'Are you kidding me?' CNN analyst expresses disbelief over Democrats' loss of critical demographic



Democrats lost the White House and the U.S. Senate in November and were unable to make sufficient headway in the House to make their hysterical opposition to Republican initiatives insurmountable. In the months since, they have continued losing in various ways, especially in the way of public confidence.

The disapproval rating for the party as a whole was 58.3% as of May 25, according to polling by the Economist and YouGov. A new CNN survey conducted by SSRS and published June 1 revealed that only 16% of Americans figure the party's leaders as strong and only 19% of respondents indicated the party was capable of getting things done.

The Democratic Party has apparently lost a lot more than face and confidence — it no longer has a stranglehold on the middle class, a critical demographic that accounts for roughly half the electoral pie.

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten built up to this revelation on Monday, noting first that when it comes to the economy, Americans just trust Republicans more.

When asked which political party's views were closer to their own on the economy, 38% of respondents said the Republican Party in a CNN survey. Thirty-one percent said the Democrats' views were representative.

RELATED: Scott Jennings drops reality check on CNN — Dems' support for boys in girls' sports, illegal aliens destroying their brand

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

"How is that possible, Democrats? How is that possible after all the recession fears? After the stock markets been doing all of this?" said an exasperated Enten, simulating market ups and downs with his hand. "After all the tariffs that Americans are against? And Republicans still hold an eight-point lead on the economy — are you kidding me?"

CNN talking head Kate Bolduan appeared keen for Enten to paint a silver lining on this bad news for Democrats, but he was unable to deliver. Instead, Enten noted that other polling data similarly suggests Americans regard the GOP as the party with the better economic plan.

'Donald Trump and the Republican Party have taken that mantle away.'

"The Republicans still hold an advantage on the all-important key issue of the day," said Enten. "And that is the reason why, even if Donald Trump's approval ratings are a little bit lower than they used to be, Republicans are not out of the ballgame because they still have a clear advantage on the economy."

Enten was not finished burdening Bolduan with bad news for Democrats.

He suggested that Democrats have for decades — since at least 1989 — held a significant, double-digit advantage over Republicans with the middle class. Enten noted, however, that the Democratic Party's advantage had slipped in recent years to a negligible lead, "well within the margin of error."

"Now, in our latest CNN poll, among registered voters, 'which is the party of the middle class?' It is tied," said Enten. "This, I think, speaks to Democratic ills more than anything else. They have traditionally been the party of the middle class. No more. Donald Trump and the Republican Party have taken that mantle away."

'A key advantage for Democrats historically has gone Adios amigos.'

According to a 2024 Gallup poll, 54% of Americans identify as part of the middle class.

There are numerous factors at play here besides former President Joe Biden's disastrous time in the White House, a few of which were highlighted by the New York Times earlier this year.

RELATED: Democrats are just noticing a long, deep-running problem

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The Times noted that while Democrats rushed to pin their estrangement from the working and middle classes on the party's embrace of gender ideology and woke policies, Democratic leaders' prioritization of consumers over workers; promotion of job-killing climate and globalist initiatives; and shift away from unions hurt the relationship.

When asked which was the party of the middle class, 34% of respondents in the CNN survey said the Democratic Party, 32% said the Republican Party, and 33% said neither party.

"A key advantage for Democrats historically has gone adios amigos," said Enten. "And now there is no party that is the party of the middle class. Republicans have completely closed the gap."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s trade crackdown may be US Steel’s last shot



Cleveland-Cliffs, America’s fourth-largest steel producer, stunned West Virginia earlier this month by shelving plans to reopen a shuttered steel mill as an electrical transformer plant.

The project would have restored 600 of the 1,000 jobs lost when the company idled the mill in February. Instead, the cancellation marked just one of several disappointing announcements since March, all driven by the company’s ongoing financial problems. In total, Cleveland-Cliffs plans to idle six facilities across Pennsylvania and the Midwest.

If the choice is between watching Cleveland-Cliffs and US Steel collapse or breathing new life into one through foreign direct investment, Trump won’t hesitate.

And who suffers most? Steelworkers and their families — the people left out of the headlines.

I’ve tracked the steel industry’s decline for decades, first as the lone free-market conservative senior adviser at the Alliance for American Manufacturing, and later through various economic roles in Washington, D.C. Cleveland-Cliffs’ troubles are just the latest symptoms of a chronically ailing American steel sector, burdened by nearly a dozen deeply rooted problems that won’t be solved quickly.

