Please see your post 191, where you state (emphasis on tariffs is yours):
If I misunderstood your point, I am sorry. When you talked of wanting to increase fees and tariffs because of costs I assumed you were talking about fees and tariffs.
Really? Where did I say any such thing?
When you call for an increased tariffs. Tariffs are applied uniformly across the nation; fees are localized to the particular port of entry. When you call for increased tariffs (and I hope from your post 191 you can understand my confusion) you call for the costs at ALL ports to be increased.
There are a dozen ways to do it. I did not propose one or another. The point is we shouldn't be subsidizing foreign imports and putting our competing industry out of business as a result.
OK then you would support an approach that simply increased the port fees commensurately? No need to even use tariffs? What would be a solution you might like?
In the context that I used the word “tariff,” which you quoted in your post, I clearly was talking about a revenue-type tariff to relieve the costs born by taxpayers of such trade. And yes — you most obviously misunderstod my point.
One more time — I said the cost of imports should not be subsidized and should be charged to those who receive the direct benefit. Whatever term you would like to attribute to that charge (tax, fee, tariff, contribution, donation) matters little to me.
I did not “call for the costs at ALL ports to be increased.” Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth?