There is a protectionist, on this very thread, who recommended a 100% tariff on all imports into the US. Of course he insisted that doubling the price of foreign sourced oil would have no impact on the price of US sourced oil, so he might not be the strongest advocate of the protectionist mantra.
For instance a 20% duty on electronics would be more than justified.
Excellent! I'm sure there would be no pressure to impose a tariff on the competition of Solyndra, for example. All tariffs would be strictly based on the economic well being of the country.
Like the legislation that causes 300 million of us to pay double or triple the world price for sugar, to help a few sugar cane growers.
But an oil tariff would increase political pressure to deregulate, that's for sure.
Every time the government has crushed our economy with their stupid policies, we've always reduced regulations. Right. /sarc
So who would possibly wonder whether political considerations would come into play when our politicians, in their infinite wisdom, determine the future of the Republic?
I would only favor that large of a duty on imports if it would replace the income tax. What I mean a repeal the 16th amendment, because we would end up with both.
Never mind Molycorp, it only mines rare earth minerals. Higher taxes should fix everything, especially when China controls the world's supply of rare earths, now.The federal government has asserted claims for damages to groundwater in a natural resource damage case in New Mexico involving Chevron/Molycorp. Free Republic.
And the larger question is: why does it take a “free traitor” to point out the above? Is every protectionist just sitting on his or her fat ass waiting for the government to protect them?