Steelmakers now face skyrocketing costs for raw materials, energy, and labor. At the same time, they compete against a global glut of cheap steel, particularly from Chinese companies that flood markets and drive down prices. Geopolitical tensions, supply shortages, and transportation choke points only add to the chaos. The result: an industry pushed to the brink — and workers left behind.

Some steel companies are taking creative steps to survive. In December 2023, U.S. Steel announced a proposed sale to Japanese rival Nippon Steel. CEO David Burritt had warned just three months earlier that without a strong buyer, he would likely shut down the Mon Valley Works plant near Pittsburgh — an iconic facility employing more than 3,000 workers — and move company headquarters from the “Steel City” to Arkansas.

Nippon Steel emerged as the most financially viable bidder, outpacing Cleveland-Cliffs, which remains weighed down by persistent losses. Despite this, the Biden administration blocked the deal. President Trump initially opposed the sale but has since indicated a willingness to approve it.

For years, I’ve advocated better trade policies — especially deregulation and aggressive action against China. As a former commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, I pushed to crack down on China’s intellectual property theft and ongoing geo-economic abuses. Trump’s trade agenda gives the United States its best shot in decades to protect jobs from Chinese exploitation and reopen long-shuttered paths to profitable domestic manufacturing.

RELATED: Can Trump revive American steel?

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

On the home front, Trump’s 10-to-1 deregulation initiative — eliminating 10 old rules for every new one — could transform the business landscape. He’s already eyeing 44 regulations that manufacturers want repealed. What critics call a “tariff war” with China is really just Washington’s overdue reckoning with decades of failure to hold Beijing accountable.

These policy reforms won’t take effect overnight. And manufacturers like U.S. Steel can’t afford to wait while neglect and decay continue. Nippon Steel’s $14.9 billion bid offers a direct infusion of capital that could revive this historic company and inject new life into a battered industry.

Look at what Nippon’s latest offer — now exceeding $20 billion — includes:

  • A $1.3 billion commitment to upgrade and modernize two U.S. Steel plants.
  • Guarantees to retain the full U.S. Steel workforce and honor existing union contracts.
  • A $5,000 bonus for every U.S. Steel employee once the deal closes.

President Trump understands business and negotiation. His priority — rightly — focuses on revitalizing American industry and creating jobs that put affordable groceries, including now-cheaper eggs, back on the tables of steelworkers.

If the choice is between watching Cleveland-Cliffs and U.S. Steel collapse or breathing new life into one through foreign direct investment, Trump won’t hesitate. He’ll choose growth — and he’ll be right to do so.

Why voters are done compromising with the ‘America Last’ elite



One of the main forces driving the populist revolt against Washington stems from a simple truth: The ruling class openly prioritizes foreign interests over the needs of American citizens.

When millions of Americans — spanning political and economic divides — called on their leaders to put America first, the response was rejection.

Blue-collar factory workers, once loyal to the economic left, and Tea Party conservatives, committed to limited government, found rare common ground. Together, they asked their government to put the interests of the United States and its people above globalist agendas. That request was denied.

The political class chose to outsource American manufacturing, ship jobs overseas, and flood the domestic labor market with cheap foreign replacements. When they couldn’t export your job, they imported someone to take it.

At the same time, both parties prioritized foreign wars and border security — for other nations. While American communities faced rising crime and chaos from a deliberately open southern border, lawmakers sent troops, dollars, and attention to foreign front lines.

Washington refused to secure the United States. It focused instead on securing everyone else.

I welcome the growing ‘America Only’ movement, even if it is more isolationist than I am.

To be fair, the two parties expressed their abandonment of American interests differently. The Democrats embraced a fervent anti-patriotism that made clear their hostility and disloyalty to the United States. Democrats swooned over Colin Kaepernick, whose public disdain for the U.S. symbolized their broader worldview. In other words, Democrats embraced “America Never.”

The Republican establishment, despite the party’s base being vocally America First, sought out a compromise position with the Democrats, settling on “America Last” as the middle ground.

America Last is an unacceptable compromise to those of us clamoring for America First. The only rational countermeasure is “America Only” — a position that aims to shift the Overton window back toward the rightful prioritization of American sovereignty, industry, and citizenship. While I don’t believe the United States can completely decouple from the global economy, nor do I consider myself America Only, I welcome the shift in that direction to move the compromise position from America Last to America First.

