Deporting Illegal Immigrants Is Not Enough
Importing culturally foreign, economically dependent people is destroying the American way of life.Importing culturally foreign, economically dependent people is destroying the American way of life.Mass immigration means dependence, and dependence means control
Power always seeks to expand. It never halts for principles or words on paper, but only for rival powers strong enough to resist it. Those rivals must have deep roots, independent resilience, and the ability to demand loyalty. They must project sovereignty in ways the state cannot easily replicate, establishing spheres of influence that can resist government overreach without ever firing a shot.
Historically, strong communities provided this check. Their religions and folkways became the rhythms of life, passed down through generations. These beliefs drew authority from transcendent sources no earthly power could reproduce. Families built churches, schools, libraries, civic organizations, unions, and fraternities to preserve culture, transmit values, and care for members.
Communities with shared traditions can limit state commands. But diversity dissolves those limits.
Such communities formed spheres of sovereignty. They made competing demands on their members and provided services the state could not: spiritual grounding, mutual aid, a sense of identity. Membership required specific behaviors to remain in good standing, norms the state could not easily reshape. Because traditions were deeply ingrained, the state had to respect them or risk serious resistance.
Over time, these communities often accumulated wealth. Virtue and stability generated surplus capital, which supported robust institutions and provided safety nets. Their members no longer relied on government in times of need. They relied on each other. These were the kulaks — the middle class — people whose independence created natural barriers to state expansion. Not atomized “self-reliance,” but communal reliance: stability rooted in culture and habit. That is precisely why governments sought to break them.
High and low vs. the middle
The political theorist Bertrand de Jouvenel, in "On Power," described the classic formula: high and low versus the middle. The ruling class always wants more power, but the middle class resists. The poor, being dependent and disorganized, cannot mount opposition. Only the middle class, with property, institutions, and traditions, can stand in the way. To expand power, rulers must dissolve these spheres of sovereignty.
Their method is alliance with the dependent lower classes. Sometimes this means the domestic underclass. But that group still shares culture and traditions with the middle, making it less reliable as a tool. Importing a foreign underclass works better. Immigrants lack roots in the land or its traditions. They can be counted on to side with rulers against the entrenched middle.
Mass immigration delivers cheap labor to the wealthy while creating a new political client base. The upper class benefits from gardeners and nannies. Politicians gain millions of new voters to whom they can promise state benefits.
Dependence as a weapon
Immigrant groups rarely possess cohesive culture or resilient institutions. They lack roots, leisure, or unity to resist. They depend on the ruling class for entry, employment, rights, and welfare. Many don’t speak the language. They need the state to survive — and they reward the state with loyalty. This isn’t passive dependence. To succeed, they actively require the state to expand.
To serve this new underclass, rulers pillage the middle. Kulaks are blamed for inequality. They are guilted, taxed, or coerced into surrendering what they built. That wealth is transferred to immigrants, cementing the state’s power over both. The middle grows poorer, loses property, closes institutions, and becomes more unstable. Families that once resisted government control now depend on it.
RELATED: ‘Paperwork Americans’ are not your countrymen
Mass immigration also erodes culture, another obstacle to power. Communities with shared traditions can limit state commands. But diversity dissolves those limits. Forced to mingle with newcomers, the shared identity frays. Cultural separation becomes taboo. Institutions that once passed on values and provided aid collapse. Charities are drained. Public spaces decay. And those who maintained them see no reason to sacrifice for strangers.
The state ensures that escape is impossible. First taboo, then law, forbids communities to separate and reform. Those who try are smeared as bigots, then prosecuted. The middle is barred from reconstituting its way of life. Virtue fades. The spheres of sovereignty are gone. Everyone becomes a rootless dependent, giving the state a blank check to expand its power.
Why immigration became policy
This is why mass immigration became a priority across Western liberal democracies. It doesn’t just dismantle barriers to state power; it builds a machine to demand more of it. Rulers gain cheap labor, grateful voters, and excuses to raid the middle. The cost is cultural dissolution, but to elites that is a feature, not a bug.
If we want an elite that serves its people rather than undermines them, we must choke off this supply of outside populations. Stop importing clients. Stop dissolving communities. Restore the middle class and the spheres of sovereignty that protect liberty. Only then can the leviathan be caged.
