Trump tariffs a modern version of Smoot-Hawley?

For those of you interested in history and economics, the Smoot-Hawley Act, enacted in 1930 after the stock market crash in October 1929, is generally considered the action that turned the crash into the Great Depression. Unfortunately, the current president either failed economics or never studied it (“Armstrong Williams: As Trump taps tariffs to fix economy, history is not on his side,” April 3).

Assume for a moment that you are the CEO of General Motors. Are you going to spend a couple billion dollars and take two years to build a new automobile factory? Not knowing where you will find people to staff it and other people to train them?

Or will you just charge more for the cars you are currently producing with parts from Canada and Mexico subject to new tariffs and hope people can still afford to buy them?

— Mark Brenner, Baltimore

Short-term tariff pain may yet yield long-term gain

David B. McGarry’s recent commentary on tariffs oversimplifies a complex issue (“Don’t be fooled by false promise of tariffs,” March 30). While I support near-free trade, true free trade is unattainable due to myriad factors. Much like there are no free lunches, there is no free trade.

McGarry argues tariffs invite corruption through lobbying, but this applies to all taxation. Look at Annapolis where information technology services and even sleep (in the form of mattresses) face unprecedented taxes. This is likely shaped by decades of lobbying. Yet the author ignores what to do when other nations restrict trade.

The Trump administration’s formulaic tariff plan aims to level the playing field, offering a carrot for others to lower their barriers, with our response in kind. It’s designed to resist lobbying influence. I’d welcome future commentary with real solutions beyond “tariffs are bad.”

In this case, I think if we all take a collective breath, step back and let the plan work, it will not be all gloom and doom. As a fan of the United States of America, I expect short-term pain will lead to long-term national gain.

— Gabe Gundersen, Columbia

Don’t lose this vital check on county council power

In his recent letter to the editor attacking a commentary in The Baltimore Sun written by Nick Stewart, cofounder of the good government group “We the People of Baltimore County,” Baltimore County Councilman David Marks demonstrates a lack of knowledge about representative democracy (“Marks: Urban-rural boundary should be local choice,” April 2).

Marks’ bill, Bill 19-25, would give an individual council member veto authority over any change to the county’s Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL) that affects his or her district. The veto power conferred by the bill is unprecedented and would not be subject to legislative, administrative or judicial review. It would be a veto more absolute than a veto by the county executive, which can be overturned by the county council.

The requirement that the seven-member council act as a body, with at least a majority concurring on a course of action, is one of the essential checks and balances of Baltimore County government. It is intended to make sure that the legislative powers of the county cannot be exercised by any one council member. By eliminating that requirement, the bill moves away from democratic principles toward authoritarianism.

Marks makes no secret of his belief that individual council members should have control over “land use and other issues specific to their district.” What he does not do in his letter, however, is discuss the risks of placing so much power in the hands of one elected official.

As described by Stewart in his op-ed, the practice of “councilmanic courtesy” already results in short-sighted decision-making that fails to take into consideration the overall best interests of county residents. That short-sighted decision-making has produced economic stagnation, population loss and poorly planned development.

Councilmanic courtesy also is an invitation to corruption, which is not limited to the cash in white envelopes prevalent in the days of former Baltimore County Executives Spiro Agnew and Dale Anderson. Council members have parlayed councilmanic courtesy and the council’s unique authority over land use decisions into enormous campaign war chests.

Bill 19-25 would elevate councilmanic courtesy from a bad practice to a worse law, giving individual council members absolute power that even Agnew and Anderson would envy. Despite Marks’ insults, Stewart was correct.

— David Plymyer, Catonsville