The Hidden Politics of Whiskey Prices
Donald Trump is determined to make everything from Canadian whiskey to Mexican avocados more expensive. Can anyone stop him?
HD DownloadYou've probably heard that President Donald Trump is prepared to slap some huge tariffs on nearly all imports from Canada and Mexico this week.
But you might also be wondering: How is it that the president can unilaterally decide what tariffs get charged on which imports? And if he's determined to make everything from Canadian whiskey to Mexican avocados more expensive, can anyone stop him?
"It absolutely should not be one person making these decisions," Rep. Suzan DelBene (D–Wash.) tells Reason. She's sponsored a bill that would require Trump—and any other future president—to get permission from Congress before using emergency economic powers to levy new tariffs on American consumers.
To understand why that matters, it might help to first know a bit about how tariffs work.
Say you want to buy a bottle of whisky from a distillery in Canada. Since the 1990s, nearly all products have been able to cross into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico without paying any tariffs—thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Now Trump wants to tear up those rules and impose a 25 percent tariff on almost everything that crosses the border.
So imagine a bottle of whiskey that costs $20 at the store. Under Trump's tariff plan, that bottle would have to pay an additional $5 tariff just to get into the U.S., and that higher cost gets passed along to you. It's a tax.
If a president wants to raise taxes, typically he's got to get approval from Congress. So how is it that Trump can raise taxes on whisky and lots of other products simply with an executive order?
DelBene says that shouldn't be allowed.
"When we talk about taxes and whether or not we raise or lower taxes, Congress has the authority there," she says. "Congress is an independent, co-equal branch of government. Congress needs to say these are not things that the executive gets to decide unilaterally."
The Constitution gives Congress the final say over not just taxes but trade policy too. But lawmakers have given away that authority in bits and pieces since the 1940s. It was assumed that presidents would be more willing to look out for the nation's best interest and less likely to support protectionism for specific industries.
Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way. Now the president has vast power over trade, and Trump is taking advantage of that.
The law that Trump is using to put tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico is called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). To activate its powers, a president has to declare a state of emergency. Delbene says that's where Trump is overstepping.
Until now, the law has only been used to impose sanctions on foreign countries. DelBene's bill would explicitly prevent a president from using IEEPA to impose tariffs. She's also sponsored a resolution to block the tariffs and cancel the economic emergency that Trump declared in early February.
"First of all, these are allies. These are not hostile foreign nations. And so we have a trade agreement with both of these nations," DelBene says. "If the president, any president, wants to put in place such broad tariffs, they have to come to Congress and get approval from Congress. That's what the Constitution says."
Photo Credits: JT Vintage/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; Schulmann-Sachs/picture alliance/Schulmann-Sac/Newscom; Schulmann-Sachs/picture-alliance/dpa/Newscom; Dennis Brack/Newscom; Arnie Sachs - CNP/Newscom; Arnie Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom; Ron Sachs - Pool via CNP/Newscom; William Foster/ZUMA Press/Newscom; 2009 Black Star/Newscom; Jim LoScalzo - Pool via CNP/Newscom; Annabelle Gordon - CNP/MEGA/Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom; Carol Guzy/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Erin Combs/ZUMA Press/Newscom; SIPA USA-KT/SIPA/Newscom; Shealah Craighead/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Ron Przysucha/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Newscom; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; CNP/AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom; Martin Falbisoner, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Abaca Press/Gripas Yuri/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom; Pool/ABACA/Newscom; Sipa USA/Newscom; Francis Chung - Pool via CNP/CNP/Polaris/Newscom; Aaron Schwartz - CNP/CNP/Polaris/Newscom; Jemal Countess/UPI/Newscom
Music Credits: "Rabbit Hole," by Ilona Harpaz via Artlist; "Outrun," by WEARETHEGOOD, Lynnea via Artlist; "In Love with Emi," by Fabien Fustinoni via Artlist; "Life's Journey Begins," by idokay via Artlist; "Ain't Looking Back," by Richard Farrell via Artlist
- Video Editor: Danielle Thompson
- Graphics: Regan Taylor
- Audio Production: Ian Keyser
- Color Correction: Cody Huff
- Producer: Adam Sullivan
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Can anyone stop him?"
Why would anyone WANT to stop him? If his policies and actions significantly raise prices, the American people have a long history of punishing the President for high prices. Democrats certainly could not object to that outcome, right? And die-hard Trump supporters are in permanent total denial and don't WANT to stop him. Go ahead! Make my day!
"Why would anyone WANT to stop him?"
