You can’t make this up.
In an interview on MSNBC on Thursday March 8, which focused on Trump’s Trade War Tariffs proposals, our Congressman continued defending Present Trump’s executive style.
“I am supportive of the President’s effort to disrupt our trade agenda.”
When asked about the negative effect that foreign retaliation efforts will have on his constituents, Rep. Reed replied, “I’m willing to go down that path.”
Reed summarized Trump’s actions by saying, “That type of disruption coming at it with what some people feel is chaos, some people feel is disruptive, and that’s what it is all about.”
See the full (less than 3:00) interview here:
Read an article about it here:
https://crooksandliars.com/2018/03/style-hot-messes-hallie-jackson-skewers-ny
Olean (716) 379-8434
New NY 23rd 
That Tom. I almost feel sorry for him, flailing about as he is now to try to prop up this sewer of incompetence and criminality. Meanwhile, his excuses seem like ever-widening cracks in the gates of Hell: one can practically smell the sulfur, and hear the screams of the damned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doing the Hokey Pokey, “and that’s what it is all about.”
LikeLike
How will the Progressives in CD23 be able to put up with Congressman Reed for another two years?
LikeLike
From Tori Whiting
Tori is research associate in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation.
Trump’s Tariffs Will Hurt the Economy. Congress Should Reassert Its Constitutional Authority on Trade.
“The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, but significant pieces of that power have been outsourced to the executive branch over the last four decades.
One example of this outsourcing is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. That provision gives the president the authority to impose import tariffs without the input of Congress. President Donald Trump is now using Section 232 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum.
These new tariffs have shed light on the flaws of Section 232 and the plain lack of congressional oversight during the Commerce Department’s investigation into the impact of steel and aluminum imports.
>>> Read The Heritage Foundation’s full report, “President Should Reject Flawed Commerce Report on Steel Tariffs”
Here are three of those flaws in Section 232:
1. It does not clearly define “national security.”
The lack of a definition or narrow parameters for what constitutes “national security” leaves the term up for interpretation by bureaucrats at the Commerce Department. The report recently released by Commerce went so far as to claim that “it appears likely that Congress recognized adverse impacts might be caused by imports from allies or other reliable sources.” That claim is vague at best, and baseless at worst.
2. It does not require a cost-benefit analysis of recommended trade restrictions.
In its report, the Commerce Department failed to address the potential negative consequences that its recommended tariffs and quotas would have on the entire U.S. economy. Imposing tariffs to protect one industry, or part of an industry, can harm other parts of the economy, and the Commerce Department should be forced to acknowledge those consequences in a Section 232 report to the president.
3. It does not require the Commerce Department to consult with or get approval from Congress if trade restrictions are recommended.
For the president to impose tariffs under Section 232, he is required to allow a period for public comments and inter-agency consultations. Congress, however, has no formal role in the process. Congress gave up too much authority in Section 232, and should work to regain a role in the tariff implementation process.
Given these shortcomings in the law, Congress should take this opportunity to reclaim and reassert its constitutional authority, both in Section 232 and in other laws that hand over trade authority to the executive branch.”
LikeLike
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Congress to reclaim and reassert it’s constitutional authority, Gary.
LikeLiked by 2 people