation as one of the worst presidents ever. 

My argument for Trump sticking with his tariffs was pretty simple: he's motivated largely by a desire for revenge and retribution. Tump may sincerely believe that other countries have been ripping us off economically, though there's little evidence of this. So I can see him keeping the tariffs in place to punish our trading partners, even if the United States is hurt just as badly.

Soon we'll see who was right. I hope my daughter is, because the tariffs are a self-imposed attack on a key foundation of our nation's economic success: international trade.

Not a surprise: Trump's tariffs are based on lies

Given Trump's notorious disregard for the truth, it isn't surprising that yesterday when he revealed his so-called "reciprocal tariffs" on goods imported to the United States from other countries, massive lies were used to support his massive and economically destructive tariffs -- which amount to a gigantic tax increase on the American people. 

Trump used the charts below to illustrate his tariff plan. The column just to the right of a country's name is titled "Tariffs Charged to the U.S.A. Including Currency Manipulation and Trade Barriers." That's a total lie, as I'll describe below. That column has nothing to do with tariffs charged to the United States, nor does it have anything to do with currency manipulation and trade barriers.

The column in yellow is titled "U.S.A. Discounted Reciprocal Tariffs." That's another lie, since the discount is from the figure in the other column, which as I just said has nothing to do with tariffs, so there's no way the yellow column can contain discounted reciprocal tariffs.

Today CNN had a segment about how the Trump tariffs were actually calculated, using Vietnam as an example. The calculation is absurdly simple. Indeed, childishly simple, given the tremendous economic pain these falsely calculated reciprocal tariffs will cause the world. 

(1) In 2024 Vietnam exported $136.6 billion in goods to the United States, and Vietnam imported $13.1 billion in goods from the United States.
(2) So the trade deficit between Vietnam and the United States was $123.5 billion, the difference between the $136.6 billion of Vietnamese goods bought by the United States and the $13.1 billion of United States goods bought by Vietnam.
(3) The Trump administration divided $123.5 billion (the trade deficit) by $136.6 billion (the value of Vietnamese goods bought by the United States). That figure is .90, or 90%. 

I first learned of this absurdly simple calculation from a post on X last night.

This proves that what Trump was saying at yesterday's Rose Garden reveal of the tariff amounts was a lie. Using Vietnam as an example, it is completely false that this country has a 90% tariff on United Stats imports.

Actually, Vietnam's tariff rate was 9.4% in 2023. So the Trump administration was off by a factor of almost 10. Instead of charging Vietnam the "discounted" rate of 46% on its exports to the United States, a truly reciprocal rate would have been 9.4%, or 10% to round up.

Trump kept saying that the existence of a trade deficit with another country means that the United States is being ripped off. That's ridiculous. International trade generally benefits both countries, the exporter and the importer. 

We Americans benefit from goods (like shoes and clothing) made in Vietnam and sold here. Because Vietnamese workers are paid a low wage by our standards, we are able to save money on our purchases. Vietnam benefits by being able to employ their citizens at factory jobs that pay a decent wage by their standards. It's a win-win.

The main reason Vietnam imports few goods from the United States is that their citizens can't afford the expensive stuff that we make here. So the trade deficit isn't a conspiracy by Vietnam to rip us off. It's a result of Vietnam and the United States having very different economies, with the U.S. being much richer.

Trump is completely wrong in basing his tariffs on an assumption that the United States should have an equal value of imports and exports with another country, or there's something wrong. Today I heard an economist liken this false assumption to a store owner being upset that they are paying more money to their hair stylist than the hair stylist is buying from their store.

That isn't the way an economy works. Money circulates in complex fashions. Trade deficits arise for all sorts of reasons. It may well be that some countries should reduce their tariffs on imports from the United States. But like I've said, the way the Trump administration calculates the tariffs they're imposing on other countries has nothing to do with how large the tariffs those countries have.

A Washington Post story, "Economists say the way Trump calculated tariffs makes no sense," says:

Economists say the crude formula the White House used to calculate what it’s calling “reciprocal tariffs” is too simplistic to achieve its goal of wiping out U.S. trade deficits — and, for that matter, they say that goal doesn’t make sense, either.

...President Donald Trump’s tariff plan, announced Wednesday, would impose a 10 percent baseline tariff on all imports from virtually all countries — plus an additional punitive import tax tailored for each of about 60 countries.

The math used to come up with those rates is what experts are lampooning.

A formula released by the U.S. trade representative ties those punitive taxes to the United States’ bilateral trade deficit in goods with each country — in other words, how much more the U.S. imports from those countries than it exports to them. The calculation finds the ratio between the U.S. trade deficit with a country and that country’s total exports to the U.S. It then divides the ratio in half to produce what the administration called a “discounted reciprocal tariff.”

Economists criticized the formula for its assumption that persistent trade deficits are a reflection of allegedly unfair trade practices by U.S. trading partners. They point out that the math apparently leaves out services — which make up the bulk of the U.S. economy and an important proportion of its exports — from calculations of trade deficits, which has the effect of making U.S. trade relationships look more one-sided.

They also say there’s nothing “reciprocal” about the punitive tax rates because they’re disconnected from any actual barriers countries impose on U.S. imports.

“They’ve got an indefensible foundation to an indefensible policy,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the conservative American Action Forum.

We found Trump's auto tariffs causing panic buying at Salem dealership

Yesterday was quite an interesting day for my wife and me. We were able to buy a 2025 RAV4 Plug-In Hybrid XSE at Capitol Toyota, but it was a close call -- because of Trump's 25% tariff on imported cars and auto parts that goes into effect next Thursday.

The saga started last Tuesday when Laurel and I were picking up her 2019 RAV4 Hybrid (which isn't a plug-in) after service on it was completed, and she asked a Toyota salesperson if there were any 2025 RAV4 Plug-In's that she could take a look at.

Laurel has liked her car a lot, but would like the plug-in feature. A while back she leased three Chevy Volts in a row before the Volt was discontinued and found that the all-electric range, which was about the same as the RAV4 Plug-In, around 45 miles, meant that she rarely used the gas engine when driving locally. And she's been longing for wireless Apple CarPlay to make it easier to listen to podcasts and audio books.

The salesperson said they had a couple of used RAV4 Plug-In's on the lot but no 2025 models. He told us that typically every new RAV4 Plug-In they get is pre-sold, the demand is s0 high for them. 

During the next few days Laurel researched the 2025 RAV4 Plug-In. She wanted the one pictured above, the XSE trim in Wind Chill Pearl with a Midnight Black roof. On Saturday she called Capitol Toyota to ask whether a matching RAV4 she'd seen on their web site was available, or if it had already been sold. After Laurel was told that it was available, she made a 3:30 pm appointment for a test drive. 

Since Laurel wasn't planning to buy a car yesterday, I decided to stay home and do some yard work on a pleasingly rainless day. But I contributed to a possible future purchase by getting a CarMax estimate of what our 2019 RAV4 Hybrid was worth, $27,000, and gave a printout to Laurel.

Then the real "fun" began. Laurel texted me at 3:58 pm. 

Looks like I will be at the Toyota place for quite a while. They are very busy. The guy came out and said that the White XSE, he claims is still available, is out being test driven right now by someone. So I am waiting for him to get the key for it and now he’s disappeared for a while. A blue XSE RAV4 is being sold at the moment didn’t want that one anyway it looks like I will be here a long time either way.

Now he stopped by with an associate who is going to check to see whether the white one has been sold. If it isn’t sold and it looks like what I want we have to pay for it today. We can’t hold it because they’re going so quickly.

Not long after I got a phone call from Laurel. She said that the person who had driven the white RAV4 Plug-In Hybrid hadn't bought it, so I needed to come to Capitol Toyota ASAP with our Schwab checkbook so we could buy the car ourselves before 8 pm.

I put aside the lawn fertilizer spreader I'd been using, changed my clothes, put the dog in my Subaru Crosstrek (also bought from Capitol), and hurried off to the dealership. When I got there, I learned that the woman who had driven the car we were going to buy had returned to Capitol Toyota and told the salesperson that she wanted to buy "our" car.

