Planned Tariffs, An Economy Argument with Political Implications

Former Sen. Pat Toomey (R), represented the key state of Pennsylvania for 12 years in the Senate. He said he would not vote for former President Trump or Vice President Harris in the November 2024 election. (Psst, pre-November 2024 election commentary).

I do not know if this person actually did not vote for either Trump or Kamala Harris. He said he would not do so for either. It was a mistake not to vote at all besides voting for Trump after his last reign as President and an attempted takeover of the nation. As compared to other national elections for a president, millions also did not vote this time around.

I guess that might, might be better than voting for Mickey Mouse, the family dog, etc. which placed Trump in office for his initial reign as a president. Pat did vote for Trump in 2016. I guess that was not enough of an experience to realize what a danger Trump could be the second time around. Allegiance to Republicans? Harris is more of a danger? The lesser of two evils? One real and the other perceived?

He complains about Trump’s planned tariffs before the election. I subscribe to the WSJ so I get to read these little nuggets out there. This (Pat’s) is like a told-you-so one month before the election and your choice was NOT to vote.

About Trump’s ‘Reciprocal’ Tariffs, WSJ, by Pat Toomey, October 2024.

Pat’s argument against tariffs to Trump.

Donald Trump recently declared that only stupidity could explain my opposition to his reciprocal-tariff proposals. There are other explanations. Concern for Americans’ jobs and standard of living comes to mind.

I understand the emotional appeal of trade-rules reciprocity—it satisfies an urge for revenge. But that revenge will be less satisfying for the working-class Americans facing unemployment and higher prices if Mr. Trump carries through on his import-tax promises.

As I tried to explain to Mr. Trump when he was president, another country’s misguided decision to tax its citizens on what they buy from American manufacturers isn’t a good reason to punish Americans who wish to buy that country’s products. But Mr. Trump is determined to punish American consumers for the misfortune indirectly imposed on our export-heavy manufacturers. This is his idea of fairness.

Mr. Trump sees low tariffs as a concession the U.S. makes to other countries to our own detriment. But low taxes on imports give American consumers more choices, cheaper prices and a higher standard of living. Low tariffs also make American manufacturers more competitive: Imports and foreign competition allow for low input prices. Americans benefit the most from low tariffs.

Mr. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs would effectively allow other countries to determine how the U.S. taxes its own citizens. So much for America first. And Mr. Trump often contradicts himself on reciprocity. On a trade-weighted basis, the U.K., Europe and Canada all impose lower taxes on American manufactured goods than the U.S. imposes on comparable imports. Mr. Trump isn’t proposing that we match their lower tariffs, but to add another 10 percentage points—minimum—to the tariffs we impose on Americans who buy goods from Europe and Canada.

Mr. Trump contradicts himself again when he claims that tariffs won’t lead to higher prices for Americans and that tariffs will drive an American manufacturing renaissance. Both can’t be true: If American consumers don’t face higher prices on tariffed imports, why would they begin purchasing domestic products?

Mr. Trump’s strategy would be reasonable if his tariffs were intended to persuade countries to lower theirs. Zero trade restrictions with allies is the economically optimal arrangement. If tariffs could get us there, they might be worth the try. But Mr. Trump declared himself “Tariff Man” because he sees trade restrictions as superior to free trade.

No country has ever tariffed its way to prosperity. China’s growth took off as it lowered tariffs. Today the nations with the highest tariffs are economic basket cases, including Iran and Venezuela. The American economy has dramatically outperformed developed economies, such as Japan, that have pursued a more protectionist path.

Free trade benefits all Americans, even when the terms are asymmetrical. I obviously failed to convince President Trump with my economic arguments, so I’ll try a political angle: There is a historical example of a presidential candidate who ran on a platform to raise Americans’ taxes. It didn’t turn out well for Walter Mondale. End of Pat’s Commentary.

AB: This is all a reasonable and valid argument and he made it before the election. Obviously, the argument was not loud enough to capture the attention of the millions of non-voters and Trump voters. He said it, “He (“I”)” did nothing to stop the re-election of Trump. I just did not vote for either candidate.