Because POTUS already has too much power. And, while The Donald is trimming some fat off the Federal workforce, he's also busily accumulating more power for the office.
Libertarians - in their singleminded quest for smaller government - forget WHY smaller government is desirable. While lower taxes are more respectful of voters' right to the pursuit of happiness, a less powerful government is less apt to abuse ALL the other rights individuals enjoy.
Having an unchecked strongman at the head of even a small government works directly against that.
Having an unchecked strongman at the head of even a small government works directly against that.
That right there is why Trump's defenders are hostile to anyone who wants to see Congress repeal laws delegating power to the executive. They don't want to take any power away from Trump. They want him to be a strongman.
This isn't about Congress repealing any of the power they ceded to the Executive. We all know that Congress will NEVER do that! Congress can't even put a budget and spending appropriations bills together, let alone do anything meaningful. Our only hope now is that Trump won't abuse his power beyond downsizing the bureaucracy and refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws and regulations for a while.
This isn't about Congress repealing any of the power they ceded to the Executive. We all know that Congress will NEVER do that!
The GOP could if they really wanted to because they hold both the House and the Senate. But they only make smaller government noises when they're not in power, so they won't.
Our only hope now is that Trump won't abuse his power beyond downsizing the bureaucracy and refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws and regulations for a while.
Refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws like the ones that give him the power to arbitrarily declare fake emergencies and then unilaterally levy taxes?
You're delusional if you think he gives two shits about the Constitution. Just like his deranged defenders who said he was a libertarian during his first term. Anything libertarian or constitutional that he does is inadvertent and incidental, not intentional.
"Having an unchecked strongman at the head of even a small government works directly against that."
So it's a good thing that Trump understands constitutional limits, right, steaming pile of TDS-addled lying lefty shit?
Because every election can't be a referendum on every single stupid thing a single person chooses to do.
We can buy American. Canadian whisky is not exactly choice. People will just go buy American whisky and bourbon.
"First of all, these are allies. These are not hostile foreign nations. And so we have a trade agreement with both of these nations," DelBene says. "If the president, any president, wants to put in place such broad tariffs, they have to come to Congress and get approval from Congress. That's what the Constitution says."
Neither Trump nor his defenders care what the Constitution says.
"Neither Trump nor his defenders [nor the Democrats or their coalition or the entrenched bureaucrats or the Judiciary] care what the Constitution says."
There! I fixed it for you!
That makes it ok. Yes I know.
Broad tariffs? Look, if this is true, the left can use the justice system to challenge the tariffs, or use congress to pass their own tariffs, or limit the tariffs. None of this is happening, so if the congress wanted to, they could stop this. If the justice system can be used to stop this, and it isn't, then isn't it the fault of those institutions (congress or the justice system), not the president, for what are considered implementation of "broad tariffs?"
Do you know who controls Congress right now? I'll give you a clue. It ain't the left.
She's sponsored a bill that would require Trump—and any other future president—to get permission from Congress
Why don't you sue the admin and have SCOTUS reverse this on constitutional grounds. Oh wait, probably because you want the living constitution to remain the norm.
No Taxation without Representation!
These tariffs are a violation of the trade agreement that Trump himself negotiated. Why would any country deal with a guy who violates his own agreements?
Because he's the guy who is there to deal with.
No, they aren't.
DelBene is correct that the Executive Branch shouldn't be allowed to unilaterally impose tariffs. She is, however, wildly wrong to imply that this is all Trump's fault. Congress spent decades delegating away their own authority. If she now wants it back, the right way to do that is to repeal the old delegations, not try to layer on new rules.
"It absolutely should not be one person making these decisions," Rep. Suzan DelBene (D–Wash.)
Unless its a democrat...
Great point. Democrats did it first so it's ok.
2022: BIDENFLATION IS KILLING US!
2025: Only pussies complain about higher prices.
No, tariffs are just going to increase prices on some foreign goods. NO one is complaining, in fact, the higher prices are good for domestic producers.
Blanket tariffs are going to increase prices across the board. It's not just imported goods that will increase in price, but goods made from imported materials like steel. In addition those higher priced imports will mean that domestic producers can raise prices too. For example if without tariffs a domestic widget costs $10 and the import costs $9, and with tariffs the imported widget now costs $15, the domestic producer isn't going to leave his price at $10. No, he's going to increase it by a few bucks and still be cheaper than the competition. So prices on everything are going to increase.
But it's ok because Trump's doing it.
