Donald Trump

Donald Trump's Big Government Presidency

The Trump administration is pro-government intervention.


It's a fact that President Donald Trump has a remarkably large number of supporters among the voters and pundits who label themselves as "free market." They usually say something like, "Sure, I don't like his trade and immigration policies, but the rest are good." I disagree.

With the exception of a few policies, the Trump presidency—aided by a largely GOP Congress—will end up being, by a large margin, a very pro-government intervention administration.

This is not about assessing the president's personality, behavior, or impact on the "presidency": It's about economic policy. Further, it's mostly about legislation the administration has molded or supported, not its executive orders. As good as some of Trump's executive orders have been, as we learned with the end of the Obama era, the next administration can reverse these very easily.

Most of all, this assessment is about whether the administration's policies will increase or decrease the size and scope of government and whether they will hurt or help the economy. Let's start with the good.

Some aspects of the 2017 tax reform were great. The cut in the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and the reform of state and local tax deductions are important pro-market reforms. The results speak for themselves. High-income taxpayers in high-tax states can no longer shift their state tax burden onto the rest of us through a generous deduction. Capital investments have increased, fueling a growing economy and rising wages. The administration also deserves credit for bringing about some reduction in regulations, an area which Trump has spoken about quite eloquently.

Now, the bad. The administration's self-destructive protectionist trade policies are well documented. These resulted in higher tariffs on both imports and exports from many countries, higher prices shouldered by American consumers, nonstop uncertainty, bailouts for affected farmers, and the first manufacturing output contraction since 2009, all with little tangible progress—in terms of trade deals with our partners—to show for it.

Then, there are the ruthless immigration policies doubled with numerous threats of a reduction in legal immigration and no fundamental reform.

Not all aspects of the tax reform were good policy. The rhetoric and design of an income tax cut for the middle class may have been politically valuable, but it makes no sense economically. Contrary to the administration's rhetoric, it was not the middle class that needed a tax cut. The average income tax rate for the middle-income quintile was 2.6 percent in 2013. In 2014, the highest-earning, top 10 percent shouldered around 70 percent of the total income tax burden, up from 49 percent in 1980.

In the end, the tax reform kicked more taxpayers off the tax roll, which is not a good way to make them aware of the need to solve our fiscal problems. Worst of all, because it's not offset with spending cuts, it adds to the budget deficit.

As for spending, this administration and the GOP Congress' record is a complete abdication of fiscal responsibility. From the first terrible budget deal to a second budget agreement that might qualify as our worst ever, modern Republicans make Democrats look like Calvin Coolidge. Don't get too comfortable with your tax cut because with this level of spending, it may not last long.

Then there's the president's constant bullying of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell to bring back loose monetary policies and inject the economy with a sugar rush to temper the consequences of bad trade policies. And there's the swamp-filling move to revive the Export-Import Bank, an antiquated bastion of cronyism that mostly benefits large domestic companies, state-owned foreign companies, and subsidizes some producers in China, all backed by U.S. taxpayers.

Some will say that Democrats running for office would be more interventionist and worse for the economy, and that Trump gives us an alternative. But those of us who genuinely want less government in our lives should not pretend that these policies are acceptable.

Let's face it: This president is no more interested in fiscal discipline and free markets than his 21st-century predecessors were.



NEXT: Kirsten Gillibrand, Who Touted 'Clean Elections' and Women's Rights, Ends Presidential Bid

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. These TDS articles can be much shorter than they are. Just print Orange Man Bad.

    Yup, Trump should have vetoed veto-proof majority federal budgets.

    Other than that, Congress controls the budget. In fact, Congress has attacked every attempt of Trump to gut budgets and stop spending money that is politically advantageous to Lefties.

    1. You’re not Libertarian and neither is reason. Stop trying to bullshit people because nobody is buying it. For reals, you’re not fooling anyone. reason has sponsored content because web traffic is mostly dictated by socks and trolls not actual libertarians. The website is dying because its not Libertarian anymore.

      1. “For reals”? What are you, a fucking kindergartner? It seems like Faux News is still working for morons like you!

        1. Not quite. Lovecon89 is in junior high school. Seriously. You guys are debating with a dumb kid.

          1. chipper MW is so dumb that he thinks decade old military service is done by kids.

