Posted on 12/06/2016 1:29:12 AM PST by reaganaut1
WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders signaled on Monday that they would not support President-elect Donald J. Trump’s threat to impose a heavy tax on companies that move jobs overseas, the first significant confrontation over the conservative economic orthodoxy that Mr. Trump relishes trampling.
“I don’t want to get into some kind of trade war,” Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and majority leader, told reporters in response to Mr. Trump’s threats over the weekend to seek a 35 percent import tariff on goods sold by United States companies that move jobs overseas and displace American workers.
Speaker Paul D. Ryan also pushed back against Mr. Trump on Monday in an interview with a Wisconsin reporter, saying an overhaul of the corporate tax code would more effectively keep companies in the United States than tax penalties. “I think we can get at the goal here,” he said, “which is to keep American businesses American, build things in America and sell them overseas — that can be properly addressed with comprehensive tax reform.”
Mr. Trump’s economic positions clashed with traditional conservatives during the campaign, but now these differences — on trade, government spending on infrastructure, and tax policies — have set the incoming president on a perilous course with the lawmakers whose support he needs to keep his agenda on track.
“There will be a tax on our soon to be strong border of 35 percent for these companies wanting to sell their product, cars, A.C. units etc., back across the border,” Mr. Trump said in a series of Twitter messages over the weekend.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The House will do what President Trump tells them, lest they get individual nasty surprises like the ones dished out on November 8th. :)
There's a 98.1% chance that Hillary will be elected president 4 weeks ago... :)
Uh, folks this is simply more fake news from that fake news source NYT.
The House is just mouthing off while they still can, and the NYT is genning this up as a great war between the House and President Trump. The House won’t know what hit them if they actually DO try to obstruct President Trump when he fires up his bully pulpit to appeal directly to the people while privately signalling that his primarying efforts are under way.
I would rather pay $13.50 for a hammer made in America and put the money in a fellow American’s pocket than in the pockets of those dangerous maniacs who hate us.
I remember when you spent a good buck for an American made tool designed by engineers instead of pencil necked geeks which lasted you and your son a lifetime instead of falling part after a few months.
Veto the traitors bill
Smooooooooooot. </s>
I said from the beginning they would suddenly discover all those powers they seemed to forget they had to stop a President.
Ryan is an amnesty pimp and so is the Turtle.
We tax all our exports and place no tax on any imports, and we have a half a trillion dollar trade deficit. So tell me how is that working out for the USA?
We are in a trade war already and we are getting our asses kicked. The big corporations are making a killing and the US government is raking in billions in taxes and main street is dying.
The House republicans are showing who their real masters are the Chamber of Crony Commerce. FAIR-FREE Trade, no more just free trade.
IS IT TOO EARLY TO START CALLING THIS THE “FAILED TRUMP ADMINISTRATION”????
Trade treaties are treaties, and are approved only by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate.
The principle of a President unilaterally voiding an existing treaty may have started back in the Indian/Native American treaty days. In the post WW2 era, this started up again when Jimmy Carter voided treaties with the Republic of China. Some members of the Senate objected.
In Goldwater v. Carter (1979), 79-856, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that treaties, even though they are law next to the U.S. Constitution, and have higher priority than other laws, that withdrawal from a treaty can be done by the President unilaterally, and that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the authority to intervene in political issues. Burger, Stewart, Stevens, Marshall, Rehnquist and Powell concurred, while White, Blackmun, and Brennan dissented, due to Constitutional issues.
And promises made by a U.S. President to other nations without a treaty, e.g. “Climate Change” promise to deindustrialize the U.S., in addition to violating the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution, have no force of law.
Learn? From what? ‘Life’? Majority of these feckless nobodies haven’t WORKED a day in their lives in the public sector; let alone ran a biz, paid employees, dealt w/ red-tape...To paraphrase a great thinker: They’re run out of sand given control of the Sahara.
Let alone they let the THOUGHT of ‘small govt’ zip through their brain cell(s). Tax cuts won’t get anyone back when the oppressive bureaucracy remains (how many boxes of paper were wasted on the Zero’s last few months w/ regs and edicts and ...)
Good response.
Right, that’s my understanding as well.
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.