Congress Should Reclaim Delegated Trade Authority and End President Trump’s Harmful Trade War

This is a press release CEI issued in response to today’s tariff news. Note that my title is “Fellow,” unless I got promoted and nobody told me.

On Friday, China announced it would impose new tariffs on $60 billion worth of U.S. goods, further escalating trade tensions between the two countries.

CEI Senior Fellow Ryan Young said:

“Just as numerous analysts have predicted, China is responding in kind to President Trump’s trade policies, and the costs will be felt by American consumers. China announced plans to enact retaliatory tariffs ranging from 5 percent to 25 percent on 5,207 different U.S. goods worth a total of $60 billion. Trump has been mulling raising recent 10 percent duties on $200 billion of Chinese goods up to 25 percent, on top of an earlier levy on $34 billion of Chinese goods. He is reportedly also considering tariffs on all imports from China, which currently total more than $500 billion of goods.

“One does not lower trade barriers by raising them. Trump’s long history of protectionism mean he is almost certainly not telling the truth when he says his goal is zero tariffs and zero trading barriers. Tellingly, he already has the power to lower tariffs himself, and is not doing so. Proper authority to set tariff policy belongs with Congress, not the president. Congress needs to take back the authority it delegated away, and end President Trump’s harmful and unpopular trade war.”

This Week in Ridiculous Regulations

The economy grew by 4.1 percent last quarter, which is wonderful news. The president also announced $12 billion of subsides for farmers hurt by his trade policies and met with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, achieving a handshake truce in the brewing U.S.-European Union trade conflict. Congress geared up for its annual August recess, though the Senate will remain in session for most of the month. Meanwhile, regulatory agencies passed new regulations ranging from dumpster fire emissions to caller ID.

On to the data:

  • Last week, 55 new final regulations were published in the Federal Register, after 62 the previous week.
  • That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every three hours and three minutes.
  • Federal agencies have issued 1,899 final regulations in 2018. At that pace, there will be 3,274 new final regulations. Last year’s total was 3,236 regulations.
  • Last week, 1,643 new pages were added to the Federal Register, after 1,993 pages the previous week.
  • The 2018 Federal Register totals 36,335 pages. It is on pace for 62,647 pages. The all-time record adjusted page count (which subtracts skips, jumps, and blank pages) is 96,994, set in 2016.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. Three such rules have been published this year, none in the last week.
  • The running compliance cost tally for 2018’s economically significant regulations is $319.1 million.
  • Agencies have published 66 final rules meeting the broader definition of “significant” so far this year.
  • In 2018, 318 new rules affect small businesses; 16 of them are classified as significant.

Highlights from selected final rules published last week:

For more data, see Ten Thousand Commandments and follow @10KC and @RegoftheDay on Twitter.

Lawyers Have Been Unpopular for a Long Time

From p. 1064, footnote 19 of Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the first volume of which was published in 1776:

The Germans, who exterminated Varus and his legions, had been particularly offended with the Roman laws and lawyers. One of the barbarians, after the effectual precautions of cutting out the tongue of an advocate and sewing up his mouth, observed with much satisfaction that the viper could no longer hiss.

Tariffs and Vaping

Trade really does affect everything. Michael McGrady quotes me on tariffs and intellectual property reform in a piece on how the trade war is affecting the vaping industry.

CEI Press Release on 4.1 Percent GDP Growth in Q2 2018

Cross-posted from CEI.org. The short version: this week’s growth report is good news, but the long-term outlook is less rosy.

The Department of Commerce announced Friday morning the U.S. economy grew by 4.1 percent in the second quarter of 2018.

CEI Vice President for Strategy Iain Murray said:

“Today’s growth numbers are yet more proof that supply-side policies work. Freeing up labor and capital by reducing the burden of government regulation and taxation will lead to high growth, more opportunity, more innovation, and lower unemployment. This rising tide will lift all boats, so it is important both that these policies continue and no new policies, like trade barriers, contradict them.”

CEI Fellow Ryan Young said:

“Four percent economic growth is wonderful news. An economy can double in size in just 18 years at that pace. While President Trump deserves much of the criticism he gets for his economic policies, his slowing of regulatory growth and some short-term benefits from his income tax cut probably helped boost growth.

“The long-term outlook is less sanguine. The extra debt from the tax cut will have to be repaid, dampening growth. And as the economic effects from his tariffs begin to be felt, growth could noticeably slow as soon as this year. Most troubling are Trump’s rumblings about exercising more control over the Federal Reserve, which is supposed to be politically independent. If there is anything economists across the political spectrum hold sacred, it is the price system. Politicians toy with it at our peril, as Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon found out.

“If President Trump restrains his impulses, the near future will be as bright as today’s report. If not, rough economic times are ahead.”

Trump’s Trade Meeting with European Commissioner Juncker: Better than Nothing

Tariffs are the greatest!