            1. You’re just a triggered progressive bitch, lc.

              You are not a libertarian yet you haunt a libertarian website.

              Fucking loser.

              Same goes for last of the shiteaters.

      2. Breitbart awaits you if Reason is too difficult for you to handle.

      3. Poor reason defense bots.

    2. Well, yes, he should have vetoed them, if only for a bit of clarity, and to embarrass the Republicans a bit. Other than that, I agree.

      “With the exception of a few policies, the Trump presidency—aided by a largely GOP Congress—will end up being, by a large margin, a very pro-government intervention administration.”

      Only, less so than any of the available alternatives, and he has at least attempted to be less pro-government than Congress in the end would permit.

      1. “Only, less so than any of the available alternatives, and he has at least attempted to be less pro-government than Congress in the end would permit.”

        As someone once mentioned, democracy is a really bad system, except when compared to every alternative.
        Trump’s a loose cannon and a blowhard who’s also the best POTUS we’ve had since Silent Cal.

    3. Orange Man bad?!? He BAD-ASS, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

      We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

      “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”
      He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me reality schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!
      All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

      Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

      1. What is so bad about the pussy grabbing comment? He just said a universal truth, that women are so smitten with powerful men, that they welcome any sexual advance from them. If you live on this planet, you know that’s true (in an overly simplified way).

        1. Women can freely submit to being literally pussy-grabbed by powerful men if they want to be pussy-grabbed… That’s OK by me.

          It is when we elect pussy-grabbers to SYMBOLICALLY (and diabolically) pussy-grab other nations and other ethnic groups, on our supposed behalf, and voters are entirely TOO stupid to recognize the following simple truth… “You can pussy-grab some of the people, all of the time, and you can pussy-grab all of the people, some of the time, but you can NOT pussy-grab ALL of the people, all of the time!” So we are too stupid to see that we’ll finally get pussy-grabbed right back… And so we go right ahead, and foolishly and selfishly elect the likes of Der Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief!!!

        2. So absolutely right.

  2. Did I miss something or is loveconst1789 talking to himself?
    Anyways, this article wasn’t very convincing. But it’s probably hard to come up with bad things to say about trump when the economy is doing so well and unemployment is so low.
    I’m pretty sure he’ll get re-elected – he’s definitely way better than Herbert walker – the last guy to not get two terms. Plus the dems have given up altogether on any sort of sane strategy, they’re just firebombing now.
    The tariff situation sucks but if he gets re-elected China is fucked. It’s hard to think of things that standout as bad – he’s the best president I’ve ever seen in my 40 years. Never thought I’d see a president who actually acted like he gave two shits about the middle class. This guy talks it and walks it. Maybe we should threaten to coup all future presidents.

    1. He forgot to log out of his main account to post from his sock account again. Anyway this article is spot on. Trump is a disaster and I am no longer sure Hillary would have been worse.

      1. Agreed. He is a disaster on trade and who knows what negative economic consequences are going to come out of that in the coming years, the stats are already showing bad numbers.

        His record on the 2nd amendment is atrocious, yet these Trump sycophants defend him, they are the ones suffering from some kind of derangement syndrome.

        It’s amazing how as soon as someone dares criticize Trump they start freaking out—and I’m not talking about the far left loonies but people on the right or Libertarians that call him out on his bullshit and instantaneously they jump to his defense. They abandon facts and principles and base it on emotions, much like the far left.

        1. His record on trade is largely:

          A rework of trade with canada and Mexico and a rework of trade with japan that open up markets to all countries involved. And then a protective order against china with a trade war.

          Is it your belief that in 2016 trade with china was equal and not imbalanced at all? That china has not had a decades long attack on trade through corporate espionage, stealing of tech and currency manipulation? Because I can post article after article through the last decade proclaiming hundreds of billions in costs to american firms for China trade practices the last few decades.

          This idiotic belief that trade was perfect prior to 2016 is just that, idiotic.

          1. +100

          2. A rework of trade with canada and Mexico and a rework of trade with japan that open up markets to all countries involved.

