On trade policy, Trump is turning GOP orthodoxy on its head

President Donald Trump's trade policies are turning long-established Republican orthodoxy on its head, marked by tariff fights and now $12 billion in farm aid that represents the type of government intervention GOP voters railed against a decade ago.
President George W. Bush increased the number of countries partnering with the United States on free trade agreements from three to 16. President Ronald Reagan signed a landmark trade deal with Canada that was later transformed into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and expanded to include Mexico. Both those Republican presidents also enacted tariffs, but their comments on trade were overwhelmingly positive.
"We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends, weakening our economy, our national security and the entire free world, all while cynically waiving the American flag," Reagan said in a 1988 radio address.
Trump, by comparison, has called NAFTA "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere," and his administration has opted to use tariffs as a tool intended to leverage more favorable agreements with virtually every major U.S. trading partner. He shredded the trade agreement the Obama administration tried to work out with Pacific Rim nations that had strong backing from farm groups and chief executives from major U.S. corporations.
Republicans also have altered the priority of tackling the national debt, an issue the GOP hammered President Barack Obama on as the country struggled to recover from the 2008 economic crisis. "Our nation is approaching a tipping point," GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, now the House speaker, said in January 2011 when the national debt hit $14 trillion.
Today, the Congressional Budget Office projects the $21 trillion debt will rise to more than $33 trillion in 10 years. That estimate notes that the tax cut lawmakers passed in December would increase economic output, but add $1.8 trillion to the deficit over the coming decade.
The GOP's evolving priorities are not lost on some in the party. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., who lost a close primary election this year after butting heads with Trump on some issues, said he finds it "perplexingly destructive" for the GOP brand.
"It takes a long while to build a brand, but brands can be diminished or destroyed in relatively short order, and I think the administration is destroying bedrock cornerstones to what the party has historically stood for," Sanford said. "There is no conversation on the debt, deficit and government spending these days. That has been a cornerstone."
Sanford made headlines as South Carolina governor when he said he would reject stimulus money approved during the financial crisis because he did not think the country should go into debt to fund recovery efforts.
"Here we are now with a hypothetical $12 billion bailout package and you don't hear a word," Sanford said. "That is quite a transition in not so many years from decrying what the Obama administration had done with bailouts to now endorsing the idea of bailouts."
Trump, in a Friday interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity's radio show, said the strong economy would help the U.S. reduce the deficit. "The economy, we can go a lot higher ... We have $21 trillion in debt. When this really kicks in we'll start paying off that debt like water. We'll start paying that debt down."

"The economy, we can go a lot higher. ... We have $21 trillion in debt. When this really kicks in we'll start paying off that debt like water. We'll start paying that debt down."
- President Trump, speaking to Fox News' Sean Hannity on Friday

The administration's plan on the bailout announced last week would borrow money from the Treasury to pay producers of soybeans, sorghum, corn, wheat, cotton, dairy, and hogs. Many farmers have criticized Trump's tariffs and the damage done to commodity prices and markets.
Some GOP lawmakers are expressing concerns. "I didn't come up here to start new government programs," said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La.
But it's unlikely that the Republican-controlled Congress will try to block the administration's agricultural aid plan.
"I'm looking at this and saying, 'You're going to single out one sector?' What about the manufacturing sector? What about the energy sector?" said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "Where do you draw the line? I've got some real concerns."
But others praised the move. GOP Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, called it "welcome relief."
"This is the right fight to have, but in the meantime, our producers have got to live as this fight is going on," Conaway said of a trade dispute with China that has prompted the imposition of tariffs by both nations.
Conaway said the president has reshaped the way Republicans think about trade.
"He's kind of changed the narrative of the conversation that it's really not OK to let other people take advantage of America," Conaway said.
Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., said it's clear the GOP has changed over the past two years with Trump in office.
"This is the party of Trump. He calls the plays and they line up and they execute the play," Kildee said.

