Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tariffs First, Farm Subsidies Later?
Wall Street Journal ^ | April 13, 2018

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial
KEYWORDS: farmsubsidies; tariffs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 04/16/2018 6:52:20 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Robbing Peter to pay Paul looking for Paul’s vote.


2 posted on 04/16/2018 6:55:25 AM PDT by Don Corleone ( lose the gun. save the cannolis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.

Big time.


3 posted on 04/16/2018 7:04:35 AM PDT by cba123 ( Toi la nguoi My. Toi bay gio o Viet Nam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


4 posted on 04/16/2018 7:07:07 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cba123

Everyone thinks that we’re the first one to ever think of using tariffs to level the playing field.


5 posted on 04/16/2018 7:11:05 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Agriculture, of which only 4% of the US workforce is involved with, is WAY over represented in the current political climate.

The gas lighting Smithian surrender monkeys will be defeated. Go Trump, more tariffs please!

6 posted on 04/16/2018 7:11:11 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cba123

Tariffs are Patriot candy!


7 posted on 04/16/2018 7:11:59 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


8 posted on 04/16/2018 7:13:00 AM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


9 posted on 04/16/2018 7:14:46 AM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Don’t want to hurt no kangaroos.


10 posted on 04/16/2018 7:17:08 AM PDT by Lisbon1940 (No full-term Governors (at the time of election!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The Europeans, Russians and China subsidize their farmers to the tune of billions of dollars.

And the US doesn't? The US Department of Agriculture has an annual budget of $150+ billion. You're paying for that.

11 posted on 04/16/2018 7:18:42 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley also likes tariff income redistribution.

You don't say? I wonder why...

;-)

12 posted on 04/16/2018 7:26:03 AM PDT by WayneS (An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Tax increases beget welfare.

How conservative.


13 posted on 04/16/2018 7:59:07 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (A Second Amendment march to deny leftists their First Amendment rights. Turnabout is fair play.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

ag budget of 150 billion is primarily food stamps.


14 posted on 04/16/2018 8:16:28 AM PDT by krug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: krug
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.

15 posted on 04/16/2018 11:24:20 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“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


16 posted on 04/16/2018 4:42:14 PM PDT by JPJones (More tariffs, less income tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPJones
Wow! Trump imposed tariffs on our own farmers!

No, he's talking about imposing tariffs on China who will, predictably, impose tariffs on our farmers.

A distinction without a difference.

17 posted on 04/16/2018 4:47:24 PM PDT by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: semimojo

“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.


18 posted on 04/16/2018 5:04:49 PM PDT by JPJones (More tariffs, less income tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JPJones
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.

19 posted on 04/16/2018 8:30:01 PM PDT by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: semimojo

“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.


20 posted on 04/16/2018 8:47:27 PM PDT by JPJones (More tariffs, less income tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson