Lindsey Graham loved Ukraine. Why must Americans suffer His love?

Americans consume “Russian oil”. What you have just read is not a sign of corruption in the state, rather it is a sign of basic economics. Production generates imports from around the world alwaysand from every country, friend or foe. This includes Iran.

The only obstacle to this peace-enhancing situation is that the political classes can undermine economic vitality by dynamiting transport bridges and ships with taxes otherwise known as tariffs, or they can figuratively throw boulders into ports to restrict the arrival of imports through similar taxation.

These are worth keeping in mind as the US political class aims to honor the late Senator Lindsey Graham by posthumously passing the Russia Sanctions Act. The law would bring with it 100% tariffs on the five largest importing countries of Russian oil and natural gas. Legislation vandalizes the economy.

That’s why it’s so disappointing that even the Wall Street Journal’s the editorial page is participating in the cheering section in favor of Graham’s bill. Amidst all the excitement, it is seemingly out of date to wonder why Americans have to suffer financially so that countries like Ukraine can win their war against Russia.

THE of the magazine The editorial page notes that “The legislation would give the US President express authority to impose tariffs of up to 100% on the top five countries that buy Russian oil and natural gas.” Hmmm. How long has it been? Newspaper and other sources of free market opinion who wrote about the dangers of giving a tariff-loving president (that would be Trump) the power to impose taxes on other countries, but suddenly it’s okay because it’s built into legislation in Graham’s honor?

Which leads to more questions, or at least one question: have the increasingly casual advocates of free markets (see right-wing efforts to turn Chinese exports to the US into espionage operations for the CCP) bothered to consider the stock market implications of 100% tariffs? How quickly conservatives forget the market reaction to Trump’s unilaterally imposed tariffs in violation of the Constitution, so what happens when someone “does something” Congress giving Trump cover in ‘a fitting tribute to the late Republican senator’?

Don’t worry, Graham’s watered-down legislation (he wanted 500% tariffs) won’t hurt all the nations that are bound financially. As the article explains, there is an exception “for countries whose markets account for less than 15% of Russia’s total annual natural gas exports, provided they make a significant effort to unbundle Russian energy. China and India will likely not qualify for exemptions.”

The last sentence seems to be a way to justify the economically indefensible, since Graham’s legislation will “only” hurt countries like China. OK, but the high valuation of US companies is increasingly the result of market expectations of exports heading to China in increasing amounts. Which means Graham’s legislation would be deeply damaging to the US economy.

Moreover, market-oriented conservatives used to at least spout the happy truth that trade between people in productive nations makes war between those nations terribly expensive. It seems that economic logic goes out the window when it comes to Ukraine. In other words, national security along with the vitality of the US economy will be sacrificed for Ukraine.

Never asked by the right is why the American people have to suffer so Ukraine can maybe survive, not to mention why the American people have to get a federal government with enhanced taxing power into the bargain. Not enough asked by those who honored Graham is why in death the patriot’s name should be associated with that which is so inimical to American prosperity and liberty.