Too many people in Washington on both sides of the aisle are passionate about defending Ukraine’s border, but they consider it vulgar and racist for Americans to secure our own border. Elites weep over the deportation of violent criminal aliens, yet are silent about their crimes and the victims affected by them. To this day, open-border ideologues claim that the man who murdered Laken Riley is the real victim — and they’ll never forgive her for being killed by one of their prized illegal aliens.

The ‘America Only’ compromise

The genesis of the MAGA movement is often summarized this way: “The Tea Party was the polite request. Donald Trump is the less polite request. It doesn’t get any more polite from here.” That same sequence applies to the uniparty, having rejected America First, which was the polite request. America Only is the less polite follow-up request.

We demanded that our own border be secured before weapons and tax money were sent to defend Ukraine’s border. The establishment responded by draining our country’s stock of munitions and sending them to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, along with $175 billion. Congress’ bipartisan “compromise” was to keep the border wide open and effectively legalize the ongoing invasion. The government hired thousands of border agents, not to protect the border but to process those crossing it.

Moreover, we demanded fair, reciprocal trade, and in response, we got unilateral surrender to foreign mercantilism — our industrial exports widely blocked by tariffs and trade barriers from the same countries granted unlimited access to our markets.

These betrayals have pushed many conservatives who were once pro-trade, pro-legal immigration, and pro-Ukraine into an isolationist mindset that embraces protectionist tariffs, rejects all immigration, and doesn’t care any longer about Ukraine’s fate. This response is not only rational — it might be necessary to tell our government that prioritizing the United States and its citizens must henceforth be its top priority.

A wake-up call

For what it’s worth, I am not an isolationist. I stand solidly with Israel as a cultural and religious outpost that is a linchpin in Western civilization, and I support its current war effort — so long as U.S. troops are not involved. If Israel falls, it wouldn’t just reshape the map; it would embolden those who dream of a global caliphate, including in North America.

I can also be persuaded that a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear program is justifiable so long as the “we broke it, we bought it” policy is no longer operational. If we have to break it, we can break it and leave it until it needs breaking again.

At the same time, I also welcome the growing “America Only” movement, even if it is more isolationist than I am. A coalition of America Only and America First voters has the power to compel the Republican establishment and swing-district Democrats to understand that America First is the compromise position, and if they refuse, then they get nothing on their global wish list.

Rand Paul’s anti-tariff crusade was doomed — and rightly so



Earlier this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a short-lived attempt to block President Trump’s new tariffs. Fortunately, in this case, he lost. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote.

Paul played all of the libertarian greatest hits, from calling tariffs “taxation without representation” to claiming they represent big-government tyranny. He ignored one key fact: Donald Trump ran, and won, on an explicitly pro-tariff platform. The American people voted for this.

If Paul really wants to reduce the size and scope of government, he has no choice but to support Trump’s tariffs.

The reality is that tariffs are the form of taxation most compatible with small government. That’s why America’s founders — and every president on Mount Rushmore — supported them.

How tariffs promote small government

Tariffs shrink the power of government in three ways. First, they reduce foreign demand for U.S. debt, limiting borrowing. Second, they promote full employment, reducing welfare dependency. Third, they protect American businesses from foreign state interference.

America has run trade deficits every year since 1974. The cumulative total, adjusted for inflation, approaches $25 trillion. In 2023 alone, the trade deficit in goods and services neared $920 billion.

We didn't pay for that deficit with domestic production. Instead, we sold off assets — real estate, stocks, and bonds. China and its trading partners ship us goods, then buy up our future in return.

That includes our debt. Foreign demand for Treasury bonds has exploded because countries like China must recycle their trade surpluses somewhere. This artificial demand makes it easier — and cheaper — for Washington to borrow without raising yields.

Foreign entities now hold $8.5 trillion in U.S. public debt, about 29% of the total. The explosion started in 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization, and our deficits soared.

The result? Washington spends recklessly. And the cost of servicing that debt — over $300 billion in interest payments to foreign creditors — bleeds out the economy. That’s roughly equal to our annual trade deficit with China.

Higher tariffs would shrink the trade deficit and lower foreign demand for American debt. That would limit Washington’s access to cheap credit — exactly what fiscal conservatives should want.

Long term, if tariffs replaced the income tax as the government’s primary revenue source, federal borrowing would face a hard cap. Unlike the income tax, tariffs are avoidable. If rates rise too high, people buy domestic. That reality places a natural limit on tax revenue and borrowing capacity.

In short: Tariffs enforce fiscal restraint.

Tariffs favor work over welfare

Since 2001, the U.S. has lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs — along with the service jobs that depended on them.