"This is the party of Trump. He calls the plays and they line up and they execute the play."
- U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich

But Kildee also opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal that the Obama administration was trying to work out with Japan, Vietnam, Singapore and others. He and many other Democrats described past trade deals such as NAFTA as hurting workers in their home districts. So why the criticism of Trump and the efforts he has undertaken on trade?
Kildee said he would prefer a more deliberative approach and a multilateral approach that doesn't fray longstanding alliances.
"Simply engaging on the issue of trade doesn't mean he's doing it right," Kildee said.
The president's meetings with lawmakers in the past week and his trade advisers' visits to Capitol Hill are acknowledgements that many GOP lawmakers are worried about where Trump is headed — and what it could mean in the November election as farmers, bourbon makers and manufacturers who use imported steel and aluminum deal with the fallout.
A possible breakthrough with the European Union announced Wednesday at the White House appears to have eased their concerns and given the president more time to work out new deals.
"The fact the EU was here today and good talks happened, I think that points to there's proof it's working," said Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash. "That's not just wishful thinking. I think we can see that."

Randa Jarrar Cartoons

Bush-bashing Fresno State professor returns to Twitter, calls on 'white editors' to resign

The infamous California university professor who relished in the death of former first lady Barbara Bush is back at it again.
Randa Jarrar, an English professor at California State University, Fresno (aka Fresno State), tweeted this week that “white editors” must resign from positions of power, the Fresno Bee reported, citing CampusReform.org.
“We don’t have to wait for them to f--- up,” Jarrar allegedly wrote. “The fact that they hold these positions is f--- up enough.”
Jarrar’s Twitter account is set to private, but the tweet was captured in a screenshot by Campus Reform.
The tenured professor seemed to be reacting to a 14-line poem written by a “white male” published in the far-left magazine the Nation, the Washington Times reported.
Amid criticism, the poetry editors of the Nation dubbed the poem “ableist” and apologized for “the pain” they caused to “affected” communities.
In April, Jarrar drew public backlash for calling Barbara Bush an “amazing racist” who raised a “war criminal” – a reference to her son, President George W. Bush -- only an hour after the news of the former first lady's death was made public.
“[E]ither you are against these pieces of s--- and their genocidal ways or you’re part of the problem,” Jarrar said in a follow-up tweet. “I’m happy the witch is dead. can’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have.”
Jarrar merely gloated in the face of near-universal backlash -- which included threats by Fresno State donors to no longer support the university -- and boasted of her $100,000 annual salary.
“I work as a tenured professor,” she said. “I make 100K a year doing that. I will never be fired. I will always have people wanting to hear what I have to say.”
She also bashed farmers as being "f---ing stupid" supporters of President Donald Trump.
According to the Bee, Jarrar is scheduled to resume teaching at the university in the fall. In April, Fresno State's president decided that Jarrar's views were protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Pelosi describes 9/11 attacks as 'incident,' suggests GOP weaker on border than Democrats

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi described the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as an “incident” during her weekly news conference on Thursday.  (Reuters)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi described the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as an “incident” during her weekly news conference Thursday.
The outlandish slip-up about the deadliest attack on U.S. soil came during a discussion in which Pelosi criticized the Trump administration’s stance on immigration and its claims that the Democrats have been weak on border security.
She claimed that Republicans are actually weaker on the issue than Democrats because they did not implement some of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations that concerned border security enforcement and immigration.
“We have a responsibility to protect our borders. All of our borders. Let’s make no mistake about that. Democrats have been strong on that point. All of our borders,” Pelosi told the reporters.
“In fact, I said to some of you before, when we had the 9/11 incident and the commission was formed — and they made their recommendations — they made recommendations to protect America, but the Republicans would never take them up. And some of it was about our borders. The Republicans would never take them up,” she added.

"When we had the 9/11 incident and the commission was formed — and they made their recommendations — they made recommendations to protect America, but the Republicans would never take them up."
- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

The 9/11 terror attacks, perpetrated by Al-Qaeda terrorist group and its leader Usama bin Laden, killed around 3,000 people in what was the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil in modern history.
Pelosi went on to say that only in 2006 – when Democrats overwhelmingly won the midterm elections amid dissatisfaction with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – a border security measure was introduced.
“It took until we won in ‘06 — first bill on the floor, H.R. 1 — to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission,” she said.
The top Democrat’s attempts to portray the Republicans as weak on immigration may hit the wall as her colleagues at the party are increasingly lurching leftward on the issue of immigration.
Some top mainstream Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, are embracing the goal of abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency over its role in deporting illegal immigrants.
Congressional Democrats are also opposed to Trump’s signature issue of the border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, blocking any efforts in Congress to provide funding toward the project.

