“Trump had used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on nearly all imports to the U.S., even though that law narrowly authorizes presidential actions only in response to “an unusual and extraordinary threat.”
International commerce is plainly neither of those things, as the court concluded in its ruling. “We do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President,” the judges wrote. “We instead read IEEPA’s provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers.”
By reviewing the actions of the executive branch to ensure they comport with the underlying law, the Court of International Trade merely fulfilled the constitutional role of the judiciary. ”
“High-end medical devices, including those made by American manufacturers, may be especially vulnerable as many machines are built of components from a dozen vendors around the world. Some scanners cost millions of dollars and are so cutting-edge that hospitals publish a press release when they arrive.”
“There’s nothing “hostile and political” about informing the public of the negative consequences of poor economic policy. Were Amazon actually to go through with such a plan, they would be doing America a public service, not serving “a Chinese propaganda arm.””
“Americans today are vastly better off than they were 50 years ago. After adjusting for inflation, household incomes have risen by about 50 percent—more than double what raw census data suggest. Unemployment remains near historic lows. Over the past three decades, the private service sector has created about 40.5 million net new jobs, many in high-wage, high-skill fields like health care, finance, and professional services.
Meanwhile, U.S. industrial output has surged. It’s now at its all-time high but with fewer workers thanks to stunning productivity gains. As economist David Autor notes, the so-called hollowing out of the middle class involves many workers moving up into higher-skill, higher-paying occupations.
None of this means that the labor-force detachment problem should be ignored. It does mean that the story is more complicated than Trump’s “China stole our jobs” narrative suggests.”
…
“The deeper problem exposed by the China shock wasn’t trade—it was America’s fading economic dynamism. In past generations, when industries declined, workers moved. They retrained. They found new opportunities. Today, many displaced workers simply stay put even as jobs emerge elsewhere.
Government policy plays an enormous role. Over time, policymakers have built a dense thicket of regulations and disincentives that trap people where they are and discourage adaptation.
Restrictive zoning and land-use legislations have sent housing costs in high-wage cities through the roof, pricing out workers who would otherwise migrate toward opportunity. Economists estimate that even modest housing deregulation would allow more Americans to live and work where their skills are most valued.
Another culprit is occupational licensing. Today, nearly one-third of U.S. workers must obtain some kind of government license to do their jobs, up from just 5 percent in the 1950s. These barriers disproportionately affect low-income workers and create huge hurdles to interstate mobility, effectively locking people into stagnant local economies.
Then there’s Social Security Disability Insurance. Reforms in the 1980s expanded eligibility with broader, more subjective criteria. Today, many prime-age men outside the labor force report being disabled even as overall health has improved and physically demanding jobs have declined. The effect is less labor-force reentry—and, thus, worse long-term prospects—for workers on the margin.”
Tip culture is already out of control. This can only make it worse.
“the Senate passed the No Tax on Tips Act 100–0, which “creates a federal income tax deduction of up to $25,000 a year for certain types of cash tips for eligible employees,” per The Washington Post. (“Cash tips” include tips given not just in cash but also via credit and debit cards.) This applies to employees earning $160,000 or less annually.”
…
“If you actually wanted to help the household budgets of working-class people, the best thing you could do is refrain from imposing 10 percent across-the-board tariffs (and more for goods imported from China). It’s not clear to me that no taxes on tips, though President Donald Trump touted it repeatedly from the campaign trail, will do all that much, or that there was a ton of accurate tip-reporting happening in the first place.”
…
“creates an opportunity for people to try to categorize their normal income as tips, and how much they can now get away with remains to be seen.”
“economic development officials and lawmakers from several states say that the uncertainty fueled by Trump’s on-again, off-again trade wars is keeping many foreign businesses from pouring money into the U.S. market right now. And it signals the uneven impact the tariffs are having on reshoring American manufacturing — Trump’s stated goal for raising rates to the highest levels in a century.”
“There are federal tax benefits for racehorses (although there’s a chance they might soon expire) and some states exempt racehorses from their sales taxes. Other states own the racetracks.”
…
“”The obvious solution here is also the simplest: Just stop,” Shachtman wrote. “Let the sport stand on its own and dwindle to whatever size its fan base supports. Instead, state legislatures keep funneling money to it.””
“Reuters reported this week that as a result of Trump’s tariffs, Ford Motor Co. will raise prices on three of its models by as much as $2,000 apiece. Days earlier, the company said it expected the tariffs to reduce annual earnings by $1.5 billion, even after making efforts to avoid U.S. import duties.
Rivian, which makes luxury electric vehicles from a single plant in Illinois, also announced this week that it expected to deliver fewer vehicles and spend more money this year as a result of the tariffs.
Then on Thursday, The New York Times reported that Toyota “predicted a $1.3 billion hit from President Trump’s tariffs in April and May alone.”
In a March executive order, Trump slapped a tariff of 25 percent on all imported automobiles, as well as automotive parts like engines, transmissions, and electrical components. The only exception was for those covered under the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), in which case the tariff only applied to the portion of the vehicle’s value not “attributable to parts wholly obtained, produced entirely, or substantially transformed in the United States.””
“Donald Trump doesn’t think Americans deserve stuff. The right number of pencils for a family? Five. The right number of dolls for a little girl? Two, maybe three. His comments in recent interviews bear a striking similarity to those of left-wing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), who in 2015 famously bemoaned that consumers have too many deodorant options.
How did Trump—who campaigned on a promise of reducing inflation—become so eager to have Americans pay more for everyday commodities? While Trump may have made overtures to reducing prices, he’s long supported the kinds of economic interventions most likely to lead to inflation. And if you believe that protectionism is the path to prosperity for everyday Americans, your definition of prosperity starts to change pretty quickly.”