Offshoring gutted labor’s bargaining power. When employers can threaten to send jobs to China, wages stagnate. Productivity no longer guarantees compensation. Workers take what they can get, or they’re replaced.

This “race to the bottom” helped erode middle-class wages and drive up welfare dependency. Over 10 million Americans now qualify as chronically unemployed, with many dropped from the labor force entirely.

As I explain in my book “Reshore,” mass job loss carries political consequences. Unemployed citizens are more likely to vote for higher taxes, expanded social programs, and even socialist policies. Poverty breeds dependency — and dependency fuels government growth.

Even if you buy the libertarian argument that tariffs “distort” markets, the result still favors liberty. The jobs tariffs protect are real. They preserve dignity, reduce welfare rolls, and shrink government.

Work is cheaper — and better — than welfare.

Good fences make good neighbors

Paul argues that tariffs let government “pick winners and losers.” He wants the market to decide.

Well, sure. That would make sense — if America competed on equal footing. But we don’t. Chinese businesses don’t operate under free market conditions. They’re backed by the Chinese Communist Party, which props them up with subsidies, below-market financing, land-use preferences, and outright theft — up to $600 billion per year in American intellectual property.

U.S. small businesses can’t compete with state-sponsored enterprises. That’s why entire American industries, towns, and families have disappeared.

Tariffs serve as economic fences. They shield American firms from foreign governments — not just foreign competitors. That protection restores actual market competition inside the United States, where private companies can go head-to-head without facing a communist superstate.

And economic competition isn't just about firms. It happens at every level: workers vying for jobs, companies for customers, nations for global influence. Globalism collapses these layers into a single, rigged marketplace where the biggest government wins — and right now, that’s Beijing.

Tariffs restore order by separating national economies enough to maintain fair play. They enhance domestic competition while preserving international boundaries. Most importantly, they keep the CCP — the world’s largest and most authoritarian government — from dominating American markets.

If Rand Paul really wants to reduce the size and scope of government, he has no choice but to support President Trump’s tariffs.

Middle-class Americans thrived under Trump’s tax cuts. Here’s the proof.



As the 2025 fiscal cliff approaches, key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire — triggering one of the largest planned tax hikes in U.S. history. If Congress fails to act, the hardest hit won’t be billionaires or Wall Street elites. It will be working- and middle-class Americans who will get hammered.

For years, the left has pushed a false narrative about the TCJA, passed in 2017 under President Donald Trump. They claim it was a “giveaway to the rich.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) even labeled it a “wealth transfer” from working families to millionaires and billionaires. That claim is flatly untrue. The data from the Internal Revenue Service tells a very different story.

Democrats say they care about working families. If that’s true, why are they standing in the way of the very law that lowered the tax burden on millions of middle-income Americans?

A new policy study from the Heartland Institute, which I co-authored, analyzed IRS data from 2017 through 2022 to evaluate the real impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Although the law passed in 2017, it didn’t take effect until 2018. Using the most recent available tax year (2022), we compared data before and after the law took effect to determine how much taxpayers saved across each IRS income bracket.

Since IRS data for 2023 and 2024 isn’t available yet, we used historical averages to project savings for those years.

Big tax cuts for the middle class

The results are clear. The TCJA cut personal income tax rates across the board. But the biggest winners — by percentage saved — were working- and middle-class Americans earning between $30,000 and $200,000 a year. Over the period studied, these families saved thousands.

Here’s the breakdown: From 2018 through 2024, we project that households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 saved around $6,300 in federal income taxes. Those making between $75,000 and $100,000 saved about $8,300. And families earning between $100,000 and $200,000 saved nearly $13,500.

That’s not a giveaway to the rich. That’s real relief for working families.

While high-income earners benefited too, their relief was modest compared to the savings middle-class families received.

In 2022, filers making between $5 million and $10 million saw their federal tax bills fall by just 2.3% compared to 2017. Meanwhile, households earning between $40,000 and $50,000 saved nearly 19%. That’s not trickle-down economics — that’s targeted relief for working Americans.

Overall, the income groups that saw the largest percentage tax cuts were those earning less than $75,000. Within that group, even the lowest-performing bracket — households making between $50,000 and $75,000 — still saved a little over 16% in 2022 compared to pre-TCJA levels. Every other bracket in the under-$75,000 range saved at least 18%.

Perhaps most striking of all, our study shows that the TCJA actually made the federal tax code more progressive. It shifted more of the income tax burden onto high earners while easing it for working families — the very opposite of what critics have claimed.

