Trump’s tariffs day in Court
The president just called me a fool. On that point at least one of my readers would agree. Why? Because I – like a few others – oppose his tariffs. Here is what he said: “People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS! We are now the Richest, Most Respected Country In the World, With Almost No Inflation, and A Record Stock Market Price. 401k’s are Highest EVER. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”
I guess the president feels that it is obvious that his tariffs are making us “rich as hell.” There will be trillions flowing in so we will replace the income tax, pay off the debt and give everyone (except the rich folk) $2,000 so what’s not to love? BTW wasn’t $2,000 the figure that the democrats were using in the campaign for the impact of Trump’s then proposed tariffs on American households?
I am not going over old ground. Secretary Bessent has said that the tariffs would bring in $400 billion. But the debt is growing by $1.8 trillion and simple math – a problem for this president – tells us that the tariffs can do none of the things that he has promised. A rebate of $2,000 excluding high incomes would amount to $600 billion. Where is the money just to do the rebate? So Bessent is forced to become the president’s translator. Well, he said, the rebate (he calls it a dividend) could actually come in many forms. “You know, it could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda — you know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, deductibility of auto loans.” In other words, not from tariffs. The president misspoke, only he is not aware that he did.
The government is having to tie itself in knots in its arguments before the Supreme Court. Since the Constitution gives the power to tax to the Congress and not to the president, the administration has had to argue that the tariffs are not a tax. Solicitor General John Sauer said that “They are not revenue-raising tariffs.” Excuse me? Then what are they? Sauer knows that only the Congress is given the power to raise revenues through tariffs and taxes. So what is he now calling the tariffs? The real impact of the tariffs is one of the largest tax increases in history ($3.9 trillion over the next decade). Sauer even said “The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental. The tariffs would be most effective, so to speak, if no person ever paid them.” Huh? But if no one paid them, how could they raise revenues? Mr Sauer is tying himself in knots.
The justices are not buying the administration’s argument. Justice Gorsuch said “The really key part of the context here…is [that] the constitutional assignment of the taxing power to Congress, the power to reach into the pockets of the American people, is just different and it’s been different since the founding.”
Of course the law does allow the president to impose tariffs as a means to regulate imports in case of a national emergency. Here is where the president erred by imposing a universal tariff on every country, island, archipelago and coral reef in the world. It is hard to argue that Lesotho is a threat to national security. On that point, Chief Justice Roberts said that the “power to impose tariffs on any product from any country in any amount for any length of time, it does seem like that’s a major authority. Trump’s “vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress.”
I would be shocked if the administration prevails. I would also be shocked if the decision were not unanimous.
haroldblackphd.com 
Targeted tariffs would be more constructive.
LikeLike
Indeed. I have made that point from day one.
LikeLike
What I’m looking for is how other countries react- when and why..
BullionByPost is a UK company that has a site, explaining why silver is better than gold for investment buying. Their 5 Reasons of gold vs silver are impressive..
And yet..
At the top of their site is a disclaimer- that they cannot rely or relay rates—because of tariffs. Their investment projections are onhold..
SCOTUS would not target the President in any decision. What they would target is Congress, and its cowardice and abandonment of duty.
LikeLike
The republicans in congress – except Massie and Paul – are scared of Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the fentanyl crisis is not a crisis, then what is?
If the Chinese product dumping and unfair trade practices are not a crisis, what is?
The Chinese are using the Banks in Canada to launder their fentanyl proceeds, dumping cheap electric vehicles in worldwide……they have infected the world with their undermining trade practices.
I can go on and on. But the Chinese are aiming to undermine us Worldwide. They are trying to assume the means of production worldwide, using unfair trade practices and government subsidies. It is a worldwide problem.
We can sit on our hands and watch it happen. And be the blind champions of free markets. When China isn’t playing by the rules. Or we can do something about it……..
I prefer to do something about it. So that my grandchildren don’t have to adhere to the Chinese Communist Party.
LikeLike
I completely agree and said from the beginning to put a 1000% tariff on China. My issue is with the universal tariffs. I regret that we keep talking cross purposes on this.
LikeLike
The universal tariff is designed to give the US Government the leverage to negotiate with other Governments to head off the Chinese.
The Chinese would simply use other Countries as proxies to get around the Tariffs on themselves. If not for the Universal tariff.
I suspect those who work with the US to combat China will see their tariffs reduced.
LikeLike
Uncle! This is hopeless. Trumps universal tariffs were independent of the Chinese. Remember that he threatened to double a country’s tariffs if China were routing goods through them. So have the last word because this is nonproductive and frustrating.
LikeLike
I would prefer a world without tariffs too.
Unfortunately the Chinese don’t want to trade fairly and the WTO is worthless.
I think it is a significant enough problem to warrant a special circumstance for Executive action without Congressional approval.
We shall see what the Supreme Court decides. They will decide the issue, as they should. Because we don’t want tariffs without justification.
LikeLike
To all:
This is just a little tidbit fm the other side of the world, a different approach to China Domination..
I’ve pulled out the part that interests me. And ask , is this statement true? Or should it be true? Is this Oct article ancient history?..
https://www.trtafrika.com/english/article/d572190eaa1d
…”The political symbolism is equally clear. The United States continues to withdraw from global commitments under President Donald Trump’s America First policy.
As Washington retreats, Beijing steps forward. The GGI is a calculated response to the vacuum in global leadership, particularly within institutions that were once led by Western powers..”
LikeLike
It’s true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It doesn’t seem to me that this Administration is pulling back from the World. NATO Countries are now spending more money on defense to counter Russia. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and other Asian Countries are spending more on defense to counter China. Immense pressure is being put on India to join us rather than the BRICS. The US is very actively working with all those Countries.
All Countries are engaged with us more than ever now with the tariffs. Rather than breaking our Treasury with simple cash payments to these Countries(USAID). We can offer them tariff breaks to counter the Chinese/Russians.
This administration is confronting problems around the world head on. I wouldn’t call that a pull back. I would call it changing the way we reward those who work with us. Given our current budget deficits. It seems to me a more fiscally prudent way to approach the BRICS aggressive undermining.
LikeLike
Well stated. I have no objection for a President that just focuses on international policy..
But he should have been more outspoken about the globe, when he was running for president..
Maybe Trump realized that the people behind America First carry a mantle for isolation..
How many times do you hear Proud Boys criticizing Trump?
HuffPost past June:..
..”If the United States gets directly involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, the voters that voted for Trump because there was a hope that Trump was America First can no longer support Trump,” the Proud Boys account posted to Telegram on Wednesday. “America First does not mean war for Israel. Donald Trump, focus on the health of our nation, period. We are crumbling. We are crippled with debt with no plan for a solution. Be the President you ran as.”…
No idea if Proud Boys see global trade as a domestic boom.
LikeLike