            At least as far as USMCA goes, this is false. USMCA seems to have doubled down on the worst parts of NAFTA. It increases the protectionism for automotive supply by raising the NAFTA content requirements. It exports a minimum wage requirement for automotive workers that is higher than the federal minimum wage.

            As for the Japan agreement, very little is known about it.

            This idiotic belief that trade was perfect prior to 2016 is just that, idiotic.

            It was certainly better in 2016 than it is in 2019.

            If nothing else, we should be concerned with Trump’s executive overreach in imposing tariffs. That’s not what the founders intended, and only by exploiting the loopholes for national security (which this certainly is not about) does Trump have any legal ability to manipulate tariffs without Congressional support.

            I’m not sure which is worse, the tariffs themselves, or the constant uncertainly being sowed in the markets by Executive Tweets on the matter. Try planning a supply chain when Trump can disrupt everything with 280 characters or less.


              We await your in-depth analysis between USCMA and NAFTA.

              1. From your link:

                Automotive Rules of Origin and Regional Value Content
                Total North American content of a vehicle must equal 75% (up from 62.5%).
                70% of all steel, aluminum, and glass used in the production of the automobile must originate in North America.
                Part content will be divided up into core, principal, and complementary parts with content requirements of 75%, 65%, and 60% respectively.
                40% of an automobile and 45% of a light truck must be produced using an average labor wage of $16/hour.
                Quotas totalling 2.6 million Canadian and Mexican vehicles (well above the current 1.8 million) were established the USMCA
                Quotas of $32.4 billion in Canadian auto parts imports and $108 billion in Mexican auto parts imports were established in the USMCA

                Which of these protectionist policies is your favorite? These sound like policies that the UAW would push for to me.

                And what additional “free trade” did we get out of the deal?

                Restrictions on the import of U.S. ultra-filtered milk into Canada have been removed
                U.S. producers will have access to an additional 3.6% of Canada’s dairy market
                Canada’s dairy supply management system, which places limits on foreign imports is maintained
                No resolution on steel and aluminum tariffs, or Canadian and Mexican countermeasures

                Oops… that last one isn’t free trade at all. How did that get in there?

            2. Yeah, I work a lot with interest rates and Trump’s instability is really fucking shit up for me professionally. I’m ready for him to be gone at this point. The only reason I even consider voting for him is because of the halt in federal regulations and the potential supreme court picks.

              1. The Supreme Court picks (well, Gorsuch, since I’m not so sure about the Kavanaugh guy, he seems like a weaselly, lifelong swamp critter, John Roberts type) may have a really important role in slowing the exponential growth of government. That is reason enough to vote for him over any Democrat, who is likely to appoint AOC or some other wise Latina to the court…

            3. Holy shit, US policy favors foreign over domestic labor slightly less than it used to!

              1. The problem is not with trade policy “favoring” someone. A lot of our regulations, minimum wage, etc put our labor force at a disadvantage to countries like China and Mexico. The root of the “problem” is that labor in China and Mexico is cheap. Honestly, on a macro level, it’s not even a problem. Our unemployment remains low. We have the comparative advantage of wealth and highly-skilled labor. We should leverage that by trading that for low-skilled labor in manufacturing commodities.

                For the low-skilled labor force in the US, we are talking about either subsidizing their non-labor through welfare, or subsidizing their labor through artificial price controls (the goal of tariffs). I’m not really sure one is substantially worse than the other.

                Meanwhile, there seems to be a shortage of labor in service industries. That labor can’t be easily exported, so why not focus more on those jobs for the low-skilled labor in the US?

                1. This^

                  Unfortunately these facts will be lost amongst the pro tariffs crowd.

                  1. It was all free trade before Jan 20, 2019.

                    1. Jan 20, 2017.

                    2. I see you’ve decided on the strawman defense?

                      No comments back on my “in depth analysis” above? I’m disappointed. I really wanted to know which UAW handout in the USMCA was your favorite. You know… as a libertarian.

          3. “Is it your belief that in 2016 trade with china was equal and not imbalanced at all?”

            I don’t remember that ever being a problem for you all until now.

            1. It was a problem that got no serious discussion until Trump raised the issue.

              Now people are noticing.