The IRS data from 2017 to 2022 shows a clear trend. After the TCJA took effect, households earning less than $200,000 paid a smaller share of all personal income taxes, while households earning more than $200,000 picked up a larger portion of the national tab.

Debunking the deficit myth

This contradicts a favorite claim of the left — that the Trump tax cuts would drain federal revenue and explode the deficit. Yes, the deficit has worsened since the TCJA took effect, but not because tax revenues collapsed. The truth is just the opposite.

In 2017, the IRS collected about $3.5 trillion in total taxes. By 2022, that number had jumped to nearly $5 trillion. Personal income tax collections alone reached $2.13 trillion in 2022 — up half a trillion dollars since the TCJA became law.

The TCJA didn’t starve the Treasury. Federal income tax revenues have grown significantly since 2017. What has fueled the national debt and deficit is not a lack of revenue, but out-of-control government spending.

The clock is ticking

Middle-class tax relief is scheduled to expire at the end of the year. If Congress fails to act, the fallout will be severe. Many middle-income families could face tax hikes of 18% or more, costing them thousands of dollars over the next few years. Higher earners would face even steeper increases — an economic drag that would ripple across the entire country.

Democrats say they care about working families. If that’s true, why are they standing in the way of the very law that lowered the tax burden on millions of middle-income Americans? Why are they trying to undo the progress that helped working people climb the economic ladder?

The answer is plain: politics. Democrats have opposed the TCJA from the beginning — not because it failed, but because Donald Trump signed it into law.

But the facts don’t lie. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act worked. It lowered tax rates, fueled economic growth, and helped everyday Americans keep more of what they earned.

If Congress doesn’t step in soon and make the cuts permanent, the middle class will once again be left holding the bill.

Tariffs Aren’t Bad For The Economy, Just For Financial Pencil-Pushers

The American economy is worth saving. So are the people who built it. And for the first time in a generation, someone is finally fighting to do just that.

Trade should work for America, not rule it



This week, Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, announced his organization’s support for President Trump’s trade policy. That includes backing Trump’s use of tariff threats to secure better trade deals with foreign nations.

The announcement reflects a broader shift underway at Heritage. Once a pillar of the conservative establishment, the think tank has moved toward a more populist, "America First" approach that challenges the traditional Republican consensus on trade.

We are a nation, not just a market. The only test that matters is whether a policy puts Americans first.

Predictably, critics from the old guard — such as Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz — emerged from their irrelevant holes to denounce Heritage for its betrayal of “conservative principles.” But these men, who haven’t conserved a blessed thing, have lost sight of a foundational truth: Economies should serve nations — not the other way around.

In theory, free trade eliminates barriers to the flow of goods and services across borders. The promise is that open markets lead to greater competition, more efficiency, and lower prices for all. British economist David Ricardo developed the idea of comparative advantage to support this model, arguing that trade benefits both countries when each focuses on what it produces most efficiently.

As scholar Neema Parvini has noted, however, Ricardo’s theory rested on key assumptions — most notably that labor and capital would remain largely fixed. That assumption no longer holds.

Ricardo never imagined a world where illegal immigration surged across borders or where corporations moved profits overseas to build factories in lower-cost countries. In fact, he warned against detaching economic decisions from national loyalty.

Ricardo believed a man’s attachment to his country would lead him to accept smaller profits at home rather than seek higher returns abroad. He viewed that sense of national loyalty as a natural barrier against global capital flight — and a necessary one. It would be a tragedy, he warned, if that bond ever broke.

The economist most often cited by free trade absolutists understood that theoretical models only work when grounded in reality. In Ricardo’s view, trade made sense only if individuals valued their nations more than the pursuit of maximum profit.

In an ideal world, workers and corporations would prioritize national loyalty over global opportunity, and all countries would reduce trade barriers. But we do not live in that world.

Many nations — even U.S. allies — routinely use tariffs and subsidies to give their domestic industries an edge. They do this while benefiting from a global trading system that operates securely and reliably, largely at America’s expense.

These countries act unapologetically in their national interest. The United States should do the same.

Free trade is not a moral imperative or an inherent good. It is an economic policy rooted in a theory about how trade functions. Those who promote it without question often ignore both the historical context in which Ricardo developed the theory and the realities of today’s global economy.

If free trade benefits the American people, we should pursue it. If it does not, we should adopt a policy that does.

Political theorist Russell Kirk argued that conservatism should never become ideological. Its first obligation is to the well-being of a particular people. Conservatism isn't about abstract ideals or academic formulas — it’s about preserving a way of life, grounded in real communities and traditions.

