President Trump, by his own declaration, loves tariffs. In fact, tariff is his “favorite word.” Tariffs purportedly produce funds, “billions and billions, more than anybody has ever seen before,” which can be used for essential spending or to reduce taxes and meanwhile will “bring back jobs.”
The president is all in on his enthusiasms. As matters now stand, he is imposing both universal baseline as well as country-specific tariffs, affecting more than $1 trillion of imports. This compares to the mere $380 billion in tariffs passed in 2018 and 2019 by the first Trump administration but will rise to $1.4 trillion when/if the temporary exemptions for Mexico and Canada expire in April.
There is a logic to tariffs which appeals to those with a protectionist bent. If foreign producers are selling in your country and taking profits which could otherwise be earned by domestic enterprises, why not make the cost of doing business higher for them and keep the profits at home?
Yet the history of tariffs is, to put it kindly, dismal. The 1930 Smoot-Harley tariff is America’s best known and most instructive experience with protectionism. In 1929, the League of Nations passed a resolution declaring that tariffs were destructive and should be ended by all. When Smoot-Hawley was introduced, Franklin Roosevelt campaigned against it. After the bill passed, 1,028 economists and even some business leaders like Henry Ford urged a veto.
President Hoover termed the measure “vicious, extortionate and obnoxious.” He signed it anyway at the urging of his advisors. Americans, especially the agricultural sector, were facing a perceived problem with overproduction, mainly due to electrification and other laborsaving innovations. Republicans generally agreed that prices were too low, and it would help pull us out of our economic slump if American producers were shielded from foreign competition.
Big mistake. Trading partners had warned of retaliation and indeed boycotts and reciprocal trading restrictions soon broke out. Canada, our most loyal trading partner, imposed tariffs on 30% of our products and formed closer economic ties to the British empire. France, Britain, and Germany all formed new trading alliances.
Yet initially, the medicine seemed to be working. Factory payrolls, construction contracts, and industrial production all profited from the reduced market competition.
But the loss of the inherent advantages of trading soon became clear. From 1929 to 1933, U.S. imports fell 66% and exports decreased 61%. World trade nearly ground to a halt, falling by two-thirds from 1929 to 1934.
Unemployment was about 8% when Smoot-Harley was enacted, but the promises to lower it further never panned out. The rate jumped to 16% in 1931 and 25% in 1932-33, falling back to pre-depression levels only during World War II.
Tariffs didn’t cause the Great Depression, but they clearly deepened and prolonged it. Without Smoot-Hawley, it might have just been another temporary recession, not much worse than many other economic downturns in our history.
The take-home message is that free trade is a voluntary interaction that reliably promotes prosperity, both in theory and in practice. It is a classic win-win for participants, in contrast to protectionism which is based on the principle that the stronger party wins by defeating the weaker one.
The 2018-19 tariffs imposed by Trump and expanded by the Biden administration proved the point once again, by reducing long-term GDP by 0.2% and resulting in the loss of 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
Still, Trump favors strength and domination, based on negotiations where he “holds the cards.” The lack of success last time has not dissuaded him from unleashing a barrage of tariffs with impositions, pauses, increases, suspensions, and escalations that have left producers around the world desperately scrambling to protect their businesses by anticipating his next move.
Trump is playing with fire here. If he does ignite a trade war that results in another downturn, he may find that the American economy is not as resilient as it once was. Decades of uncontrolled deficit spending have left us deeply in debt and without the reserves necessary to withstand much more fiscal abuse.
The lessons of history and the laws of economics are clear. Tariffs don’t work. Proceed with caution.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs and the Radical Left have made it clear that they want to dismantle school choice in our state. Despite getting trounced in November’s election where teachers’ unions and other anti-school choice groups made it a referendum on educational freedom, Hobbs has doubled down on her same tired and out-of-touch efforts since the start of this year.
Once again, it hasn’t worked. Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program continues to grow—with enrollment now over 87,000 students. So, Hobbs and her buddies in the teachers’ unions have resorted to employing one of their favorite tricks: relying on activist reporters in the corporate media to give their anti-school choice messaging an extra boost.
