Economy

Billionaire Jeff Bezos wants to 'help' Trump gut regulations

Billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on Wednesday expressed his optimism about U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's next term and suggested he would "help" the Republican gut regulations.

"If we're talking about Trump, I think it's very interesting, I'm actually very optimistic this time around... I'm very hopeful about this—he seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation," Bezos told The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin during the newspaper's DealBook Summit.

"And my point of view, if I can help him do that, I'm gonna help him, because we do have too much regulation in this country. This country is so set up to grow," he continued, suggesting that regulatory cuts would solve the nation's economic problems.

After complaining about the burden of regulations, Bezos added, "I'm very optimistic that President Trump is serious about this regulatory agenda and I think he has a good chance of succeeding."

The comments came during a discussion about Bezos' ownership of The Washington Post, which also addressed the billionaire's recent controversial decisions to block the newspaper's drafted endorsement of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and have it stop endorsing presidential candidates.

Bezos said Wednesday that he is "very proud" of the move, that the Post "is going to continue to cover all presidents very aggressively," and the decision did not result from fears about Trump targeting his companies.

As Inc.reported Thursday: "Trump had railed against Bezos and his companies, including Amazon and The Washington Post, during his first term. In 2019, Amazon argued in a court case that Trump's bias against the company harmed its chances of winning a $10 billion Pentagon contract. The Biden administration later pursued a contract with both Amazon and Microsoft."

Bezos owns Blue Origin, an aerospace company and a competitor to Elon Musk's SpaceX. Musk—the world's richest person, followed by Bezos, according to the Bloomberg and Forbes trackers—has been appointed to lead Trump's forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.

Bezos' remarks at the Times summit led Fortune's Brooke Seipel to suggest that he may be the next billionaire to join DOGE.

Musk and Ramaswamy headed to Capitol Hill on Thursday to speak with GOP lawmakers about their plans for the government.

"Despite its name, the Department of Government Efficiency is neither a department nor part of the government, which frees Musk and Ramaswamy from having to go through the typical ethics and background checks required for federal employment," The Associated Pressnoted. "They said they will not be paid for their work."

New Progressive Caucus chair ready to 'fight billionaires, grifters and Republican frauds'

The Congressional Progressive Caucus on Thursday elected its leaders for the next term, including Rep. Greg Casar as chair.

"The members of the Progressive Caucus know how to fight billionaires, grifters, and Republican frauds in Congress. Our caucus will make sure the Democratic Party stands up to corporate interests for working people," said Casar (D-Texas), who will replace term-limited Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

"I'm honored to build on the legacy of Chair Jayapal," Casar continued. "I've fought back against extremist, egocentric autocrats in Texas for my entire adult life. The Democratic Party must directly take on Trump, and it'll be CPC members boldly leading the way and putting working people first."

Casar, who is currently the CPC whip and ran unopposed, will be joined for the 119th Congress by Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) as deputy chair and Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.) as whip.

"The Congressional Progressive Caucus has always served as an incredible vehicle for transformative change, justice, and movement building," noted Omar. "I am honored to have the support of my colleagues to serve another term as the deputy chair of the Progressive Caucus. Over the next term, we are going to fight to build an inclusive movement that meets the moment."

García said that "I am proud to join incoming Chair Casar, Deputy Chair Omar, and all members of the newly elected executive board as we prepare for the 119th Congress—in which I believe the role the CPC plays will be more critical than ever."

"We are a caucus that gives platform to ideas deeply popular across the political spectrum, and a caucus that builds diverse coalitions to get things done," he continued. "I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress and partners across the country who believe in people-centered policies rooted in equity and justice for all."

The CPC, first led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 1991, when he was still in the U.S. House of Representatives, has nearly 100 members. The new caucus leaders are set to begin their terms on January 3 and will face not only a Republican-controlled House and Senate, but also U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to be sworn in on January 20.