Medicaid for millions, misery for the middle class
For months, Republicans and Democrats alike have insisted on keeping the Medicaid subsidy scam alive — even as it drives inflation and enriches the health care cartel. With the Biden-era expansion of Obamacare “marketplace” subsidies set to expire in December, both parties want to renew them. But this moment offers Republicans a rare opportunity: Finally lower health care costs for Americans not living on government handouts.
Obamacare buried the middle class
The ill-named Affordable Care Act helped Republicans win more elections than any issue in recent memory. But since 2016, the party has run from the fight. The result: Individual plans became unaffordable for anyone not getting subsidies, and employer-based coverage got gutted. Workers earn less in take-home pay and pay more for thinner plans.
The signature feature of Obamacare was turning catastrophic coverage into a luxury item.
Rather than continually shielding consumers from Obamacare’s price hikes with subsidies, why not repeal the mandates that caused the pain in the first place?
The numbers speak for themselves. In 2013, just before Obamacare took full effect, the average unsubsidized premium for individual coverage was $197 per month. By 2017, it had nearly doubled to $393. Family plans saw a 140% jump in that same period, from $426 to $1,021. Today, a typical family policy without subsidies costs $2,000 to $2,500 per month.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, average family premiums climbed from $13,770 in 2010 to $25,572 in 2024 — an 85% increase. And that “Cadillac plan” price tag now buys you higher deductibles and fewer benefits than a cheap pre-Obamacare policy.
Younger workers don’t even know what hit them. They’ve inherited a system designed to fleece them and can’t afford to opt out.
Even employer-based insurance has suffered. Since 2014, family premiums have risen 52%, while workers’ share has jumped 31%. Deductibles for individual plans have increased 53%, reaching $1,787 in 2024. Americans now pay more out of pocket for less protection.
This wasn’t an accident. It was baked into the law. Obamacare banned insurers from pricing plans based on risk, age, or gender. That shifted costs from older, sicker Americans to younger, healthier ones. Those who don’t qualify for subsidies pay top dollar for a bloated, mandatory benefits package they didn’t ask for.
Meanwhile, over 70 million lower-income Americans got dumped onto Medicaid — and Republicans went along with it. If Medicaid expansion is the new baseline, then at least fix the rest of the system for the middle class.
Caught in the middle
The political class loves to talk about the millions who gained “coverage” through Medicaid expansion and premium tax credits. They ignore the millions who earn too much to qualify for substantial assistance but too little to afford the staggering premiums.
These Americans are Obamacare’s silent victims — and they’re forced to choose between health coverage and other basic needs.
Subsidies don’t solve the problem. They mask it. The real crisis is the cost of health care itself.
Republicans already get hammered for supposedly “cutting Medicaid,” even when they’re only targeting fraud. They pay the political price for Obamacare without reaping any of the reform benefits. So why not go on offense and start dismantling the cartel?
Demand real reform
Instead of rubber-stamping another round of subsidies, Republicans should demand one simple trade-off: Let states offer unregulated, cheaper health care plans.
Don’t extend subsidies for the wealthy or the idle. And if temporary subsidies are unavoidable, they should be tied to an overhaul next year.
The signature feature of Obamacare was turning catastrophic coverage into a luxury item. Letting states revive affordable catastrophic plans would free up cash for direct primary care — and crack the cartel’s grip on pricing.
RELATED: Pushing back against the big Medicaid lie
And that’s just the beginning. Congress should allow health savings accounts, self-employment deductions, and employer exclusions to apply to alternative options like health-sharing ministries and concierge care. Workers should be able to use HSA funds to pay their own premiums or direct care memberships.
Employers should receive the same tax benefits for contributing to an employee’s HSA as they would for funding a traditional insurance plan. That gives workers real purchasing power and puts pressure on the cartel to compete.
Break the cartel. Rebuild the market.
Even if Republicans won’t fully repeal Obamacare, they must scrap the ban on physician-owned hospitals. That carve-out handed a monopoly to corporate health systems and helped bankrupt rural hospitals — a crisis both parties now pretend to solve with more subsidies.
You can’t subsidize your way out of a bottomless pit of inflationary grift. The only real solution is to let Americans escape the sinkhole that turned affordable health care into unaffordable sick care.
