Donald Trump

White House Site Relaunches with Trump's Populist Policy Proposals

Hints at actual policy plans.

|

Donald Trump
Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/Newscom

The website for the White House has been updated and relaunched to fit the new President Donald Trump administration.

It is obviously pretty bare bones for now (you can read his inauguration speech here), but the issues section puts his agenda on open display. For those less interested in speeches and more interested in actual upcoming policy hints, it's worth looking over to see where things are going. He has six sections—energy, foreign policy, jobs, military, law enforcement, and trade. Here's a few interesting things worth noting, both good and bad:

The administration will embrace fracking.

Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well.

Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, Trump is also "committed" to the white whale of "energy independence." Just as with trade, America benefits when we get energy cheaply no matter where it comes from. It's great that he recognizes that cheaper energy creates jobs (by reducing costs). It's a shame he doesn't realize it's another good that can free Americans up to do other things if we can get it more cheaply elsewhere.

The administration will use military action to fight the Islamic State (and increase the size of the military)

Defeating ISIS and other radical Islamic terror groups will be our highest priority. To defeat and destroy these groups, we will pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations when necessary. In addition, the Trump Administration will work with international partners to cut off funding for terrorist groups, to expand intelligence sharing, and to engage in cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable propaganda and recruiting.

The Trump administration is also calling to "rebuild" the military even though America still overwhelms every other country's forces, saying "our military dominance must be unquestioned." But he does also call for embracing diplomacy and his saber-rattling here is focused entirely on terrorist groups and has no suggestion of interference in other countries' governance.

The administration is calling for a moratorium on new federal regulations.

As a lifelong job-creator and businessman, the President also knows how important it is to get Washington out of the way of America's small businesses, entrepreneurs, and workers. In 2015 alone, federal regulations cost the American economy more than $2 trillion. That is why the President has proposed a moratorium on new federal regulations and is ordering the heads of federal agencies and departments to identify job-killing regulations that should be repealed.

Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner noticed last night that right as Barack Obama's administration was packing up, the Department of Energy released a new rule that will likely kill off cheap incandescent three-way light bulbs. Libertarians and conservatives who love trade should be doing the best they can to push Trump into focusing on these kinds of issues. This is what is hurting both manufacturers and consumers. Foreign trade makes goods cheaper for Americans and should be supported. All these regulations make both the production and the consumption of goods more expensive. That's where the focus should be. Speaking of which.

The administration is really committed to screwing up trade:

This strategy starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers. President Trump is committed to renegotiating NAFTA. If our partners refuse a renegotiation that gives American workers a fair deal, then the President will give notice of the United States' intent to withdraw from NAFTA.

It cannot be hammered enough: Foreign trade is not what is killing off American jobs. Increased manufacturing efficiency and automation is killing off jobs. Trump's tactics will not bring jobs back. It will instead drive up prices of goods and will likely end up hurting the people Trump insists he's helping. A new study analyzed the impacts of increased tariffs and a withdrawal from NAFTA and calculated that it would actually spike the prices of American cars and cost more than 30,000 manufacturing jobs within the United States.

Check out more of the Trump Administration's White House site here. And get used to hearing "Trump Administration."

Advertisement

NEXT: Donald Trump Is Wrong about Manufacturing and Economic Patriotism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It will instead drive up prices of goods and will likely end up hurting the people Trump insists he’s helping.

    This is true. But I’m in favor of hurting people begging the government for help.

    1. The bit about “new Federal regulations” (“This is what is hurting both manufacturers and consumers”) is not quite true. Regulation has, from the dawn of the ICC, helped manufacturers–at least existing ones–at the expense of the American consumer. So it is, for example, with the very same asinine light bulb ban mentioned in the article; the industry lobbied for that ban, which is exactly why the “pro-business” party approved it without a peep before Obama awakened the love of “liberty” and “free markets” within their hearts. Small as it is, whether Trump repeals this bizarre, unjustifiable except as an industry giveaway, and probably illegal (the ban was supposed to only be widened if consumers appeared to be “abusing” its loopholes) Obama E.O., as he has blanket-promised, will be a good indicator of what kind of Administration this will be.

      Meanwhile, Reason has missed a golden opportunity to correct a common myth about libertarians (the confusion with being “pro-business”) and “progressives” (that they are not, or have ever not been) and instead indulged in it. I understand what they meant, but “hurting manufacturers” was neither an accurate nor wise way of putting it. In this case, as in so many, the parasites “begging the government for help” were indeed big business, and libertarians should never waste an opportunity to point out that this happens, and is not anomalous but typical.

  2. Stop saying #NotMyPresident. Just stop it. He is YOUR President. Donald Trump is YOUR President. He will appoint justices to YOUR supreme court who will make decisions about YOUR body. He will repeal YOUR right to health insurance. He holds the power to turn YOUR friends and YOUR family into second-class citizens because of their race or their religion or their sexuality. He will hold the most powerful office in the world. He will be the representative of YOUR country, the face of YOUR country. #NotMyPresident is a lie. A comforting lie, perhaps, but a stupid one. He IS your President. Let that sink in. If you can’t handle it, do something about it. Organize, activate, get angry, get involved. But denial in the form of a pithy hashtag is not going to change the fact that he is OUR President and it certainly isn’t going to change how dangerous that is

    1. #NotMyInternetCommenter

      1. Unfortunately, this person is part of my family. Which is, actually, pretty hilarious given how much I know about her.

        1. How so?

    2. He holds the power to turn YOUR friends and YOUR family into second-class citizens because of their race or their religion or their sexuality.

      No, he really doesn’t. Civics, people, learn it.

      1. He’s got Obama’s pen and phone now, baby!

      2. Civics is more about what power people ought to have, not what power they have.

    3. “He holds the power to turn YOUR friends and YOUR family into second-class citizens because of their race or their religion or their sexuality.”

      Remember that chilling moment when he held up that rainbow flag? You know that a rainbow symbolizes gay genocide, right?

      1. It was a symbol of all the colors that he’s going to DESTROY!

      2. False flag operation. Or when a beautiful lady spy gets naked in your bed and you miss the concealed syringe.

          1. As Swiss muses over his Anna Chapman calendar….

            1. Anna Chapman, providing credibility to every Bond movie ever.

              Also, *Shwing!*

        1. Hah! Reminds me of a scene from The Americans spoiler alert….

          Without going into the back story, the communists disguised as FBI agents bust into a hotel room where a computer geek is banging a couple of hot chicks. The first line is something like: “remember how things went with girls in high school. Did you really think becoming a programming nerd for the government made you irresistible?”

    4. “Get angry” — excellent advice, done!

      1. Bear in mind that “anger” is cool, and totally different from “hate,” which is bad.

        1. Hmmm. I have to think about whether I hate people who go slow in the left lane, or whether I’m merely angry at them.

        2. Depends on who is angry and who is the object of anger.

        3. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to…

          “Peaceful” protests? Can’t wait to see the MSM spin the violence and property damage as “anarchists” being emboldened by the proglodytes.

          1. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to…

            Hate fucking?

            1. Disney. Hate leads to Disney.

      2. Yeah, I hate RBS already…. 😉

    5. Wow, this must be a new Troll. Is this guy lost on the internet?

      Well, flame away guys!!!

    6. He is YOUR President.

      um
      no

    7. I’m the President of me.

      1. HNIC

    8. A nice representation of why progressives are generally not gonna become libertarians. This awful guy getting this office does not mean we should turn on the office. The office and its powers are good, we just need to get the right guy in there.

    9. #NotMyUnelectedPermanentTechnocracy

  3. Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, Trump is also “committed” to the white whale of “energy independence.”

    http://www.usnews.com/news/art…..since-1957

    Its called fracking. It is kind of a big deal and is in all of the papers you fucking half wit. Do you edit the stuff you write?