"It is my great honor to pass the torch to the next class of elected leadership of the Progressive Caucus: My dear friends and trusted colleagues Reps. Greg Casar, Ilhan Omar, and Chuy García," said Jayapal.

"I was proud to establish term limits when I became chair in 2018, and have full confidence in the abilities of our new class to lead this caucus in the fight against the worst of the incoming Trump administration while rebuilding our party with a focus on economic justice for working people," she added. "I will be cheering these three new leaders and our new vice chairs at every turn as chair emerita come next year, and my heart is very full knowing we will have them at the helm of the CPC."

Speaking with NBC News on Wednesday, 35-year-old Casar said that "the progressive movement needs to change. We need to re-emphasize core economic issues every time some of these cultural war issues are brought up."

"So when we hear Republicans attacking queer Americans again, I think the progressive response needs to be that a trans person didn't deny your health insurance claim, a big corporation did—with Republican help," he explained. "We need to connect the dots for people that the Republican Party obsession with these culture war issues is driven by Republicans' desire to distract voters and have them look away while Republicans pick their pocket."

According to NBC:

That means the Democratic Party needs to "shed off some of its more corporate elements," to sharpen the economic-populist contrast with Republicans and not let voters equate the two parties, he said. He predicted Trump and the Republican-led Congress will offer plenty of opportunities to drive that distinction, including when it pursues an extension of tax cuts for upper earners."The core of the Republican Party is about helping Wall Street and billionaires. And I think we have to call out the game," Casar said. "The Democratic Party, at its best, can hold people or can have inside of its tent people across geography, across race and across ideology. Because we're all in the same boat when it comes to making sure that you can retire with dignity, that your kids can go to school, that you can buy a house."

Others—including Sanders, who sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2016 and 2020—have issued similar calls since Democrats lost the White House and Senate in last month's elections.

"In the recent elections, just 150 billionaire families spent nearly $2 billion to get their candidates elected," Sanders said Saturday. "Our job in the coming months and years is clear. We must defeat the oligarchs and create an economy and government that works for all, not just the few."

On Thursday, both Sanders and Jayapal, who have led the congressional fight for Medicare for All, reiterated calls for a single-payer healthcare program in response to a social media post by Elon Musk, who is set to co-lead Trump's forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.

'Nothing is sacrosanct': GOP floats Social Security cuts after Musk Capitol Hill visit

Republican lawmakers on Thursday signaled a willingness to target Social Security and other mandatory programs after meeting with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire pair President-elect Donald Trump chose to lead a new commission tasked with slashing federal spending and regulations.

Though the GOP's 2024 platform pledged to shield Social Security, the party has reverted to its long-held position in the weeks since Trump's election victory, with some lawmakers openly attacking the program while others suggest cuts more subtly by stressing the supposed need for "hard decisions" to shore up its finances. (Progressives argue Social Security's solvency can be guaranteed for decades to come by requiring the rich to contribute more to the program, a proposal Republicans oppose.)

On Thursday, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) emerged from a meeting with Musk and Ramaswamy with the message that "nothing is sacrosanct."

"They're going to put everything on the table," said Norman, one of the wealthiest members of Congress.

After airing Norman's remarks, Fox Business reported that Musk and Ramaswamy told lawmakers that no federal program is safe from cuts, "and that includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

NBC News congressional correspondent Julie Tsirkin said Thursday that after meeting with Musk, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)—who was recently elected Senate majority leader for the upcoming Congress—told her that "perhaps mandatory programs are areas that they're looking to make cuts in, like Social Security, for example."

"But again, no specifics were laid out there," Tsirkin added.

Thune has previously voiced support for raising Social Security's retirement age, a change that would cut benefits across the board.

In the days leading up to their Capitol Hill visit, both Musk and Ramaswamy took swipes at Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and made clear the programs would be in the crosshairs of their advisory commission, which is examining ways to slash federal spending without congressional approval.

