They have fewer procedural requirements and would apparently override the exemptions built into the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that have so far shielded most North American trade from the protectionist onslaught.<\/p>\n
This escalation is bewildering for many reasons, not least because the tariffs imposed up to now have so visibly failed. Setting aside the harm to America\u2019s alliances and its standing as a global leader, consider only the narrower economic and political costs. With mid-term elections approaching and voters preoccupied with affordability, new and higher tariffs will push prices up yet again.<\/p>\n
If inflation picks up, the Federal Reserve might have to raise interest rates. Mounting costs and chronic uncertainty will continue to suppress investment. Meantime, the promised benefits \u2014 a smaller trade deficit and higher manufacturing employment \u2014 are nowhere to be seen, just as most economists warned.<\/p>\n
Granted, the tariffs have raised some badly needed revenue. But this apparent benefit is misleading, because taxes that suppress growth \u2014 as tariffs do, especially when imposed so erratically \u2014 undermine the economy\u2019s ability to support public debt. In fact, the risk that Washington will come to rely on tariffs to postpone a fiscal calamity might be the most insidious of all the dangers posed by this approach.<\/p>\n
An addiction to tariffs will make the eventual fiscal reckoning much worse. The White House needs to swerve away from this danger as soon as it can. And whatever it decides, Congress must belatedly bring tariff policy back where the Constitution says it belongs, with the legislature. The longer this reckless experiment goes on, the worse the damage will be.<\/p>\n
Catch the latest in Opinion<\/p>\n
Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"They have fewer procedural requirements and would apparently override the exemptions built into the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that have…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":150693,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[98],"tags":[5157,29420,29421,48652,111,3119,48653],"class_list":["post-150692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-mark-carney","tag-commentary","tag-dcc","tag-lee-national","tag-lee-opinion","tag-mark-carney","tag-opinion","tag-wire"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150692","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150692"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150692\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/150693"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}