-President Trump, July 24, 2018

I have an idea for them. Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies!

-President Trump, also on July 24, 2018

Many trade-watchers are breathing a sigh of relief about President Trump’s meeting yesterday with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The result was essentially a cease-fire. Juncker agreed that the EU would not impose a retaliatory car tariff it has been considering. In return, Trump agreed not to further raise steel and aluminum tariffs. These are both good things. But neither side is lowering any barriers. And neither side’s promises involve making things better. They have agreed to not make things worse. But in a bizarre, only-in-this-administration kind of way, nothing is better than nothing.

President Juncker also promised that the EU would buy more U.S. soybeans and natural gas, as though he has control over EU consumers’ spending decisions. He also pledged to work toward a US-EU bilateral trade agreement. Negotiations for such a deal will almost certainly last longer than Trump’s presidency, even if he wins reelection. This could be precisely why Juncker made the promise—Trump saves face, which is important to him, while Juncker can kick that can down the road until the White House has a less mercurial occupant. So even the actionable takeaways from the meeting amount to essentially nothing.

What does the new EU ceasefire mean? It is probably more of a strategic shift than anything else. The president’s biggest target on trade issues is China. To get China to reform its bad-faith trade policies—here the president has a point—will require both internal reform in China and international pressure. The U.S. is hardly the only country upset with the Chinese government’s penchant for intellectual property theft, disdain for property rights, and need for state control. And that’s ignoring the Chinese government’s human rights record, which we shouldn’t.

Trump’s tariffs are alienating allies the U.S. needs to achieve its policy goals against China. So rather than shifting toward free trade, what Trump is likely doing with the EU meeting is simply prioritizing the Chinese theater as the most important front in his imagined war.

While I dislike the phrase “trade war,” it may be an apt description for the way the Trump administration views trade. The analogy is obviously incorrect; trade is based on mutual consent, while war is the opposite. But the president and several of his advisors don’t see the issue the same way most people do. To them, trade really is like a war with winners and losers, fought at the level of nation-states and regional alliances. For one side to win, another side must lose.

Trade doesn’t work that way, of course. People only agree to a trade in the first place unless everyone involved expects to benefit. And, as even the best analysts sometimes forget, countries do not trade with each other, people do. But, with apologies to Larry Kudlow and a few other sound thinkers, the president hasn’t exactly chosen the best advisers on trade issues. So here we are, in a self-created trade war.

I no longer believe the president when he says he wants free and open trade (there are many other skeptics). Trump’s nationalism and zero-sum, adversarial thinking won’t allow it. So while it’s good that his trade battle against the EU won’t be escalating any further for the time being, that doesn’t mean Trump is admitting that his protectionist policies aren’t working. He is sacrificing one battle to gear up for a larger trade war against China. After all, Trump has the power to lower tariffs right now with the stroke of a pen, but he is not doing so. The Juncker meeting is likely the first step in doubling down against China, and that could hurt the United States economy, and the world’s, for years to come.

Trump Proposes $12 Billion in Aid to Farmers Hurt by His Tariffs

As we’ve been saying ever since this issue heated up, tariffs hurt the economy. There’s no way around it. Seeing this harm, President Trump today proposed $12 billion in emergency aid to farmers hurt by his trade policies.

This is a bad idea. This round of aid tries to fix one mistake with another mistake. That $12 billion of aid comes from other people, reducing their purchasing power and hurting other industries. Aid recipients will only benefit at others’ expense, meaning the best possible economic impact is zero. Add in Washington’s cut for administering the transfer, plus efficiency losses from lost consumer choice, and President Trump essentially announced that he has decided to counteract the economic harm he has already caused with further economic harm. A better policy would be fix his mistakes. That would mean rescinding all of the tariffs so far enacted, and refraining from enacting new ones.

Because of Trump’s tariffs and the predictable international response, consumers are already seeing higher prices, fewer choices, slower innovation, and less competition to choose from. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the losses from Trump’s trade policies have already negated any benefits from last year’s tax cut. Tariffs also hurt producers. Steel tariffs mean more expensive cars. Aluminum tariffs mean more expensive soda and beer. International retaliatory tariffs roughly double the damage the president is already causing to the U.S. economy—which, according to the Tax Foundation, could reduce GDP by more than $100 billion.

Farm tariffs, the target of today’s aid announcement, are causing chaos in futures markets for soy, wheat, and other products. Farmers of those products as well as pork, lobster, and dairy, are seeing similar harm.

All of these harms were avoidable. The administration’s trade policy is an enormous unforced error, which will take years to undo.

It is well past time for Congress to reclaim its taxing authority under Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It is clear that the executive branch is not going to responsibly use the taxing power Congress has delegated to it, and is unwilling to admit that its tariffs are not achieving its goal of fair and reciprocal trade. Rather than try something else that does work toward those goals, such as unilateral free trade, it is doubling down on its mistakes. It is not too late to reconsider.