    1. John, I think you are missing ht enuance here:

      1) Fracking has made the U.S. energy independent in that it has allowed the inhabitants of the U.S. to cheaply mine all the fossil fuels they consume.

      2) However(!), if tomorrow some English energy co were to find some oil field that allowed them to produce 1,000 years’ worth of world oil consumption at 1 cent per barrell, then a policy of energy independence would necessarily impoverish americans, since they would be paying much higher prices for energy than they needed to.

      A policy of energy independence can coexist with a free market in energy right now, simply because the current matrix of production makes domestically produced energy much more economic to consume than the non independent sources. But that will almost certainly change in the future, and at that point the policy will go from an academic abstraction to actually harming consumers.

      1. That is a fair point in the abstract. That however was not Scott’s point. His point was that we could never be energy independent and that it is a white whale. And that is just horseshit.

        What makes it especially galling is that a writer for a magazine that objects to US interventionism acts like trying to remove the biggest driver of US interventionism, our dependence on foreign oil, is some kind of stupid endeavor.

        1. His point was that we could never be energy independent and that it is a white whale. And that is just horseshit.

          No its not. we’re no more going to be 100% reliant on “domestic” (or even north american) supplies of oil than we are any other widely-traded commodity. And why would you think that’s a good thing anyway?

          Our main ‘foreign’ sources of oil are Canada and Mexico. The idea that we’re reliant on “middle east” sources is a canard. US firms also engage in business of extraction and transport and refining all over the world. We participate in diverse markets and it generally helps keeps prices more-stable and reserve stocks predictable.

          ‘white wale’ might be a silly term, but the assumed benefits of “energy independence” are certainly mostly illusory.

          1. ‘white wale’ might be a silly term

            Redundant at least, excepting Tom Jones.

      2. FRACK THE PLANET

      3. John doesn’t give a shit. He just wants to call everybody stupid.

      4. I think that Scott misses the nuance on this one.

        “Energy Independence” means having the choice. Without fracking, etc, we are at the mercy of foreign producers and can’t demand a good price.

        With fracking, etc in place, we are “independent.” That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be willing to buy cheap Saudi crude if that is convenient.

        So, the question is how you get to “independence.” Do you get there by promoting domestic production, or do you do it by making foreign supplies so expensive that we are all forced to buy Teslas?

  4. Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, Trump is also “committed” to the white whale of “energy independence.”

    Scott Shacklefrod: Globalist

    1. The US is more or less energy independent today and will thanks to fracking become a huge energy exporter in the coming years. What fucking planet does Scott live on where he didn’t hear about that? Was this article sent forward in time from 1976?

      1. I wish I was privy to some of that sweet fracking juice up here in New England. Instead I gotta deal with getting hydro juice from Canada.

        1. You mean canola AKA rape seed oil?

          1. RAPESEED OIL? Triggered!

            1. STEVE SMITH’S FAVORITE COOKING INGREDIENT!

        2. There is gas all over upstate New York but the enlightened Progressives of the NY legislature have decided that the people of New York should not soil themselves with such evil.

          And you likely get your power from the nuclear plant on the Hudson that the Progs are going to close, so they can import their evil power from Canada.

          1. I live in MA, we get nothing from NY unless there is some kind of crazy grid outage that would trigger it. Just trust that because of where I work I have a grasp on the power grid structure of NE. NE is making deals to bring down hydro from Canada because the enlightened assholes of MA won’t allow an extra nat gas pipeline to be built. Because of this, nat gas is used for heating in the winter thus driving up its price for electricity generation. At that point, Canadian hydro becomes the cheapest alternative. Even still, New England has higher energy costs than anywhere else in the US.

      2. Gas and oil are diabolic substances propelling the capitalistic subjugation of the proletariat. We must resist its use at any cost.

        STEIN-HARAMBE 2020!

  5. It cannot be hammered enough: Foreign trade is not what is killing off American jobs.

    The fact that 10,000 page secret agreements that are filled with payoffs to various cronies is restrictions on freedom and sovereignty cannot be hammered enough. If you want to promote free trade, promote free trade not documents that are not free trade but pretend to be by having the magic words.