In early March, a coordinated attack was launched against Primavera, an online charter school serving thousands of K-12 students across the state. It began with a story from Craig Harris, a Red4ED activist that calls himself a reporter, who claimed that Primavera received a ‘D’ letter grade from the Arizona Department of Education for the past three years. According to the report, the school failed to meet the minimum academic requirements for a traditional charter school. Harris’ column then went on to complain about the owner of Primavera and how much money he has made while operating the school.
After the story was published, the Arizona Charter School Board convened a hearing to review the allegations against Primavera. In a span of just a few hours, the board imposed the most severe punishment at their disposal, revoking the schools’ charter and setting them up for eventual closure. In effect, Primavera was given the charter school death penalty after one meeting.
On the surface, this might make sense. After all, if a school is failing its students, it deserves proper accountability. But as so often happens with today’s corporate media, an important fact was omitted from this manufactured takedown…
Is DEI a good thing? Is being Hispanic an accomplishment? We must challenge these prevailing narratives and advocate for a more empowering discourse.
In today’s America, the conversation around racism has been hijacked, not by those who genuinely seek equality, but by a group that benefits from keeping minorities in a constant state of victimhood. As a proud Hispanic, I’ve seen how this narrative has been weaponized, not to uplift us but to keep us boxed into stereotypes that do more harm than good. These narratives harm us and undermine the progress toward a truly equal society.
We hear it constantly: “Speak up; you are a victim!” But have we ever stopped to ask who is looking down on us? Who is genuinely being racist? It’s not the hardworking Americans who see us as equals.
The Danger of the Victimhood Mentality
For too long, certain groups have pushed the idea that minorities, especially Hispanics, are perpetual victims who need special protection. This is evident in how some media outlets portray us, in the rhetoric of specific political figures, and in the policies that are supposed to help us but often end up reinforcing this narrative. But here’s the truth: this narrative doesn’t empower us; it chains us and, quite frankly, is abusive. When we accept the label of victim, we surrender our power. We allow others to dictate our worth instead of defining it through our achievements.
This is precisely what they want to control. They want minorities to feel oppressed so they can appear as “saviors or heroes” and expand government power under the premise of helping us. But we don’t need them; they perpetuate issues with no solutions. We don’t need pity. We need equal opportunity, which doesn’t divide us but unites us in a more inclusive America.
DEI policies could unintentionally perpetuate the victimhood narrative. These policies appear to be designed under the pretense of helping minorities, but they could end up hurting us the most. Take affirmative action and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, for example. These policies don’t level the playing field; they manipulate it. They make it seem like our success is only possible through handouts rather than hard work. They make companies prioritize skin color over competence.
And let’s not forget the devastating impact of government policies that fail to address fundamental issues affecting our community, like crime, border security, and drug trafficking. The very same people who cry about protecting minorities are the ones who have allowed cartels to flood our neighborhoods with drugs, endangering our youth. Policies that weaken law enforcement or ignore the crisis at our border don’t help Hispanics; they harm us.
When the real, actual cases of racism are reported, those are not taken seriously because of this abuse of making everything racist.
A dangerous byproduct of this divisive ideology is the rise of reverse racism. For years, we were told that discrimination is wrong, yet now, some openly advocate for hostility toward white Americans. They justify it by saying it’s “retribution” for past injustices. But racism, no matter who the target is, remains wrong.
How can we ever expect to move forward as a united nation if we keep fueling resentment and division? Instead of blaming one group for the struggles of another, we should recognize that success comes from hard work, responsibility, and perseverance, values that transcend race.
We must have a path forward for Hispanics not to feel like victims. We are entrepreneurs, professionals, veterans, business owners, and leaders. Our value doesn’t come from DEI policies, handouts, or political talking points; it comes from our contributions to this country. It’s time we reject the labels imposed on us and demand recognition for who we are: Americans who have earned our place through merit, not privilege.