Those who champion theory over lived experience are not conservatives. They are ideologues cloaked in the language of the right, often more interested in intellectual posturing than in preserving American life.

This is why rigid, neoconservative approaches to trade have so often failed. They claim to “conserve,” but in practice, they have eroded the very institutions and livelihoods they were meant to protect.

These ideas have been tested — and failed. For decades, the United States has acted as the only major economy fully committed to ideological free trade. The results have been disastrous.

Other nations talk about free trade but act in their own interest. They impose tariffs, protect key industries, and prioritize their citizens. They live in the real world — not in an academic simulation. It’s long past time for the United States to do the same.

Economists and other academics play an important role in society, but — as the COVID-19 catastrophe made clear — they should not have the final say in public policy. Experts offer valuable insights, but their knowledge often applies narrowly to specific fields. They tend to struggle when asked to apply that knowledge in broader, real-world contexts.

That’s why nations are governed by statesmen, not scientists or economists.

An economist may point out that producing antibiotics in China reduces costs. But that same economist cannot weigh the national risk if China, the sole supplier, becomes the source of a disease that only those now-imported antibiotics can treat. In that scenario, no amount of economic efficiency will save American lives.

Shifting U.S. trade policy to protect American interests does not betray conservative principles — it affirms them. The first duty of conservatism is to preserve the American people and their way of life.

Conservatives should adopt economic policies that serve that goal, but we must never treat those policies as ends in themselves. The economy is a tool, not a purpose.

Neoconservatives may mourn the loss of ideological purity, but their abstractions should not define national policy. We are a nation, not just a market. The only test that matters is whether a policy puts Americans first.

How the GOP’s welfare fence-sitting inflames the cost-of-living crisis



The welfare programs that Republicans hesitate to cut are the main drivers behind the rising cost of living. They cannot claim to support “the little guy” while backing programs that fuel persistent inflation and erode the dollar’s purchasing power to benefit wealthy investors and corporations. Republicans need to choose a clear path forward.

During COVID-19, the government printed massive amounts of money to sustain a bloated federal budget that remains untouched to this day. As part of this spending spree, the Treasury Department sent out three rounds of checks to families earning less than $150,000 between March 2020 and March 2021.

This situation is dire for families who already own homes, but it’s even worse for young people entering the workforce, starting families, and looking to buy a house.

The average family of four below this income threshold received $10,400 in federal aid that year. Sounds like a great deal, right?

The trouble is that Republicans have failed to clearly explain to Americans how the money-printing that funded those stimulus checks and other spending led to a cost-of-living crisis that has hit consumers hard.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rise in living costs in the three years since the COVID-19 stimulus far outweighed the benefits families received from those checks. In 2020, the average family of four needed $61,332 to cover annual expenses. By 2023, that same family required $77,280 — a staggering $16,000 increase.

From 2021 through 2023, families spent an additional $33,179 on the same goods and services due to inflation driven by COVID-era spending.

So how did those stimulus checks work out? It's worth noting that these payments weren’t even universal. Many middle-class families in high-cost areas, just above the income threshold, received little or no cash.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has not yet released data for 2024, but the average family budget likely exceeded $80,000 — at least $18,000 more than in 2020. This year’s costs are already rising.

In effect, we traded a year of $10,400 in “free” cash for some families in exchange for more than $50,000 in additional costs over four years — a burden that will only grow unless we cut federal spending.

The cost-of-living crisis caused by deficit spending is far worse than government reports suggest. Families know that the Consumer Price Index numbers are a joke. In reality, consumers are paying much more for essential goods and services than the reports indicate.

For instance, the Bureau of Economic Analysis claims that the cost of medical insurance has dropped 26% over the past two years. Everyone knows that’s absurd. In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that average premiums for family health insurance plans rose by 7% in both 2023 and 2024. These increases are taking a significant toll on families, including those with employer-based coverage.

This situation is dire for families who already own homes, but it’s even worse for young people entering the workforce, starting families, and looking to buy a house. Deficit spending and inflation have created an interest rate cliff on top of the existing housing bubble, making homeownership unaffordable.

A recent Zillow report found that a typical household now needs to earn more than $106,000 a year to afford a home — assuming a 10% down payment and spending 30% of income on housing. That’s an 80% increase from $59,000 a year in 2020, or $47,000 more annually. And that’s not even for homes in desirable markets.

So do Medicaid and food stamps, along with $22 trillion in new deficits, still sound like good ideas? At this rate, we’ll never regain our parents’ standard of living, and things will only get worse.

