McConnell, Free To Let It All Hang Out, Disses Trump's Tariff Agenda— Does Anyone Care What He Says?

Bourbon Manufactures Sure Do

Mitch McConnell’s term is up next year. And, in failing heath and 83 years old next week, he isn’t running again. That frees him up to do what he feels is the right thing, rather than the calculated political thing. That’s why he was the only Republican to oppose the confirmation of Putin-ally Tulsi Gabbard for the head of all the U.S. intelligence gathering operations. Bill Cassidy (67), likely to lose a primary to Trump-backed MAGAt John Fleming, should announce his retirement as well. He’s dying to vote against RFK Jr.

John Cornyn (73), who’s going to have a MAGAt to contend with as well, should save himself the angst and retire. So should Susan Collins (72, but seems like 92), who will probably lose her general reelection bid. It would free them all up to vote their consciences.

Yesterday, McConnell went a step further than just voting against Gabbard. He penned a scathing OpEd, Kentuckians can't afford the high cost of Trump's tariffs, in Kentucky’s biggest newspaper. He reminded the readers that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, an insane GOP disaster, “helped spiral the Wall Street crash of 1929 into a worldwide depression [and] flaring tensions with U.S. trading partners and halving American imports and exports as a result. Caught in the crosshairs, Americans learned the hard way that trade wars are expensive, and today, we ought to be careful deciding with whom to pick them.”

Trump’s tariff economy is destined for disaster as well and few Republicans are willing to talk about it that way McConnell did. “[T]ariffs,” he wrote, “are bad policy.” They’re also Trump’s top economic policy. “As Sen. And Paul put it: ‘Tariffs are simply taxes… Taxing trade will mean less trade and higher prices.’ So Republicans ought to be clear-eyed about the full, unadulterated impact of tariffs as we work to restore sound fiscal policy to our government. Blanket tariffs make it more expensive to do business in America, driving up costs for consumers across the board. These aren’t just abstract concerns. Broad-based tariffs could have long-term consequences right in our backyard. Consider our state’s 75,000 family farms that sell their crops around the globe, or the hardworking Kentuckians who craft 95% of the world’s bourbon, or our auto industry that relies on global supply chains to support the livelihoods of thousands of workers in the commonwealth.”

In Kentucky, local storeowners are already hearing about their suppliers’ prices going up. One estimate suggests the president’s tariffs could cost the average Kentuckian up to  $1,200 each year. And it’s not just about rising prices here at home. During the last Trump administration, retaliatory tariffs from trade partners set off a broader trade war that hit wide swaths of American industry, from agriculture to manufacturing to aerospace and motor vehicles to distilled spirits. Already, Canada announced retaliatory measures that take direct aim at Kentucky production, targeting products like peanut butter and whiskey.

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs are tied up, directly or indirectly, in trade with Canada and Mexico. Our neighbors to the north and south buy over half a trillion dollars’ worth of our goods and services each year— including nearly $10 billion in manufactured goods and $300 million in agricultural exports from Kentucky alone. These economic tailwinds touch virtually every family and every industry.

America’s open markets also fuel billions in capital investment from businesses abroad. In Kentucky, over 60% of all counties are home to at least one international business. These are industrial suppliers, auto manufacturers and makers of consumer goods from across the world that support roughly 100,000 jobs in the commonwealth. But these investments don’t happen on their own. Foreign businesses choose America because they can count on our commitment to free markets and free enterprise. Sudden shifts to protectionism undermine the certainty these companies rely on to do business in the United States.

When we engage with our allies and partners, we unlock new sources of economic strength— lower prices, more choices for consumers, and greater innovation. And we ought to remind ourselves that trade is a two-way street.

Take our work on the USMCA under the first Trump administration. This landmark deal with Canada and Mexico leveled the playing field for American workers, reduced the incentives to ship American jobs to Mexico, and expanded American producers’ access to sell goods to these neighboring markets— including Kentucky-made products like bourbon, cars, aerospace parts and agricultural commodities.

… [P]reserving the long-term prosperity of American industry and workers requires working with our allies, not against them. Trade wars with our partners hurt working people most. And the president has better tools to protect American workers without forcing our families and businesses to absorb higher costs.  

As the president and Republicans work to undo the damage of the last four years, we ought to strengthen our friendships abroad, and reinforce our allies as pillars of American prosperity and security. At a time when Americans are tightening their belts, we would do well to avoid policies that heap on the pain.

As the NY Times explained yesterday, “what can often be lost amid proclamations targeting other countries is who ultimately pays for tariffs. It often isn’t the country itself. Understanding who will end up paying for the higher costs means understanding how manufacturing, trade and supply chains function— and how costs build along each step of the complex process… Most trade policy experts agree that the American economy will most likely bear the cost of the additional tariffs, which can occur in several ways. To offset higher import costs, retailers often increase prices, passing the burden on to consumers. As a result, consumers effectively pay for the tariff, reducing their purchasing power… American companies and manufacturers that use imported materials face higher costs, whether they continue sourcing from China or switch to more expensive domestic suppliers. While they may absorb these costs to maintain competitive prices, doing so reduces their available capital for other business investments and operations, ultimately affecting the broader U.S. economy.”