Charles Cooke of National Review Online ponders President Trump’s latest plan to counteract the impact of his own tariffs.
One of the most common conservative criticisms of government intervention is that it inevitably leads to more intervention down the road. The government steps in to try to fix A, and is therefore required to try also to fix B — B being the consequence of the government’s attempt to fix A. Here, in Politico, is a lovely example of this in action:
“The Trump administration is planning to ease fears of a trade war by announcing later Tuesday billions of dollars in aid to farmers hurt by tariffs, according to two sources familiar with the plan.
“The administration’s plan will use two commodity support programs in the farm bill, as well as the Agriculture Department’s broad authority to stabilize the agricultural economy during times of turmoil.”
Or, put another way: The Trump administration has intervened in the economy, and now, to mitigate the consequences of its intervening in the economy, it’s going to intervene in the economy again. In both cases, the taxpayer loses. He loses in the first instance because tariffs are taxes, and because taxes make goods more expensive. And he loses again when the government takes his money (or borrows it against his kids) and gives it to farmers who are down on their luck because the government elected to intervene.
