…and neutralize any survivors.
No need to sink them, just tie them to very short legal/societal anchor chains and the rising tide will pull them under.
In Game Theory, there’s two versions of the prisoner’s dilemma. In one, you’re better off to sell out your compatriot; in the other you want to keep your mouth shut. The difference is whether you’re playing the game once or playing the game over and over for a long sequence of rounds. Sometimes, the best way to calculate return comes from a long-term view instead of a short-term one.
Short term, with directed tariffs, you might lose. The hope would be that the loss of options encourages the leadership to reform the region and bring it back online in a more sustainable and humanitarian way. Long term, everyone gains. (In theory, obviously.)
I agree completely.
Yes, and also it gives a President “the power of the purse” that Congress used to have. Specifically, since revenues are flowing in from a source other than the traditional Treasury receipt-of-income-taxes-paid, the President can use the money entirely as he wishes without the inconvenience of Congress (and laws regarding government spending) intervening.
I don’t understand the reasoning, could you elaborate please?
I don’t believe this has ever been the case, including when the tariff was 90+% of government revenue.
Can you explain how this is the case?
Highly doubtful. Only Congress can impose taxes or duties, as set out in Article I, s. 8, clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, …
If the Prez does have the power to impose all the duties and import taxes that Trump has imposed, it’s by virtue of a statute under this provision.
And then, Article I, section 9, clause 9, requires that the expenditure of any funds must be authorized by a law passed by Congress:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;
But as we’ve seen with tariffs and declarations of war, this only matters if Congress has a willingness to defend their turf.
That’s correct.
Both income taxes and tariff revenues wind up in the US Treasury. However, where the income tax money goes next is largely pre-determined (by authorization Congress has passed). If they don’t pass equivalent laws for the revenues from tariffs there’s a resulting grey area for the disposition of those funds. And this is what Russel Vought and other Trumpites smarter than Donald are able to exploit. This is based on a claim that I want to provide citations for*, but it boils down to this:
This money isn’t usually earmarked; it goes into the Treasury’s general fund. Unlike, say, highway trust funds, tariff revenue isn’t typically designated for specific, ongoing programs but becomes part of the broader federal budget.
.
.
.
*I’ve seen this phenomenon–namely, Trump preferring tariffs to income taxes because he has more control over the disposition of the funds–several places. For some reason I’m not getting good hits tonight; I’ll keep looking.
This citation shows Donald enjoying the freedom of choice that tariff (as opposed to income tax) revenue gives him:
Trump’s solution to the bad economy is to give speeches where he calls affordability a hoax.
Meanwhile
I’m thinking of rationing my prescriptions when I lose my coverage in February. My wife already has to remind me to eat in the mornings. (And she gets a little mad when I just have low-carb toast.)
I usually make a 5-pound (three-rib) prime rib for Christmas dinner. This year I’m going to find a smaller roast. We do have one remaining can of snails, so at least there’s that. (I make very good escargots.)
I don’t think the above is true.
Please do. Also consider the possibility that you are misremembering, and that allocation of revenues from tariff are treated the same as revenues from income taxes (and excise taxes as well, save for special allocation of some such as the federal gas tax), as has been the case for over two centuries.
Your claimed cite:
is Donald Trump riffing on a question asked him about what the revenue from the tariff might be used for. He does not claim unilateral authority to do what he wants with the money; in fact he says “we” when talking about how to decide what tariff revenues might be used for, which would seem to include a role for others (such as Congress) to determine spending of the money.
That seems wildly generous to Trump. When has he ever used “we” in other than the Imperial sense? When has he ever implied that “we” means he’ll be giving Congress a role?
The raw facts about what happens to tariff money in the American system as of 2025, mean little in the face of Trump’s conviction that the money is his to dispose of as he pleases. He’s clearly indicated that this is the belief he will be acting on.
Trump has variously suggested the tariff revenue could pay for the $2,000 dividend checks he promised to “individuals of moderate and middle income”, paying for the tax cuts that were added over the summer, a $12 billion bailout fund for farmers (who only need the bailout after China stopped buying American soybeans because of the tariffs), lowering the national debt, and about half a dozen other things. The tariff revenue is like a magic bag that can provide whatever is needed at the moment.
Yep. And no one can tell Donald what to do with it…it’s totally his to dispense as he wishes. (Or so he believes–and who is going to stop him?)
The $2000 check option would be like if you charged me for smoking in public, ostensibly to encourage me to stop doing it, and then gave me the money back after I’d handed it to you, saying, “Vote Dewey!” Smoking in public is good? Are we supposed to buy Chinese products after all?
Trump was talking “DOGE dividends”, before Musk left. I assume that they dropped that particular idea because Musk refused to endorse it.
In any case, the fact that he’s waiting nearly two years to do is a pretty clear attempt to buy mid-term votes with government checks.
Jim Beam shuts down its main distillery for a year. Nothing to do with Trump, of course. Just cuz.
Sales of bourbon are down, especially to Canada (down 85%). Nothing to do with Trump, of course. Just cuz.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jim-beam-bourbon-production-9.7025111
Sobering, isn’t it? Serves them right.
It’s not a tarriff, it’s a Patriot Tax…
Wait, it’s not a tax…
It’s…wait.
Two weeks.