E.J. Antoni

You're much more likely to see things like the individual rates on particular countries hold up in court. So a 35% rate on China versus a 25% rate on Canada, whatever the case may be. The individual rates are much more likely to hold up than the 10% across the board. But frankly, that's all the more reason why you should put that 10% rate into statute.

Don't do it as a tariff, do it as a border adjustment tax. So that way you're not doing things like double taxing an item that crosses a border more than once. That happens a lot in the automotive industry as parts go back and forth before they turn into a final assembly.

Don't do it as a tariff, do it as a border adjustment tax. So that way you're not doing things like double taxing an item that crosses a border more than once. That happens a lot in the automotive industry as parts go back and forth before they turn into a final assembly.

The other really nice thing about that is the fact that once you have enshrined that into statute, now you can actually use the revenue from something like a border adjustment tax to offset the lost revenue for reducing personal marginal income tax rates. I think that's a win-win because you're helping to shift some of the tax burden overseas.

The other really nice thing about that is the fact that once you have enshrined that into statute, now you can actually use the revenue from something like a border adjustment tax to offset the lost revenue for reducing personal marginal income tax rates. I think that's a win-win because you're helping to shift some of the tax burden overseas.

Certainly reductions in rates, also the expensing provisions where you're not gonna force a business that has to buy a large item like a factory today to then take the tax deduction over multiple years. If they're outlaying the cash today, they should be able to take the full deduction today. Now, although that is in the bill, the problem is it's not permanent.

Certainly reductions in rates, also the expensing provisions where you're not gonna force a business that has to buy a large item like a factory today to then take the tax deduction over multiple years. If they're outlaying the cash today, they should be able to take the full deduction today. Now, although that is in the bill, the problem is it's not permanent.

It's only going to last for a few years. And then we just have to go through this whole rigmarole all over again to try to get that provision renewed once more. So I would love to see things like that, the most pro-growth parts of this tax bill become permanent. And as always, I would like to see even further reductions in terms of those marginal tax rates.

It's only going to last for a few years. And then we just have to go through this whole rigmarole all over again to try to get that provision renewed once more. So I would love to see things like that, the most pro-growth parts of this tax bill become permanent. And as always, I would like to see even further reductions in terms of those marginal tax rates.

I would not be surprised if on paper, and this is an important distinction here, if on paper you do see a recession and we can look at the first quarter GDP print as evidence for that. You saw the headline number drop about three tenths of a percentage point. Well, government spending, the reduction there in government purchases contributed a quarter percentage point decline.

I would not be surprised if on paper, and this is an important distinction here, if on paper you do see a recession and we can look at the first quarter GDP print as evidence for that. You saw the headline number drop about three tenths of a percentage point. Well, government spending, the reduction there in government purchases contributed a quarter percentage point decline.

In other words, it accounted for almost all of the decrease. Well, you continue down that trend of shrinking government purchases, reducing government spending, what's going to happen to headline GDP? It's going to continue to go down. But that's not a sign of impoverishment. That's a sign of wealth.

In other words, it accounted for almost all of the decrease. Well, you continue down that trend of shrinking government purchases, reducing government spending, what's going to happen to headline GDP? It's going to continue to go down. But that's not a sign of impoverishment. That's a sign of wealth.

It's exactly the opposite of what happened during the Biden administration, where we continue to get these apparently blockbuster official metrics, if you will. All the while, Americans' standard of living went down and their cost of living went up. I care much less about what these, again, quote unquote, official numbers look like.

It's exactly the opposite of what happened during the Biden administration, where we continue to get these apparently blockbuster official metrics, if you will. All the while, Americans' standard of living went down and their cost of living went up. I care much less about what these, again, quote unquote, official numbers look like.

I care much more about what the average American can actually buy with his or her weekly paycheck. And so far under the Trump administration, that figure has gone up, not down. And it's recovered about a quarter of the losses under Biden. That I expect to continue for the quarters ahead.

I care much more about what the average American can actually buy with his or her weekly paycheck. And so far under the Trump administration, that figure has gone up, not down. And it's recovered about a quarter of the losses under Biden. That I expect to continue for the quarters ahead.

Well, a couple of things. One is, I think, a resolution to a lot of that mixed messaging that you mentioned, right? I mean, it was frankly chaos to start where you had not only different members of the administration contradicting each other, but sometimes in the context of a single interview, you would have individuals contradicting themselves. A lot of that is getting resolved.

Well, a couple of things. One is, I think, a resolution to a lot of that mixed messaging that you mentioned, right? I mean, it was frankly chaos to start where you had not only different members of the administration contradicting each other, but sometimes in the context of a single interview, you would have individuals contradicting themselves. A lot of that is getting resolved.

Not all of it, but a lot of it. So that's really good. It's a very welcome development to have Trump and Besant really taking the lead in terms of negotiations. So less so Greer, Navarro, Lutnik. In terms of the de-escalation, I think what we're looking for there is essentially agreements one by one just getting hammered out and eventually signed.