That’s not true.

It’s life or death for the illusion that tariffs make America stronger.

What the Case Is About

The question before the Court is simple:

Did President Trump exceed his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he imposed sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners?

The administration argues these tariffs are essential to “economic security.” But 463 economists — myself included — told the Court the opposite:

"The biggest trade threat to America isn’t ending tariffs. It’s keeping them."

We made that case in a National Taxpayers Union coalition letter because it’s time to end this abuse of “emergency powers” that turns normal trade into a political weapon.

Tariffs Are Taxes That Distort Markets

Let’s be clear: tariffs don’t strengthen the economy — they distort it.

A tariff doesn’t raise the general level of prices known as inflation (that’s a monetary issue). Instead, it changes relative prices — making some goods more expensive and others less accessible.

When the government imposes tariffs, resources are redirected from where markets would have used them most efficiently to where politics wants them used.

That means higher input costs for manufacturers, higher prices for consumers, and fewer opportunities for exporters — all within the same “fixed” economic pie. If we pay more for steel, fertilizer, or machinery, we have less to spend on everything else.

So the result isn’t inflation; it’s misallocation — less productivity, slower growth, and a poorer society overall.

The Trade Deficit Myth

For decades, protectionists have tried to justify tariffs by pointing to the trade deficit. But as economists have explained for half a century, the trade deficit is just one side of the ledger.

When Americans import more than they export, foreigners reinvest the difference here — in our businesses, real estate, and Treasury bonds. That’s the capital account surplus offsetting the trade account deficit.

Trade deficits don’t signal failure. They reflect confidence in the U.S. economy. Over the past 50 years, we’ve run persistent trade deficits while real GDP, wealth, and living standards have soared.

Trying to “fix” the trade deficit with tariffs is like trying to fix your shadow by blocking the sun.

Bessent’s Comments Show the Real Problem

In a CNBC interview, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration has “lots of other authorities” it could use if it loses the IEEPA case.

“There are lots of other authorities that can be used,” he said. “IEEPA is by far the cleanest, and it gives the president the most negotiating authority.”

He pointed to Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act as fallback options.
That’s the problem. Even if the Court reins in one abuse of power, Washington keeps looking for another. Both parties have turned “national security” and “unfair trade practices” into blank checks for intervention.

But trade policy isn’t a presidential plaything. It belongs to Congress — and, ideally, Congress should have the wisdom to do less, not more.

The Economics Are Simple

Tariffs don’t “bring jobs home.” They just move them around — while making the whole economy less productive.

• Producers face higher input costs.
• Consumers face fewer choices.
• Exporters face retaliation abroad.
• Investors face uncertainty that deters long-term planning.

It’s not strength — it’s self-sabotage.

As the National Taxpayers Union economists wrote:

“The greater threat to the economy of the United States is not that the Trump Administration’s tariffs will be struck down, but that they will be allowed to remain in place.”

The Real Choice Before the Court

As SCOTUSblog noted, this case is about more than tariffs. It’s about whether the president can declare an “economic emergency” whenever it’s politically convenient.

The IEEPA was never meant to give presidents a permanent green light to micromanage trade. That’s Congress’s role — and frankly, it’s one Congress should exercise sparingly if at all.

If the Court rules to limit presidential power here, it won’t harm the economy. It’ll restore balance and reaffirm that markets, not politicians, should direct trade and production.

As I wrote on X:

“The Supreme Court’s Trump v. V.O.S. Selections case isn’t just about executive power — it’s about whether America chooses free markets or managed decline.

Let’s call ‘Liberation Day’ what it should be: the day the U.S. economy is freed from fake emergencies and real tariffs.”

Both Parties Are to Blame

Republicans use tariffs to sound tough. Democrats use subsidies and regulation to sound compassionate. Both raise costs, distort incentives, and expand government.

The truth is simple: prosperity doesn’t come from managing the economy — it comes from freeing it.

Freedom Beats Force

If the Supreme Court strikes down these “emergency” tariffs, it won’t weaken America. It’ll strengthen it — by restoring constitutional limits and letting markets work again.

The path to prosperity is clear: freer trade, smaller government, and a renewed trust in the creativity and productivity of the American people.
​
That’s how we win — not through tariffs, but through freedom.

He’s partly right: tariffs are bad. But blaming them alone is like blaming your waiter for the price of the menu. The deeper truth is this: you’re paying monopoly prices at the fair, inflated prices at the store, and rising costs across the board — because government at every level is too big, too expensive, and too involved in the economy.

