Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



How the Media Show Their Anti-Trump Bias and Why I Favor Trump  
Raymond Richman, 11/7/2016

You may believe that the media is anti-Trump because they believe he is unqualified to be President. Nothing is further than the truth. The real issue is his position on foreign trade. Free trade has become a Republican and Democratic ideology. There is nothing in economic trade theory that suggests free trade is an appropriate public policy unless the following conditions exist: the trading partners have a common currency, there is free movement of capital and labor, and no trading partner can impose artificial barriers to trade on imports from the other. The only place where these conditions hold is between the States of the USA because the U.S. constitution mandates them. Of course, multi-nationals are for free trade; it is the source of great profits.

And they favor globalization because it reduces the sovereign power of national governments. You did not hear a peep from any of them when the World Trade Organization ordered the U.S. government to rescind a law that the U.S. congress enacted requiring meat products to be labeled to show the country of origin. Can you believe that the U.S. Congress complied? And the U.S. media with the exception of Fox News, the Washington Times, and a few others fall in line with the desires of the multi-nationals as does the pre-Trump leadership of the Republican Party and the current leadership of the Democratic Party. Take as an example of media bias the following analysis of a single edition of a formerly conservative newspaper.

I read the Tribune Review, Pittsburgh edition, published on November 6, 2016, two days before the national presidential and Congressional elections, and what did I read? No news at all about the positions of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. The leading article on page A1 was on “how long will election’s emotions linger?” and the other two articles on the page were  “Proposed closure of Gitmo in doubt” and “Teen defies odds year after arm attached”.  Nor was there anything about the election on page A2 or page A3. Finally, there is election news on page A4, “Sex scandals mar Richmond election”, a local election. There was nothing on page A6. There is a Super-Pac ad headlined “Drain the Washington Swamp” on page A7 but you could not tell from the Trib-Review that there ever was a Washington swamp.

On page A8, there was some election news, if you can  call it that, an article headlined “Ariz. Ballot collection ban back in effect” and the continuing head “Decision hurts Dems’ get-out vote efforts”, which should be more accurately described as a Dems’ vote-packing effort. And an article “Trump presses into Dem territory” also from the “impartial” Associated Press whose second paragraph begins, “The divisive Republican outsider …”, still an outsider although he won the Republican primary. What a way to write news! There was some election news, if you can call it that, on page A9, the leading article from the “independent” Washington Post headlined, “Melania Trump worked illegally in U.S., report says. She was paid $20,000 for 10 modeling jobs in 1996 before she received legal authorization to work. What a scandal! Certainly overshadows the $140 million accumulated by the Clintons since Bill left office and after losing his license to practice law. He sold political influence and was richly rewarded. The other news on that page was a 4 inch story that Clinton and Trump were to campaign in Pennsylvania on Monday.  Pages A10 and A11 were devoted to international news.

Now we come to the editorial page, A12. The leading editorial deals with the resignation of Pittsburgh’s chief of police after participating in the Democratic convention and losing a vote of confidence by the Fraternal Order of Police. Not exactly national news. There appears an excellent article by Thomas Sowell on, headed “Toll of Ignorance in Economics”, but no election news. On page A13, facing the editorial page, is an article by George Will, headed “What to watch for on election night” which has a lot of statistics about how Republicans fared in past elections, warning about how Republicans opposed to Trump will fare on Tuesday, and “Will Trump become the first Republican in 60 years to lose whites with college education.” Every one of Trump’s inner circle has a college degree as does he. There are plenty of college graduates , perhaps a minority but still millions, who favor trump? George Will’s wife supported one of the other candidates in the Republican race for the nomination. What happened to Will? He used to be an esteemed commentator.

A second column on the same page, features a liberal Democratic lawyer from Pittsburgh named Joseph Mistick, and is entitled “The face America shows.” He seems concerned that foreigners around the world dislike Trump. And well they should. Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the entrenched leaders of both political parties, have handed our industries over to them without getting anything in return except increased public debt and the loss of manufacturing jobs. “If Donald Trump wins, we will be to the world an intolerant nation…  In a Trump Administration, it will be OK to demean women.” What nonsense!  Why would the Trib print this column?