Let’s stop allowing politicians and activists to define our identity for us. Let’s stand up against the dangerous rhetoric that keeps minorities trapped in victimhood. And most importantly, let’s ensure that future generations of Hispanics grow up knowing that their potential is limitless, not because of government assistance, but because of their hard work and determination. It’s time to change the narrative.
One of, if not the, highlights of President Donald Trump’s first months in office has been the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by entrepreneur (and the world’s richest man) Elon Musk. Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE has not just exposed wasteful spending— but worked to reduce spending by eliminating entire agencies and even cabinet departments.
For example, DOGE pulled back the curtain on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Before DOGE exposed it, most Americans thought of USAID (if they thought of it at all) as an agency that provided humanitarian aid and development assistance to impoverished people in other countries. DOGE revealed that USAID’s humanitarian work was a cover for their true mission: making political and cultural change overseas. This is why USAID has spent millions on absurd “development” projects like transgender plays in Colombia, DEI schemes in Serbia and electric car subsidies in Vietnam.
Eliminating USAID would not mean the end of overseas development and humanitarian aid. It would mean that the aid would come from private charities. These charities can do a better job of providing aid than a government bureaucracy. As outrageous as USAID’s spending is, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the Pentagon’s over $800 billion (and on track to exceed $2 trillion by 2033) budget.
The “defense” budget is the third largest item in the federal budget, behind Social Security and Medicare. Few politicians will risk the wrath of senior citizens by voting to make any changes to these programs unless the changes are phased in such a way as to not affect those currently on, or close to, relying on the programs. Thus, any serious plan to reduce spending and debt must cut the bloated “defense” budget. Savings from reductions in military spending can be used to help support those dependent on federal programs as Congress unwinds the welfare state. Cutting military spending would be politically popular as most polls show a majority of Americans— including Republicans—support reducing America’s military commitments.
The poster child for wasteful Pentagon spending, which is thankfully already in Elon Musk’s crosshairs, is the F-35 —a $1.7 trillion disaster of delays, breakdowns and runaway costs. The plane, the most expensive military program ever, often sits grounded. The F-35 may be the most obvious example of wasteful Pentagon spending, but it is hardly alone. After all, this is the agency that brought us the $500 toilet seat. Shutting down boondoggles like the F-35 could provide revenue to help pay down the debt and protect those currently dependent on federal programs. It could also help ensure the forthcoming tax bill does not further increase the deficit.
DOGE is not the first effort to identify and eliminate wasteful spending. President Ronald Reagan had the Grace Commission, a sort of DOGE 1.0 that unearthed billions in waste—from the Department of Energy to the IRS. Their findings were buried by entrenched interests and a cowardly Congress. The lesson of the Grace Commission is that reducing even the most obvious wasteful spending requires the courage to stand up to the entrenched interests in both parties that benefit from the current system.
Trump and Musk may have the necessary convictions to make serious changes in the ways Washington works. However, they need to be prepared for the swamp to fight back. Democrats and their allies are already waging war against DOGE. To them, trying to identify and eliminate wasteful spending or even asking federal employees what they actually do is an assault on democracy. Most Democrats will join hawkish Republicans in seeking to protect the Pentagon’s budget. It would not be surprising if Congress’s bipartisan military-industrial complex caucus smeared those advocating cuts in the bloated military budget as “Putin’s puppets.”
The federal debt is growing by approximately $1 trillion every three months. To put that in perspective, consider that the federal debt did not reach the $1 trillion mark until 1981. Unless action is taken soon to reduce spending, pay down the federal debt and roll back the welfare-warfare state—America will face a serious economic crisis. Therefore, it is important that everyone who understands the stakes do what they can to support Trump and Musk’s efforts.
Every time the Republican-controlled legislature considers cutting taxes, the biggest obstacle is the taxpayer-funded lobbyists representing cities, towns, and counties. They come down to the legislature year after year accusing lawmakers of “defunding” local government. And, of course, it is always police, fire, and public safety on the chopping block and never DEI programs, art projects, or other unessential and unnecessary spending projects.
