logo
'Liberation Day' Tariffs Will Liberate People—From Their Income

'Liberation Day' Tariffs Will Liberate People—From Their Income

Yahoo03-04-2025
We're told that "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from around the world will raise $6 trillion in federal revenue over the next decade, plus another trillion from automobile tariffs. But the only true "liberation" will be us Americans—consumers and taxpayers—being liberated from even more of our hard-earned income. So hold on to your wallet.
If you don't believe that Liberation Day is bad news for the overwhelming majority of us, first remember that U.S. consumers are, as always, the ones who pay U.S. tariffs. Whatever the Trump team collects from foreign imports will be shifted back to us in the form of higher prices.
Then there is the fact that the administration is already preparing for economic damage control with emergency aid for U.S. farmers. The need for such aid is a tacit admission that the president's trade policy—marketed as a tool to strengthen America—will trigger retaliations from our trading partners that will hurt many American producers, including farmers who export this country's agricultural bounty to help feed the world.
And to paper over this destructive policy, the administration will blow another gaping hole in the federal budget with bailout money to compensate the victims.
How do I know? We've been here before.
During Trump's first term, his trade war with China sparked retaliatory tariffs that cost American farmers an estimated $27 billion in lost agricultural exports. To cushion the blow on farmers, the administration spent $23 billion in bailout payments via the Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation. By one estimate, farmers received 92 percent of the tariffs on Chinese goods paid by us via higher prices at the supermarket.
Now the administration is gearing up for a rerun with even higher and broader tariffs, including on allies such as Canada, Europe, Mexico, and Japan.
As it turns out, American agriculture is one of the most export-dependent sectors of the economy. When trading partners retaliate, they target farm products like soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton, and pork. Why? Because it's politically sensitive and economically effective.
Already, groups like the National Corn Growers Association and the American Soybean Association are bracing for impact. As one member of the latter told The New York Times, farmers don't want handouts but rather "access to a free and fair trade market."
What they're getting instead is uncertainty, falling commodity prices, and the very real possibility of being shut out of long-cultivated markets as global buyers turn to Brazil, Argentina, and the European Union. Indeed, before the retaliating even starts, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said the U.S. Department of Agriculture will support farmers while tariffs go into place. The rest of us won't be that lucky.
The 2018-20 tariffs raised consumer prices for goods like washing machines, cars, and electronics. According to economists at the Federal Reserve and several universities, American consumers bore nearly the full cost, while protected domestic industries captured only modest benefits.
With a much broader set of tariffs now on the table, lower-income families who spend the largest shares of their income on goods—and who have been badly hurt from the recent inflation—will likely suffer the most. That's a dangerous proposition in an economy already wrestling with persistent cost-of-living pressures.
Here's where things go from damaging to disastrous: If the administration follows through with both expensive new tariffs and more bailouts while simultaneously extending expiring tax cuts and adding new tax breaks without corresponding spending cuts, the result will be a fiscal black hole.
It's true that Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency are cutting spending and that the administration is rolling back many of the costly regulations inflicted by the Biden administration. It also wants to free the energy sector and generate more energy abundance. But it will take a long time to realize the benefits of these efforts, if they ever materialize. After all, many of these changes require congressional action, and Congress of late has been missing in action.
Trump's tariff strategy is worse than a gamble; it's a sure-fire loser. Experience proves that policies motivated by economic nationalism are all pain and no gain. The details of the long-run damage remain to be revealed. However, in the short term, we know for a fact that Liberation Day will hurt farmers, burden consumers, and further bloat the budget deficit—all oh-so-misleadingly in the name of "America First."
What America really needs are open markets, fiscal responsibility, and stable trade relationships—not a rerun and enlargement of the last trade war.
COPYRIGHT 2025
The post 'Liberation Day' Tariffs Will Liberate People—From Their Income appeared first on Reason.com.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith

New York Post

time12 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith

It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi

Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin
Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin

Boston Globe

time12 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin

Related : For Russia, 'this is a breakthrough even if they don't agree on much,' said Sergei Mikheyev, a pro-war Russian political scientist who is a mainstay of state television. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, iced out of the Alaska talks about his own country's future, has come to the same conclusion, telling reporters Tuesday: 'Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos. He needs a photo from the meeting with President Trump.' Advertisement But it is more than a photo op. In addition to thawing Russia's pariah status in the West, the summit has sowed discord within NATO — a perennial Russian goal — and postponed Trump's threat of tough new sanctions. Little more than two weeks ago, he vowed that if Putin did not commit to a ceasefire by last Friday, he would to punish Moscow and countries like China and India that help Russia's war effort by buying its oil and gas. Advertisement The deadline passed with no pause in the war — the fighting has in fact intensified as Russia pushes forward with a summer offensive — and no new economic penalties on Russia. Ukrainian firefighters and rescue personnel at the site of a Russian bombing in the area in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on July 24. Friday's summit in Alaska pull the Russian leader out of diplomatic isolation from the West, and Ukrainian and European leaders fear it gives him an opening to sway the American president. DAVID GUTTENFELDER/NYT 'Instead of getting hit with sanctions, Putin got a summit,' said Ryhor Nizhnikau, a Russia expert and senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. 'This is a tremendous victory for Putin no matter what the result of the summit.' Before Alaska, only two Western leaders — the prime ministers of tiny Slovakia and Hungary — had met with Putin since he ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and was placed under an international arrest warrant for war crimes in March 2023. Many in Europe have been flabbergasted by Trump's decision to hold a summit on Ukraine that excluded Zelenskyy, and the continent's leaders have pressed the president not to strike a deal behind Ukraine's back. Trump tried to allay those fears in a video call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, on Wednesday. The Europeans said they had hammered out a strategy with Trump for his meeting with Putin, including an insistence that any peace plan must start with a ceasefire and not be negotiated without Ukraine at the table. A peace deal on Ukraine is not Putin's real goal for the summit, said Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'His objective is to secure Trump's support in pushing through the Russian proposals.' For Putin, she said, the meeting is a 'tactical maneuver to turn the situation in his favor' and calm what had been increasing White House anger over the Kremlin's stalling on a ceasefire. Advertisement On the eve of the summit Thursday, the Kremlin signaled that it planned to inject other issues beyond Ukraine into the talks, including a potential restoration of economic ties with the United States and discussions on a new nuclear weapons deal. The arms idea plays into Russia's long-standing efforts to frame the war in Ukraine as just part of a bigger East-West conflict. Trump has called his rendezvous with Putin just a 'feel-out meeting' from which he will quickly walk away if a peace deal looks unlikely. President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine during a heated exchange in the Oval Office on Feb. 28. On Trump and Putin's meeting, Zelensky said, "Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos." DOUG MILLS/NYT Neither the White House nor the Kremlin has publicly stated what kind of peace deal they are looking for. But Trump has said it could involve 'some land-swapping,' something he feels he is well equipped to negotiate as a onetime New York property developer. Zelenskyy has rejected any land swap, insisting he has no authority under the Ukrainian Constitution to bargain away parts of the country. Agreeing to do so would be likely to trigger a serious political crisis in Kyiv and advance one of Putin's long-standing objectives: toppling Zelenskyy. Ukraine's surrender of its eastern regions would also torpedo Trump's hopes that the United States will one day benefit from Ukraine's reserves of rare earth minerals, most of which are in territory that Russia claims as its own. 'The worst-case scenario for Ukraine and more broadly is that Putin makes some sort of offer that is acceptable to the United States but that Zelenskyy cannot swallow domestically,' said Samuel Charap, a political scientist and the co-author of a book about Ukraine and post-Soviet Eurasia. Advertisement Putin, a veteran master of manipulation, will no doubt work hard in Alaska to cast Zelenskyy as an intransigent obstacle to peace. 'Trump thinks he can look into Putin's eyes and get a deal. He believes in his own talents as a negotiator,' said Nizhnikau, the Finnish expert on Russia. 'The problem is that Putin has been doing this his whole life and is going into this summit with the idea that he can manipulate Trump.' Trump's last summit meeting with his Russian counterpart, held in 2018 in Helsinki during his first term, showcased his propensity to accept Putin's version of reality. He said then that he saw no reason to doubt the Russian president's denials of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. President Trump and Russian President Putin arrived for a one-on-one-meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, in July 2018, the last time the two world powers held a summit. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press Trump suggested this year that Ukraine was responsible for the invasion of its own territory and refused to join the United States' traditional Western allies in voting for a United Nations resolution condemning Russia's aggression. On Sunday evening, Zelenskyy worried aloud that Trump could be easily 'deceived.' Trump responded testily Monday to Zelenskyy's insistence that he could not surrender territory. 'He's got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump snapped. 'There'll be some land swapping going on.' Still, said Charap, the political scientist, 'Putin can't really count his chickens yet.' Despite his iron grip on Russia's political system and its major media outlets, he has his own domestic concerns, particularly on the issue of land, if the sort of swap floated by Trump advances. 'Territory is a third rail politically, especially for Ukraine but also for Russia.' This article originally appeared in . Advertisement

Texas judge rules that Alex Jones' Infowars will be put up for sale once again
Texas judge rules that Alex Jones' Infowars will be put up for sale once again

USA Today

time12 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Texas judge rules that Alex Jones' Infowars will be put up for sale once again

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones faced another setback in court as a Texas district judge ruled that his Infowars platform could be put up for sale again. The decision follows a 2024 ruling to halt an earlier sale due to concerns about the auction process. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled on Wednesday, Aug. 13, that Infowars' parent company, Free Speech Systems, was to be placed in the hands of a court-appointed receiver and that the company's assets would be used to pay the $1.3 billion in legal judgments. In 2022, the courts ruled that Jones defamed the families of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, in which six adults and 20 children were killed. He made repeated false claims that the massacre was a 'hoax' staged as part of a government plot to confiscate guns from Americans. Gamble's order paves the way for The Onion to try yet again to purchase Infowars and its assets. In December 2024, the satirical news site initially won the court-ordered auction for Infowars, but a U.S. bankruptcy judge blocked the sale, stating that the bankruptcy auction did not result in the best possible the court's latest ruling, The Onion's CEO Ben Collins posted on the social media platform Bluesky on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 'We're working on it. That's all I can say for now.' Reuters and USA TODAY's Jeanine Santucci contributed to this report. Fernando Cervantes Jr. is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. Reach him at and follow him on X @fern_cerv_.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store