Earlier this week, Musk amplified a series of social media posts by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who once said he hopes to "get rid of" Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Defenders of Social Security saw Lee's thread, and Musk's apparent endorsement of it, as a declaration of war on the New Deal program.

Days later, Ramaswamy said in an interview with CNBC that "there are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings to extract" from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, claiming the programs are rife with waste, fraud, and abuse.

"People love to have lazy armchair discussions about, oh, are you going to make cuts to entitlements or not, when, in fact, the dirty little secret is that many of those entitlement dollars aren't even going to people who they were supposed to be going to in the first place," said Ramaswamy, advancing a narrative that observers warned could be used to justify additional bureaucratic barriers making it harder for eligible people to receive benefits.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Thursday that the Trump-GOP agenda is "so predictable."

"Tax cuts for billionaire donors; benefit cuts for people on Social Security—how the billionaires loot our country (what, not rich enough already, fellas?)," Whitehouse wrote on social media.

In a column on Thursday, MSNBC's Ryan Teague Beckwith wrote that "Republicans somehow keep coming back to the idea of cutting Social Security" despite widespread opposition to such cuts among the American public.

"Would Trump try to cut Social Security? It's hard to say. Over the years, he has staked out every possible position on Social Security—sometimes within hours of each other," wrote Beckwith, noting that Trump previously called the program a "huge Ponzi scheme" and backed calls to raise the retirement age.

"So if Republicans—or Musk—decide to propose changes to Social Security benefits," Beckwith added, "it's possible that he might go along with it."

Trump pick to lead IRS signals 'open season for tax cheats'

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to run the Internal Revenue Service, former Rep. Billy Long, didn't serve on the House committee tasked with writing tax policy during his six terms in office, and his lack of relevant experience is likely "exactly what Trump was looking for," according to one economic justice advocate.

Progressive lawmakers joined advocates on Wednesday in denouncing Trump's selection of Long, who since leaving office in 2023 has promoted a tax credit that's been riddled with fraud and who spent his time in the House pushing to abolish the very agency he's been chosen to run.

As a Republican congressman from Missouri, Long repeatedly sponsored legislation to dismantle the IRS, which under President Joe Biden has recovered at least $1 billion from wealthy people who previously evaded taxes.

He also co-sponsored legislation to repeal all estate taxes, which are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthiest households, but "said almost nothing on the floor regarding taxes, the IRS, and taxation during his 12 years in Congress," said John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News.

Long's limited experience with tax policy "ought to set off alarm bells," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who pointed to "vastly improved taxpayer service" under the leadership of IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, who Biden chose to replace Trump's nominee from his first term, Charles Rettig, after Rettig served his full term.

Werfel has "set up a tremendous direct-file system, and begun badly needed crackdowns on ultra-wealthy tax cheats who rip off law-abiding Americans," said Wyden. "If Trump fires Mr. Werfel, it won't be to improve on his work; it'll be to install somebody Trump can control as he meddles with the IRS."

The appointment is likely to commence an "open season for tax cheats," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative.

Since leaving office, Long has promoted the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC), a pandemic-era credit that was intended to incentivize employers to continue paying workers during the economic shutdown when the coronavirus pandemic hit the United States.

He has worked to help businesses claim the credit from the IRS, but fraudulent and improper claims have so permeated the program that the IRS stopped processing new claims temporarily. The U.S. House passed a bill to entirely halt ERTC claims, but it has been stalled in the Senate.

"These ERTC mills that have popped up over the last few years are essentially fraud on an industrial scale, conning small businesses and ripping off American taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars," said Wyden. "I'm going to have a lot of questions about Mr. Long's role in this business, first and foremost why the American people ought to trust somebody involved with a fraud-ridden industry to run an agency that's tasked with rooting out fraud."

Wyden also pointed out that Long has not been named in a "typical nomination like you'd see after every presidential election." Werfel's term was set to go until November 2027, and the IRS typically operates as a nonpartisan agency.

