A new report released on Friday from the Congressional Budget Office is surprising, even amazing. The “CBO” is not considered a friend of Republican presidents and congresses. Questions always arise from “supply-subsidiary” about whether CBO rejects serious “dynamic score” of developments in the law and in important regulatory actions. Whatever the methodology of the agency, it issued a report about the Trump rates at the end of last week.
“We project that the rates of the rates that were implemented during the period from 6 January 2025 to 19 August 2025 will reduce the primary deficits (which excludes net expenses for interest) by $ 3.3 trillion as the higher rates for the period 2025) 2035,” wrote Phillip Swagel, wrote. “Due to the need for federal loans, those tariff collections will also reduce federal expenses for interest with an extra $ 0.7 trillion. As a result, the rates changes will lower the total deficits by $ 4.0 trillion. “
The Report is here.
Trump’s tariff income has been raised in just a few months and rises after 2024 levels
Free traders have to scratch their heads while viewing all the data, including those in this CBO “Update”. Inflation is not enriched. The growth is not plumbled. The income from rates are huge. An international trade war has not broken out.
“One of these things just doesn’t belong here, one of these things is simply not the same,” goes the reflain of the old Sesame Street song.
So perhaps, perhaps, we should release that marketers are considering that perhaps, perhaps, President Trump has been right about rates, the power of America towards that of our trading partners and the impact of non-Tariff barriers?
I checked in with an old friend and free market economist, Dr. Richard McKenzie, Gerken Professor of Economy, Emeritus at the University of California, Irvine’s The Paul Merage School of Business. He follows the data, but is not convinced. At the moment, however, he “agrees that Trump World Trade could make his threats freer.”
“About your broader question about general acceptance of rates,” Professor McKenzie replied to my question whether free market economists could blink at the figures of the CBO? “No, rates (and minimum wage) have long been used as a litmus test for market economas, but their commitment is always conditioned on the strategy that President Trump has used: the threat of imposing rates can be used to lower the rates of others,” McKenzie continued.
“But the argument that I think Trump has used that somehow” my rates will compensate for your rates “to make a level playing field does not play broadly, at least not in Friedman types: they increase the damage caused.”
“The rates,” McKenzie continued, “if they are ultimately consistent, domestic (and world) incomes will reduce what they would be different – reduce the IRS income of what they would be.”
Then Professor McKenzie removed the hammer from the Thor from “Friedman types”: “A rate is a tax, is a tax, is a tax! The CBO’s estimates in extra federal income and reductions in budget disorders are testimony to accounting. He does not agree with the damage that can be the damage that can be the damage that he can be destroyed, testify that he can be destitute, testify that the tarence that can be destitute, testify that he can be the target, testifying that he can be destitute, testify that the targetic life that he can be destroyed, testify that he is being indeed the targetic life that he can be destitute, witnesses, testify that the targetic life that he can be destroyed.
Peter Navarro, the senior adviser to President Trump about trade and production, would undoubtedly differ. Navarro and McKenzie have been colleagues at the same faculty of the Graduate School at UCI for decades. I have no idea when they last spoke – probably before 2016? – But Navarro has always been a man of political links and McKenzie of the political (and economic) right. Navarro has embraced rates, at least against China, since his book ‘Death by China’ from 2011.
Their very different views are part of a long -term debate among economists, and those whose views on rates are informed by economists. I have been reflexively against rates since I first absorbed the long-standing conventional wisdom about the Hawley-SMOOT rates of 1930, something that I was taught for the first time more than 50 years ago in “Economics 10”, and then in inhaling free markets/free spirit arguments from President Reagan.
What strikes me is that the “update on the projections of CBO of the budgetary effects of rates” is a story about a man-bit dog story, but was not treated in this way after President Trump underlined the news in his Friday Oval Office press availability.
The big question is whether free market people will reconsider their rejection of the trading policy of the president. Doubtful, that.
I am still very suspicious of the authority of a president to impose even such radical edicts outside of clear national security arenas, such as China. This issue of the boundaries of “executive authority” is presented in a case before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is now underway.
This controversy about presidential power is almost certainly on the way to the Supreme Court, since the Constitution explicitly grants the tariff authority to the congress, and the congress delegation of that authority to the President in the International Emergency Economics Powers Act (“IEPA”) is broad enough to support President?
Click here for more the opinion of Fox News
It is a case of first impression. If the IEEPA does indeed give power, it may be sufficient to revive the “non-delegation doctrine” by leaving the Supreme Court 90 years ago and to activate the rejection by the court of all or some Trump rates.
Click here to get the Fox News app
I don’t know the answer to that question and no one else either. A single federal court of the district court said that the president does not have the authority to do what he did and that the effect of that statement has remained. That is all we know. Today, a ruling by a single federal court on President Trump’s actions is the thinnest reed on which he must trust. The federal district courts have had more reversations in the last six months than the Cleveland Browns since their return to the lake in 1999.
However, numbers are numbers and $ 4 trillion in short reduction means $ 4 trillion less in national debt. For the debts that are also free traders, the CBO “update” deserves your attention, regardless of whether Legacy Media notices.
Click here to Van Hugh Hewittvvv
