One conservative group produced colorful flowcharts warning millennials that a “border adjustment” tax proposed by US House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan would raise prices on “the Jose Cuervo tequila that’s in your happy hour margarita.”
Three days later, a second conservative group kicked off a lobbying campaign saying it would amount to a US$1.2 trillion tax on seniors and the working poor.
The next day, still another group weighed in, issuing a news release that highlighted how Latinos would be “among those hardest hit” by the new tax on imports.
Illustration: Mountain People
All three organizations share a common lineage: They are part of the political network overseen by Charles and David Koch, the billionaire conservative businessmen. Now they are among a host of conservative organizations mounting a furious campaign against a new tax on imports proposed by House Republicans, imperiling what is supposed to be a centerpiece of the Republican tax overhaul effort.
Their opposition threatens yet another rupture with US President Donald Trump, some of whose advisers see the provision as a critical way to bring about tax reform while protecting US manufacturers.
The battle could not only jeopardize Trump’s second major legislative initiative, but also redefine the boundaries of conservative economic policy.
Much like the failed repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the import tax is dividing conservatives, the business sector and some of the groups with the deepest pockets funding conservative politics. Along the way, it is exposing the broader ideological divide between nationalist policies embraced by Trump and the traditional small-government movement that his election ejected from the driver’s seat of Republican policymaking.
“Trump ran on a different set of economic issues than traditional conservative Republicans have,” said Stephen Moore, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation who favors the border tax on intellectual grounds, but said he had come to see it as a “poison pill” for broader tax reform.
“The baton has been passed on from [former US president Ronald] Reagan to Trump and there’s no doubt he ran on a much more populist economic message,” Moore said.
The idea of a border adjustment tax has percolated among academic economists and in think tanks since the 1970s, as the US has considered ways of harmonizing its tax code with countries that use value-added taxes.
Central to the plan is a provision that would tax imports at a rate of 20 percent while exempting exports from taxation. In theory, this would buttress domestic manufacturing, make US products more competitive with foreign goods and encourage US companies to bring home cash they have been parking overseas.
“It is a simple and elegant way to get good tax compliance,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican economist and president of the right-leaning American Action Forum, a nonprofit tied to a super political action committee that backs House Republicans.
Some conservatives oppose it for the same reason: In their view, such a tax would be too easy to increase, with the potential costs to Americans hidden behind rising prices.
Groups like Americans for Tax Reform — headed by Grover Norquist, perhaps Washington’s most famous anti-tax crusader — have praised the border tax proposal, saying it would put US businesses “on a level playing field” with foreign competitors.
Retailers that import many of their goods are lobbying against the idea, while domestic manufacturers such as Boeing and Caterpillar — whose interests figure heavily in Trump’s economic thinking — are supporting it.
The Koch network and groups such as the Club for Growth, which for years have targeted what they call “crony capitalism” in Washington, have opposed the border tax as an unnecessary tax increase and a form of favoritism that would hurt the US economy.
However, Trump and his team have pledged to target what they see as a more insidious kind of cronyism, including unfettered free trade that some Trump advisers say benefits wealthy elites at the expense of US workers.
The dispute echoes Trump’s battles with his party last year, when the Club for Growth, a group of wealthy conservatives that backs anti-tax candidates in Republican primary races, financed a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign against him.
The Koch network, uncomfortable with Trump’s proposals on trade and immigration, sat out the US presidential election entirely, turning its advertising dollars and activists to down-ballot races.
Both the Club for Growth and the Koch network also played a critical role in killing a proposal backed by Ryan and Trump to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
Last month, as the repeal vote approached, two Koch-aligned groups pledged to spend upward of US$1 million on ads defending any Republican who voted against the replacement legislation.
Now, some of the same groups are organizing visits to lawmakers and paying for an online advertising campaign attacking the border tax proposal.
The roster includes Americans for Prosperity, the Koch network’s flagship political advocacy group; the Libre Initiative, which is aimed at Latinos; and Generation Opportunity, which focuses on young adults.
In 2015, the most recent year for which tax returns are available, the three groups took in a combined US$34 million from Freedom Partners, an umbrella group representing the Kochs and other donors who pool money for political and educational initiatives.
Policy experts at think tanks financed by the Koch network have also weighed in against the border tax idea.
Veronique de Rugy, a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, where Charles Koch sits on the board, has clashed with Holtz-Eakin and other right-leaning policy experts, saying they are misleading the public about the true effects of the border tax on economic growth.
Americans for Prosperity is calling on Trump to rely more on spending cuts, rather than on a border adjustment tax, to finance the tax overhaul. The group’s list of proposals include indexing social security benefits to inflation — a popular idea in conventional conservative circles, but one that could violate Trump’s campaign pledge to protect the program’s beneficiaries.
“When you look at the network broadly, we’re all guided by the same vision,” Freedom Partners spokesman James Davis said. “We’re all going to be active on the major policy decisions that are happening in Washington.”
That campaign has aligned with a vigorous lobbying campaign by Koch Industries, one of the largest private companies in the US, prompting complaints from some proponents of the tax that the family is chiefly interested in protecting its business.
Last fall, after the House plan for a border tax was first unveiled, lobbyists from Koch Industries circulated a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers showing it would lead to huge new taxes on the petroleum and coal products industry, which includes some of Koch Industries’ most profitable subsidiaries.
Koch Industries has also circulated studies indicating that the tax would increase the price of gasoline, which the company has said would lift its profits in the short term, but harm the economy in the long term.
Philip Ellender, a top executive at the company, said in an interview that Koch Industries was lobbying against the new tax out of principle, not for profit.
“In the short term, Koch would profit handsomely from it,” Ellender said, but added that: “It would stifle free trade, it picks winners and losers, and it raises prices on consumers so that corporations can get a tax break.”
The debate has divided the White House, too.
In an interview with reporters in late February, Trump embraced the notion of a border tax.
“I certainly support a form of tax on the border,” he said, adding that it would encourage companies to return manufacturing jobs to the US, a critical component of his platform.
US Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and his top economic adviser, Gary Cohn — both former Goldman Sachs bankers — are said to be leery of the border tax.
Trump’s chief strategist, former Breitbart publisher Stephen Bannon, has supported it, as has Peter Navarro, a trade skeptic and top White House trade adviser.
A profusion of strategic and political motives also divides Republicans on the issue.
To enact a tax overhaul that does not increase the federal deficit, but delivers rate cuts to wealthy taxpayers and corporations, Trump and US Congress need to find some source of new revenue — hence the border tax.
For Ryan, who holds more conventional free-trade views than Trump, the new tax provides a way to satisfy Trump’s protectionist impulses without imposing punitive — and potentially even more disruptive — tariffs.
However, some conservatives are not so sure.
In opposing the tax, US Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Wal-Mart’s home state, Arkansas, finds himself in the position of defending his local corporate giant and the conservatism that he thought he knew.
“Most conservatives I know have long believed that tax reform would look at all of the carve-outs in the tax code, not introduce a whole new concept of taxation,” Cotton said.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this