"Replacing Commissioner Werfel with over three years remaining in his term is a terrible mistake," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "He has done an excellent job rebuilding the IRS, boosting customer service, and enhancing enforcement aimed at wealthy tax evaders. Removing him will clearly signal Trump's intention to make the agency less responsive to the American people, while giving a green light to wealthy tax cheats to evade their fair share of the tax burden."

"Trump's nominee has clearly stated that he wants to abolish the IRS," added Beyer. "The change Trump proposes in IRS leadership would be a gift to tax cheats and a blow to anyone who believes it is important to rein in deficits."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) added that Trump's nomination of Long signals "the weaponization of the tax agency."

"If he's confirmed," she said, "taxpayers can expect longer wait times for customer service, a more complicated process to file taxes, and free rein for the rich and powerful to continue rigging the system at the expense of everyone else."

'Gut punch': Trump clashes with PA steelworkers over $14.9 billion sale

Pennsylvania showed how much of a swing state it is when — after favoring Joe Biden in the 2020 election — it chose Republican Donald Trump over Democrat Kamala Harris four years later, but only by roughly 1.7 percent. And the state's 2024 U.S. Senate race was another nailbiter, with incumbent Democratic three-term Sen. Bob Casey Jr. narrowly losing to Republican Dave McCormick.

Now, President-elect Trump is engaged in a major debate in Pennsylvania, where he is vowing to block the $14.9 billion sale of U.S. Steel to a Japanese company: Nippon Steele.

In a Monday, December 2 post on his Truth Social outlet, Trump wrote, "Through a series of Tax Incentives and Tariffs, we will make U.S. Steel Strong and Great Again, and it will happen FAST! As President, I will block this deal from happening. Buyer Beware!!!"

READ MORE: Alarm raised over Trump plot to install nominees without Senate approval

But according to Newsweek reporter Sophie Clark, many steelworkers in Pennsylvania want the sale to go through.

"In the Pittsburgh area, where U.S. Steel employs about 3500 people, the company's sale to Nippon has proved popular," Clark reports in an article published on December 4. "Following Trump's statement, Jason Zugai, the vice president of the United Steelworkers Local 2227 branch in West Mifflin, southeast of Pittsburgh, said: 'For me, yeah, very frustrated with the news that came out last night. I didn't expect that to come out, so that was like a gut punch.'"

Clark continues, "Those pushing for the deal point to Nippon's pledge to, per The Guardian, 'invest no less than $2.7 billion into its unionized facilities, introduce our world-class technological innovation, and secure union jobs so that American steelworkers at U.S. Steel can manufacture the most advanced steel products for American customers.'"

Some Pennsylvania steelworkers, however, share Trump's opposition to the sale.

READ MORE: 'Nothing at all historic': Mehdi Hasan debunks false claim that Trump won by a 'landslide'

Interviewed by WTAE-TV Channel 4 (an ABC affiliate in Pittsburgh), United Steelworkers President David McCall said of Nippon Steel, "I don't trust them. And more than that, the fact that they're spending billions — or millions and millions of dollars in PR campaigns, as opposed to answering the needs of our members, concerns us a lot."

McCall added, "I think U.S. Steel in the Pittsburgh area, I think it's an economic engine. Everybody understands that — certainly, good-paying, family-supportive jobs, thousands of them. And so, it's important that we maintain steel, steelmaking here in the Mon Valley."

READ MORE: 'I've seen tougher guys at Starbucks': MAGA country star turns on Republican senator

Read Newsweek's full article at this link.


Analysis details 'devastating' effects Trump’s tariffs would have on businesses and consumers

During her 2024 presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris repeatedly warned that the tariffs Donald Trump was proposing would result in significantly higher prices for consumers and amount to a harsh new "sales tax on the American people."

Regardless, President-elect Trump enjoyed a narrow victory, defeating Harris by roughly 1.4 or 1.5 percent in the popular vote (according to Cook Political Report). And he doubled down on his tariffs proposal, promising to impose — as soon as he returns to the White House — 25 percent across-the-board tariffs on all products coming into the United States from Canada and Mexico.

