So the Trump Administration has proposed a $12 billion bailout to help farmers absorb the hit they'll take from the trade wars. But wouldn't it have been easier simply not to have created the need for the bailout in the first place? Isn't this like running over someone with your car and then telling the person it's going to be fine, because you have insurance? Yeah, sure, but you just ran over someone with your car. You're solving a problem you created. Better never to have created the problem.
That's what Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) in effect told CBS News:
"At no point have I heard a farmer or rancher say we want more bailouts. We want more welfare. What they want is less trade war. There's no ambiguity about this from the producers in my state."
Wouldn't it have been better to discuss this with our allies and frenemies in trade talks and then come back with a plan instead of conducting a Twitter campaign that has businessmen worried and markets bouncing around like a knuckleball?
You can't the Trumpettes, though, that this is a problem of our own making, much like Brexit is for Britain. They're all about accepting short-term pain for long-term gain.
But what if it turns out to be short-term gain for long-term pain?