I am repeatedly told by certain experts that “tariffs are taxes on consumers.” Those experts who do not foresee a scenario in which their income could be outsourced are probably right in some cases—tariffs could increase consumer prices for certain products. so what?
Another “tax” imposed on consumers is the reduction in purchasing power caused by inflation caused by uncontrolled government spending. If the political class is going to focus on the “effective tax” of tariffs, why not at least start discussing the “effective tax” of inflation from government spending?
President Trump's proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico serve specific national security objectives.
donald trump recently announced plans After taking office, he called for a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada until both countries take steps to stop illegal immigrants and drugs, particularly fentanyl, from crossing the border. President Trump also proposed imposing 10% tariffs on Chinese goods without giving China any incentive to resolve the issue.
Oddly, much of the discussion surrounding these tariffs assumes that the 25% tax rate will remain in place, suggesting that drug and human trafficking will continue unabated in neighboring countries. . It is worth noting that the Venn diagrams of countries that support both unrewarding “free trade” and uncontrolled borders look nearly identical.
From 2022 onwards, Congress will Over $170 billion Reallocate billions more from the previous budget for Ukraine's war effort. The U.S. government doesn't have this money, so the federal deficit is widening. Congress could have raised taxes to finance Ukraine's spending (an obvious “tax on consumers”), but instead they spend money they don't have and create deficit-driven inflation that continues to burden consumers. sparked a crisis.
food prices are 22% increase Due to out-of-control government spending since Joe Biden took office. Funding a permanent war machine that is killing generations of Ukrainian and Russian men does not affect our national security, but continues to enrich the transplant industry adjacent to Ukraine. And that's going to fuel inflation here in the US.
By contrast, President Trump's proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico serve specific national security objectives. My wife and I have several friends who have lost children to fentanyl. Fentanyl almost certainly originates from China before entering Mexico. These precious children lost their lives as a result of the asymmetric war waged by China and Mexico against the United States.
The US defense budget exceeds $800 billion, paid for entirely by the American people through taxes and deficit-spending inflation. But none of that $800 billion will be used to stop the deadly wars that China and Mexico are waging on our southern border. If the U.S. defense budget cannot protect us from this invasion, funding border security through tariffs is an attractive option.
Maybe pay an extra 25 cents for a bottle of Cholula or switch to Louisiana hot sauce. But what about avocado? For some reason, anti-Trump media outlets have highlighted avocados as a major product affected by President Trump's proposed Mexico tariffs. The New York Times warned its readers:Get ready for guacamole to become a luxury item.'', noting that two-thirds of U.S. vegetable imports and nearly half of fruit and nut imports come from Mexico. Avocado: 90%.
nbc Chuck Todd comically warns Regarding President Trump's “guacamole tax,” he said, “Most of our avocados in this country come from Mexico. If you enjoy guacamole, you need to be prepared to pay higher taxes if tariffs are applied.”
Of course, Todd's much-feared “guacamole tax” would disappear if Mexico stopped the flow of drugs and human traffickers across its northern border and ended its asymmetric war against the United States. But Todd seems to think it's too much to put pressure on Mexico to end its campaign of mass murder against Americans with fentanyl.
oil field randos land land site Track government waste by linking to ridiculous spending items from U.S. government websites. A recent example is $330,000 allocation For “technical assistance to strengthen gender empowerment training, impact measurement tools, and governance of the NILUS food security program in Mexico City.”
This absurd spending is financed by deficit spending, which contributes to rising inflation for American consumers. If I have to accept higher inflation rates for gender empowerment training in Mexico City, I'm willing to pay a little more “tax on consumers” through tariffs on Mexican goods. Or, better yet, Mexico could avoid tariffs by stopping global criminal networks from passing through its borders and ending a border war with the United States.