              1. +1000

        2. Mauser….WRT to trade, what alternative do you have in mind to change Red Chinese behavior: serial lying, serial cheating, and serial theft of American IP? This has been going on for decades. It is not like anyone denies this. It has cost the US trillions. Team D & Team R Politicians did little to nothing to address that behavior. What would you do differently to change Red Chinese behavior?

          There is a LOT to criticize POTUS Trump wrt communication style. 100%, no debate. From a policy perspective, and from a judicial nominee perspective, what we are getting now is a damned sight better than what we got for the last 30 years.

        3. “His record on the 2nd amendment is atrocious, yet these Trump sycophants defend him, they are the ones suffering from some kind of derangement syndrome.”

          I don’t particularly like Trump’s action on bump stocks, he isn’t instinctively pro-gun, that much is clear.

          On the other hand, the NRA signed off on it, and most Republican Presidents would snatch at an opportunity to get in some gun control that the NRA approved of, while basically every Democratic President would wear the NRA’s complaints as a badge of honor.

          So it’s very much a case of his not being ideal, but being better than the alternatives.

          1. Henceforth why the NRA is losing members to the GOA and FPC.
            The NRA is a joke until they get serious leadership changes and unequivocally standing for the 2nd amendment.

            The funny thing is under Obama there were less gun control measures passed than Trump. NOT SAYING that Obama wouldn’t have if perhaps he thought it were politically possible.
            The records speak for themselves.

          2. +10

          3. “he isn’t instinctively pro-gun, that much is clear.”

            Trump is not “instinctively” ANYTHING when it comes to guns.

            Back in 2000, he was in favor of mandatory waiting periods for buying guns, and banning so-called assault weapons.

            He has NO instinct when it comes to guns.

            I believe he supports the NRA’s position only because the NRA was an early supporter of his and has been loyal to him. Not out of any principled devotion to the Second Amendment.

            1. No, I agree with that. He’s supporting the NRA’s position because he understands the need to “Dance with the one what brung him”; That nothing he does is going to win him the support of gun controllers, while he’s quite capable of losing the support of people who value the 2nd amendment.

              Pure self-interest. As such, actually more reliable than ideology.

    2. poor Granite, Entropic Principle, WeAreNotPerfect, and Mauser defense trolls.

  3. Boudreaux, De Rugy and the rest at Mercatus are a terrific resource.

    Good article.

    1. -100

      1. How is the corn going in Georgia this year? I saw that yields were up but price down to around $3.33/ bushel.

        Up here from what I gather it has not been easy. Too much rain making harvesting difficult and planting late. Plenty of it with high moisture content. Good news is no prediction for early freeze.

        Japan buys a lot of feed corn. Some sort of trade deal going on so I have no idea what that means in terms of pricing. Because you are a farmer perhaps you could enlighten us in terms other than gif posts and slogans.

        There are people here LC who are experts in various fields. soldiermedic just contributed in animal husbandry, I try and cover medicine and medical science, we have lawyers, economists, other things, perhaps you could help out in the very important field of agriculture which you say you are involved in.

        We are missing an opportunity in the small community here.

        1. I had to laugh when I read that.
          Loveconstitpation gets all bent out of shape if we don’t march in lockstep to his/her/its opinions on dear leader and the mandatory condemnation of any and all Reason writers.

          De Rugy is usually spot on and always has great insight.

        2. China will be buying US corn. It will be inside the massive amounts of US pigs China will be buying shortly to alleviate their pig crisis. Better get ready to start bitching about rising pork prices.

  4. And Reason is pro coercive monopoly when it comes to the services of government !

    A position which can only help people who want total control through the government !

  5. When there’s no good response there seems to be two types of comments:

    1) But, but, but Hillary would have been worse! AOC!

    2) Reason isn’t Auburn Anarchist like I am, which means that they’re actually closet communists, so therefore MAGA and Trump FTW!

    1. So whats the point… The supposed “good response is”
      1) A worse president is actually better than a “better” one?
      2) Reason magazine and its authors do my thinking for me down to every detail.

      1. The correct response IMO is to accept Trump for who he actually is.

        He is NOT a Nazi. At the same time, he is NOT some libertarian messiah.

    2. You know, if we had “none of the above” on the ballot, and got a do-over with all the first set of candidates banned from public office if it won, I might agree your #1 wasn’t a good response.

