President Donald Trump has been the biggest advocate of protectionism to occupy the White House since Herbert Hoover. So far, though, the Trump administration has taken a limited, more conventional approach to trade imbalances, using tariffs only to raise the cost of imported materials and products that were allegedly being dumped into United States at below-cost prices.

Now, an independent federal agency that adjudicates trade disputes is urging Trump to broaden the shield that the U.S. already provides domestic solar panel manufacturers against unfair foreign competitors. The International Trade Commission on Tuesday called for the imposition of temporary emergency tariffs of up to 35 percent on foreign-made solar panels and modules, with no need for proof of dumping or subsidies, to give two U.S. companies time to adapt to a surge in imports.

It’s easy to be sympathetic to the plight of the two solar-power manufacturers, Suniva and Solar World. Competition from Asian manufacturers has driven dozens of U.S. companies out of business in recent years, and not necessarily for good reason — the United States has penalized Chinese- and Taiwanese-based solar panel manufacturers for using government subsidies and below-cost pricing to boost sales, and the Obama administration indicted Chinese military hackers for allegedly stealing trade secrets from Solar World and other U.S. firms.

Yet if Trump does impose tariffs that raise the price of solar panels and modules, the penalty will ultimately be paid by Americans who convert to solar power. Worse, it could make solar power uneconomic for at least some of those people who might have bought panels for their homes or businesses.

Beyond that, temporary tariffs won’t eliminate the advantages that many foreign manufacturers have, including low wages and minimal regulation. The better course is to use trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Trump abandoned, to attack the systemic problems that tilt the playing field against U.S. companies. Meanwhile, policymakers have to equip current and future generations of U.S. workers with the skills they need to fill the jobs being created now. A four-year tariff may seem like a much simpler way to rescue an embattled U.S. industry. But it’s no real fix, and the costs are higher than the benefits.

—Los Angeles Times

Nov. 2 isn’t a national holiday, but it warrants recognition for a reason that isn’t exactly worth celebrating.

It’s Latina Women’s Equal Pay Day, the approximate day to which the average Hispanic woman must work in 2017 to make the same amount of money the average man did during 2016.

Indeed, according to calculations based on U.S. Census data, the average Latina is paid about 46 percent less than her average white male counterpart.

Critics are mostly correct that the wage gap doesn’t mean a man and a woman with the exact same experience and skills in the exact same job, working the exact same hours are paid dramatically different salaries.

The truth is there are a lot of factors that contribute to the difference in pay between sexes and ethnicities, including the type of job someone has — something contingent on education, training, experience and opportunity.

Quality child care, for example, is an important factor for working moms. While members of the Hispanic community are less likely to use child care for cultural reasons, accessibility and availability are issues, too.

Similarly, completing high school and earning higher degrees lead to better jobs and higher salaries. The Hispanic high school dropout rate is declining, and Hispanics are getting more post-secondary education than ever before, but as a population, they still lag behind other groups in obtaining a four-year-degree.

That’s why any discussion about the wage gap, especially as it relates to the Hispanic community, should start with ideas for how we can increase opportunity, improve access to education and training and enhance support for working moms.