Post #7581 Rant of the Day: Trump's Un-Presidential Meltdown on the SCOTUS Tariff Decision

 Free trade is an underlying Constitutional construct of commerce among American states: via Google AI:

Now, the Constitution, until the 16th amendment, did not allow direct taxes like income; it relied on low, non-protectionist tariffs and excise taxes to finance the general government:

Tariffs had been contentious since Hamilton wanted to protect emerging industries from overseas competition.

As Hamiltonians discriminated against foreign goods, trading partners targeted American exports, especially those from the South. This exacerbated  economic regional differences as Southerners found their products paying the price of industrial protection while having to pay the higher prices of a less competitive marketplace. It was a huge issue during the Jackson Administration, also resurfacing during the early Civil War; if you go to Lincoln's first inaugural address, he was willing to negotiate slavery nut not the loss of tariff revenue; he could see lower-tariff Southern ports as a workaround to Union ports.

The issue of protectionist tariffs was mostly pursued by the Whigs, then the Republicans in the 19th century through the Depression:

The end of the GOP embrace of protective tariffs (until Trump) was the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs under Hoover, which exacerbated the Great Depression.

FDR stepped away from Hoover's global trade war with Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 which encouraged POTUS to negotiate mutually beneficial lower tariff rates and other protectionist trade barriers:

The RTAA was renewed 11 times under bipartisan leadership, transitioning to compatible international agreements like GATT under JFK/LBJ and WTO under Clinton. The basic exception was Nixon's protectionism: 

So, clearly Trump's economic nationalism is the closest parallel to Nixon's protectionism. Nevertheless, you saw some managed trade violations with other Presidents, like Carter on footware, Reagan on Japanese car import quotas, and George W. Bush on steel tariffs. But for the most part. you saw the Presidents using Congressional delegated authority to rapidly expand mutually favorable trading terms with additional partners. There has been some pushback from leftists on labor protectionist grounds, labor rates in partner nations, and/or inadequate environmental policies. Obama attempted to negotiate TPP (Pacific trade) and TTIP (Europe), but Trump killed these initiatives.
 

I found it useful to look at tariffs as a percentage of federal revenue to analyze Trump's disastrous protectionist policies:

It's challenging to know where to begin with Trump's fixation on trade. It seems to presume the State  should impose some finetuned control over trade policy to maximize goods trade surpluses, presumably maximizing economic/job growth. He is obsessed with a persistent trade deficit since 1975 and argues that it is the result of a conspiracy of wily international traders taking advantage of incompetent US trade representatives. This seems to presuppose a belief in the superiority of a centrally planned economy, not the "invisible hand" od Adam Smith, a contemporary of our Founders and our own free market of American states:

The result of a trade pact is not for unilateral advantage; it tries to ensure a more competitive market for both countries with lower trade barriers. like lower tariffs, relaxed quotas, etc. The big concern seems to be that American goods may lose market share to the new import alternatives. In part, this may reflect comparative advantages. For example, a warmer climate may yield higher produce supplies. 

I have repeatedly debunked Trump's assertions on trade, pointing out that we had some of the strongest economic and job growth in the 80s and 90s, vs below-trend results under Trump. Trump ignores that over half of imports are used by American businesses. Trump's focus on steel and aluminum not only violated WTO principles like Bush's own steel tariffs, but it also harmed American businesses using steel or aluminum in their own products, with net layoffs and lower sales from relevant additional costs making products less globally competitive.

There's just so much rubbish Trump routinely claims about tariffs, it's hard to keep track and debunk it all: he overestimates tariff collections and insists foreign countries underwtite tariff costs. (The idea seems to be that foreign producers cut prices to offset tariffs.) Fed research shows over 90% of tariffs are passed on to Americans, and other research shows the cost American households $1000 last year.

The size, scope, and nature of Trump's tariff wars are unprecedented in American history. Not one has been authorized by Congress, the only Constitutional authority to tax. Trump has based his tariff "authority" on unprecedented claims on two laws:   the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

.
 Most of Trump's manic-depressive tariff behavior since the start of his second has been based on the former law invoked by phony pretext of a "national emergency" (not only is a trade deficit not an emergency, the goods deficit actually expanded under Trump last year). Trump's tariff increases also applied to nations with which the US has a surplus, and have occurred for non-trading behavior (e.g., Brazil's prosecution of a former president, drug allegations, immigration policies, etc.) Trump's decisions have exacerbated economic uncertainty and have been countered  by actions against American exports, like canceled soybean sales.

I'm not going to explain the legal nuances of LEARNING RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. TRUMP,

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. Trump's supposed tariff authority under IEEPA was struck down 6-3, including conservative justices Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Among other things, they pointed out said act didn't even reference tariffs. There is also a constitutional question about whether a taxing authority can be delegated (nope).

Trump responded as expected with a Trumper tantrum. personally attacking the majority. I've also pointed out his global tax pivot on the 1974 trade act is not likely to survive judicial scrutiny because he wrongly conflates the balance of payments with the trade deficit.

Trump's misconduct is unworthy of the Presidency.

.