After several managers got involved in this controversy, the decision was that whichever customer is holding the keys to a vehicle after a test drive is over has the first right to buy it. That was Laurel, and she wanted to buy the white RAV4. So we lucked out. Barely. 

During the rest of our time at the dealership as we discussed accessories (Laurel picked some), extended warranties and such (we declined all of them), our trade-in (Capitol Toyota agreed to match the CarMax offer), and how we'd pay for the car, we learned what a crazy day it had been at Capitol Toyota.

Trump's 25% tariff on imported cars and auto parts had led to a near-panic by people who wanted to buy a Toyota that was on the lot and not subject to the tariff -- which is expected to add thousands of dollars to the price of a new car. A PBS story, "How Trump's steep tariffs on imported vehicles may affect car prices and the auto industry," says:

Some car buyers have been rushing to showrooms across the country this weekend, as automakers brace for Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on vehicles and auto parts made outside the United States. The tariffs kick in on Thursday and could raise some car prices by thousands of dollars.

Walking around the Capitol Toyota showroom with our dog, who had gotten three biscuits from the canine-friendly dealership to tide her over until we could give Mooka her dinner, I could see that most desks were filled with salespeople working with customers. It had been a very busy day at Capitol Toyota.

Ordinarily that'd be good, but in this case it was caused by people like us who desired a new Toyota but didn't want to pay $5,000, or whatever, more for a car after the Trump tariffs go into effect. Trump has said that he "couldn't care less" in automakers raise prices because of the 25% tariff they will have to start paying next Thursday on imported cars and parts, since Trump thinks this will lead people to buy American cars.

He's wrong, as Trump so often is. A CBS News story says:

General Motors, one of the so-called Big Three automakers, along with Stellantis and Ford, is widely expected to be the most exposed to the forthcoming auto tariffs. Headquartered in Detroit, the U.S. car company makes just 45% of vehicles it sells to U.S. customers domestically, leaving 55% of its lineup exposed to tariffs, according to Cox Automotive. 

GM, which makes Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac vehicles, is heavily invested in Mexico and Canada, where it builds heavy-duty vehicles, according to Cornell's Wheaton. 

So General Motors, an American auto company, will be hugely affected by the tariffs, because so many of their vehicles are assembled in Canada and Mexico and include imported parts. The RAV4 Plug-In Hybrid is made in Japan, by the way. A story in The Hill says:

Last month, the average transaction price for a new vehicle was $47,373, up more than 20 percent from just before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Edmunds.

If the tariffs are fully passed onto consumers, the average auto price on an imported vehicle could jump by $12,500, a sum that could feed into overall inflation, The Associated Press reported.

Cox Automotive, a research firm, estimates that the tariffs will add $6,000 or more to the cost of a typical vehicle assembled in Canada or Mexico.

Trump administration sends war plans via text to journalist

If there was any doubt about the incompetence of the Trump administration, this story in The Atlantic today should squash it.

Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor in chief of The Atlantic. I'm a subscriber. This gift link to Goldberg's story should enable anybody to read it. 

Remember the uproar over Hillary Clinton using her own email server when she was Obama's Secretary of State? Trump and other Republicans thought she should be go to jail for engaging in a breach of security protocols.

Well, the debacle described by Goldberg is way worse than Clinton's emails. Hopefully there will be investigations of what happened. Here's some excerpts from Goldberg's story to whet your appetite to read the whole thing.

The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.

I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.

This is going to require some explaining.

...On Tuesday, March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text-messaging services are capable of delivering.

I assumed that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. I did not assume, however, that the request was from the actual Michael Waltz. I have met him in the past, and though I didn’t find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me, I did think it somewhat unusual, given the Trump administration’s contentious relationship with journalists—and Trump’s periodic fixation on me specifically.

It immediately crossed my mind that someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. It is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.

I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine, or Iran, or some other important matter.

Two days later—Thursday—at 4:28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a Signal chat group. It was called the “Houthi PC small group.”