And while Democrats like Talarico, and too many Republicans, love calling out the pain, they also champion policies that pour gasoline on the fire.

​First, Let’s Talk Economics: Why Fair Food Costs So Much
​
The Texas State Fair isn’t a competitive market — it’s a closed-loop economy. You’re not allowed to bring outside food or drinks. There’s no nearby food truck park or Whataburger to force price discipline. Once you’re through the gate, you either pay the fair vendor price… or go hungry.

That’s textbook monopoly-style pricing — not because each vendor is a literal monopoly, but because the fair environment restricts competition and substitutes.

This is what economists call inelastic demand in a captive market. Prices can soar because people still pay them. A turkey leg isn’t worth $25 anywhere else — but at the fair, it is. Why? No substitutes. No competition. High fixed costs. Limited supply. And vendors are recouping fair fees, equipment costs, and labor in a short window.

So yes, prices are high — but they’re not “greedy.” They’re what the market, constrained as it is, will bear.

Now zoom out: the same logic applies when government controls or distorts markets — whether through tariffs, subsidies, zoning laws, tax codes, or regulatory barriers.

You restrict substitutes, limit competition, and suddenly… prices rise, choices shrink, and the average family gets stuck footing the bill.

Now Add Tariffs and Inflation to the Mix

Tariffs are part of this problem. They’re taxes on imports — sold as “protecting American jobs,” but really just hiking import prices for American consumers. Want cheaper things? Kill tariffs.

But again, tariffs are just one slice of the cost pie. The much bigger problem is inflation driven by out-of-control government spending.

Here’s how it works:

1. The federal government spends more than it collects in taxes.
2. The U.S. Treasury issues debt to cover the gap.
3. The Federal Reserve buys that debt — effectively printing new money.
4. More dollars chasing limited goods = higher prices across the economy.

And this isn’t just some DC story. It’s happening locally, too — school districts and cities issuing billions in new bonds, raising property taxes, and growing bureaucracies.

Texas Is a Warning Sign, Not an Exception

On this November’s Texas ballot alone, voters will weigh in on billions in new local debt, including:

• Conroe ISD – $1.9 billion
• Northside ISD (San Antonio) – $1 billion
• Fort Worth ISD – $1.3 billion
• Galena Park ISD – $530 million
• Manor ISD – $351 million
• Travis County ESD – $276 million

All pitched as necessary and noble. But let’s be clear: every one of these will raise the cost of living down the line. This is inflation by design, not by accident.

Politicians approve massive spending. They pass it to voters in the form of debt. The debt gets monetized. The money gets devalued. And your fried Oreos end up costing $14.

Both Parties Are to Blame

Let’s not pretend this is just a Democrat problem.

Republicans at every level have voted for bloated budgets, massive borrowing, and corporate handouts dressed up as “economic development.” The Trump tariffs that Talarico criticizes are real — and they are wrong. But so were Biden’s tariffs, subsidies, mandates, and regulatory burdens that deepen the inflation spiral.

This is a bipartisan fiscal crisis. Red states, blue states — doesn’t matter. If you’re overspending and borrowing beyond your means and pushing the bill to taxpayers, you’re part of the problem.

Inflation Picks Winners. Government Picks the Winners. You Lose.

The most dangerous part of all this? Government inflation doesn’t hit everyone equally.

• Businesses can raise prices.
• Government workers get COLA increases.
• Bondholders get repaid with devalued dollars.
• Politicians get re-elected for “investing in the future.”

But working families? Small businesses? Retirees? They lose — every time.

Nothing is free — not “free” school lunches, not “free” infrastructure, not “free” turkey legs. Everything has a cost. And when government distorts the economy, it picks winners and losers — always.

Here’s the Better Path

We don’t need more performative outrage from politicians like James Talarico. We need real reform:
✅ End tariffs — stop taxing Texans for voluntary trade.
✅ Cap spending at every level to less than population growth plus inflation.
✅ Audit local bond debt and stop endless borrowing.
✅ Shrink the scope of government to lower the cost of living.
✅ Let people in markets — not bureaucrats — set prices and priorities.

You want cheaper fairs, groceries, housing, and healthcare? Then it’s time to shrink government. Not grow it. Who’s coming with me?

Originally published on Substack. 

America is in an insurance affordability crisis. Home and auto premiums are soaring—some up 40% or more in just two years. And instead of addressing the root causes, politicians are reaching for their favorite broken tool: price controls.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, lawmakers in states like Illinois, Louisiana, and New York are rushing to cap insurance rates as families revolt against 30%–50% increases. The story is the same across red and blue states alike. Regulators want to “protect consumers” from big insurers—but their interventions are the reason affordability collapsed in the first place.

