Border Tax Hits a Wall of Opposition

A key element of Paul Ryan’s tax-reform plan has lots of GOP foes, especially in the Senate.

Trucks ride next to the U.S.-Mexico border fence before crossing to the United States.
AP Photo/Guillermo Arias
Alex Rogers and Daniel Newhauser
Add to Briefcase
Alex Rogers and Daniel Newhauser
Feb. 15, 2017, 8:01 p.m.

Des­pite a per­sist­ent press by House Speak­er Paul Ry­an, it’s hard to find a Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­or who sup­ports a key as­pect un­der­pin­ning his tax re­form plan—one of the top agenda items for the White House and Con­gress this year.

At is­sue is a pro­posed tax on im­ports—and it’s freak­ing out the con­stitu­ents of sen­at­ors. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the second-rank­ing Re­pub­lic­an, re­calls a con­ver­sa­tion with one oil re­finer who told him the pro­pos­al would in­crease the cost of gas by 30 cents. Sen. Rand Paul of Ken­tucky says that he’s heard a Camry would cost $1,000 more—hurt­ing Toyota man­u­fac­tur­ers in his state. Sen. Pat Roberts of Kan­sas wants to make sure it doesn’t start an ag­ri­cul­ture trade war.

“We sure as hell don’t need that,” said Roberts.

At is­sue is Ry­an’s con­tro­ver­sial pro­pos­al to im­pose a 20 per­cent tax on im­ports while ex­clud­ing ex­ports in or­der to help off­set the cost of dra­mat­ic­ally lower­ing the cor­por­ate tax rate. While Re­pub­lic­ans of­ten state their de­sire for a sim­pler, lower tax code to un­leash eco­nom­ic growth, the so-called bor­der ad­just­ment has di­vided them, im­per­il­ing the pos­sib­il­ity of passing tax re­form.

In the Sen­ate, Re­pub­lic­ans from across the ideo­lo­gic­al spec­trum have ex­pressed doubts. Hard-right con­ser­vat­ives don’t think the plan lowers the cor­por­ate tax rate enough; they’d prefer to lower it from 35 per­cent to zero, in­stead of 20 per­cent plus the new tax, as Ry­an has ar­gued. Mean­while, more mod­er­ate sen­at­ors have raised ques­tions about wheth­er the pro­pos­al would in­crease costs on Amer­ic­an con­sumers—and wheth­er it would hurt vari­ous home-state in­dus­tries, in­clud­ing auto­mobile man­u­fac­tur­ers, oil re­finer­ies, and re­tail­ers.

“Some people think that they’re do­ing this so they can raise more taxes without it be­ing no­ticed,” said the top Sen­ate tax-writer, Fin­ance Chair­man Or­rin Hatch, in an in­ter­view. “But the prob­lem is that all those costs, ac­cord­ing to some crit­ics, will be passed onto Amer­ic­an cit­izens.

“You know, there’s a real ques­tion wheth­er it’s that good of a deal to do that, while at the same time ant­ag­on­iz­ing per­haps some of our closest neigh­bors,” Hatch ad­ded.

After re­peal­ing and re­pla­cing the Af­ford­able Care Act, the White House, Ry­an, and Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell have set tax re­form as the second-highest pri­or­ity of the year. And as in the battle over health care, the Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress have de­cided to go at the tax code without Demo­crat­ic in­put. But by do­ing so, they’re for­cing them­selves to get at least 50 of 52 Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors to pass their agenda. That’s prov­ing dif­fi­cult on mul­tiple fronts, in­clud­ing on passing tax re­form with bor­der ad­just­ment.

The in­tra-party battle has pit­ted im­port-heavy busi­nesses like Wal-Mart and oth­er re­tail gi­ants like Tar­get, Gap, and Best Buy—the CEOs of which met with Pres­id­ent Trump on Wed­nes­day—against ma­jor ex­port­ers like Boe­ing and Gen­er­al Elec­tric. On Tues­day, Ry­an vis­ited the Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans’ lunch­eon to make his pitch, but it doesn’t ap­pear he changed many minds.

Sens. Tim Scott and Lind­sey Gra­ham of South Car­o­lina rep­res­ent a state that has a sig­ni­fic­ant busi­ness pres­ence on both sides of the is­sue. On Wed­nes­day, both sen­at­ors ex­pressed their con­cerns.

“You don’t get the 20 per­cent break com­ing in; you get it go­ing out,” said Scott. “That means that ul­ti­mately the guy who’s in the coun­try may pay a high­er price.”

Oth­er Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors have been less cir­cum­spect. Sen. Dav­id Per­due, a former CEO of Ree­bok and Dol­lar Gen­er­al, re­cently sent around a let­ter to his col­leagues say­ing the bor­der ad­just­ment “ham­mers con­sumers and shuts down eco­nom­ic growth.

“This pro­posed bor­der-ad­just­ment tax is a bad idea and should not be­come a per­man­ent part of our tax code,” he ad­ded.

Sup­port­ers of the pro­pos­al say the cost to im­port­ers will be off­set by a strengthened dol­lar. But Re­pub­lic­ans in the Sen­ate lead­er­ship and on the Fin­ance Com­mit­tee are un­cer­tain that the the­ory will be real­ized in prac­tice. Sen. Chuck Grass­ley, a seni­or mem­ber of the Fin­ance Com­mit­tee, said, “That’s sort of a re­la­tion­ship pretty hard to prove.”

Pres­id­ent Trump’s po­s­i­tion isn’t yet clear. In an in­ter­view, Hatch said that the ad­min­is­tra­tion is “not very en­thused” about the bor­der tax; a White House of­fi­cial re­spon­ded, “We are in open con­ver­sa­tions with Con­gress” on tax re­form.

Last month, Trump told The Wall Street Journ­al that the idea is “too com­plic­ated” be­fore walk­ing his state­ment back. But some sen­at­ors have latched onto his ini­tial com­ments.

“If it’s com­plic­ated for a busi­ness­man that deals in bil­lions, you know how it’s com­plic­ated for a guy that makes $174,000,” quipped Grass­ley.

The bor­der-tax meas­ure is con­tro­ver­sial in the House, too. Mem­bers in the hard-right Free­dom Caucus said last week at a re­treat in Man­hat­tan that they don’t sup­port adding a new tax to the gov­ern­ment’s rev­en­ue stream.

“I don’t. That would be a tax on my con­stitu­ents. It would in­crease [the price of] their goods and ser­vices. At this point, I have not heard any good reas­on­ing for it,” said Rep. Raul Lab­rador of Idaho.

But even Re­pub­lic­ans who usu­ally align with their lead­er­ship have ex­pressed con­cerns that it would hurt busi­nesses in their dis­tricts.

“The bor­der tax does not help a lot of people, es­pe­cially in Texas,” said Rep. Ro­ger Wil­li­ams. “You name it—oil and gas, auto, re­tail.”

Some mem­bers of Con­gress are still try­ing to un­der­stand such a com­plic­ated is­sue. When asked his po­s­i­tion on bor­der ad­just­ment in the Cap­it­ol this week, Sen. Bill Cas­sidy, a mem­ber of the Fin­ance Com­mit­tee, ges­tured to the man walk­ing next to him. He replied, “I don’t know about that, but I’m talk­ing to this guy who does.”

What We're Following See More »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
3 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
3 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login