    1. A 10,000-page agreement that opens up markets between two countries, even a little bit, is better than a 10,000-page tax and regulation bill full of tariffs and restrictions on trade.

      Of course the goal is free trade without the need for 10,000-page agreements. Baby steps, though.

      1. Um, well then its good TPP will be on its way out….

      2. The TPP is a really bad example to use, then. NAFTA at least was good on net. TPP is basically a shit sandwich with a lower-tariff mayonnaise.

      3. Yes Cytoxic, it has magic words. You being a moron think words have magic power. We know that.

        1. Well, John, certain words, which are written into legislation and duly passed by our government, do carry the force of law and thereby imply a certain amount of power behind them. But do go on and continue pretending that you aren’t just some run-of-the-mill Trump partisan but really some thoughtful conservative.

          1. TPP was not passed by Congress, yet (though it probably won’t even be voted on).

            I’m all for free trade, but NAFTA and TPP are less about ‘free trade’ and more about ‘managed trade’. Certain industries are privileged at the expense of others.

            I don’t care, though. I voted for the Sweet Meteor of Death.

            1. SMOD is impotent in the face of an Elder God. Earth has faced extinction-level events before and yet Kthulu remains as always.

  6. On the jobs front, it’s not even automation and increased efficiency killing off jobs.

    It’s regulation.

    Most employment in the U.S. used to be in small businesses of less than 50 employees. They were the engine driving job creation. And those guys are getting killed.

    Every year, the cost of hiring a $40,000 a year employee goes up. Every year you have to pay more money in payroll taxes, insurance contributions etc. Additionally, the paperwork is going up too! You have to file more reports. You have to demonstrate you are complying with the ever multiplying labor laws.

    The increased efficiency isn’t driving the collapse of employment. It’s the symptom! Your business evolves or dies! And when the state punishes you harder for hiring more people, you come up with ways to do more with less.

    If Trump torches the regulatory state to the ground, there will be an explosion of economic activity in the U.S. It would be a sad set-back if that explosion of prosperity were credited to protectionist trade policies. And certainly the prosperity will be harmed by the reduction of the pool of people with whom we do business which is inherent to protectionism.

    1. Yes. If you looked at cost to hire next employee, its crazy. The only thing crazier is cost to work 30th hour.

      1. Horrifyingly, I had a long exchange on facederp with some proggie friends of friends where they were confident people’s hours weren’t being limited to stay below the 30 hour a week line because “that was highly illegal.”

        1. Laws place limits on reality itself. It’s illegal, so it’s impossible, you see.

          1. + 1 War on Drugs

        2. Uh. Yep. Just go to a grocery store on a weekend afternoon. The store managers are hunting down their part-timers and following them to the time clocks. Or ask adjuncts if they suddenly started getting their class load reduced — the answer is yes. Of course its happening.

        3. Who can miss the daily beheadings in town squares across America of all the bourgeois employers greedily denying their employees 40-hour work weeks?

          … shortly followed by the beheadings of all the bourgeois employers forcing their employees into slavish 40-hour work weeks.

        4. Been the case for my wife for years now. She’s a fitness instructor at the local YMCA and they set the limit for part-timers at 25 hours, just to be extra careful that no one works more than 30 hours. Been that way since 2013.

          1. Nicely done, Chipwooder.

            1. There’s nothing like a woman who’s addicted to squats

              1. There’s nothing like a woman who’s addicted to squats

                Mr. Heroic Mulatto to the white courtesy phone, paging Mr. Heroic Mulatto…

  7. So it’s basically a question of will things get marginally better before they get marginally worse?

    1. If Trump does something about regulation, they will get a lot better. Regulation is the problem, not the lack of Mexicans to serve Scott Tacos.

  8. I’m a little buzzed because we had a celebration in the office. Not of politics, but of the wonder of the achievement of the human mind and desire to explore. Hurrah for rockets & satellites!

