Current news discusses Kerr suit in the Courts to defy the Interior Dept. on payment of royalties for Oil and Gas in the Gulf of Mexico, and the WTO is implementing Trade sanctions on the United States because of the Jobs Creation Act. What does this mean? The Oil industry is making the highest Profits in history, and the WTO is discriminating against the United States--knowing full well that foreign nations' violation of WTO standards cost the United States far more than it will ever recover by subsidizing Boeing. Both are Cases where Petitioners are using the Letter of the Law to defeat the Intent of the Law.
What can the United States do about this?
The Courts can take the position that a Federal Dept. is correct in its administrative rulings, if Corporations still present a high Profit ratio after the administration ruling. It is not a question of Law, but of balance and fairness. The Government has the right to tax, and extraordinary Court interference violates such right. It is a question of whether the Companies under review pay, or do not pay, their fair share of the tax burden imposed on other Companies in other industries as a percentage of Sales and Profits.
This Author has always thought the United States should withdraw from the WTO. He perceives a role for Protectionist Trade policy which other Economists deny. The most prosperous nation will always finds discrimination against itself in any Trade union, where the Trade advantages of the wealthier nation can be outvoted by the smaller nations. A less-marked reaction would be retaliation, with Trade sanctions limiting the access of WTO nations to the American markets, until such time as discrimination against American Products are addressed by the WTO--with full payment of American losses from discriminatory practice by WTO members. lgl