...The principals had apparently assembled. In all, 18 individuals were listed as members of this group, including various National Security Council officials; Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Middle East and Ukraine negotiator; Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and someone identified only as “S M,” which I took to stand for Stephen Miller. I appeared on my own screen only as “JG.”

...After receiving the Waltz text related to the “Houthi PC small group,” I consulted a number of colleagues. We discussed the possibility that these texts were part of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds.

I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.

...It was the next morning, Saturday, March 15, when this story became truly bizarre.

At 11:44 a.m., the account labeled “Pete Hegseth” posted in Signal a “TEAM UPDATE.” I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility.

What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.

...According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time. So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.

...I have never seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I’ve never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion.

Conceivably, Waltz, by coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of “national defense” information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story.

Harris asked them to consider a hypothetical scenario in which a senior U.S. official creates a Signal thread for the express purpose of sharing information with Cabinet officials about an active military operation. He did not show them the actual Signal messages or tell them specifically what had occurred.

All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place. Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law’s definition of “national defense” information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose.

If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF—most Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their home—or communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said.

Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.

American voters got us Trump. They'll have to rid us of Trump.

There's a lot of anger among Democrats, especially the left wing of the Democratic Party, right now.

The anger is divided between Donald Trump and his billionaire buddy, Elon Musk, and Democrats in the Senate -- especially minority leader Chuck Schumer -- for preventing a government shutdown by voting to end a filibuster that would have blocked a Republican-backed continuing resolution to fund federal agencies through the rest of the fiscal year, September 30.

That anger is completely understandable.

Trump and Musk are doing terrible things. They're taking a wrecking ball to the federal government, to our economy, to international relations, to free trade, to the rule of law, to longstanding norms designed to keep a president from acting like an authoritarian. And while I supported Senate Democrats avoiding a government shutdown, I realize that others have decent reasons for criticizing this decision.

But the way I see it, the real culprit here is American voters. They're the reason Trump is president instead of Kamala Harris. They gave Trump a second term knowing full well what kind of man he was and what he planned to do after re-entering the White House. Harris warned them that Trump was a serious threat to our democracy. Voters elected him anyway.

Currently Trump's favorability rating is 46%, with 51% viewing him unfavorably. That's low by the standard of how other presidents have been viewed at this point post-election, but this chart by The Economist shows that Trump is more popular than he was in his first term, and also during Biden's presidency.

Us progressive Democrats can't stand Trump. The rest of the country is fairly evenly divided between having a favorable and unfavorable opinion of him. (Trump's approval rating not surprisingly closely mirrors his favorability rating.)

It's encouraging that recent polls are showing that voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing with the economy, as this has been one of his strengths. Prices are still high, even though Trump promised that he'd reduce them as soon as he became president. Trump's tariffs, which amount to a national sales tax, almost certainly will lead to an increase in prices.

The base of the Democratic Party is pleading with party leaders to do something, anything, to stop Trump from doing further damage to our country and the world. Again, that's an understandable sentiment. I just don't see it as being a viable way to derail the Trump Train, which has a powerful head of steam and few roadblocks in its way at the moment.

Yes, courts are ruling against the Trump administration. But there will be appeals of those rulings, which can take many months or even years to play out. And while the Supreme Court may curb Trump's authoritarian desire, such isn't at all certain given the court's 6-3 conservative majority. 

So it seems to me that the American public turning against Trump is the only way he can be stopped, or at least slowed down, between now and when he leaves office in 2029 -- a depressingly long time away. If it becomes clear that Trump is defying court orders, this would lead to a constitutional crisis that might bring millions of protesting people into the streets.

And if the economy tanks under the weight of Trump's misguided tariffs and other policies, this should produce a drastic reduction in his approval/favorability rating. That could scare Republican politicians into opposing what Trump is doing, though Trump has such a grip on the GOP, I wouldn't count on that.

I think Democrats have to do whatever they can to stop Trump and Musk.