The Real Causes Behind Rising Insurance Costs
​
Let’s start with the basics. Insurance premiums reflect risk and cost. When the cost of rebuilding a home or repairing a car goes up, so do premiums. And those costs are rising not because of greed—but because of government-induced inflation, tariffs, and regulation.

• Tariffs and protectionism have driven up prices on steel, lumber, and glass—all key materials in construction and auto repair. When it costs more to rebuild, insurers must charge more.
• COVID-era restrictions disrupted supply chains and triggered cost spikes that still linger today. Many local governments locked down markets, banned elective construction, and forced insurers to pay out more for delayed claims.
• Federal overspending and a bloated Federal Reserve balance sheet of over $6.6 trillion fueled inflation, which raised costs across the economy—insurance included.
• Regulatory mandates—from state-by-state price filing rules to federal environmental and liability regulations—have made it harder for insurers to compete, innovate, or price accurately.

It’s a vicious cycle: government interference raises costs, consumers feel the squeeze, and politicians respond with even more control.

Price Controls Are the Wrong “Solution”

Price caps don’t solve affordability. They destroy it.

When California capped insurance premiums for decades, insurers left the state. Now its regulators are scrambling to approve double-digit rate hikes just to lure them back. Louisiana tried deregulating to attract more insurers—then flipped again, imposing “excessive rate” controls this year. The result? Confusion, fewer carriers, and a less stable market.

As S&P Global analyst Tim Zawacki told the Journal, “Price controls don’t lead to affordability. Ultimately, they just chase insurers out of the market.”

He’s right. You can’t legislate away risk. The only way to bring prices down is through competition, efficiency, and innovation—none of which survive when government fixes prices.

Deregulation: The Real Path to Affordability

If politicians truly cared about helping families, they’d focus on freeing the insurance market, not strangling it.

1. End protectionism. Tariffs and trade barriers raise input costs for construction and auto repair, inflating claims and premiums.
2. Streamline state regulation. America’s insurance system is a patchwork of 50 regulatory regimes, each adding compliance costs that get passed to consumers. States should reduce red tape and allow competition across borders.
3. Stop using insurers as political punching bags. Demagoguing companies for “profiteering” ignores actuarial reality—and drives them out of states entirely.
4. Cut government spending. Inflation is the ultimate premium driver. When Washington spends and borrows without restraint, every policyholder pays the price.

Trying to solve a government-caused problem with more government always fails. Affordability won’t come from mandates—it will come from markets free to adjust, compete, and innovate.

The Bigger Picture: The Housing Affordability Squeeze

This isn’t just about insurance. It’s about the broader housing affordability crisis. Rising premiums, property taxes, tariffs, and interest rates all share a common thread—too much government. From local building codes to federal trade policy, intervention has made housing less affordable for millions.

Families don’t want subsidies or price caps—they want predictability and opportunity. They want to build, buy, and insure a home without government distortions turning every step into a financial burden.

Closing Thoughts

When politicians talk about “protecting consumers,” it usually means protecting themselves from political backlash. The truth is that markets—not bureaucrats—are best at setting prices and balancing risk. If we want affordable insurance and housing, we must get government out of the way, not invite it in further.

Freedom—not force—creates prosperity. That’s as true for homeowners and drivers as it is for every sector of the economy.
​
Let people prosper.

Originally published on Substack. 

​A recent Wall Street Journal article provides the charts below that tell a story that’s as old as Washington’s promises: the federal government keeps spending money it doesn’t have—and pretending it’s solving problems while creating new ones.

In FY2025, the U.S. government collected nearly $200 billion in tariffs, a record high according to the Treasury Department and CBO. That’s more than double what it collected just an year ago. Tariffs are supposed to make foreign companies “pay,” but in reality, they’re taxes on Americans. Every imported product—steel, farm equipment, even groceries—costs more. Tariffs don’t punish China; they punish the American people.
​
Even with all that extra tariff revenue, Washington’s finances are a disaster.

The result: higher debt, higher interest payments, and slower growth. This isn’t sustainable.

Tariffs don’t come close to paying the bills. They’re a political illusion—a short-term cash grab that hides long-term economic pain. The chart showing “net customs duties” rising sharply should alarm anyone who understands basic economics. You can’t tax your way to prosperity. You can’t trade-war your way to wealth. Every dollar the government takes in tariffs is a dollar squeezed out of consumers and producers.