In an article published on December 3, The Economist examines the "devasting" effects that Trump's tariffs will have on consumers and businesses if enacted.

READ MORE: Data shows dire election postmortems could soon be in store for GOP: columnist

"If Mr. Trump were to slap tariffs on America's northern and southern neighbors," The Economist warns, "the impact on American companies would be devastating. Businesses from Mattel, the maker of Barbie dolls, to Whirlpool, a home-appliance manufacturer, have factories in Mexico. Around three-fifths of America's imported aluminum and a quarter of its imported steel come from Canada, with large volumes of steel also flowing from Mexico. According to Citigroup, a bank, Mr. Trump's tariffs would raise the price of steel for American manufacturers by 15-20 percent."

The Economist continues, "Among the hardest hit by the tariffs would be American carmakers. General Motors, for example, imports over half of the pickups it sells in America from Mexico and Canada. About 9 percent of the value of parts for cars produced in America also comes from the two countries. According to Nomura, another bank, the tariffs proposed by Mr. Trump on November 25 would wipe four-fifths from the operating profit of General Motors next year. Foreign carmakers, such as Toyota, would also be hit."

Businesses, according to The Economist, "can respond to tariffs in three ways."

"The first is to stockpile goods," The Economist explains. "Microsoft, Dell and HP are among the American tech companies that are rushing to import as many electronic components as possible before the new administration takes office in January. Yet there are limits to that strategy…. The second option for companies is to pass tariffs on to customers by raising prices."

READ MORE: 'Nothing at all historic': Mehdi Hasan debunks false claim that Trump won by a 'landslide'

The Economist continues, "Several firms, including Stanley Black & Decker and Walmart, America's biggest retailer by sales, have already indicated that they may do so…. The third, and most difficult, response is to rewire supply chains. New suppliers, once found, have to be tested and negotiated with, a process that can take years."

READ MORE: 'Sheer fantasy': Wall Street doesn't think Trump will accomplish any of his major goals

Read The Economist's full report at this link (subscription required).



Nine states poised to end coverage for millions if Trump cuts Medicaid funding

With Donald Trump’s return to the White House and Republicans taking full control of Congress in 2025, the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion is back on the chopping block.

More than 3 million adults in nine states would be at immediate risk of losing their health coverage should the GOP reduce the extra federal Medicaid funding that’s enabled states to widen eligibility, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, and the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families. That’s because the states have trigger laws that would swiftly end their Medicaid expansions if federal funding falls.

The states are Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act encouraged states to expand Medicaid programs to cover more low-income Americans who didn’t get health insurance through their jobs. Forty states and the District of Columbia agreed, extending health insurance since 2014 to an estimated 21 million people and helping drive the U.S. uninsured rate to record lows.

In exchange, the federal government pays 90% of the cost to cover the expanded population. That’s far higher than the federal match for other Medicaid beneficiaries, which averages about 57% nationwide.

Conservative policy groups, which generally have opposed the ACA, say the program costs too much and covers too many people. Democrats say the Medicaid expansion has saved lives and helped communities by widening coverage to people who could not afford private insurance.

If Congress cuts federal funding, Medicaid expansion would be at risk in all states that have opted into it — even those without trigger laws — because state legislatures would be forced to make up the difference, said Renuka Tipirneni, an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health.

Decisions to keep or roll back the expansion “would depend on the politics at the state level,” Tipirneni said.

For instance, Michigan approved a trigger as part of its Medicaid expansion in 2013, when it was controlled by a Republican governor and legislature. Last year, with the government controlled by Democrats, the state eliminated its funding trigger.

Six of the nine states with trigger laws — Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, and Utah — went for Trump in the 2024 election.

Most of the nine states’ triggers kick in if federal funding falls below the 90% threshold. Arizona’s trigger would eliminate its expansion if funding falls below 80%.