    1. Were you on The SBIRS 3 launch?

      1. Nope

      2. Kristen is commenting from geosynchronous orbit.

        1. Always!

    2. You work for SpaceX? No shit? pretty cool

      1. Nope – one of the many companies affiliated with the launch, though.

        1. A couple of my friends work for New Horizons. Do you guys do business with them?

          1. Nah – we don’t have any dealings with NASA at the moment. Which is nice. We’re just after making loads of cash.

        2. Still pretty cool. You ever read Seveneves? The Elon Musk character got an interesting arc.

          1. I’ll give it a look. Elon seems like an interesting guy. I didn’t know he was dating Amber Heard. He must like drama.

            1. Anecdotal but I knew someone to went to Queen’s with him, and says he’s a bit of a cunt.

              1. You don’t get to where he is in life by being Miss Congeniality.

          2. The Neil Dumbass Tyson character got way too generous a treatment by Stephenson.

            1. Cannot disagree.

    3. How disrespectful of the day. Millions of us are literally traumatized.

      (but yeah science!, since Thymirus has introduced BB clips to the thread)

  9. The TPP was LOADED with handouts and special copyright protection for Hollywood. As far as I’m concerned it can rot in hell.

    1. But the leading cosmotarian journal said the TPP IS free trade

    2. ^^^^THIS^^^^

      It was the croniest of deals and had nothing to do with free trade.

  10. So is Trump going to pay my mortgage or not?

    1. The Onion is pretty funny when they’re doing Obama and Biden.

      1. I’m going to miss Onion Biden, just as I miss Onion Tim Duncan.

    2. I thought it was going to be Pajama Boy.

        1. Jimmy “Lust in my heart” Carter should appreciate Trump.

    3. ‘Go On Now, Git,’

      I larfed.

  11. Mini riot on Fox News. KABOOM

    1. Ah, the Committee to Re-Elect Trump goes to work on day one.

  12. Defeating ISIS and other radical Islamic terror groups will be our highest priority.

    Oh great. Well, maybe it’ll keep him occupied and won’t do too much damage. Wishful thinking, I know.

    1. Actually, I could see this happening.

      Where is ISIS getting most of their support? Where are their stocks of weapons coming from? Their recruits?

      There is a huge cancer in the international world order called the House of Saud. Allying with them to establish reliable supplies of petroleum for some huge war with the Soviets over Europe made sense.

      The current regime where they are spreading militant Wahhabism through terror and intimidation is not really one that we need to put up with any more.

      And I get the sense that the people surrounding Trump get that.

      1. I haven’t seen evidence of that. I see people like Mike Flynn and Mad Dog watching SA spreading ISIS type terrorism and for some reason blaming Iran.

        1. IIRC the section of the 9-11 comission report that uncovered official Saudi support to the 9/11 terrorists though classified is well known to people in those circles.

          Additionally, the U.S. has taken a lot of casualties in Iraq thanks to the Saudi policy of preaching jihad against the infidel. The mosques fomenting terrorism throughout Europe and Britain are largely constructed and maintained by Saudi grants.

          The Saudi monarchs are riding a tiger by the tail. They create a violent totalitarian religious sect to justify their mandate from heaven, and have to direct that violence outwards to survive. Some even believe in the cause and want to bring the whole world under their religion’s control via persuasion or, failing that, terror.

          And they can’t stop or reform the violence, because if the imams preach jihad against them, they will be torn to pieces.

          And it’s time the U.S. government stopped pretending that their greatest enemy was basically a conjoined twin of one of their most treacherous allies.

      2. There is a huge cancer in the international world order called the House of Saud. Allying with them to establish reliable supplies of petroleum for some huge war with the Soviets over Europe made sense.

        Wouldn’t it be a fucking coup if he managed to buddy up with Putin and use them to turn the screws on the Saudis?

        The way I hear it the wealth flows so freely in Saudia Arabia that people show up to not do their government jobs. I’m sure plenty of impoverished Russians would be happy to see some of that energy money flow their way.

