How can the President’s tariff revenues be used?
The President has justified his tariff mania by saying “Deficits pose a threat to national security,” “other countries heavily subsidize their exports,” “other countries impose punitive tariffs on the US”, “other countries don’t allow US products into their country”, “we need to bring manufacturing back into this country,” “we need to balance trade,” “we need to stop fentanyl”, “it will help balance the budget,” “it can replace income taxes,” “I’ve decided for purposes of fairness that I will charge a reciprocal tariff,” “retaliation,” “tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again.” Whew! Did I leave out anything?
I am not going to dissect all of that but I was wondering if you were wondering what Trump is going to do with the revenues from the tariffs? The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in the coming fiscal year that tariff revenue could reach almost $1 trillion ($942 billion). The Trumpers are probably doing high fives but it is likely that the CBO figures are an overstatement. Actual imports are falling and with it will fall tariff revenues. Higher prices mean less quantity demanded and less quantity demanded leads to a lower supply of goods imported which in turn means lower tariff revenues.
What could Trump do with the money coming from the tariffs? Could he subsidize US exports to compete with subsidized imports? Could he lower income taxes dollar for dollar for the tariffs collected? Could he use the money to build much needed new merchant marine ships? Could he use it to eliminate all taxes collected from active duty military? Trump said that the tariffs will be used to “put America in the green.” So could tariffs be earmarked to reduce the federal debt? Or how about using the tariffs to offset decreases in revenues from the tax cuts? Or using the tariffs to compensate US farmers and exporters from the losses incurred through the retaliatory tariffs of others? Lately, he is talking about sending checks out to the public, “We have so much money coming in, we’re thinking about a little rebate.” Can Trump do any of this?
In a word, no unless he gets a special appropriation from congress. When the tariffs are collected they go into the Treasury’s general fund and become indistinguishable from any other revenue source. All dollars are fungible. Only congress can allocate monies from the general fund and not the president. Trump can say that he is going to rebate the tarrifs but he cannot do it. That would take an act of congress and to date Trump has not issued any instruction to his congressional minions on how he would like to see tariff revenues used. Of course he could tell congress that the next budget will be less by the projected intake of tariffs. Fat chance.
In the meanwhile, the great tariff shakedown tour continues. Japan has agreed to a 15 percent tariff on their goods. That means that Ford and GM should transport their Mexican and Canadian vehicles though Japan where they will be assessed 15% rather than 25%. Then Trump is crowing that the Japanese deal includes a commitment by the Japanese to invest $500 billion in the US. Someone needs to tell the president that foreign investment inflows are counted as an increase the US trade deficit. Yikes! Does that mean that the increasing US trade deficit caused by the Japanese investment will cause Trump to further increase tariffs to try to reduce the deficit that was increased by the Japanese agreement? Does this make sense to anyone other than Trump? Can anyone who has the president’s ear have the guts to point out this madness? Does anyone else have the vision of an emperor with no clothes?
Again, if somehow Trump’s reasons come to pass then I will be among the first to issue mea culpas. My PhD advisor, the great Karl Brunner, would hammer into his students that there are always exceptions or else economics becomes a tautology and becomes a useless collection of axioms. So are Trump’s the exception to all history? Could Adam Smith and every economist not on Trump’s payroll be wrong? I seriously doubt it but I always have said “prove me wrong and I will adopt your opinion.” That goes too for the president and his tariffs.
BTW, I thought the International Court of Trade ruled that Trump doesn’t have the authority to enact tariffs. So is that opinion not binding?