OPINION
6A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • TUESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2016
Founded in 1873
DAVID F. PERO, Publisher & Editor
LAURA SELLERS, Managing Editor
BETTY SMITH, Advertising Manager
CARL EARL, Systems Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN, Production Manager
DEBRA BLOOM, Business Manager
OUR VIEW
Costly federal
regulations in
need of review
P
resident-elect Donald Trump in his deluge of campaign
promises said he would work to reduce costly regulations.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank,
earlier this month provided a review of federal regulations that
carry criminal penalties. The list would be a good place to start,
and its point is well taken.
In civics class we learned that the legislative branch makes
law, both civil and criminal, and the executive branch enforces
those laws. Congress, for example, passes a law making bank
robbery a federal crime, defines the elements of the crime and
establishes a penalty.
Simple. But, as is often the case in Washington, things are
rarely ever simple.
In 1911, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Grimaud
that Congress had the power to pass the broad strokes of law and
delegate to the executive the details of the rules and regulations
to implement the law. The case revolved around the secretary of
agriculture’s authority to make regulations concerning the use
of Forest Service lands for grazing and other purposes, and to
attach criminal and civil penalties provided by Congress for vio-
lations of those regulations.
The ruling was a boon to Congress, a busy institution without
time, expertise or often particular interest in the arcane details.
More time on details means less time for lawmaking. How might
that look to the voters back home?
So, to pack in more lawmaking Congress has left it to fed-
eral agencies to make the rules, and to decide which violations
will carry civil penalties and which
will be federal crimes that carry
Without any
jail time.
Bank robbery is a pretty
criminal
straightforward crime, and one
intent, an
needs no more than an understand-
unsuspecting
ing of the commandment “Thou
shalt not steal” to know it’s wrong. violator can
face jail time
But the violation of many regu-
lations that carry criminal penal-
and criminal
ties is nowhere near as obvious.
fines for
Without any criminal intent, an
unsuspecting violator can face jail even the
most
time and criminal fines for even
the most innocuous action.
innocuous
Equally alarming is that the
action.
number of potential criminal vio-
lations grows annually as agen-
cies make more regulations. No one really knows, but critics
say violations of as many as 300,000 regulations carry criminal
penalties.
“With little to no input from or accountability to vot-
ers, bureaucrats have run amok with the power to create new
crimes,” the foundation says.
If regulations are to be enforced, there must be penalties.
However, for all but the most egregious violations, the threat
of civil fines should be adequate to force compliance. Congress
should reserve for itself the power to define federal crimes.
Citizens should demand that accountability.
In the meantime, we agree that the next president should cur-
tail the creation of new federal crimes by bureaucratic fiat.
LETTERS WELCOME
Letters should be exclusive to
The Daily Astorian.
Letters should be fewer than
350 words and must include the
writer’s name, address and phone
numbers. You will be contacted
to confirm authorship.
All letters are subject to edit-
ing for space, grammar and, on
occasion, factual accuracy. Only
two letters per writer are printed
each month.
Letters written in response to
other letter writers should address
the issue at hand and, rather than
mentioning the writer by name,
should refer to the headline and
date the letter was published.
Discourse should be civil and
people should be referred to in a
respectful manner.
Submissions may be sent in
any of these ways:
E-mail to editor@dailyasto-
rian.com; online at www.dailyas-
torian.com; delivered to the Asto-
rian offices at 949 Exchange St.
and 1555 N. Roosevelt in Seaside
or by mail to Letters to the Editor,
P.O. Box 210, Astoria, OR 97103.
And the trade war came
AP Photo/Ng Han Guan
Workers dressed as Santa Claus promote the popular bike rental service known as Mobike in Beijing
Saturday. Although Christmas is not traditionally celebrated in China, retailers take opportunity of the
gift giving spirit of the festival to boost year end sales.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times News Service
D
onald Trump got within
striking distance of the
White House — or, more
precisely, Comey-and-Putin
range — thanks
to overwhelming
support from white
working-class vot-
ers. These voters
trusted his promise
to bring back good
manufacturing jobs while disbeliev-
ing his much more credible promise
to take away their health care. They
have a rude shock coming.
But white workers are not alone
in their gullibility: Corporate Amer-
ica is still in denial about the pros-
pects for a global trade war, even
though protectionism was a cen-
tral theme of the Trump campaign.
In fact, the only two causes about
which Trump seems truly passionate
are supposedly unfair trade deals and
admiration for authoritarian regimes.
It’s naive to assume that he will let
his signature policy issue slide.
Let’s talk means, motive and
consequences.
You might imagine that a drastic
change in U.S. trade policy would
require congressional approval, and
that Republicans — who claim to
believe in free markets — would
put on the brakes. But given GOP
spinelessness, that is unlikely.
In any case, the relevant legisla-
tion gives the occupant of the White
House remarkable leeway should
he choose to go protectionist. He
can restrict imports if such imports
“threaten to impair the national
security”; he can impose tariffs “to
deal with large and serious United
States balance-of-payments defi-
cits”; he can modify tariff rates
when foreign governments engage
in “unjustifiable” policies. Who
determines whether such conditions
apply? The executive himself.
Now, these provisions were not
intended to empower a president to
reverse decades of U.S. trade pol-
icy, or engage in personal vendettas.
You can guess, however, how much
such niceties are likely to bother the
incoming administration, which is
already talking about using its pow-
ers. Which brings us to the question
of motive.
Why would a Trump administra-
tion impose restrictions on imports?
One answer is those working-class
voters, whose supposed champion is
set to pursue a radically anti-worker
domestic agenda. There is an obvi-
ous incentive for Trump to make a
big show of doing something to ful-
fill campaign promises. And if this
creates international conflict, that
is actually a plus when it comes to
diverting attention from collapsing
health care and so on.
An old joke
tells of a
motorist who
runs over a
pedestrian,
then tries to fix
the damage by
backing up —
and runs over
the victim a
second time.
Well, the effects
of the Trumpist
trade war on
U.S. workers
will be a lot
like that.
Beyond this, it is clear that the
incoming commander-in-chief
really believes that international
trade is a game in which nice
guys finish last, and that Amer-
ica has been taken advantage of.
Furthermore, he is picking advis-
ers who will confirm him in these
beliefs.
Oh, and do not expect attempts
by experts to point out the holes in
this view — to point out, in partic-
ular, that the image of a predatory
China, running huge surpluses by
keeping its currency undervalued,
is years out of date — to make any
impression. Members of the Trump
team believe that all criticism of
their economic ideas reflects a con-
spiracy among think tanks that are
out to undermine them. Because of
course they do.
So what will happen when the
Trump tariffs come?
There will be retaliation, big
time. When it comes to trade, Amer-
ica is not that much of a superpower
— China is also a huge player, and
the European Union is bigger still.
They will respond in kind, targeting
vulnerable U.S. sectors like aircraft
and agriculture.
And retaliation is not the whole
story; there is also emulation. Once
America decides that the rules do
not apply, world trade will become
a free-for-all.
Will this cause a global reces-
sion? Probably not — those risks
are, I think, exaggerated. No, pro-
tectionism didn’t cause the Great
Depression.
What the coming trade war will
do, however, is cause a lot of dis-
ruption. Today’s world economy
is built around “value chains” that
spread across borders: your car or
your smartphone contain compo-
nents manufactured in many coun-
tries, then assembled or modified
in many more. A trade war would
force a drastic shortening of those
chains, and quite a few U.S. man-
ufacturing operations would end
up being big losers, just as hap-
pened when global trade surged in
the past.
An old joke tells of a motor-
ist who runs over a pedestrian, then
tries to fix the damage by backing
up — and runs over the victim a
second time. Well, the effects of the
Trumpist trade war on U.S. workers
will be a lot like that.
Given these prospects, you
might think that someone will per-
suade the incoming administration
to rethink its commercial belliger-
ence. That is, you might think that
if you have paid no attention to the
record and character of the protec-
tionist in chief. Someone who will
not take briefings on national secu-
rity because he is “like, a smart per-
son” and does not need them is not
likely to sit still for lessons on inter-
national economics.
No, the best bet is that the trade
war is coming. Buckle your seat
belts.