Gangster state

David Dayen writes here that the tariffs are really sanctions, in once sense against the entire rest of the world, but most critically against every business and ngo in the country. And, in that way also, they are a demand for ransom. 

I’ve really only seen Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) understand this, that this is just a loyalty test for virtually every business in the nation, a universal attempt to gather protection money. It’s no different than using the leverage of government funding to force universities and law firms into submission. These economic sanctions force businesses to supplicate. “One by one, every industry or company will need to pledge loyalty to Trump in order to get sanctions relief,” Murphy writes. That’s correct, and it could come in the form of campaign support, corporate governance changes, or just raw cash. Anything is possible.

So this policy is an open invitation for corruption, yes. Where you sit in relationship to Trump, what donations you gave and what endorsements you’ve made, will dictate your level of success. America is now a country where proximity to the king matters above any other business strategy. As Tim Wu writes, companies so dependent on government treatment don’t innovate because they don’t have to. Their government relations departments rise well beyond their research and development departments. And as there are only so many favors to dish out, they trend the country toward oligarchy.

Not too different from the crude demand for patronage you find in any given local municipal budget dispute, really.

Similarly, the tariff gambit can be seen as a version of what Republicans have been doing in red states (and repeatedly in Louisiana) where they try to raise sales taxes in order to "pay for" big cuts to (or outright elimination of) progressive income taxes.  And, you know, sometimes, if the person running that scam is particularly clumsy about it, they might fail... at first.  

But the beauty of being the party that holds all the power is you can always try again. 

Louisiana legislators might put portions of a constitutional amendment overhauling state budget and tax policies back on the ballot, even after voters overwhelmingly rejected the wide-ranging proposal in Saturday’s election. 

On Monday, Rep. Julie Emerson, R-Carencro, said she was already working on drafts of new constitutional amendments that would make some of the same budget and tax changes in the failed Amendment 2 from Saturday. 

“I think you will definitely see some of this reborn in the session,” Emerson said in an interview, later adding, “I think it is just how we package it, and how many instruments we have with it.”

And if you follow the Trump plan for this, you try again while applying pressure. 

Gov. Jeff Landry has enacted a hiring freeze for the executive branch of state government in an effort to save $20 million ahead of a projected state budget shortfall. 

The governor signed an executive order Wednesday that pauses hiring for state government departments and agencies under the governor’s control. The order does not apply to Louisiana’s judicial or legislative branches, according to Landry’s press secretary Elizabeth Crochet.

“To ensure the long-term fiscal health of Louisiana and protect essential services for our most vulnerable citizens, we must take decisive action now to address revenue shortfalls,” Landry said in a written statement. “By implementing a temporary hiring freeze, we will reign in spending, saving an annualized $20 million. This is a necessary step to give the Legislature more options, to prevent deeper cuts to health care and education, and to safeguard the future of our state.”