Repeat after me, 2+2 = 5
No this isn’t the “New Math” they’re teaching your kids. Sadly, it’s Washington DC “Old Math” that has seen the National Debt hit $35 billion and climbing.
The latest math problem Washington is tackling is how can we sell a program that costs more to operate, raises the costs of clothing and slows delivery that Americans buy daily.
Congress is considering sneaking in a targeted tax hike, in the form of something called “De Minimis Reform” into a Continuing Resolution to be passed this fall by a Lame Duck Congress. This tax hike will not cover the cost of so called “reform,” yet it is being sold as a way to pay for disaster relief and other priorities of Congress. It would be better for Congress to find savings in existing programs to offset new spending, but Congress would rather burden consumers with higher taxes because that is easier.
The Congressional changes to the De Minimis threshold are causing quite a stir in the textile industry, with potential ramifications for both manufacturers and consumers. But what exactly is De Minimis, and why is its alteration so impactful?
De Minimis refers to the minimum value threshold set by a country below which goods can be shipped across borders without incurring import duties and taxes. In the United States, this threshold has been set at $800, one of the highest in the world. This means international shipments valued under this amount could enter duty-free, making it easier for small businesses and consumers alike to access global markets.
The change in De Minimis threshold proposed by Congress looks to lower this value significantly. The rationale is to curb the influx of low-cost imports, bring manufacturing back to American soil, and protect domestic industries. However, these changes might have unintended consequences, especially for the textile industry. Get ready for some Washington Old Math.
Lowering the De Minimis value means more shipments will be subject to import duties and taxes. Textile products, often imported to meet diverse consumer demands, will become more expensive. When costs rise for importers, they typically pass these costs on to consumers, hurting their wallets.
Small textile businesses frequently rely on global suppliers to source their materials and products. The increased costs from tariffs could overwhelm them, cutting into their profits and perhaps leading to business closures. This change disproportionally affects businesses without the scale to absorb or redistribute these new financial burdens.
The textile industry often requires quick turnaround times and relies on flexible, global supply chains to function efficiently. New customs procedures arising from the altered De Minimis threshold may lead to delays, adding to the woes of an industry already grappling with supply chain challenges due to global disruptions.
With increased costs and complexities, retailers might limit their range of imported textile products, reducing choices for consumers. A market with limited variety suppresses consumer satisfaction, pushing them towards potentially cheaper, but lower quality, alternatives.
Recent studies of the financial implications of proposed legislation, such as HR 4148 introduced by Rep. Blumenauer and HR 7979 by Rep. Murphy, are raising serious concerns about the sustainability of government spending and its impact on American households. According to a recent study, HR 4148 would cost the government a staggering $3.2 billion in 2025, equivalent to funding approximately 39,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. Beyond these immediate expenditures, the need for additional personnel is compounded by the existing shortfall of over 4,800 officers, as determined by the CBP’s Workload Staffing Model.
What does this mean for taxpayers? The alarming reality is that these recurring expenses would necessitate new appropriations from Congress, ultimately placing an additional burden on the taxpayers who are already grappling with rising costs of living. Rather than a straightforward solution to border security or customs oversight, Washington's approach appears to lean heavily toward expanding a bureaucratic apparatus that, in the end, may not yield sufficient returns. The study estimates that the CBP would face a critical decision between expending resources on low-value imports, which generate limited revenue, or focusing on higher-priority missions like inspections and penalties. This is not just a hypothetical scenario; it presents a stark choice between efficiency and the inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Yet, Washington seems to view this as a “win-win” scenario—where additional spending leads to a larger bloated government with heightened oversight but returns nominal revenues that don’t even cover the costs incurred. We are left staring down a long tunnel of increased textile prices, which inevitably inflates household budgets for ordinary American families already beleaguered by rising costs. The idea that increasing government bureaucracy translates to better services or accountability is a disillusionment that has led us to the brink of a $35 trillion national debt.
It is time to reevaluate this “Old Math” that assumes more spending equals greater efficacy. For hardworking American families, the consequences are tangible—a higher financial burden with little to show for it. It’s time we put Washington politicians in a remedial math class and check their work daily. We can't afford more of the same from Washington politicians.
Leif Larson is a media consultant and media strategist for multiple political candidates and issue campaigns across the country.
Read Full Article »