Hey, you know who’s going to pay for Dear Leader’s wall? You and me and everyone else in the country.
The Trump administration sparked widespread surprise Thursday by announcing it intended to implement a 20 percent tax on Mexican imports to pay for a coming border wall — followed by extreme confusion when it appeared to walk back the statement later that afternoon.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer made the initial announcement Thursday afternoon aboard Air Force One, as President Trump returned from a meeting with House Republicans in Philadelphia.
“Right now, our country’s policy is to tax exports and let imports flow freely in, which is ridiculous,” he told reporters. “By [imposing the tax], we can do $10 billion a year and easily pay for the wall just through that mechanism alone. That’s really going to provide the funding.”
Spicer further indicated that the administration has “been in close contact with both houses” of Congress.
“It clearly provides the funding, and does so in a way that the American taxpayer is wholly respected,” he added.
Later on Thursday, however, White House officials sought to characterize the tariff as one of several options to fund the wall, according to multiple news reports.
If passed by Congress, such a move is all but certain to have a dramatic affect on the U.S. economy and particularly in Texas, which imports far more from Mexico than from any other country, according to U.S. Census data.
Hmm, so that would be bad for the Texas economy. What does Dan Patrick think about that?
Many business and political leaders in trade-dependent Texas already have expressed reservations about the proposed import tax proposal itself, even without linking it to the wall.
Gov. Greg Abbott, who has championed increased trade with Texas’ southern neighbor since he became governor a year ago, had no immediate comment on Spicer’s suggestion.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, an outspoken supporter of the wall who served as Trump’s campaign chairman in Texas, told Fox News that he was “not too concerned” about any adverse impact of such a tax. He suggested the proposal could be “the first warning shot across the bow” fired by Trump, and that the tax could end up being something less.
It’s only a little tax. You won’t even notice it. Also, of course Greg Abbott had no comment. I don’t know why anyone bothers to ask any more.
Now here’s a statement I got from the Texas Association of Business about this idea:
The following statement may be attributed to Texas Association of Business President Chris Wallace.
“Texas’ number one trading partner by far is Mexico, and imposing a 20 percent tax on Mexican imports to fund a border wall would hurt the Texas economy. This proposal could mean a loss of jobs and a hit to state tax revenues. We look forward to working with our Texas congressional delegation and our TAB members to address this proposal and I would encourage our state leaders to make the economic ramifications of this proposal known.”
Dear Chris Wallace and TAB: Dan Patrick cares way more about his pet ideological obsessions than he does about your interests. What are you going to do about that? The Rivard Report and RG Ratcliffe have more.
(Patrick has since said in a Facebook comment about his TV appearance discussing the wall tax that he is not concerned about it because it won’t happen, and he doesn’t actually support it. Which isn’t what he said on TV, and doesn’t say that he would oppose it if it does become a thing that might happen. I think that’s pretty wishy-washy, but in the interests of accuracy, there you have it.)
A Politico article yesterday indicated that Rep. Kevin Brady is not opposed to the idea. He should be queried by local media, and by the way, Mr. Brady, please enumerate the ways in which a trade war would benefit the Port of Houston.
Please explain to me how a 20 ℅ import tax would cost jobs in America. Some politician makes a conclusury statement and he is quoted as if it is fact. Remember this America first is the same as Nazism.
Kubes, some of us are sill amazed at the blinding hypocrisy of Republicans calling for perniciously higher taxes, given all of that “power to destroy” BS we’ve heard for decades. You don’t need an explanation, you need a cold bucket of water in the face.
P,
“Republican hypocrisy” I couldn’t agree with you more on sooo many issues. I voted for Obama twice because of the hypocrisy I saw in Mcain and Romney. Clinton gave Bush a surplus and he squandered it. He personally raised the non-war budget by 40℅. I got that number from listening to Dan P on the radio years ago. It was his quote.
Yeah yeah, Bush is a RINO, heard that one too a long time ago and again recently. L’dOL. How long should I wait for some Republicans to say that about Trump?
Trump a Republican? really? Trump (in my opinion) is a Democrat that ran as a Republican. He was a Democrat before the word progressive was invented.
Now I’m ROFLMAO. It’s nice to see the early strategy is to blame Democrats for President Twitler, though. How long before you start the impeachment proceedings?
@P:
Trump’s a populist, who just finished a successful hostile takeover of the Republican party. While I think Trump made a misstep by trying to block green card holders, and another misstep by not excepting the current visa holders from his ban, especially the holders of the “helped American troops” visa, overall I’m thrilled with what he has done so far. He’s done exactly what he campaigned on doing thus far. Blame? Other than his inaugural address, I haven’t seen him or his supporters blame anyone. He has made some complaints, some valid, some not so valid, but no blame, he just got to work.
Impeachment? No. Congress ought to be figuring out what kind of medal to award Trump, and it’s only been a week and a half.