Nearly One-Quarter Of U.S. Public School Enrollment Could Be Anchor Babies
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.
Welfare Fraud Is Rampant In California, Now A Democrat Wants To Legalize It
'So ripe for the picking'
Trump admin making sure illegal aliens don't get food stamps
The Trump administration is working to eliminate the monetary incentive for foreign nationals to steal into the country and to pressure noncitizens presently exploiting citizen supports to wean off or get packing.
Pursuant to President Donald Trump's Feb. 19 executive order "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders," the U.S. Department of Agriculture is now taking steps to ensure that illegal aliens cannot get their hands on food stamps.
"President Trump has made it clear that American taxpayers will no longer subsidize illegal aliens," USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a Thursday statement.
"We are stewards of taxpayer dollars, and it is our duty to ensure states confirm the identity and verify the immigration status of SNAP applicants," continued Rollins. "USDA's nutrition programs are intended to support the most vulnerable Americans. To allow those who broke our laws by entering the United States illegally to receive these benefits is outrageous."
The USDA issued guidance on Thursday to state SNAP agencies nationwide setting out the minimum expectations for eligibility verification to prevent "ineligible aliens" from participating in the program.
Only American citizens and certain lawfully present noncitizens, including individuals granted asylum, are eligible for SNAP benefits. However, the U.S Government Accountability Office noted in a September 2024 report that an estimated 11.7% or $10.5 billion of SNAP benefits paid out by the USDA in fiscal year 2023 "were the wrong amount or otherwise should not have been made."
The report indicated that "states made improper payments related to SNAP mainly because they did not verify recipients' eligibility for program benefits." States apparently often failed to verify whether recipients were citizens or lawfully present noncitizens.
The Center for Immigration Studies revealed in a December 2023 report that 48% of "illegal-headed households" used food welfare programs.
'Taxpayer-funded benefits should be only for eligible taxpayers.'
As of 2022, American taxpayers were on the hook for at least $182 billion annually to provide services and benefits to illegal aliens and their dependents, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
The new USDA guidance requires state agencies to:
- verify the identity of the applicant, ideally before confirming their immigration status;
- collect and verify Social Security numbers for all household members applying for SNAP benefits;
- compare SSNs to the Social Security Agency's Death Master File database and ensure the SSN belongs to the applicant; and
- check alien applications against the Department of Homeland Security Systematic Alien Verification System for Entitlements — which DHS Secretary Kristi Noem advised governors last week is now available to states for free — to ensure eligibility.
The guidance provided other recommendations and advised state agencies that the Food and Nutrition Service "will assess the effectiveness of identity and immigration status verification practices in regular management evaluations for program compliance."
The USDA issued the new guidance just a week after Trump issued a memo directing his administration to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving taxpayer funds from Social Security Act programs, including Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Blaze News previously reported that the memo directed the Social Security Administration to expand its fraud prosecutor programs, investigate earning reports of individuals supposedly 100 years or older with mismatched records, consider reinstating its civil monetary penalty program, and reinforce program integrity measures so only eligible foreign nationals can receive benefits.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on April 15, "These taxpayer-funded benefits should be only for eligible taxpayers."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Seek Major SNAP Reforms
'Close loopholes that have contributed to an expansion in eligible recipients'
Making English Our National Language Is One Step Toward A More Unified Country
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.
Besides Bludgeoning The Constitution, The Judges Stopping DOGE Are Boosting Inflation
Senate Democrats concern-monger over possible impact of Trump's deportations on the labor force
Senate Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee issued a report concern-mongering about President-elect Donald Trump's proposed mass deportations, suggesting that by depriving American businesses of cheap, illegally-imported labor, citizens will pay dearly and suffer "severe economic fallout."
Citing estimates from the Peterson Institute for International Economics — which investor Steven Rattner dubbed "the locker room of the Team Globalization and Free Trade cheering squad" in the New York Times — the Democratic report released last week by JEC Chairman Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) claimed that the deportation of 8.3 million illegal aliens would leave the GDP 7.4% lower and employment 7.0% lower by 2028.
The Peterson Institute suggested earlier this year that businesses unable to draw from the illegal alien labor pool would invest less in new business formation and invest their capital in industries that rely less upon low-skilled labor. In addition to reducing capital tax revenue to the government, the think tank suggested that fewer illegal aliens would also mean less demand at grocery stores, leasing offices, and other services.
Extra to relying on speculation from the globalist outfit, Heinrich and his fellow travelers also leaned on an October report from the American Immigration Council — an activist group committed to expanding immigration to the United States that frequently parrots Southern Poverty Law Center talking points. The AIC concern-mongered that deportations might cause "significant labor shocks across multiple key industries."
Having apparently internalized the Peterson Institute and AIC's assumptions, and insisting that "immigrants do not take jobs from U.S.-born workers or bring down wages for similarly-skilled workers," the Senate Democrats stated in their report, "Mass deportations would reduce economic growth, shrink the labor force, cost U.S.-born workers their jobs, raise costs for nearly all Americans, and risk igniting inflation."
The report neglected to mention the financial burden of illegal aliens on the American taxpayer and citizen services.
'In terms of gross expenditures due to illegal immigration, we estimate that Americans pay $182 billion.'
Blaze News previously reported that the estimated annual cost to house known gotaways and illegal aliens released into the country under Biden's watch was $451 billion.
The House Committee on Homeland Security indicated in a November 2023 report that "for every one million parolees released into the United States on [Department of Homeland Security Alejandro] Mayorkas' watch, the cost in federal welfare benefits that will be incurred could total $3 billion annually, with those costs starting to kick in January 2026."
The Center for Immigration Studies concluded in a December 2023 report that an estimated 59.4% of households headed by illegal aliens drew on at least one major taxpayer-funded welfare support. Illegal aliens reportedly use every welfare program at "statistically significant higher rates than the U.S.-born, except for [Supplemental Security Income], [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families], and housing."
The Federation for American Immigration Reform reported last year that at the start of 2023, the net cost of illegal immigration for the U.S. was at least $150.7 billion — $1,156 per year for every American taxpayer or $957 after factoring in taxes paid of illegal aliens. Julie Kirchner, the executive director of FAIR, testified to Congress in May that the $150.7 billion figure was a "conservative one" representing a net cost.
"In terms of gross expenditures due to illegal immigration, we estimate that Americans pay $182 billion. Approximately $31 billion is received from illegal aliens in taxes, only 17 percent of the costs they create," said Kirchner. "The fiscal burden of illegal immigration is due to several factors. First, because illegal aliens usually have low incomes, those who do pay taxes pay little, if anything. Second, illegal aliens incur significant costs to the taxpayer on a daily basis, because public services such as policing, K-12 education, emergency services, etc., are provided universally. Further, due to loose eligibility criteria — intentional or otherwise — many illegal aliens receive benefits from federal, state, and local jurisdictions, despite the fact that they have no legal status."
The AIC report cited by Senate Democrats claimed that "it would take over ten years, and the building of hundreds to thousands of new detention facilities, to arrest, detain, process, and remove all 13.3 million targeted immigrants — even assuming that 20 percent of that population would depart voluntarily during any multi-year mass deportation effort. The total cost over 10.6 years (assuming an annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent) would be $967.9 billion."
FAIR's estimate of the net annual cost of illegal immigration projected, unchanged, over the same period, would amount to $1.59 trillion dollars.
Apparently happy to gloss over the cost of illegal aliens and illegal immigration, JEC Democrats claimed in X, "Trump's mass deportations plans would cause irreparable harm to the economy."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories