Common Sense with Paul Jacob

You might think that if they wish to provide for secure elections, you’d set up security systems, including poll-watchers and other election inspectors, sticking rigorously to every last quantum of punctilio towards the law.

You might think that if they wish to rig and game elections, they wouldn’t be sloppy on election security, trying hard to appear to seek election integrity.

But in Detroit, Michigan, a court has sided with the Republican National Committee, and other aggrieved parties, who had sued the city in August, “alleging that it violated state law that requires election officials to hire an equal number of poll workers on both sides of the political aisle,” according to The Epoch Times. “The city, the lawsuit alleges, hired seven times as many Democrats as Republicans, which the RNC said decreases public trust in elections.”

According to the complaint, the Republican Party nominated 675 election inspectors; however, the city only appointed 52 for the primary election.

The city hired up to 250 Republicans who weren’t nominated by the RNC, leaving a ratio of seven Democrats to one Republican inspector, which the RNC said was “not even close to equal.”

In comparison, the city hired more than 2,300 election inspectors from the Democratic Party. 

“This uneven distribution of poll workers not only breaches state law but also undermines the integrity and fairness of the electoral process,” the RNC said in the August press release. “Our lawsuit demands that Detroit appoint more Republican inspectors.”

Matt McGregor, “Michigan Republicans Win Election Integrity Lawsuit Over Number of Poll Workers,” The Epoch Times (October 12, 2024).

After losing the lawsuit, the city responded with the usual blather.

In “Trump Vows to End Double Taxation for Overseas Americans,” Tom Ozimek begums by focusing on that title idea, promising to end double taxation on expatriates and encouraging expatriates to vote. But before the reader of The Epoch Times can reflect on foundational notions linking taxation and representation, the article moves to more interesting territory: tariff hikes.

While Trump has not released a detailed tax plan as part of his campaign for the White House, he has floated some tax policy proposals, including extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) changes, exempting tips and overtime pay from tax, and leaning heavily into tariffs to support U.S. manufacturing.

The “leaning heavily into tariffs” program is one of the 45th President’s oldest obsessions, and it is always worth remembering that tariffs are a form of taxation. Harder to remember, but always important, are the lessons of classical political economy, which explained that a tariff is not a tax that “foreigners” pay: as economists put it, the incidence of the tax shifts onto the consumers residing within the “protected” boundaries of the state imposing the tariff. Basically, a tariff is a tax that consumers pay. No wonder such taxes are promoted by a few affected producers and laborers in the industry so protected, on the understandable rationale that tariffs effectively transfer wealth from the general mass of consumers to specific sets of producers.

Thus they work by the same political logic that most government interventions do, by focusing on the beneficiaries of the policies (a concentrated few) and taking attention away from those who bear the burden of the policies (the dispersed many).

At the Detroit event, the former president took aim at Chinese auto manufacturers building auto plants in Mexico with plans to export those vehicles to the United States.

“I will impose whatever tariffs are required, 100 percent, 200 percent 1,000 percent,” he said. “They are not going to sell any cars into the United States with those plants.”

It is pure demagoguery. But effective, especially if you fall for the encouragement of empathy for the concentrated (and much-ballyhooed) batch of beneficiaries while giving no thought to all the consumers harmed.