Trump’s plan for tariffs is simple-minded and expensive to consumers. Many conservatives don't like it.

Donald Trump can’t seem to get it through his head that tariffs are not really that great of a thing. He exposed his fixation on them during last week’s debate with Kamala Harris, when Trump reiterated his plan to impose 10% tariffs on all imported goods with the exception of those that come from China, which will be tariffed at a 60% rate.   

According to Trump (seen above signing a trade agreement with China in a public domain image posted on wikimedia commons), this will raise “hundreds of billions” of dollars. That may well happen, but the missing element of Trump’s proposal is an explanation of just who it is that pays out the money to make that “hundreds of billions” of dollars materialize.

And just who is it that shells out those bucks? It’s you and me, that’s who.

It seems clear to me that Trump continues to believe that tariffs are paid for by the countries affected, which doesn’t square with reality.  American consumers of those imported products pay the tariffs, which are imposed when those foreign goods reach our shores. Who comes up with the money in the first place?  The companies importing the products. Where do they get the money in the second place? From Americans consumers, who pay the tariff mark-up when they purchase those foreign goods, or, as that journal of conservative economics, the Tax Foundation, puts it: “U.S. firms and consumers, through higher prices.”

In a 2021 study of the economic effects of Trump’s tariffs during his tenure in office, the Tax Foundation found that “it is American firms and consumers hardest hit by the Trump tariffs.”

Why Trump is stuck on this half-baked notion is probably because of his need to appeal to American workers who are constantly faced with the challenge of competition by their foreign counterparts. 

Punishing our trade partners with tariffs is Trump’s misguided way of getting support from the rank-and-file working folks in this country, but this is actually an idea that doesn’t hold water. A recent analysis by the Wall Street Journal concludes that “a 10% levy on all imports would reduce jobs, hike prices, and prompt other countries to retaliate.”

The economic argument against Trump is clear enough, but he continues to push his plan even as support for it within the GOP is shaky at best.

Expressing some doubts, South Dakota Sen. John Thune recently said, "there are ways that you can selectively use [tariffs] as a tool to achieve economic policy outcomes, but just uniform, across-the-board tariffs is not something I have been for in the past."  

Other GOP senators expressing similar misgivings are John Cornyn (TX), Thom Tillis (NC), Roger Wicker (MS), and Cynthia Lummis (WY).  

I’m generally a free-trader but understand that there’s a time, a place, and a reason for tariffs and other means of targeting foreign products. Trump’s heavy-handed approach, with its empty promise of new-found dollars, lacks a strong economic argument favoring it and has subsequently found significant pushback from conservative voices and policy analysts.

The idea of universally applied tariffs is simple-minded and glib … and history shows its consequences can be painful indeed.

John Tsitrian is a businessman and writer from the Black Hills. He was a weekly columnist for the Rapid City Journal for 20 years. His articles and commentary have also appeared in The Los Angeles Times, The Denver Post and The Omaha World-Herald. Tsitrian served in the Marines for three years (1966-69), including a 13-month tour of duty as a radioman in Vietnam. Republish with permission.