by | BLOG
Back in 2019, Donald Trump put his stamp on the USMCA, the rebooted version of NAFTA. He touted it as a win, a deal shaped by his own demands—especially on trade rules and tariffs. Fast forward to now, and he’s slapping unilateral tariffs on whoever he feels like, thumbing his nose at the very agreement he pushed through. This isn’t just a flip-flop; it’s a gut punch to the spirit and letter of the USMCA, a law he insisted on crafting and once called “the best agreement we’ve ever made” in 2020.
As a longtime tax professional, I’ve seen plenty of government overreach, but this takes the cake. The USMCA was supposed to lock in predictable trade terms—terms Trump himself wanted. Now he’s treating it like a suggestion, not a law. Imagine running a business or a country and signing a deal with someone who’ll ditch it the second it doesn’t suit him. Who’d trust that? It’s not just bad faith; it’s a neon sign screaming that rules only matter until the rule-maker gets bored.
This isn’t about left or right—it’s about consistency and liberty. If you champion individual freedom, you don’t get to shred contracts and impose your will by fiat. That’s the kind of centralized power grab Ayn Rand warned us about, the kind I’ve spent years calling out in tax policy. Trump’s tariffs aren’t just economic meddling; they’re a betrayal of the principles he claimed to stand for.
And here’s the kicker: this isn’t even clever enough to hide. It’s blatant, sloppy, and reeks of the same arrogance that fuels bloated bureaucracies and tax codes designed to choke out the little guy. Government loves to rig the game—promising fairness while picking winners behind closed doors. Trump’s tariff stunt is that game in overdrive: make a rule, break a rule, and leave everyone else scrambling.
The numbers paint a stark picture of the potential impact, though the timeline has shifted. Trump initially announced a 25% tariff on goods imported from Canada and Mexico, However, the administration subsequently decided to delay implementation of these tariffs until April. When enacted, they are expected to affect about half of goods from Mexico and more than one-third from Canada. Economists warn this could significantly impact American consumers, potentially raising the cost of North American-made vehicles by $4,000 to $10,000.
The USMCA has shown its worth, with 25 labor complaints filed under its Rapid Response Labor Mechanism from May 2021 to June 2024, resulting in 21 prompt resolutions that improved wages and working conditions for Mexican workers. Now, all of this progress hangs in the balance due to one man’s capricious decision-making. It’s not strength—it’s the tantrum of a guy who thinks he’s above the system he swore to uphold. That’s not a leader. That’s a liability.
by | BLOG
Albert Einstein said, ”Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” By that definition, Donald Trump’s tariff policy is pure madness. He’s slapping 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, 20% on China—despite history’s clear warning that protectionism backfires. Every time tariffs have been tried, they’ve led to economic pain, yet Trump barrels ahead as if this time will be different. Experts warn of a 0.3% drop in GDP, an extra $800 in costs per household, and a housing crisis as Canadian lumber tariffs near 40%. This isn’t a bold strategy—it’s a self-inflicted wound, disguised as patriotism but destined to hurt American businesses and consumers alike.
Tariffs might sound like they help American businesses, but they only and always do the opposite. History is full of examples—like the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff during the Great Depression—that show tariffs slow down economic growth, raise prices, and hurt consumers. Now, big banks like JPMorgan estimate a 40% chance of recession, largely because businesses are too uncertain to invest. Half of what the U.S. imports helps manufacturers make products, so raising prices on steel and lumber doesn’t protect them—it weakens them. In reality, these tariffs are less about helping American workers and more about protecting politically connected industries.
The way Trump is handling tariffs isn’t helping either. His policies seem random—one day, Canadian steel faces a 25% tariff; the next, it gets removed after Canada makes a small change. This unpredictability erodes business confidence, making it impossible for companies to plan ahead.” Strong economies rely on stability, not last-minute decisions that change every week. If companies don’t know what rules will apply tomorrow, they’ll hold back on investing or expanding, which slows down the economy even more.
Consider Canadian lumber, which supplies 70% of the U.S. market. With tariffs now approaching 40%, homebuilders—already struggling with labor shortages—face billions in extra costs. That means fewer homes get built, prices go up, and the housing crisis gets worse. The same goes for steel and aluminum tariffs. Car factories, solar companies, and appliance makers all have to pay more for materials, which means higher prices for consumers or, even worse, factory closures and job losses. This isn’t “winning”—it’s economic suicide. If it really made sense to produce these materials in the U.S. at competitive prices, companies would already be doing it without the government’s interference.
Countries do not trade. Only businesses and people do. Every trade is one business or individual electing to voluntarily transact with another individual or business. Tariffs interfere by deciding who can trade with whom, usually to benefit powerful industries. Free markets work best when businesses compete fairly, not when the government picks winners and losers. Some Trump supporters argue that these tariffs are meant to challenge China or strengthen the U.S. economy, but the messy execution proves otherwise. If American industries are going to succeed, they need a stable and predictable system—not sudden, punishing policies that make it harder to compete globally.
