Since the country was funded with tariffs the first 80 years of existence then by your distorted reasoning the founders were liberal. LOL.
central_va: “Since the country was funded with tariffs the first 80 years of existence then by your distorted reasoning the founders were liberal. LOL.”
I think that Central Va has just made the argument based on original intent of the Founders.
I don't have the statistics—others can do a better job of providing them—but my understanding is that the federal government was primarily funded by tariffs on foreign products until the adoption of the federal income tax. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will point that out as well.
Just because something was done for a long time doesn't mean it was right. I'm not an isolationist and I don't believe in “Fortress America,” for example, and that means I am deliberately and intentionally going against the clearly stated objections of George Washington and other Founders to getting entangled in foreign wars.
However, the history of American tariff policy **DOES** mean a conservative case can be made, based on original intent of the Constitution, for maintaining at least a certain level of manufacturing capability.
Now moving to the issue of whether I can prove we have to have manufacturing capability in the United States to fight wars — as long as we're dealing with relatively small wars like Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, or Afghanistan, I grant your point.
Everything changes if we have to face something like the Soviet Union or China.
You may believe we will never again face a peer-level military conflict. I hope you're right. But what if you're wrong? Is there something wrong with having a military manufacturing capability in the United States that can't be interrupted by cutting the shipping lanes, or by boycotts from foreign enemies?
The strategic petroleum reserve exists for “SHTF” scenarios like that. If anything, it ought to be expanded. It takes years, not weeks or months, to build manufacturing plants. They can't be erected overnight and workers can't be trained overnight.
Right now, if China wanted to do so, they could destroy our economy virtually overnight by cutting off all trade with the United States and preventing South Korea and Japan from exporting goods to the United States. You may say that's about as likely as an invasion from Planet Pluto, and again, I hope you're right — but if so, how do you account for the behavior of the Chinese sixty years ago in Korea? Both Presidents Bush took an important gamble to engage China in commerce to empower its capitalist and commercial classes, and I'm glad they took that gamble, but I'm not happy if trade with China had the unintentional result of destroying our own manufacturing capability.
The fact is that while we are gutting our manufacturing capabilities, China is expanding theirs tremendously. Governments can change quickly, and while capabilities can't be developed quickly, those which already exist can quickly be changed from peaceful to belligerent purposes.
I have said many times that I want to see China become a strong power on the world scene. I would love to see them follow the model of Japan and become an economic powerhouse, competing with us in business and not in belligerent activities. However, preparation is what we do for things we think are unlikely but would be devastating if we guess wrong.