President Donald Trump authorized raising tariffs on Canada, Mexico and the People’s Republic of China. He has been roundly criticized by business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street Journal. Both have warned that Trump’s actions endanger the supply chain and threaten to stoke up inflation. Perhaps it is an attempt to gain leverage over the three nations involved, but there remains nervousness over Trump’s tactics.

There may be other considerations namely the greatest adjustment of government revenue since 1914. In 1913 the Underwood-Simmons tariff reduced the tax on some imported goods by about half, 14%. To compensate for the loss of revenue, the United States Congress utilized the newly ratified 16th amendment allowing them to “collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration.” It was a modest 6% on the highest incomes.

So, Trump’s proposal that tariffs could replace the income tax is not absurd or fanciful. It does, though, have drawbacks that may drastically alter national priorities, particularly in regard to national defense. During World War I, the United States primarily sold war bonds. However, by World War II, the government ran a deficit and needed an income tax to balance it. Indeed, payroll withholding was introduced in 1943, which included a 94% higher bracket and added the previously excluded lower income families.

Trump is correct in that he is not required to adhere to the income tax as the main source of revenue. The 16th Amendment allows but does not require Congress to use the income tax option. Now the fly in the ointment is that using the direct tax option raises more money than tariffs. This has consequences for the national security state. Since World War II, the government has funded wars employing the 16th amendment. “Forever Wars” are expensive, and without a steady supply of cash are impossible to wage.

Given Trump’s dislike of conflict, the tariff option may allow for restraint. However, any war that disrupts the international trade world seriously slows the collection of tariffs. This could limit American adventures in the world which might prove salutary. At any rate, the President could alter the way the government is run and financed.

Whether or not Trump will seriously explore these options is an open question. This may be only a way of “flooding the zone” by keeping his opponents off base. But some of these ideas are interesting and not as bizarre as some media outlets make them appear. As Trump stated during the campaign they are maybe simply “concepts” but they are thought-provoking.

However, Trump should not confuse the “deep state” on the national security side with the “safety net” of social security or Medicare on the domestic side. Whichever way he goes, it is bound to be stimulating.