      But, since Hillary would, in fact, have been worse, and was the only real alternative, it’s actually a reasonable response.

    3. 3) Orange Man bad no matter what he does that is Libertarian-ish.

  6. Are you suggesting that any of the Donkeys running would be less in favor of government expansion, Veronica?

    Obviously they would all be much worse.

    So de Rugy, will you be wearing a MAGA hat? Or are you a hypocrite?

    1. Are you suggesting that any other Republican would be less in favor of government expansion?

      Trump was a Democrat longer than he was a Republican and, when he was asked previously about his well-known pro-choice and pro-gun control views, he shrugged it off with the “New York values” thing. And despite his support from the evangelicals, we all know Trump doesn’t believe in God so much as he believes that he is God.

      It used to be that everybody knew a liberal Republican from New York is more leftist than a conservative Democrat from the Deep South – Rockefeller Republicans don’t disagree with the Dems on the need for big government and big government programs, they just disagree on who should be running it. I think somebody is showing her age if she still has it stuck in her head that Republicans are pro-small government because it’s been 40 years since there was any sign that was true and it’s never been true that small-government Republicans were a majority wing of the GOP.

      1. “It used to be that everybody knew a liberal Republican from New York is more leftist than a conservative Democrat from the Deep South”

        That’s because at one time it was actually true. The parties have since sorted themselves out.

      2. Yes, some Republicans are not big government types. Rand Paul, for example.

        But the question is whether any Donkey is less a fan of big gov than the Donald. Unequivocally all are more committed to a more authoritarian intrusive state, even if Trump has a poor record on those fronts.

  7. Okay, he’s too “big government” and not what many had hoped for. He’s also not what many feared. Most importantly, which of the communists, race-baiters or weaklings running for the DNC nomination is legitimately a better choice? Answer: not a single one of them.

    Unless you want a full dose of DeBlasio-style SJW intersectional-woke idiocy emanating from Washington, you had better vote for the Orange Man.

    1. Okay, he’s too “big government” and not what many had hoped for.

      Shorter SuperFubar: Orange Man Bad.

      See how that works? If anybody criticizes Our Lord and Savior Donald J. Trump, it means they must support the wackiest commie out there. Where exactly in the article does de Rugy suggest that Hillary Clinton would have been far better than Trump or that whatever piece of shit the Dems throw against the wall to see if it sticks isn’t going to be far worse than Trump?

      Look, if you’re forced to choose between having a broken leg or your head cut off, you should take the broken leg. But complaining about your broken leg doesn’t mean you’d prefer decapitation. Or in the case of some of the trolls here, just because you declined the decapitation, you don’t have to act like getting a broken leg is a thrill better than winning the lottery.

      1. Spot on.

        They ALL suck.
        It all boils down to whether you’re a believer in government solving most issues or whether you believe in freedom and government naturally attracts authoritarian narcissists, from De Blasio to Trump, team Red and team Blue.

    2. I don’t get it – because the alternatives are worse, we can’t point out Trump’s flaws?

      1. No, but pointing out Trump’s flaws without putting them in context is, transparently, an effort to get people to react to them out of context.

        I’m always wary of people who want me to make a judgment without being aware of the context.

      2. Pointing out his flaws gets you a set of scoldings from the usual Trump MAGA brigade on here, who will white-knight for each other and fight against any criticism for their dear leader.

        He was the better option, and has done some good stuff. He also deserves criticism for things. An actual libertarian would understand this, but they are in short supply around these parts. Any criticism of trump means you are a lefty commie Hillary supporter and there is no middle ground.

    3. Reason is all in on intersectional woke idiocy these days

    4. It’s not just that. Which Republican had a serious chance of being elected who’d’ve been as good, let alone better? Libertarians really lucked into the election of Trump. I don’t think we could’ve gotten as good a combination of good minus bad from either side of the aisle any other way.

      There were Republicans who conceivably could’ve been elected and better than Trump on a thing or two, but worse on many others. Democrats could have a good policy or two, but be so horrible on anything else that they’re out of the question.

      The voters at this time won’t stand for fiscal responsibility at the federal level, so that’s off the table.

