The American economy is a strong entity of the United States. However, the government faces many problems on the best way to handle growing it. Over history and today the government must decide the best way to protect the government through things such as taxes and tariffs. Many presidential candidates unveil economic plans that have the goal of stimulating the economy, while previous governments were able to get plans in place to protect and grow the economy.
Chris Christie is currently a Republican presidential candidate for the 2016 year and was the 55th Governor of New Jersey. He attended University of Delaware and Seton Hall University School of Law for higher education (Anderson). Before getting into politics he was a partner at the …show more content…
For example, in 2009 Obama signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in an attempt to jumpstart the economy ("About the Recovery Act"). Back in 1816 the government put in place the Protective Tariff and became what was called the first “protectionist measure”. The tariff went in place after the War of 1812 with Britain. The goal of the tariff was to discourage Americans from purchasing British manufactured goods and instead purchase American manufactured goods. The War Hawks, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun were big promoters of the tariff ("Tariff of 1816”). Like acts today, the tariff was a way to try and help stimulate the American economy and help fund the government after the war. The Protective Tariff of 1816 effectively helped facilitate more consumption of American goods and less of British goods. If Chris Christie had been in this situation as president where British goods were posing a threat to the American industry I think he would have done something similar to the Protective Tariff. I believe this because the tariff also raised funds for the government after the War of 1812 and was a better way than raising the income taxes. Christie is for decreasing income taxes and trying to stimulate the economy and so therefore I think he would have done something very similar. This historical event can show one the importance of incentives. Congress could have outlawed British goods instead, but this would have created a strong incentive for a black market. Instead, by putting the tax on British goods it still gave Americans an incentive to be domestic goods and gave the government some funds after the war. Christie could use this idea to his benefit; tax something you could outlaw and that has a relative high demand. If Christie did that he could cut income tax rates as he would like to, but still earn funds for the
Chris Christie is currently a Republican presidential candidate for the 2016 year and was the 55th Governor of New Jersey. He attended University of Delaware and Seton Hall University School of Law for higher education (Anderson). Before getting into politics he was a partner at the …show more content…
For example, in 2009 Obama signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in an attempt to jumpstart the economy ("About the Recovery Act"). Back in 1816 the government put in place the Protective Tariff and became what was called the first “protectionist measure”. The tariff went in place after the War of 1812 with Britain. The goal of the tariff was to discourage Americans from purchasing British manufactured goods and instead purchase American manufactured goods. The War Hawks, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun were big promoters of the tariff ("Tariff of 1816”). Like acts today, the tariff was a way to try and help stimulate the American economy and help fund the government after the war. The Protective Tariff of 1816 effectively helped facilitate more consumption of American goods and less of British goods. If Chris Christie had been in this situation as president where British goods were posing a threat to the American industry I think he would have done something similar to the Protective Tariff. I believe this because the tariff also raised funds for the government after the War of 1812 and was a better way than raising the income taxes. Christie is for decreasing income taxes and trying to stimulate the economy and so therefore I think he would have done something very similar. This historical event can show one the importance of incentives. Congress could have outlawed British goods instead, but this would have created a strong incentive for a black market. Instead, by putting the tax on British goods it still gave Americans an incentive to be domestic goods and gave the government some funds after the war. Christie could use this idea to his benefit; tax something you could outlaw and that has a relative high demand. If Christie did that he could cut income tax rates as he would like to, but still earn funds for the