Remains of US war dead retrieved from North Korea, White House says

A soldier carries a casket containing what was believed to be the remains of a U.S. soldier who was killed in the Korean War, during a ceremony at Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, July 27, 2018.  (Associated Press)

Fifty-five cases containing what were believed to be the remains of U.S. servicemen killed during the Korean War were returned Friday, the White House said.
The cases, each draped with the flag of the United Nations, arrived aboard a U.S. military plane at Osan Air Base outside Seoul, South Korea. Earlier, the plane and its crew had traveled to Wonsan, North Korea, to collect the remains, the White House said.
The transfer of the remains from the 1950-53 Korean War had been negotiated last month during a summit meeting in Singapore between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
President Donald Trump tweeted about the return of the remains late Thursday, as the transfer mission was getting underway.
"The Remains of American Servicemen will soon be leaving North Korea and heading to the United States! After so many years, this will be a great moment for so many families. Thank you to Kim Jong Un," the president wrote.
US ANTICIPATES NORTH KOREA WILL RETURN REMAINS OF 55 SERVICE MEMBERS, OFFICIAL SAYS
About 7,700 U.S. soldiers are listed as missing from the 1950-53 Korean War, and 5,300 of the remains are believed to still be in North Korea. The war killed millions, including 36,000 American soldiers.
Officials in North Korea had no comment on the handover on Friday, the 65th anniversary of the end of the Korean War, which the country celebrated as the day of "victory in the fatherland liberation war."
Earlier Thursday, the White House released a statement confirming details about the transfer of the remains.
"At their historic meeting in Singapore, President Donald J. Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un took a bold first step to achieve the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, transform relations between the United States and North Korea, and establish enduring peace," the statement said. "Today, the Chairman is fulfilling part of the commitment he made to the President to return our fallen American service members. We are encouraged by North Koreas actions and the momentum for positive change."
NORTH KOREA IS SAID TO BE POISED TO RETURN BODIES OF SOME 50 US VETS SOON: REPORT
Among the other results from the highly anticipated meeting, the two leaders signed a document that said Pyongyang would work toward "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."
A U.S. official previously told Fox News that the U.S. was expecting that the rogue regime would be sending back the remains Friday. However, the official said that nothing was set in stone until the U.S. plane leaves Wonsan with the remains.

Trump predicts a ‘terrific’ GDP report at US Steel plant

President Trump touted U.S. economic growth in a speech at a newly reopened U.S. Steel plant in the St. Louis-area town of Granite City, Ill.

Trump predicted a “terrific” outcome to Friday's report on U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).

“Big numbers announced tomorrow; I don’t know what they are, but I think they’re going to be terrific,” Trump said on Thursday.

White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow told FOX Business that when the Commerce Department releases second-quarter GDP data, he expects the number could exceed 4%.

"You're going to get a very good economic growth number tomorrow. Big," Kudlow said during an interview on “Varney & Co.” on Thursday.

More from FOX Business

The steady growth of the U.S. economy has been credited in part to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Trump said an estimated two-thirds of American raw steel companies went out of business over the last two decades, eliminating more than one-third of all steel jobs. However, the impact of U.S. tariffs on imported steel and aluminum has been credited for the reopening of a steel plant in Granite City.

“After years of shutdowns and cutbacks, today the blast furnace here in Granite City is blazing bright, workers are back on the job, and we are once again pouring new American steel back into the spine of our country,” Trump said.

U.S. Steel, the nation's second-largest steel producer, may embark on a major expansion involving additional plants across the country, according to its president. Trump said the survival of steel in America is a matter of national security.

“We need steel mills for national security,” he said.