Because it has a new editor, Luis Fabregas, who favors Obama care, the Affordable Care Act, a closet liberal working for a once conservative paper. Here is what he said in a recent column:

"To be sure, health care appears to be on Clinton’s radar. She has called for building on President Obama’s health-care law and has voiced support for a controversial “public option” for Obamacare. Clinton also has floated an idea to allow people as young as 50 to be eligible for Medicare, a federal health plan limited to those who are 65 or older. And she has expressed support for more access to primary care and mental-health services."

Not a single criticism of Obamacare and he appears receptive to health care that is completely taxpayer-funded. He continues:

"Trump’s grand plan involves repealing the Affordable Care Act. He argues on his website that “the American people have had to suffer under the incredible burden of the Affordable Care Act.” The 2010 law has resulted in “runaway costs, websites that don’t work, greater rationing of care, higher premiums, less competition and fewer choices.” Perhaps more mystifying [sic!], Trump contends, “Obamacare has raised the economic uncertainty of every single person residing in this country.” I am one of those people, and I can’t think of one way in which Obamacare has made my future uncertain. What I know is that repealing the law would make for an uncertain future for the 18 million people who would lose health insurance. What if those uninsured people suddenly have a medical emergency? Who pays?"

This tells you something of his shallowness. What is mystifying about Trump’s criticism of  Obamacare? No discussion of the inequitable way Obamacare is financed. Why should everyone suffer the high costs of ensuring “children!” until they reach the age of 26, or the high costs of insuring those will previous disabilities who never had insurance, or whose life-style exposes them to AIDs.  Why shouldn’t people have the right to choose a health plan suitable to their lifestyle?

 What I find most interesting is his belief that Trump would allow all the health insurance under the Obamacare act to lapse. Why would he do that? The Trib’s new editor is not a conservative, he is a liberal, and not a bright one either, and obviously anti-Trump..

You would expect a newspaper two days before a national election to contrast the proposals of Trump and Clinton. It did not. I shall. Following is a brief summary:

Trump would secure our border with Mexico and would try to balance our trade. We have shown that the trade deficits during the past few decades have resulted in the loss of millions of American manufacturing jobs. Clinton favors open borders and continuance of the nation’s ideological commitment to free trade.

Trump would impose restrictions on the immigration of Moslems until they can be vetted and proved they are not and will not be terrorists. Hillary complains that this shows Trump’s antagonism to the Moslem religion. Nonsense. It shows opposition to importing terrorists.

Trump proposes to reduce corporate and personal income tax rates. Hillary proposes to tax the rich more heavily. We are on record as favoring integration of the personal and corporate income taxes.  But we believe Trump’s proposal to be superior to Hillary’s and believe Trump would be more likely to approve our proposal than Hillary would be.

Hillary proposes to provide free university education to all but children of wealthy families. She has not calculated the cost. Trump is silent on the proposal. As in the case of government interventions in the economy, undertaken with the best of intentions, they inevitably have unintended consequences that are worse than the intended benefits. The rise in the cost of rental housing, the cost of health care, the cost of higher education, of foods and of other consumer goods have been the result of government interventions. Government regulation of business has been an unmitigated disaster.

On social issues such as legalizing drugs, abortion, and much else, I believe the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority and believe in leaving such issues to the States. We need competition between the States to decide how best to solve these problems. I believe Trump is much closer to my view than Hillary is.

Trump believes that public education should be left to the States. Hillary does not. We see no constitutional authority for the federal government to prescribe curriculum or criteria. Public education is a state responsibility and let competition between the States decided what is best.

Neither candidate has stated how he or she proposes to balance the budget. Trump believes that growth of the economy which he pledges with do it. I believe there are many government expenditures which can be reduced and eliminated in every department and a few departments and programs that should be eliminated nearly entirely. I believe that Trump would consider all reasonable proposals, Hillary practically none. Instead, we can expect an expansion of government power and expenditures if Hillary is elected.

Your Name:

Post a Comment:


Comment by M, 11/10/2016:

DJT predicted the Federal Reserve was handing the next President a recession. DJT is persuasive, but being correct is not a defense against the misplaced anger of voters in mid-term elections. DJT needs to use the FDR first 100 days model to accomplish his most important policy goals ASAP. 




  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    May 2017
    Apr 2017
    Mar 2017
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016

    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Politics

    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade
    Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]