        1. That is to say, people don’t even show up to not do their government issued jobs.

        2. The massive influence the Saudis have on our middle east policy is insane. Disengaging from those inbred fucks might be worth holding our nose at Putin’s less charming qualities.

    2. Give him a joystick, a screen and don’t tell him it is hooked up to a simulator and not a real drone…

      Wait a minute?!

      SUGARFREE! I GOTS AN IDEA!!!!

      1. I don’t want to know where that joystick goes.

  13. If Trump follows through with his America First policy, I expect we’ll see a spike in the number of naturalized Americans, plus more businesses reorganizing themselves to be “American.”

  14. I just came back from a construction tradeshow in Vegas. The mood was decidedly upbeat.

    1. Yeah because they expect to get more government gravy to build more bridges to nowhere, I imagine.

      1. Of course they do. Just like the green energy conventioneers were after Obama was elected.

        1. The difference is we actually need to repair our bridges.

          1. We absolutely do. Getting it done is another matter entirely. Environmental and safety compliance issues on jobsites have gotten so complex that it drives costs thru the roof.

            1. Trump has a solution for that.

          2. The “crumbling infrastructure” myth

            http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..66502.html

            1. Yeah, the NYC water supply and sewer system is in great shape. The electrical grid is totes good too.

              That’s not to say I think the feds should pay for it.

              1. Yeah, the NYC water supply and sewer system is in great shape.

                Yeah, the fuckers should stop screwing up our waterways up here in the Catskills.

          3. A Reason Foundation study (!) that debunks the “crumbling infrastructure” myth

            http://reason.org/news/show/20…..e-performa

            1. A narrow view on road transport that fails to consider water, sewer, electrical, rail, etc…

    2. Did you pop into the SHOT Show when you were there?

      1. Thought about it but you have to have a federal firearms license to get in.

  15. NAFTA was a treaty ratified by the US Senate. How does the president have unilateral authority to withdraw from it?

    1. Evidently, the president does have that power.

      http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/0…..ump-nafta/

      “NAFTA’s Article 2205, which Trump cited in his speech last week in Pittsburgh, is only 34 words and simply says that a party may withdraw from the agreement six months after it provides written notice. “

      1. What does it mean by “party?” Wouldn’t it make more sense for that to refer to the country or government, and not the head of state? I don’t see why that wouldn’t require Senate approval.

    2. See Pen. See Phone. yada yada yada

    3. Remember how Obama followed the law, waited for the Senate to sign on to Kyoto or Paris Agreements before passing the Clean Air Act and/or empowering the EPA to regulate CO2?

      Neither do I.

      Shit, you could pass a Local Industrial Resource Sourcing Act and tax the shit out of things being shipped into the country because CO2 and fit both bills.

      Seriously, Reason’s recent delineation of Trade Regulations as distinct from other regulations smacks of all kinds of global protectionism, anti-Americanism/nationalism, or plain old cultural injection just as much as the xenophobia displayed by the other side.

    4. Furriner stuff is the Executive’s baby. The Senate only gets supervised weekend visits.

  16. The administration is really committed to screwing up trade:

    Obama was (according to his rhetoric) committed to “not do stupid wars”

    How’d that work out?

    people need to stop conflating ‘shit people say to get elected’ with ‘what is actually going to happen’.

    If by “trade” reason is talking about the multilateral trade agreements the US signs onto periodically, be specific about what’s so awesome about any deals that we expect to be modified. Because just saying Trump is “anti trade” is bullshit, even by the standards of his own bullshit rhetoric.

    there is currently a proposed US-European trade deal (TTIP) being hashed out, expected to be voted on in 2019 or so. Given that the EU itself is about to have elections that could have serious consequences for its future integrity, what difference does it really make if Trump has slightly different rhetorical attitudes towards sweeping multilateral agreements? In the meantime we can do a bilateral deal with the UK and choose to deal with anyone else in the same 1-1 way. that’s not “anti-trade”, its just not the one-size-fits-all approach which tends to produce behemoth, complex agreements which are by no means “free”

    1. Here is what is likely to happen. Trump will engage in a few high profile largely symbolic acts of protectionism that will make his supporters feel like he cares about them but have a marginal effect on the economy. Meanwhile, he will make real progress reducing the regulatory state which will have hugely positive effects on the economy, which the protectionists will take credit for. And since the free traders have lost their fucking minds and engaged in such hyperbole they will have a hard time explaining the truth.