Hillary 2018 Cartoons

Tammy Bruce: America avoided a disaster -- Look at the Clintons and their pal Harvey Weinstein

FILE -- Former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and Harvey Weinstein as they arrive for the premiere of "Shakespeare in Love" in New York.  (Reuters)

A year and a half after the fact, we are seeing photographs of Hillary and Bill Clinton at a cozy dinner just weeks after her failed presidential campaign, with accused serial rapist Harvey Weinstein. Having powerful friends like the Clintons is a reminder of not only how someone as disgusting as Mr. Weinstein remained in power, but why people were afraid to act against him.
At the Clinton table at the very popular Rao’s restaurant in New York in early December 2016 were Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, his wife fashion designer Georgina Chapman, and Weinstein lawyer David Boies. The New York Times reported last year that the pals were discussing making a documentary about her loss to Donald Trump. The Daily Mail reported it received exclusive access to the never-before-seen photos of the Clintons with Mr. Weinstein.
This reminds people of the sort of individuals she has chosen to surround herself with. In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 loss, one would guess she’d have her closest friends with her, the people she could trust. And in early December, that apparently was Mr. Weinstein, with whom the Clintons had been friends for decades.
According to the New York Police Department, Mr. Weinstein is charged with rape, a criminal sex act, sexual abuse and sexual misconduct involving two women. More charges could follow.
It was less than a year after his best friend’s failure to gain the presidency and a mere 10 more months after that dinner at Rao’s, for the boom to be brought down on Mr. Weinstein.
Mrs. Clinton still insists she had no idea about Mr. Weinstein’s alleged actions, so her friends and supporters have two options when it comes to her decades-long friendship with the accused rapist: Either she was the only Friend of Harvey in both Hollywood and politics who didn’t know, which makes her unqualified to hold any public office; or she did know and didn’t care. Either way, this is a woman whose judgment was and remains compromised.
Some did try to warn her about the association. In one instance, the Daily Mail noted The New York Times had revealed “… Clinton’s campaign had been warned about the rumors swirling around about Weinstein. Actress Lena Dunham — one of Hillary’s biggest celebrity endorsers — emailed her campaign’s deputy communications director in 2016. The email stated: ‘I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point. I think it’s a really bad idea for him to host fund-raisers and be involved because it’s an open secret in Hollywood that he has a problem with sexual assault.’ “
Thus, the dinner photographs are a reminder about just how big a disaster America averted in 2016. If Mrs. Clintonhad prevailed in 2016, consider the individuals who would now have more power than they ever did before. Then contemplate the sort of Cabinet a President Hillary Clinton would have assembled. Eric Schneiderman, the disgraced former New York attorney general who resigned after the Ronan Farrow/New Yorker expose on multiple women accusing him of abuse, very easily would have expected to become U.S. attorney general.
And what could BFF Harvey Weinstein have expected? Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, of course. Mrs. Clinton’s election would likely mean the #MeToo movement never would have materialized. His close relationship with the Clintons would continue, and he would be a frequent visitor to the White House. Who could have stopped him then?
Certainly then-FBI Director James B. Comey would have to be rewarded. Director of National Intelligence? After all, even with his renewing the investigation into her email server, he declared she would not be prosecuted, taking Attorney General Loretta Lynch out of the picture, clearing the whole thing up. Mrs. Clinton was president and Mr. Comey’s action probably saved the election. That’s likely what they thought, and would tell themselves if she succeeded.
Now, let’s see … How does FBI Director Peter Strzok sound to you? Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page would have plum jobs reporting to their new boss at the bureau, no doubt. John Brennan would love being the National Security Adviser. James Clapper, head of Homeland Security? Of course. Not to mention Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS and source of the phony Russian dossier, as the White House director of communications?
And then there’s the Supreme Court of the United States. So many to choose from: Barack Obama. Eric Holder. Former Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren.
Everyone had the next eight years planned, imagining the Hillary Clinton presidency as their final act prior to amazing retirements and gigantic pensions, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
Until Donald J. Trump. As you observe the continuing “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” know that it is from those who took too much for granted and held you in so much contempt. Like Hillary Clinton, those still trying to undermine the president simply refuse to take responsibility for their own failure, and be grateful every day that the American voter decided enough was enough.
This column originally appeared in The Washington Times.
Tammy Bruce, president of Independent Women’s Voice, is a radio talk-show host, New York Times best-selling author and Fox News political contributor.