Until Trump abandons his tariff obsession and lets the market function, he’s not protecting American workers—he’s punishing them. History has proven that tariffs weaken economies, stifle competition, and raise prices. Yet here we are again, watching him again try the same flawed policies and expecting a different outcome. If Einstein was right, then Trump’s approach isn’t just bad economics—it’s madness.
by | BLOG
President Biden and his cohorts in the White House, have been making the point recently that things are good now that inflation has come way down from its highs. In making these assertions, he is trying to take advantage of what he perceives is the economic ignorance of the American people.
Let’s be clear: When the rate of inflation comes down from 9% to 3%, what that means is that instead of prices going up at a 9% annual rate, they are instead going up at a 3% rate. Biden is trying to trick the public into thinking that the rate coming down from its high of 9% means that prices are coming down. But this is nonsense, and in fact, even at 3%, prices are going up faster than they have been going up since 2007. That is why people are confused. They’re thinking that there is this lower rate of inflation, so why does it still seem that prices are rising? The answer is because prices really are still rising, and at a very significant rate.
My only question is whether Biden is intentionally trying to bamboozle the American public, or whether he himself is so economically ignorant, that he actually believes this himself?
by | BLOG
From October 2021 – September 2022 (FY2022), the federal government collected more than $4 trillion this year. The $4,896,119,000,000 of revenue was a record, as shown by the Monthly Treasury Statement. The prior record was FY2021, in which the government collected $4,377,816,830,000. This constitutes a nearly 12% year-over-year increase. These are both in “constant September 2022 dollars.” The only other time the government collected more than $4 trillion was during the Obama administration in FY2015, raking in $4,052,366,920,000 in constant September 2022 dollars. (All September 2022 dollar adjustments were made using the CPI calculator published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
The record revenue, however, meant nothing to the government, as it still overspent, its outlays totaling $6,271,508,000,000. This resulted in an annual deficit of $1,375,389,000,000. Last year the deficit exceeded $1 trillion as well, as it did in FY2020 and FY2019.
Where did all the money come from this year? From greatest to least, the government collected $2,632,145,000,000 in individual income taxes, $1,483,526,000,000 in social insurance and retirement taxes, $99,908,000,000 in customs duties, $87,726,000,000 in excise taxes, $32,550,000,000 in estate and gift taxes, and $135,397,000,000 in “miscellaneous receipts.”
by | BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, HEALTHCARE
Certificate of Need laws, otherwise known as CON laws, are laws required in many states and some federal jurisdictions before proposed acquisitions, expansions, or creations of healthcare facilities are allowed. They are also absolutely ridiculous and entirely based entirely on cronyism. CON laws are irresponsible, damaging to the economy, and a prime example of an assault on economic liberty. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and we are entitled to their protections by virtue of our Constitution. This economic right to earn a living –this pursuit of happiness–began to be eroded during the FDR era for reasons having to do with partisanship and policy; SCOTUS has subsequently not enforced it rationally. As economic liberty is no longer considered a primary liberty, we get laws such as CON laws that are ultimately unconstitutional. The original argument for CON laws was very specifically to make costs cheapers for the public by virtue of less competition. Instead, CON laws stifle competition by requiring regulatory permission for any new services and equipment within a given region. This is an egregious, suppressive scheme. These burdensome economic rules should be unconstitutional under federal (if not also state) constitutions.
The federal government isn’t supposed to restrict this pursuit of happiness. But once FDR began regulating economic rights, we have a situation where certain liberties are more equal than others . Now, 1st Amendment rights are subject to “strict scrutiny”; these are high, narrow standards used to evaluate the constitutionality of a law. In other words, there must be a damn good reason why such a law violates a 1st amendment right. But when it comes to economic rights, it’s not strict scrutiny, and so sometimes the states can get away impinging on your rights to earn a living by coming up with some ridiculous argument or restriction. For instance, say you are a florist and your state requires licensing in order to operate. Such a concept is ridiculous — what health and safety concerns supersede the right for a person to earn a living as a florist? And yet some court cases have ruled that this licensing is justifiable; one in particular argued successfully that someone could possibly be pricked by a thorn and therefore needs regulation and specialized training. And that’s the problem. You can come up with any conceivable basis for enacting some ridiculous regulation even if it’s unconstitutional.
CON laws are even more ridiculous than the aforementioned thorn-pricking argument, because they are entirely based on something that is economically incorrect — that by restricting competition (as CON laws do), you’ll make the competition cheaper. But that concept is fundamentally wrong.
Unfortunately getting these laws removed is difficult for several reasons. Most of the time, judges tend to defer to government agencies. But even more importantly, when we talk about healthcare as opposed to restaurants, many people believe (incorrectly) that healthcare is some special kind of market that operates differently than other markets do. However, this is simply untrue. Healthcare is just like any other market except that it operates within an extremely complicated incentive structure that was created by the government. Can you imagine a restaurant owner having to submit to a review panel any plans he had to build a restaurant or remodel an existing one? Then why do we tolerate such a thing within the healthcare sector?
Ultimately, CON laws are unconstitutional because of their inherent economic favoritism. There’s no reason why some liberties should be treated differently than economic liberty and the right to earn a living should not be considered as fundamental as other rights. CON laws and their cronyism should be eliminated.