And yet, the same Washington that collects record tariffs turns around and hands out record subsidies. Take agriculture. The USDA recently announced plans to buy 417,000 metric tons of corn and sorghum for international food aid—funded in part by tariff revenue. Farmers may appreciate the relief, but it’s the wrong kind of help. The government first hurts them with protectionist policies that cut export markets, then “saves” them with bailouts funded by those same policies. It’s economic whiplash—Washington as both arsonist and firefighter.

Meanwhile, programs like the Department of Agriculture’s spending continue to grow, with no signs of restraint. The truth is that farmers don’t need bailouts—they need freedom to sell to global markets without government interference. When government micromanages markets, it distorts prices, rewards political connections, and punishes efficiency.

This fiscal and trade chaos is the perfect storm:

• Tariffs = hidden taxes on families and businesses.
• Subsidies = distortions that reward inefficiency.
• Deficits = delayed pain, because debt eventually demands repayment.

The solution isn’t more Washington tinkering—it’s getting Washington out of the way. Real prosperity comes from free markets, not managed trade. The Trump administration’s goal should be to cut tariffs, restrain spending, and refocus on pro-growth tax and regulatory reform. That’s the formula that worked in the past and the one that can rebuild confidence today.

As the federal deficit plunges deeper, the charts tell the story better than any speech: Washington is addicted to spending, and it’s trying to fund the addiction by taxing trade and bailing out its mistakes. America deserves better than this cycle of economic self-sabotage.
​
It’s time to stop pretending tariffs can pay the bills or that bailouts create prosperity. The only path to a freer, stronger America is through fiscal discipline, sound money, and free trade—the very principles that let people prosper.

Originally published on Substack.

When USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced in Kansas City that the federal government would purchase 417,000 metric tons of corn and sorghum for international food aid, many farmers applauded. After years of rising costs--fuel up 30%, machinery up 45%, fertilizer up 37%, and interest expenses up 73%—any relief sounds welcome.

But let’s ask the harder question: why do farmers need rescuing in the first place?

The answer is simple but uncomfortable: Washington is trying to fix what it broke by bailing out farmers rather than fix what it first broke with tariffs and trade protectionism.

Tariff–Bailout Feedback Loop

President Trump says tariff revenue will once again be used to “help” farmers—just as his administration spent $23 billion in farm subsidies during the last trade war. That’s a dangerous cycle:

1. Raise costs with tariffs.
2. Shrink exports as other countries retaliate.
3. Patch the damage with bailouts funded by taxpayers.

That’s not capitalism—it’s economic whiplash. Or as I like to put it: Washington plays both arsonist and firefighter.

Tariffs are just another tax on Americans. They make inputs more expensive, reduce exports, and weaken our global competitiveness. Farmers—who export more than $175 billion in crops and livestock each year—feel the pain first.

Kansas as a Cautionary Tale

​Kansas illustrates the problem perfectly. The state exported $4.75 billion in agricultural goods in 2024, from wheat and sorghum to beef and soybeans. However, during the 2018–2019 trade war, retaliatory tariffs resulted in a nearly $1 billion loss in annual farm exports.

Now, new tariffs are expected to reduce agricultural sales abroad by another 10%, while equipment and fertilizer costs are projected to rise by up to 20%. That’s not a path to prosperity—it’s an economic treadmill.

And even at the state level, Kansas has repeated the same pattern: big subsidies, such as the $829 million Panasonic megadeal, missed tax-relief triggers, and tens of thousands of residents voting with their feet for better opportunities elsewhere. Cronyism and protectionism don’t build growth—they bury it.

The Free-Market Alternative

Farmers don’t want handouts. They want a fair shot to compete.

Free markets, not government bailouts, drive prosperity. When trade flows freely, both sides win. When the government interferes, everyone pays. Every “bailout dollar” comes from the productive private economy—robbing tomorrow’s innovation to cover today’s mistakes.

If Washington truly wants to help farmers, it should:

• End tariffs and retaliatory trade barriers.
• Cut red tape so inputs and equipment move freely.
• Stop subsidizing failure and let profits—not politics—guide production.

Let farmers do what they do best: feed the world.

Concluding Thoughts

Prosperity doesn’t come from Washington’s generosity. It comes from freedom, trade, and trusting people to make their own choices. Farmers don’t need protectionism or bailouts—they need free markets and fiscal restraint that let them grow without interference. The lesson for every policymaker, from Topeka to D.C., is clear: get out of the way and let people prosper.