The problem with this narrative is that it is completely false. Cities and towns are flush with cash and have actually received enormous windfalls, not cuts, from the legislature. The result has been hundreds of millions in new revenue for the cities in just the last 6 years. Most of it from two sources—online sales and enhanced state shared revenue.
Online Sales Tax Windfall
In 2019, the legislature passed legislation responding to the Wayfair decision, allowing the state and local governments to tax online sales from sellers outside of this state. At the time, it was sold as a “meager” $85-million-a-year tax increase. But now, five years since the legislation was enshrined into law, taxpayers are doling out over one billion dollars in total collections each year to state and local government…
When Donald Trump assumed the presidency, two allies of the U.S., Israel and Ukraine, were mired in bloody wars with ancient enemies. Both desperately needed more military aid in the effort to defeat their heavily armed foes.
Biden had granted both only enough military aid to enable them to not lose, but not enough to win. Moreover, the arms they received came with the condition that they not be used to inflict serious damage to their enemy. Trump could have helped turn the tide, but instead he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Oct. 7 surprise attack by jihadists on innocent Israelis was just the latest in a centuries long string of atrocities inflicted by Muslim terrorists who devote their lives to killing Jews. Bitter experience had taught Israelis that agreements with terrorists were essentially useless so, for the safety of his people, President Netanyahu resolved to destroy Hamas.
Soon after hostilities began, the Biden government and other erstwhile friends began demanding a cease-fire, thwarting the original war aims. Grief-stricken Israelis understandably became restive over their families and friends being held hostage and demanded negotiations to secure their release.
Yet for terrorists, hostages are a key tactic in waging successful warfare. Because of the sharp contrast in how the two sides value human life, jihadists are able to command one-sided hostage swaps of up to 100 terrorists returned to duty for each civilian exchanged, plus other concessions.
But help was on the way. Our new president posted that none of this would have happened had he been in office and that he would now personally end the conflict. Ignoring the established wisdom of not negotiating with hostage takers, he vowed to apply his famed dealmaking skills to the problem, earning short term praise while simultaneously ensuring that there would be more hostages in the future.
So far, the promises aren’t working out. The war hasn’t ended. Hamas shamefully cheated on the hostage swap, retaining live hostages to maintain pressure on Israel. Worse, the Israelis will almost certainly not be free from the threat of attacks by Hamas and other Iranian proxies.
Meanwhile, Ukraine had suffered an unprovoked attack three years earlier by Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, who correctly surmised that the fearful and weak Biden administration would not provide robust aid and that without U.S. support, “Ukraine could not win a prolonged war against Russia”.
When Trump was elected, victory was at least thinkable with some additional aid because Ukraine’s troops had fought so courageously to defend their nation and their freedom.
Trump, however, saw it differently. This was another dealmaking opportunity. In January, he had told Putin, “We can do it the easy way or the hard way.” Yet a month later he was putting greater pressure on Kyiv to make concessions than on Moscow
When Zelenskyy balked at prospectively agreeing to ultimatums produced by the Trump-Putin negotiations, from which he was excluded, his relationship with Trump cratered. Suddenly, according to Trump, Zelensky was a badly dressed “modestly successful comedian” who had talked Biden out of $350 billion in military aid (a huge exaggeration).
Zelensky was charged with showing insufficient “respect” and “gratefulness” to his new masters. More preposterously, Trump wrote that Zelensky shouldn’t have started the war in the first place, which of course he didn’t do.
Luckily, Trump wrote, “We are successfully negotiating an end to the war with Russia, something all admit only ‘TRUMP’ and the Trump administration can do.” To teach Zelensky a lesson, Trump temporarily shut off all munitions and intelligence aid to Ukrainian troops.
Zelensky is being forced into the defeat option, which had been available to him all along. He stands to lose a big chunk of his country and the goals for which his people sacrificed so much.
Netanyahu was also put in a difficult position by Trump’s “rescue” and the relentless pressure to settle with his oppressors. He can now look forward to a future of more jihadist attacks and more hostage-taking. Tehran and Moscow are reportedly happy with the results.
We may come to regret insisting on domination rather than support of our allies. In a changing world, you can’t have too many friends.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
