Site icon Smart Again

Treasury Secretary Throws Cold Water On Trump’s Tariff Dividend Promise

Treasury Secretary Throws Cold Water On Trump’s Tariff Dividend Promise


They’re already backtracking on Trump’s nonsense he posted on “Truth Social” that same morning.

Bessent initially tried to change the subject before finally admitting that no one should be expecting a $2000 check to arrive anytime soon.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about tariffs and the Supreme Court. The president is also posting about tariffs this morning. He’s saying, “people that are against tariffs are fools. We’re taking in trillions of dollars.” Is that true?

BESSENT: We have taken — over the course of the next few years, we could take in trillions of dollars, George. But the real — the real goal of the tariffs is to re-balance trade and make it more fair.

You know, over time, the president’s goal is to bring back manufacturing to the U.S. You know, for the past two, three, four decades we have seen our manufacturing sector gutted. So, what would happen over time is we would take insubstantial money, as factories come back to the U.S., as we’re seeing now. I was just down in South Carolina at a rare earth magnet plant and a Boeing plant on Friday. And, you know, that’s the, I believe, 1,500 total new jobs. Tariff income will be substantial, but then that will rebalance.

The goal here, George, is to re-balance trade. So, tariff income will be substantial at the beginning. It will come down. And then domestic tax revenues will climb as corporate taxes go up and all of these high-paying jobs are created.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The president’s main argument, though, seems to be that we’re — it’s about taking in the revenue. And he also promised this morning a dividend —

BESSENT: No, no, no, George. Stop right — no.

STEPHANOPOULOS: A dividend of at least $2,000 a person, not including high-income people. How is he going to pay that dividend of $2,000 a person?

BESSENT: Yes, George, it’s not about taking in the revenue, it’s about re-balancing. And the revenue occurs early on. And then as we rebalance and the jobs come home, then it becomes domestic tax revenue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you worried that the president’s focus on revenue, though, which is what he’s been focusing on in his public statements, is going to hurt your argument in the Supreme Court?

BESSENT: Not at all. It’s completely consistent that the revenues come in at the beginning, then, as we rebalance, which is the goal of this, bring back high-paid manufacturing jobs to the U.S., then it will then morph into domestic tax revenues.

You know, President Trump has consistently fought for the American worker, and we are seeing trillions of investments in the U.S. that would not have occurred without the tariffs.

The other thing, too, is, you know, the authority that he uses is called IEEPA. It is an emergency authority. And he used that emergency authority. He got the Chinese to the table to negotiate on stopping the precursors for fentanyl drugs. You know, fentanyl, hundreds of thousands of Americans dying every year is not an emergency, what is? On October 8th, Chinese threatened to put export controls on rare earth materials. He was able to threaten 100 percent tariffs, and we were able to negotiate that away.

And then, finally, in terms of the general tariffs, we are doing these trial deals that would not be possible. We were at a tipping point in terms of the economy, in terms of our trade balance, and we are re-balancing successfully.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have a proposal, a formal proposal, to give a $2,000 dividend to every American?

BESSENT: I haven’t spoken to the president about this yet, but, you know, it could — the $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms, in lots of ways, George. You know, it could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda. You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security. Deductibility of auto loans. So, you know, those are substantial deductions that, you know, are being financed in the tax bill.

So more tax cuts and more empty promises. Surprise, surprise.

Editor’s note: If SCOTUS rules against him, perhaps that’s one way of compensating consumers for the price increases, but it’s definitely the most inflationary.



Source link

Exit mobile version