Reduce dependence and spend substantially more on defence

It is time our political pundits got over their bout of Trump derangement syndrome and tried to understand what the US President is hoping to achieve.

His one aim since entering politics has been to make America great again – a herculean task given the US at the moment is carrying a huge debt load that will necessitate crippling interest payments. Our commentators have correctly identified that the cost of Donald Trump’s tariffs will, for the most part, be borne by American citizens.

The President is obviously well aware of this, but the flip side is the money generated by the tariffs will swell American government coffers. This is why the US administration is reluctant to grant exemptions.

We Australians need to understand it’s not all about us.

Trump is not being vindictive, he is being pragmatic; he needs the money. He deserves credit for cajoling the Europeans into spending money on their own defence.

Australia should cease freeloading on America and substantially increase its defence budget.

Bruce Harvey, Moorine Rock, WA

There is an inherent contradiction in Donald Trump’s tariff plans that commentators seem to have overlooked. You can’t expect to have high tariffs and high tariff revenues at the same time.

If you have high tariffs, for industry protection reasons, or even non-tariff barriers that amount to import controls, the flow of imports will decline significantly by design and, accordingly, tariff revenue raised will be low. Raising revenue is more likely if tariffs are not too high.

Trade can continue, perhaps with some adjustment, but revenue will build up and the fiscal position improved. This is like imposing a new consumption tax on imported goods. A broad approach focusing on protection is clearly at odds with an effort to raise revenues through tariffs. It would be very difficult to design a system that meets both objectives well. But this seems to be what Trump is aiming at. Another Trump conundrum.

Denis Ives, Wakerley, Qld

Social media’s costs

After reading Paul Kelly’s thoughtful article (“Australia faces coming conflict with Trump’s ‘tech bros’ ”, 19/3), one could reasonably conclude that when one subtracts from any proposed tariffs on Australian companies a tally of the cost in dam­ages – from eating disorders, cyber-bullying, image abuse, rapid online radicalisation, self-harm and suicides – from American social media companies to Australian children’s mental and physical health across the past 15 years, then they owe Australia substantially.

Scott Palmer, Coffs Harbour, NSW

Limit of judicial power

Joe Kelly frames the threat of a constitutional crisis in the US as being the result of Donald Trump’s effort to expand executive power (“This is the real fight he has always wanted”, 19/3).

An alternative interpretation is that it is a much-needed executive pushback against the expansion of judicial power. We have seen similar judicial overreach in Britain and Australia. In a speech last week, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer railed against “a sort of cottage industry of checkers and blockers using taxpayer money to stop the government delivering on taxpayer priorities”.

His complaint resonates in Australia. The courts have been fully complicit in this here, in Britain and in the US. Should they be allowed to continue to expand their power so a single judge is able to thwart the ability of the executive to govern to give effect to the democratic will?

The answer is more complicated and nuanced than the slogan “constitutional crisis”.

Ramesh Thakur, Ocean Shores, NSW

Sanity in coal decision

At last some sanity in the energy debate, extending the life of yet another coal-fired power station, in Victoria (“Keeping coal: state sees light”, 19/3).

At considerable cost, the reality of looming blackouts is finally being addressed. Flying in the face of reality, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen continues to promote a renewables-only future and states his plan is on schedule despite expert opinion it is failing.

Graham Pinn, Maroochydore, Qld

Gulf of safety

It was great to see NASA astronauts land safely and leave their capsule. I was confused as to where they landed, as one report said they landed in the Gulf of Mexico while another had them landing in the Gulf of America.

It is a trivial Trump-based silliness but what would happen if other places had multiple names and they needed to be reached swiftly?

It is also great to see the NASA brand on an extended coverage on TV, but how soon will the branding become SpaceX or another company? America should support NASA.

Dennis Fitzgerald, Box Hill, Vic