      1. Or, he could torch TTP, withdraw from NAFTA, tell the Europeans to pound sand with TTIP, and erect trade barriers that would make Hawley and Smoot blush.

        1. I don’t think HE can do (2) and (4) without Congressional backing.

          1. He can do (2) without Congress (see below).

            And given that Congress is mainly feckless anyway, I don’t think it is outside the realm of possibility that they will be cajoled into supporting more Smoot-Hawleyism.

            1. Or maybe (2) was on the other thread, I don’t know.

              Anyway, Trump can withdraw from NAFTA without Congress’ permission.

              http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/0…..ump-nafta/

          2. He can’t. NAFTA is not only a fully ratified treaty, it is also a fully executed treaty. meaning Congress passed laws putting NAFTA into effect. Trump can’t undo any of that without Congress. We have gone so long with the President ignoring Congress and signing treaties that are essentially meaningless, people seem to have forgotten what an actual valid and executed treaty looks like.

            1. “NAFTA’s Article 2205, which Trump cited in his speech last week in Pittsburgh, is only 34 words and simply says that a party may withdraw from the agreement six months after it provides written notice. ”

              http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/0…..ump-nafta/

              1. He could withdraw from it all he likes., That wouldn’t repeal the laws that put the agreement into effect. The withdraw would be symbolic but have no legal effect.

                You are Canadian and retarded. Please don’t try and pretend you know anything about US treaty law.

                1. 1. I’m not Canadian, don’t know where that came from
                  2. You’re moving the goalposts. You claimed Trump couldn’t withdraw from NAFTA without Congress’ approval. I showed that he could. Now you’re saying “but that’s not REALLY withdraw-withdraw”. Man up and admit you were wrong.

              2. Yes, but HE does not have the authority in the US government to withdraw, no matter what words he causes to have written or sent to Mexico and Canada. I disagree with CNN. Only Congress may withdraw, Constitutionally, the President is not the party to the treaty.

                1. Since it technically is not a divided Congress, it’s only a question of how hard he’d have to push to get legislation sponsored and passed. Rand Paul would likely oppose, but depending on political circumstances one or two D’s could be in favor.

      2. Path of least resistance suggest the opposite.

    2. its just not the one-size-fits-all approach which tends to produce behemoth, complex agreements which are by no means “free”

      This in particular needs to be stated more often.

  17. Did you structure this post to match the Simpsons’ “That’s good. That’s bad. That’s good!” scene?

  18. Energy independence means I buy energy from whatever source I want without subsidies.

    “Energy Independence” as any POTUS uses the phrase is just a dog whistle for “Fuck The Muslims”.

    1. Well, it is bilateral.

    2. No. Oil is pretty fungible. The fracking basically increased the supply by enough to break the Russo-OPEC price peak. AND there are enough capped wells that any time the price point moves higher by more than about 10%, someone is going to start pumping that capacity. So it is doing exactly what Shackford is advocating. And, while I respect his point that America should not form or take part in any cabal to drive up prices, opening up federal lands to resource harvesting is the opposite of that sort of behavior.

      1. Oil is fungible. And since we produce as much as we consume, it makes rises in oil prices much less of a shock to the economy. When we were importing huge amounts of oil, a spike in oil prices meant we sent more money out of the economy to pay for oil and had really horrible effects on the entire economy. Now that we don’t do that, a spike in oil prices just redistributes money within the economy. Producers do better consumers do worse. And that is entirely different and gives the US much less of an interest in maintaining low oil prices or the stability in the Middle East that is required to do so.