      1. How about Ted Cruz, from whom Trump stole most of his policy positions?

        1. He was the one I considered before Trump, and although at that time I thought him electable — heck, I thought several Republican contenders were — in the time since then, Trump’s done some good I didn’t think Cruz would, but more importantly didn’t do some bad things I thought Cruz might. Cruz is too much in bed with the religious non-Muslim “right” not to throw them some destructive bones Trump wouldn’t.

          1. Plus, Cruz would’ve probably been worse for foreign affairs. In fact Trump was about the best chance (now unfortunately squandered) for better long-term relationships with the Russians. Unfortunately the Establishment forced Trump off that course, reluctantly.

      2. “Libertarians really lucked into the election of Trump.”

        Which libertarians?

        Libertarians For Authoritarian Immigration Practices? Libertarians For Tariffs? Libertarians For Statis Womb Management? Libertarians For Abusive Policing? Libertarians For Massive Military Spending?

        Other than that, great comment.

  8. Trumps “dismiss (2) Regulations for each new regulation” pretty much makes him the instant winner of the last 100-years on freedom. Can’t say I’ve seen any president (in the executive branch anyways) cut regulation so aggressively.

    1. +100000

    2. “Dismiss 2 regulations for each new one”

      That’s sounds something a used car salesman would say and an idiot would believe.

      1. I’ve bought used cars multiple times, and usually been happy with them. Most people drive used cars.

  9. “”Those of us who genuinely want less government in our lives should not pretend that these policies are acceptable,””

    Yet @Reason finds their support for coercive monopoly states (even if limited) to be acceptable.

    How is that ?

    1. reason has TDS.

      1. You’re so fucking dumb. Get some new material.

        1. Poor retarded reason defense troll.

          Reason will be laying off staff soon as evidenced by the desperation of “sponsored content” and self starting videos that nobody watches.

          1. You can’t call someone a troll on a libertarian website who supports libertarian ideas, lovesconstipation.

            You are the troll, cunt face.

            Spit Trump’s cock out of your mouth, little bitch, and learn to breath on your own.

  10. American Spectator picked up same article.

    I am developing a first rate half of time financial advantage from home with the aid of using running my PC . I even have used an internet system and presently I clearly have created $18987 This month. all of us of you’ll be Able to use this home income device and earn extra from intention Half Time. test this website for added data regarding developing cash….but earlier than this you need to visist the following website online …
    ►►HOME► MEDIA► TECH►AND more thank you


  12. “Some aspects of the 2017 tax reform were great.”
    No. The tax reform was a failure. It did not make any real reforms. It cut taxes but at a time when a cut was unnecessary. In doing so it increased the deficit. The stated goals of the tax cut were largely unmet. Rather than boosting the economy in a meaningful way it simply boosted wealth. The result is that today economic uncertain is high, the debt is rising, and the tax code remains far too complicated.

  13. Now, the bad. The administration’s self-destructive protectionist trade policies are well documented.

    All legitimate powers of the federal government. Trump is not a libertarian, but he seems to conform to Constitution better than prior presidents.

    These resulted in higher tariffs on both imports and exports from many countries,

    Good! Until the budget is balanced and the fed stops stimulating the economy, we need much higher consumption taxes.

    Then, there are the ruthless immigration policies doubled with numerous threats of a reduction in legal immigration and no fundamental reform.

    We don’t need “fundamental reform”; there is little wrong with US immigration laws as written. What we need is to enforce them as written: the US needs to deport people here illegally, it needs to select immigrants based on skill and need, and it needs to determine refugee status based on political persecution only, as defined by international organizations.

    When you say “fundamental reform”, what you’re actually saying is that you want to replace the already generous US immigration laws with even more open borders. That’s simply not in the cards: the US can’t handle that economically given our current welfare system.

  14. Let me add that kind of advocate for leftist and statist policies that Reason has become is deplorable. No, even on its own, unilateral free movement of goods and people into the US is not a free market or free trade, and in the context of different regulatory regimes, it is utterly self-destructive. So, VERONIQUE DE RUGY, let me add: fuck off, slaver.

  15. The worst thing about Trump is that he has energized the progtards to the point where they double down on their insanity. He might win re-election but they are taking over local and state governments which have much more of an impact on our daily life.

    1. That’s scary. Any examples you know of?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.