USA Today, along with other media outlets attacking Trump's trade and tariff policies on a continuing basis, wants to convince us how bad they are for the economy.  On Thursday, the paper ran a headline talking about how Trump may make breathing more expensive, since Trump has proposed a possible $20 billion in tariffs on China imports this week.

I wonder if the paper even had a second thought about the headline – "Tax Oxygen? Could happen as Trump threatens wide ranging tariffs on China" – since the paper supported a carbon tax for years, saying how much harm CO2 (a clear, innocuous, non-pollutant gas) causes and knowing that humans breathe out a lot of CO2.

A few headlines that the USA Today could have used this week instead of the oxygen headline:

• Dow Jones up 400 points this week despite potential tariffs
• Tech stocks hit a record high on Thursday
• Pfizer reverses some price increases after pressure from Trump
• Saudi Arabia ups oil production, possibly in response to Trump, taking some pressure off oil prices

Instead of reporting the good news on the economy, the media choose to attack Trump on a daily basis.

The governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, was on CNBC, ostensibly to brag about his state being named the second best state to do business in.  The first question from CNBC had to do with Trump's trade and tariff policies, and he said they are causing businesses to put on hold investment decisions, and the policies may cost the state jobs.  I wonder where the follow-up questions were about who is delaying investment decisions.  I haven't seen any indication that Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, and Starbucks are holding back.

Washington State is seeing the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs, Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee says.

He says businesses have been putting investment decisions "on hold" until the nation's trade conflicts are resolved.

Inslee claims his state could suffer jobs losses.

I did not see a question as to whether Inslee thought the tax cuts from 35% to 21% and reduction in regulations had contributed to Washington's rapid growth.

Since the economy is growing much faster under Trump than Obama, I would ask Inslee and other Democrat governors why they would want to go back to Obama's tax rates and regulations.  Somehow, the CNBC journalist didn't seem to think of those questions.

As far as trade, we are told that Trump's policies are harming exporting companies, but the actual government statistics show that exports have grown 8.8% for the first five months of 2018 vs. 2017.  If exports are growing more than double the overall rate of the growth of the economy, what exactly do the journalists, experts, and economists use to justify saying the policies have slowed economic growth?  There is evidence that well paying manufacturing jobs have increased.  What actual statistics show that exporters have lost business?

Year-to-date, the goods and services deficit increased $17.9 billion, or 7.9 percent, from the same period in 2017. Exports increased $84.5 billion or 8.8 percent. Imports increased $102.4billion or 8.6 percent.

Maybe CNBC could have asked Inslee about the harm Seattle's compulsory minimum wage increase caused to low-income workers.  Those are actual job losses instead of theoretical job losses that Inslee says he cares about.

Seattle's minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to lose hours, and it's also costing jobs, according to the latest study on the measure passed by the City Council in 2014.

The team concluded that the second jump had a far greater impact, boosting pay in low-wage jobs by about 3 percent since 2014 but also resulting in a 9 percent reduction in hours worked in such jobs. That resulted in a 6 percent drop in what employers collectively pay – and what workers earn – for those low-wage jobs[.]

Isn't a market-based wage increase, which is happening under Trump's policies, much better for the overall economy than a government-forced increase?

The Federal Reserve is consistently raising interest rates now because of exceptionally low unemployment and rapid economic growth, which is leading some to worry about an overheating economy.  That is something the Federal Reserve and economists didn't worry about during Obama's eight years in office.  The Fed kept interest rates near zero (greatly punishing savers, pension funds, and retirees), and despite that stimulus and massive increases in federal government spending, we got the slowest economic recovery in seventy years.  The question for journalists and Democrats is, why would they want policies that gave us such slow growth and high government dependency versus the current outstanding growth that is helping give all races and both sexes such a great opportunity to move up the economic ladder?  It is amazing how shortsighted most are while the economy seems to be firing on all cylinders.