        Our dependence on foreign oil has been post Vietnam the main driver behind US interventionism. You would think Reason would understand that and see energy independence as an important goal rather than just dismissing it as a “white whale”.

        1. Oil is fungible.

          Not entirely. Different types of crude are better suited to different uses because they naturally contain varied quantities of different hydrocarbon molecules, depending on how and where they were formed. Different countries’ oil will often have different properties, some of the more plentiful and least valuable grades are used in the production of plastics, others make for great engine oil and others yet still are best for refining into gasoline or diesel or jet fuel.

      2. I think you missed my point. “I” means me as an individual. I’m stuck buying this subsidized 10% ethanol shit, so I have no energy independence.

        As John points out, when a POTUS says “energy independence” the entire point of saying it is to threaten OPEC et al that if they try forcing the price up with supply cuts, he will open up US supply. Because oil is fungible. (But I will personally still be stuck with gasohol.)

        The EU “green” fanaticism hurt the Sauds at first, but the Chinese more than made up for the loss of market share. Of course, that green fanaticism put Russia in a nice spot with their natural gas reserves that the EU depends on. But now that China has maxed out, the oil price has dropped and the Sauds would love to get some of that EU market share back – the only way they can do it is if the EU is more fanatic about being pissed at Russia than they are with their green fetish.

        So Trump’s “energy independence” is basically telling the Sauds “Either Russia sells NG to the EU, or we pump more oil. There is no way you’re getting more market power. Fuck you for supporting terrorism.”

        The EU put themselves into an awful bind. They could ignore the price of their progressivism while NATO did all the dirty work and the US and Britain picked up most of the tab. But that setup is collapsing and not only will the EU break up, but individual countries will break up, too.

  19. And get used to hearing “Trump Administration.

    Shorter Shackford: “Ow my balls.”

    1. He doesn’t like president Hector Elizondo Macho Camacho?

      Trump’s first State of the Union speech?

      1. That’s what I’m hoping for.

  20. I know you cosmos really, really wanted that militarized Bakery Enforcement Administration but Trump doesn’t look all bad.

    1. No, he’s just about 3/4ths bad.

      1. Obama was only 3/5ths bad?

        1. I was going to say 1/2 bad, so that’s a good compromise.

          1. maybe 3/10ths then.

  21. Reason was a bit disappointing after the election. I never really had the pleasure of enjoying their butt hurt over Trump winning. It appears they were just waiting until the inauguration to give their full cry de coer.

    It is going to be a good four or eight years for Reason. Their staff tried to be hard on Obama but their hearts were never in it. There was always a the “pox on both houses” sense of irrelevant equivalence to it. Reason is much more entertaining when there is a Republican President and they can go full out in their criticism and not worry about it offending their friends or affecting their future job prospects.

    1. Well, you know, there were all those cocktail parties to consider….

  22. Story headline on CNBC website:

    “Violent protests rock DC streets after Donald Trump inauguration; 95 arrested”

    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20…..in-dc.html

    If the left thinks this kind of behavior is going to do them any good they are sadly mistaken.

    1. If CNBC actually concedes that lefty protesters got violent, it must have been undeniably bad.

  23. The administration will embrace fracking.

    Thank goodness Governor Cuomo will stand tall against the forces of economic prosperity that threaten to hurtle upstate NY into the 21st century.

  24. And climate change is now completely missing from the website….

  25. NOPE, our penalizing Tax structure, and Hyper regulations, are killing off Jobs.. WE are the only Country that penalizes success to such an extent..stoopid

  26. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  27. Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well.
    ????? ???? 2017
    ????? ?????
    Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, Trump is also “committed” to the white whale of “energy independence.” Just as with trade, America benefits when we get energy cheaply no matter where it comes from. It’s great that he recognizes that cheaper energy creates jobs (by reducing costs). It’s a shame he doesn’t realize it’s another good that can free Americans up to do other things if we can get it more cheaply elsewhere.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.