This is the GOP’s last chance to fix what it failed to kill. Make it count.
Welcome to Rent Nation, where no one owns and no one is free
For generations, homeownership has been a cornerstone of the American dream. It meant stability, responsibility, and the chance to pass wealth to the next generation. It gave people a stake in their communities.
But that dream is slipping away. And it’s not by accident.
If we want Americans to remain free and self-governing, they must be able to own their homes and their futures.
We are drifting into a rental society. Fewer families can afford to buy a home, while massive investment firms and corporate landlords are buying up the housing supply and turning America into a nation of tenants.
This is hardly the natural evolution of the market. Rather, it’s the result of decades of bad policy, turbocharged by emerging technology and justified by global elites who’ve decided that private property is both outdated and unsustainable.
The corporate land grab
The “renters’ revolution” emerged from bad policy. For years, local, state, and federal governments have made it more difficult and expensive to build homes. Zoning restrictions choke supply.
Environmental rules delay development. Add in the unintended consequences of government-backed mortgage schemes in the Bill Clinton era, which played a major role in the 2008 housing market crash, and you’ve got a system that makes homes less attainable, despite the stated intentions of the enacted policies.
Into that broken system stepped Wall Street. After the crash, investment giants like Blackstone began buying up foreclosed homes in bulk, turning millions of single-family homes into rental properties. Much of this trend is made possible by emerging technology.
Today, institutional investors use artificial intelligence and algorithmic tools to scan markets and make instant cash offers, often outbidding families looking to buy their first homes. Companies such as Invitation Homes own tens of thousands of properties, all of which are managed through centralized apps, automated lease terms, and data-driven pricing tools.
We are experiencing a market shift — from millions of individual owners to a few corporate landlords.
Ideological push against ownership
This shift is also being encouraged, explicitly and implicitly, by international organizations pushing a post-ownership future. The World Economic Forum’s “you’ll own nothing and be happy” slogan was presented as a prediction, not a policy.
But look closer, and you’ll see that many World Economic Forum and United Nations initiatives actively promote this shift. The U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals call for denser high-rise cities, a move away from single-family zoning, and new restrictions on suburban development, all in the name of “sustainability” and “equity.”
It’s a coordinated ideological push to replace ownership with access, property with subscriptions, and permanence with flexibility. And the consequences are already showing.
The price of being a permanent renter
When you don’t own your home, you don’t control it. You follow the rules set by someone else. That might mean no pets, no subleasing, and often no firearms on the premises.
As environmental, social, and governance scores, smart devices, and digital IDs creep into the rental landscape, we are fast approaching a future where landlords, driven by corporate and political incentives, can enforce ideological compliance under the guise of lease terms.
Renting means you’re always paying, never building. Homes have long been the foundation of middle-class wealth in America. When families are locked out of ownership, they’re locked out of that opportunity. The result is a cycle where equity flows upward to institutional investors while working families remain stuck on the hamster wheel.
RELATED: Property taxes are killing middle-class ownership nationwide
The “renters’ revolution” isn’t without psychological and cultural costs too. People who own their homes are more likely to put down roots, raise families, get involved in their communities, and feel a stake in the future of the country. Renters, especially when forced into that role, often feel transient and disempowered. That rootlessness is breeding disconnection and resentment.
The political fallout
These psychological costs have political consequences. Younger Americans, who increasingly see homeownership as unattainable, are also more likely to believe the system is rigged against them.
And who can blame them? They’re being told that capitalism failed them, when in reality, it’s crony capitalism, ESG corporatism, and global central planners who’ve rigged the game. But that distinction is often lost — or intentionally obscured. This increases the potential for them to turn to the siren song of socialism or further government action.
This is not just an economic problem. It’s a civic one. A society where most people don’t own anything is a society that’s easier to control, easier to manipulate, and easier to pacify. If we want Americans to remain free and self-governing, they must be able to own their homes and their futures.
We need lawmakers to investigate the concentration of housing in corporate hands. We need to roll back ESG-driven distortions in markets and rethink zoning rules that throttle supply. We should do more to promote first-time homeownership, rather than punishing it. And we must restore the idea that private property is not just an economic good — it’s a political necessity.
'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.
"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
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?
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.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com