This Week in Ridiculous Regulations

The European Union fined Google a record $5 billion for antitrust violations, and the president raised foreign policy kerfuffles with Britain and Russia on his European trip. Getting less coverage were more than 60 new final regulations ranging from gasoline vapors to payphones.

On to the data:

  • Last week, 62 new final regulations were published in the Federal Register, after 51 the previous week.
  • That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every three hours and 4 minutes.
  • Federal agencies have issued 1,844 final regulations in 2018. At that pace, there will be 3,293 new final regulations. Last year’s total was 3,236 regulations.
  • Last week, 1,993 new pages were added to the Federal Register, after 11,115 pages the previous week.
  • The 2018 Federal Register totals 34,690 pages. It is on pace for 61,947 pages. The all-time record adjusted page count (which subtracts skips, jumps, and blank pages) is 96,994, set in 2016.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. Three such rules have been published this year, none in the last week.
  • The running compliance cost tally for 2018’s economically significant regulations is $319.1 million.
  • Agencies have published 65 final rules meeting the broader definition of “significant” so far this year.
  • In 2018, 307 new rules affect small businesses; 16 of them are classified as significant.

Highlights from selected final rules published last week:

For more data, see Ten Thousand Commandments and follow @10KC and @RegoftheDay on Twitter.

CEI Press Release: CEI Criticizes European Union’s Antitrust Decision Against Google

The European Union announced its decision today to fine Google $5 billion in an antitrust case involving the tech giant’s Android operating system. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) regulatory experts lamented the decision.

CEI fellow Ryan Young said the following about the news:

The European Union’s $5 billion antitrust decision against Google’s Android operating system could cause immense consumer harm by requiring Google to provide an inferior product for no good reason.

The decision is reminiscent of the EU’s similarly baseless crusade against Microsoft in the 1990s and 2000s. Not only are Google’s Android operating system, Chrome browser, Maps, Calendar, and other applications already available free of charge to consumers, but Google provides consumers easy access to competitors’ software through its Google Play app store.

Just as consumers used Microsoft’s own Internet Explorer browser to install Firefox and other competing software they liked better, unsatisfied Google users have easy, often free access to competing products. They can also leave the Google ecosystem entirely by buying an Apple iPhone. The real threat to innovation and consumers here is the EU, not Google.

CEI Vice President for Policy Wayne Crews also commented on the decision:

Dominance and popularity are not the same as a coercive monopoly. The European Commission is behaving in protectionist fashion, not in a manner benefitting consumers, and the fines are inappropriate, unwarranted, and plain wrong. Google is no monopoly, as the existence of Apple’s iPhone and other options attest; and there is always some new disruptive technology on the horizon (remember the MySpace monopoly? The AOL one?).

Different vendors have the right to test out different business models without interference from regulatory authorities, and consumers have the right to accept or reject them. And the core justification, the European Commission’s idea that people, otherwise capable of downloading millions of files on Play and iPhone mobile stores, cannot substitute a search engine or other preinstalled app is absurd on its face.

There are many ways that predatory antitrust adventurism, such as that of the European Commission and the United States alike, must be reformed to prevent future damage to the technology sector. The very phrase “competition commissioner” is internally contradictory, and stands in stark contrast to the phrase free enterprise.

Read more from CEI’s Wayne Crews: “European Regulators Wrong on Google Fine, Wrong on Antitrust Policy

This Week in Ridiculous Regulations

The big news this week was Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, plus a proposed 10 percent tariff on $200 billion of Chinese goods that could take effect in late August. Things were less uneventful at regulatory agencies, with a lower-than-usual 51 new final regulations, ranging from skin disability ratings to garage door openers.

On to the data:

  • Last week, 51 new final regulations were published in the Federal Register, after 64 the previous week.
  • That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every three hours and 17 minutes.
  • Federal agencies have issued 1,782 final regulations in 2018. At that pace, there will be 3,300 new final regulations. Last year’s total was 3,236 regulations.
  • Last week, 1,115 new pages were added to the Federal Register, after 809 pages the previous week.
  • The 2018 Federal Register totals 32,697 pages. It is on pace for 60,550 pages. The all-time record adjusted page count (which subtracts skips, jumps, and blank pages) is 96,994, set in 2016.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. Three such rules have been published this year, none in the last week.
  • The running compliance cost tally for 2018’s economically significant regulations is $319.1 million.
  • Agencies have published 63 final rules meeting the broader definition of “significant” so far this year.
  • In 2018, 299 new rules affect small businesses; 16 of them are classified as significant.

Highlights from selected final rules published last week:

For more data, see Ten Thousand Commandments and follow @10KC and @RegoftheDay on Twitter.