Bankrate’s annual Financial Freedom Survey found that people now believe they need an income of $186,000 a year to live comfortably.

How much income does it take to achieve the middle-class dream of the last generation? According to Smart Asset, the 50/30/20 budget rule suggests spending about 50% of income on basic needs like food and housing, 30% on wants, and the remaining 20% on savings or debt repayment.

For a family of four, reaching that goal is costly. In Mississippi, the least expensive state, you would need an income of $178,000. In Michigan, the median state, you’d need $214,000. In higher-cost states like Maryland and California, the required incomes jump to $240,000 and $301,000, respectively.

But living comfortably is no longer the main concern. Many Americans can’t afford housing, food, and transportation — even before the deficits and money-printing start to have their full effect. As a result of existing debt and rising interest rates, the Consumer Price Index has stayed above 3% for 45 consecutive months.

Household debt has reached a record $18.04 trillion, and credit card balances have soared to a record $1.21 trillion, rising 7.3% in just one year. A recent Bankrate report found that 42% of Millennials now have more credit card debt than savings. Meanwhile, a record 8.8 million Americans are working multiple jobs to make ends meet.

The fiscal outlook is even bleaker. Federal revenues rose by just 0.7% in the first third of this fiscal year, but spending increased by 15%, creating a $840 billion deficit in only four months. Over the past decade, federal tax revenue has increased by 59%, while government spending has surged by 96%. This spending spree has doubled the national debt from $18 trillion to $36 trillion.

Republicans have failed to connect these spending habits to rising personal debt and inflation. The consequences are clear, and they’re hitting Americans hard.

We will not bring back an affordable standard of living so long as we have the welfare state. And no, we will not accomplish this simply by cutting foreign aid or wasteful government subscriptions.

So yes, Democrats and lukewarm Republicans can complain about cuts to welfare. And yes, they can complain about inflation. But they have no right to complain about both at the same time. Pick a lane.

Dems loved IRS audits for you — and now fear accountability for themselves



As promised during the election, Elon Musk was appointed head of the Department of Government Efficiency to combat government waste and fraud. In typical Washington fashion, such an initiative would normally produce a polished report after 18 months, with little real action. But Musk and his team have taken a different approach, actively dismantling the worst areas of taxpayer abuse in a matter of weeks.

Predictably, those who oppose real reform — including Musk’s critics, Trump’s enemies, and those losing access to their slush funds — are in full meltdown mode.

That’s the real crisis hurting working Americans; the middle and working class are the ones paying the price.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has spent years in government overseeing this waste, took to Musk’s own platform, X, to express her outrage:

Elon Musk and Donald Trump are trying to drive a wrecking ball through our government. The people who will pay a real price are the hard-working families who are just trying to make it to the end of the month. We must use every tool to fight back.

That’s rich coming from Warren. Under the senator’s watch, the government’s debt has soared past 120% of GDP, nearing $36.5 trillion and climbing. In recent years, Congress has run wartime deficits of nearly 7% of GDP, fueling reckless spending. These policies helped drive historic inflation, crushing the finances and balance sheets of working Americans.

Warren knows all about wrecking balls — because that’s exactly what government policies have done to the nation’s finances while she has been in office.

That’s the real crisis hurting working Americans; the middle and working class are the ones paying the price.

So what exactly is Warren “fighting back” against? The same business-as-usual policies that are driving Americans and the government toward a fiscal cliff? Calls for responsibility and transparency? Efforts to root out fraud and waste?

If you love America, there’s nothing to fight against. Dismantling Congress’ “legal” money-laundering schemes is exactly what voters demanded. Americans want the wrecking ball aimed at government corruption — not at them, as has been the case throughout Warren’s time in office.

Democrats like Warren have pushed for more IRS agents and audits on $600 Venmo transactions. So why the panic when the government, which controls trillions of dollars, is finally put under a microscope?

Because Warren and company feel threatened that their power — and shenanigans — will be exposed.

Being “under new management,” as one of my X followers has called it, is a wrecking ball for the old regime, for corruption, for waste, and for fraud.

And it’s exactly what Americans want.

Panda Express didn’t sign up to represent generational failure



Panda Express and Chipotle have unintentionally become memes for mediocrity and failure. While their food might be unhealthy and has occasionally caused food poisoning, labeling the restaurants as symbols of decadence seems unfair.

Similarly, it was unjust to blame old shows like "Saved by the Bell" and "Boy Meets World" for corrupting white American youth and causing them to fall behind their Asian American peers academically.

