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.