Funny you should say that, since you scarcely raised a peep when Biden turned Trump's 25% tariffs into 100% tariffs.
One might uncharitably suspect you're just a Democratic party fanboi.
Also. don't forget that you're supposed to have me on mute before you type out an angry retort.
Better to just mumble something about a grey box in reply to your own post.
Higher prices are "good for domestic producers" of exactly the same product because they can also charge higher prices.
Higher prices and lower availablity, however, are dramatically worse for every domestic consumer (including all the downstream producers that depend on your now-artificially-protected raw materials) - and they are most definitely complaining.
Can you show the price increases given historical data? Even the ATL fed is estimating less than 1%. Buried in inflation data.
While you're doing that. Can you also provide the cost increases for domestic businesses who have to raise prices since they can't sell in foreign markets, have to provide security due to issues like theft, regulatory costs and it's effect on prices, etc?
An arm of the same government promoting the tariffs is minimizing their adverse impacts? Forgive me if I am skeptical of the fed's estimate. Looking historically, there is better data but teasing it out from other macroeconomic factors occurring at the same time is tricky.
A study looking at the 2018-2019 tariffs (which were retained by the Biden administration) "reduce[d] long-run GDP by 0.2 percent, the capital stock by 0.1 percent, and employment by 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs."
Looking at industry-specific data, I don't know of an easy publicly-available source but I was working with an aluminum processor (a middleman who buys raw coils and shapes them into parts for a variety of automotive and consumer products producers) through the 2018-2020 period and their private records showed their supplier costs increasing by about the same amount as their pre-tariff profit margin. And yes, their data showed that domestic producers nearly-immediately took advantage of the loss of competition to raise their prices.
Not sure what you're asking for in the second paragraph. When a country imposes a tariff, that's a barrier for foreign sellers into the domestic market, not a barrier for domestic sellers to foreign markets. Unless you are assuming an automatic retaliatory trade war? If so, I think that's a reasonable assumption but the economic factors would be indirect and beyond my ability to tease out.
Rethinking what you asked about in the second paragraph.
There is such a thing as an export tariff. And, yes, those can be used for protectionist purposes. They are, however, extremely rare. I'm not aware of any export tariffs currently being imposed by the US. If you can cite to one, though, I'll do my best to research it.
Oh no! I'll have to drink fine Kentucky bourbon instead of Canadian blended whiskey!
BUT WHAT ABOUT AFFORDABLE AVACADO TOAST FOR ERIC, YOU MONSTER!
I have a hard time seeing Kentucky bourbon and California avacado's having much impact on the electorate.
Avacado's could be a boon to California farmers. Mexican crops have vastly improved but California Hass are still the gold standard and lot's of folks gladly pay the premium. Start planting new Hass groves. I'd enjoy watching Governor Gavin try to permit his avacado farmers out of buisness.
"It was assumed that presidents would be more willing to look out for the nation's best interest and less likely to support protectionism for specific industries."
Yikes. Really? Who the fuck assumed that?
Well, lots of congresscritters said that was the justification when they delegated away all their authority in the first place. And I'm sure some credulous journalists at the time believed it. Only with the benefit of hindsight and cynicism is it so obvious that it was a patent attempt to appear to be "doing something" without the responsibility of making any real choices.
Damn, looks like my glenlivet isn’t going to be getting any cheaper. On the other hand looks like the price of Sevo’s glue bag won’t be going up.
And you're not getting any smarter. Fuck off and die, asshole.
It's simply amazing that tariffs had no ill effects at all until Trump was elected. It's almost like Trump has magical powers to drive steaming piles of shit crazy.
Sevo, I detect sweat forming on your forehead over worrying that while the price of glue won’t be going up, the price of your baggies might go up a couple pennies.
And for a guy living on the street, a couple pennies means something.
You're getting dumber by the hour. Fuck off and die, asshole.
With friends like Canada and the EU, do we really need enemies?
While a disagree with part of what Trump is doing, he does have a point that our so called allies take advantage of the USA and then stab us in the back all the while pretending to be morally superior.
The corporate perpetuates the lie to the degree that is offensive to independents. The left has become completely unreasonable and frankly deranged. When they lose power they start to expose their authoritarian tendencies because they can't an argument in the court of public opinion in a fair and open discussion.
Now we have yet another example of a so called democracy in Europe, doing the very thing that they accuse Putin of doing to silence opposition. Once or twice it might be a coincidence, but it's becoming a pattern. The EU pretends to be democratic, however when push come to shove, the are as authoritarian as the examples they rail against.