Zoomers need to take active steps to improve their own lives. This means putting down the phone, engaging with the real world, and fostering spiritual growth.

This reflects today’s public discourse, which often simplifies ideas into memes for easier, more entertaining consumption. Unfortunately, this approach obscures genuine disagreements and turns clear, reasoned debates into a tangled mess of bad arguments.

In what feels like a sequel to the recent H-1B visa brouhaha, another discussion has emerged that deserves attention. As before, both sides present valid points and would likely agree on solutions. Yet, in the pursuit of content and audience engagement, participants continue talking past each other and trading potshots.

The current debate focuses on Zoomers — those in their late teens and 20s — and their ability to succeed in today’s America. One side argues that this generation faces insurmountable obstacles to success. The side claims the workplace and academia have become toxically feminized, and the gerontocracy leading our institutions suppresses the rise of younger generations.

Demands for ever more credentials have reached absurd levels, while the American dream of a spouse, children, and homeownership has become prohibitively expensive. Adding to this, older conservative voices seem oblivious to these challenges.

As a teacher working with Zoomers, I would add that online pornography and smartphones have taken a massive toll on the generation coming of age. These influences directly affect the libidos and social habits of young people entering adolescence. They have also created an anti-social culture marked by paranoia, crippling anxiety, and self-loathing. Most interactions between young people now occur online, limiting shared realities and empathy. This dynamic has wrecked the dating scene and stifled the formation of real friendships.

In addition to diminishing job opportunities and upward mobility, older generations have left Zoomers with a world of universal loneliness. This began when they handed children tablets and smartphones with unrestricted internet access. While parents rationalized these devices as tools for learning and self-improvement, the reality was far darker. These gadgets acted like a drug, poisoning children’s minds and damaging the culture at large.

The opposing side in this debate contends that a decent life is still achievable if young people were to stop making excuses and put in the effort. This is where Panda Express comes in. A motivated Zoomer could work his or her way up to managing a fast-food restaurant. While not glamorous, these roles offer honest work and could support a family with disciplined, frugal living.

Supporters of this perspective often share testimonials to back their claims. These stories highlight individuals who worked hard, avoided the usual vices, fell in love, started families, and now live fulfilling lives as popular influencers. Their message is clear: If they could succeed, so can anyone else.

To this, I would agree that Zoomers technically have access to all the resources they need to succeed. I’ve seen stumbling blocks turn into stepping stones, helping some of my students become far more accomplished at their age than I ever was. They have the tools to teach themselves nearly anything and engage in discussions once reserved for older generations.

However, what is possible isn’t always probable. Most people aren’t intellectual prodigies capable of instantly achieving fame and fortune. And more importantly, they shouldn’t have to be exceptional just to enjoy the same quality of life their parents once had.

Many Millennials in their 30s and 40s fail to see the significant generational gap between themselves and Zoomers. What was achievable for Millennials no longer holds true for Zoomers, who have borne the brunt of woke ideology and elite mismanagement.

For Millennials, hard work and basic credentials still could guarantee decent-paying jobs. Relationships and friendships formed naturally, and housing was relatively affordable. This is no longer the case for Zoomers, and dismissing them as “whiny brats” who spend too much time online fails to acknowledge the unique challenges they face.

To address or mitigate the struggles of this younger generation, both sides of the debate must acknowledge the validity of the other’s arguments. Leaders should adapt to modern realities by ending the reliance on cheap labor, curbing excessive public spending, streamlining regulations, breaking up monopolies, reforming education, prioritizing American workers, regulating addictive technology and online pornography as public health issues, and incentivizing marriage and parenthood.

At the same time, Zoomers need to take active steps to improve their own lives. This means putting down the phone, engaging with the real world, reading meaningful books, gaining work experience, and fostering spiritual growth. These efforts can help them build friendships, find partners, accumulate wealth, and create stability. While this path may not lead to glamorous jobs or extravagant homes, it is far better than resigning to a life of aimless frustration and online trolling.

Donald Trump’s return to office offers hope for both sides of this debate. If he fulfills his promises, conditions will improve. At the very least, the current decline will pause for a few years, giving Americans time to adjust and steer their course toward a brighter future.

As with the H-1B debate, this conversation is productive. These arguments have long been overlooked, and younger generations have endured the worst effects of this neglect, living in a world filled with unnecessary dysfunction. Beyond sharing memes and entertaining ourselves, we must address these challenges seriously, take constructive action, and leave fast-food chains out of the blame game.