The Congressional Budget Office said President Trump's tariffs could raise $2.8 trillion over the next decade if they remained in place. However, D-VA. Senator Tim Kaine believes the cost of raising so much money will fall on poor families and middle-class Americans.

"Basically, the things that tariff revenue is doing, it's being used to cut taxes for the wealthiest and the cuts in daily plans that people rely on Medicaid and nutrition assistance," Kaine told Kaine. Morning version.

Since Trump returned to the White House, he has imposed nearly 10% to 50% taxes on U.S. imports, which have raised tens of billions of dollars in revenue.

If tariffs remain appropriate, the federal deficit is expected to decrease by $2.8 trillion by 2035, according to a CBO letter released Wednesday. The money will also offset the cost of a comprehensive budget bill passed by the House last month.

Kaine, who was a former Senate Budget Committee, said: “The distribution effect of tariffs is because it is the sales tax and economists have long said that sales tax is regressive and they are much more difficult than the low- and middle-income numbers that high-income people suffer.”

He added: “It is fair to reduce the deficit in daily life, rather than to give the wealthiest the share they deserve.”

Kaine further discusses his concerns about the impact of tariffs and its projected impact on NPR's Steve Inseke.

The following interview has been lightly edited to extend length and clarity.

Highlights of the interview

Steve Ice Save: You have been worried about budget deficits, the amount we borrow every year, federal debt, borrowing amount or debt accumulated over time. According to the CBO, tariffs will reduce the deficit. Is this useful even if you don't like tariffs?

you. Tim Kaine: Steve, you have described a puzzle. The CBO said this Trump tariff regime is essentially a business tax and will increase revenue. There are three things to do when the income increases. It will reduce the deficit. It will increase the cost of Americans’ groceries and construction supplies, household items (and) clothing. It will also narrow the economy. But that's not the only problem, because basically what tariff income is doing, it's used to make tax breaks for the wealthiest and cuts in daily plans for people relying on Medicaid and nutrition assistance.

Inskeep: So it will pay off federal debt, but that will result in people who make $70,000 or $50,000 a year paying payments instead of people who make $70 million or $50 million. That's what you are talking about?

Kane: Absolutely. The distribution effect of tariffs is because it is the sales tax and economists have long said that sales tax is regressive, and their losses are lower than those of low-income people, who have suffered low-price and middle-income attacks. Because lower and middle-income people spend more of their income on buying things rather than hiding their savings or stock markets. Is it fair to reduce the deficit in daily life rather than to make the richest shares enjoy the share they deserve? Therefore, part of the puzzle will definitely reduce the deficit. But increase the cost of everyday people and narrow the economy. Is it worth it? You reduce it all the key plans people rely on this settlement bill. Now you see Donald Trump trying to do it and turning to what he did in his first semester, a tax break that benefits from the wealthiest, at the expense of everyone else.

Inskeep: I have to ask you a question about other news, namely the White House breakup. President Trump and Elon Musk broke up very publicly after Elon Musk left the administration. What have you done about this?

Kane: Well, you know, it's not surprising, but surprising. So, I think anyone who is a little aware of the personality of these two people would predict a breakup. (...) Musk is concerned about certain characteristics of the bill, the deficit effect of the settlement. As a result, many things about the bill have attracted serious attention. That's why home products take up a lot of water in the Senate. And if the Senate does turn it back to the House, I think it would be a very different form.

Inskeep: A completely different form, meaning a lower deficit, etc.?

Kane: For my sake, I will try to provide an amendment and say, “Hey, if you don’t cut taxes for the wealthiest and wealthiest estates, you don’t have to provide food aid to poor families. So, everyone in the chamber, let’s vote on that.” We’ll have an amendment like this. And I think some of these amendments will be very important.

Destinee Adams made this piece for the web and Treye Green edited it. Nia Dumas and Taylor Haney made the audio story.