Skip to comments.Tariffs First, Farm Subsidies Later?
Posted on 04/16/2018 6:52:20 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The Obama Administration tried to put the coal industry out of business, and in the 2016 presidential campaign Hillary Clinton proposed subsidies to ease the financial pain government had created. The question is why President Trump would adopt this economic method with an idea to increase subsidies to farmers hurt by the Trump tariffs.
Mr. Trump has been getting an earful about the damage that his tariffs-first trade policy might do to U.S. farmers if countries like China retaliate. But instead of dropping the tariffs, Mr. Trump and some of his advisers are floating the idea of increasing farm subsidies to compensate, say, soybean farmers whose export sales and incomes fall. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley also likes tariff income redistribution.
Another bad idea is to subsidize farmers through the Commodity Credit Corporation, the New Deal program that can borrow up to $30 billion from the Treasury. Just what America needs: More government debt to pay off voters hurt by U.S. government policy.
The savant behind this idea appears to be adviser Peter Navarro, an inspiration that in America anyone can grow up to be an economist. Cooler heads do exist, however, including in farm states.
At a White House meeting on Thursday, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds made an ardent case to Mr. Trump that farmers want to compete rather than take handouts. Pat Roberts of Kansas said on the PBS NewsHour that farmers want trade, not aid. Ben Sasse of Nebraska has called the subsidy proposal Saturday-morning-cartoon central planning, which is an insult to the Roadrunner.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Robbing Peter to pay Paul looking for Paul’s vote.
We really, really need to correct our trade situation vis-a-vis China.
Our deficit was $375,000,000,000.00 last year. The highest on record. Any year.
And it is getting worse this year.
Trump ran on this issue. It is one of the reasons I have supported him since the beginning.
Tariffs are the first and most important step to correcting our trade imbalance with China, and some other countries.
I am all for tariffs. Maybe it will cause other countries to adjust the situation in our favor. Maybe not.
But to start with, 100% I am all for them.
Now. First. To start with.
The Europeans, Russians and China subsidize their farmers to the tune of billions of dollars.
Only the WSJ still peddles the nonsense American farmers have a level playing field.
Uh no - they don’t.
Everyone thinks that we’re the first one to ever think of using tariffs to level the playing field.
The gas lighting Smithian surrender monkeys will be defeated. Go Trump, more tariffs please!
Tariffs are Patriot candy!
If farm subsidies means paying farmers not to plant crops, I’m agin’ it. Same with localities allowing rich landowners to call their large properties farms and tax them at a much lower rate than they tax my meager holdings, when they don’t plant or harvest a bloody thing.
the corporate income tax was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be an “excise tax”, which is the only reason why it was ruled as “constitutional”. An excise tax is a tax on GOODS, ie a consumption tax.....but our corporate income tax fails as a consumption tax because it is inefficient & extremely difficult & costly to collect. Not only that, but our corporate income tax taxes EXPORTS, but not imports.
It makes sense, therefore....for the President to make an executive order to say there will not be any excise tax levied against goods manufactured & sold beyond our borders....giving us a territorial tax system other countries have. Then we should go further.
We should replace the payroll tax AND the corporate income tax by consumption taxes, such as the VAT. A 20% VAT would do. A VAT would tax IMPORTS, not exports......and would eliminate a regressive, destructive, first-dollar-tax-with-no-deductions on work, jobs, wages & raises. Billionaires pay Social Security tax only on their first $118,000. It’s a mystery why Paul Ryan in his tax reform did not take the 10% or 12% tax bracket all the way up to the $118,000 cap on the Social Security tax & yet called it a historic reform that was aimed at helping small business,professionals entrepreneurs, and middle class workers. It was politically crazy to keep the charitable deduction but eliminate deductions for state & local property tax. The property tax is a stealth additional income tax that hits the middle class hard & is how the rich & the poor screw the middle class. (one of many ways the rich & poor screw the middle class). The property tax already is regressive——so taking away the tax deductions for state & local property tax or even seriously discussing it is just plain mean & stupid......& is an election loser.
a smart tax code & smart tax reform would help exports and tax imports without starting a trade war.
Dont want to hurt no kangaroos.
And the US doesn't? The US Department of Agriculture has an annual budget of $150+ billion. You're paying for that.
You don't say? I wonder why...
Tax increases beget welfare.
ag budget of 150 billion is primarily food stamps.
Food stamps are themselves a huge ag subsidy but tens of billions aren't going to food stamps. Talking direct subsidies, "rural development", "conservation," crop insurance, etc.
“The question is why President Trump would adopt this economic method with an idea to increase subsidies to farmers hurt by the Trump tariffs. “
Wow! Trump imposed tariffs on our own farmers!
Boy, what a jerk./s
No, he's talking about imposing tariffs on China who will, predictably, impose tariffs on our farmers.
A distinction without a difference.
“No, he’s talking about imposing tariffs on China who will, predictably, impose tariffs on our farmers.”
Yes, I know.
“A distinction without a difference. “
Blaming Trump for China’s actions.
Both sides are taking actions and we know the steps of this dance.
It might well be worth it to hit the farmers in exchange for better trade terms but don't pretend our tariffs don't have a price.
“It might well be worth it to hit the farmers in exchange for better trade terms but don’t pretend our tariffs don’t have a price. “
Ok, but don’t YOU pretend that China didn’t have hugh tariffs long before Trump came along to right the boat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.