However, unless the midterm elections in 2026 bring Democrats back into power in the House, Congressional Democrats won't have many ways to do this. The Senate filibuster is the only viable option, and that can't be used on Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," a reconciliation package that renews tax cuts which favor the wealthiest Americans. 

Seven reasons why I support Senate Democrats voting to avoid government shutdown

We Democrats are notorious for engaging in circular firing squads where different factions of the party take political shots at each other. But the arguing over Senate Democrats voting today to avoid a government shutdown is unusually intense.

Yesterday I was surprised to see MSNBC's Chris Hayes, who I usually agree with, telling Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer not only that he was wrong to support ending a filibuster so a continuing resolution passed by the House that would keep most federal agencies funded at their 2024 level until this fiscal year is over on September 30 could pass with a simple majority, but that this was a betrayal of the American people.

Today Hayes said pretty much the same thing, along with two guests who, not surprisingly, agreed with Hayes. The three of them argued that a government shutdown was justified as a show of resistance against the horrible things Trump, Musk, and their MAGA minions are doing to federal employees and the agencies they work for. 

I have a different opinion. I'm glad nine Senate Democrats and one Independent (King) voted to end a filibuster. As shown above, they were Chuck Schumer, John Fetterman, Catherine Cortez Masto, Dick Durbin, Brian Schatz, Maggie Hassan, Kristen Gillibrand, Gary Peters, Jeanne Shaheen, and Angus King. But I respect fellow Democrats who think these lawmakers were mistaken. 

It bothers me that so many Democrats are viciously attacking the ten Senators. This wasn't an easy call. There were good reasons to avoid a government shutdown, and there were good reasons to embrace a government shutdown. Schumer acknowledged that voting for the continuing resolution wasn't desirable, since it allows Trump and Co. to continue with their extreme, thoughtless, and often illegal attempts to shrink the federal government.

He just considered that a government shutdown would be even worse. I agree. Here's reasons I find persuasive for why Senate Democrats did the right thing today.

(1) Democrats are making progress at convincing the American people that indiscriminate layoffs of government employees and the arbitrary elimination of government programs is a bad thing the Trump administration is doing. So if Democrats said they need to shut much of the government down as a protest against Trump/Musk shutting much of the government down, this would sound crazy to the public. Which, in my view, it is.

(2) Courts have ruled that the Trump administration needs to rehire many workers wrongly let go for spurious reasons. A government shutdown would give Trump the power to decide which federal employees are essential and which aren't, seemingly making it easier for Trump to reduce the size of the federal workforce.

(3) Democrats hate it when they're in power and Republicans use the threat of a government shutdown to pressure a Democratic administration to give in on some political issues favored by Republicans. Now many Democrats have been calling for their party to do what they hate when Republicans do it. Government shutdowns are bad for the country, no matter who is responsible for one. 

(4) Pro-shutdown Democrats have a fantasy that after a government shutdown has been in place for a while, Trump will have to negotiate with Democrats to reopen the government, enabling them to make demands that limit the damage Trump/Musk are doing to federal programs. Dream on. Just look at the chaotic way Trump is handling tariffs. He doesn't like to lose or feel like he's being disrespected. When he's pushed hard, Trump pushes back harder. Zelensky learned this in his Oval Office meeting with Trump. Rather than negotiate with Democrats, likely Trump would have let the shutdown continue.

(5) In line with the above, Democrats who favored a shutdown never clearly specified what the "endgame" would be. Republicans control the House, Senate, and Presidency. Today's Republican Party believes that the best government is the smallest possible government. Most Republicans in Congress, and certainly Trump, would be fine with a lengthy government shutdown. It's unlikely that they'd ever work with Democrats on a deal to reopen the government, at least not until a shutdown had done extensive damage to the United States.

(6) Other countries don't have government shutdowns. This is an American invention. It isn't something to celebrate, but to avoid. 

(7) I'm fine with Democrats playing hardball. My objection is to doing this via a government shutdown. The nation's debt limit must be raised in coming months. That's a better fight for congressional Democrats, as the Trump administration will care more about preserving faith in the credit worthiness of the federal government than they do about keeping discretionary federal programs operating.