Montana’s law rolls back expansion below 90% funding but allows it to continue if lawmakers identify additional funding. Under state law, Montana lawmakers must reauthorize its Medicaid expansion in 2025 or the expansion will end.

Across the states with triggers, between 3.1 million and 3.7 million people would swiftly lose their coverage, researchers at KFF and the Georgetown center estimate. The difference depends on how states treat people who were added to Medicaid before the ACA expansion; they may continue to qualify even if the expansion ends.

Three other states — Iowa, Idaho, and New Mexico— have laws that require their governments to mitigate the financial impact of losing federal Medicaid expansion funding but would not automatically end expansions. With those three states included, about 4.3 million Medicaid expansion enrollees would be at risk of losing coverage, according to KFF.

The ACA allowed Medicaid expansions to adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or about $20,783 for an individual in 2024.

Nearly a quarter of the 81 million people enrolled in Medicaid nationally are in the program due to expansions.

“With a reduction in the expansion match rate, it is likely that all states would need to evaluate whether to continue expansion coverage because it would require a significant increase in state spending,” said Robin Rudowitz, vice president and director of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF. “If states drop coverage, it is likely that there would be an increase in the number of uninsured, and that would limit access to care across red and blue states that have adopted expansion.”

States rarely cut eligibility for social programs such as Medicaid once it’s been granted.

The triggers make it politically easier for state lawmakers to end Medicaid expansion because they would not have to take any new action to cut coverage, said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

To see the impact of trigger laws, consider what happened after the Supreme Court in 2022 struck down Roe v. Wade and, with it, the constitutional right to an abortion. Conservative lawmakers in 13 states had crafted trigger laws that would automatically implement bans in the event a national right to abortion were struck down. Those state laws resulted in restrictions taking effect immediately after the court ruling, or shortly thereafter.

States adopted triggers as part of Medicaid expansion to win over lawmakers skeptical of putting state dollars on the hook for a federal program unpopular with most Republicans.

It’s unclear what Trump and congressional Republicans will do with Medicaid after he takes office in January, but one indicator could be a recent recommendation from the Paragon Health Institute, a leading conservative policy organization led by former Trump health adviser Brian Blase.

Paragon has proposed that starting in 2026 the federal government would phase down the 90% federal match for expansion until 2034, when it would reach parity with each state’s federal match for its traditional enrollees. Under that plan, states could still get ACA Medicaid expansion funding but restrict coverage to enrollees with incomes up to the federal poverty level. Currently, to receive expansion funding, states must offer coverage to everyone up to 138% of the poverty level.

Daniel Derksen, director of the Center for Rural Health at the University of Arizona, said it’s unlikely Arizona would move to eliminate its trigger and make up for lost federal funds. “It would be a tough sell right now as it would put a big strain on the budget,” he said.

Medicaid has been in the crosshairs of Republicans in Washington before. Republican congressional leaders in 2017 proposed legislation to cut federal expansion funding, a move that would have shifted billions in costs to states. That plan, part of a strategy to repeal Obamacare, ultimately failed.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

'Monumental victory': Wisconsin judge axes Scott Walker-era attack on union rights

More than a decade after it sparked massive protests in the state capital, a Wisconsin judge on Monday struck down a controversial law that effectively ended public sector collective bargaining in the state.

In his final judgement, Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost crossed out 85 sections of the 2011 law known as Act 10, which was championed by then-Republican Gov. Scott Walker. Frost's ruling restored the union rights of teachers, sanitation workers, nurses, and other public sector employees.

"After 14 years of battling for our collective bargaining rights, we are thrilled to take this step forward," Rocco DeMark, a building service worker and SEIU Wisconsin worksite leader, said in a statement. "This victory brings us immense joy. Our fight has been long, but we are excited to continue building a Wisconsin where we can all thrive."

"We realize there may still be a fight ahead of us in the courts, but make no mistake, we're ready to keep fighting until we all have a seat at the table again."

Act 10 severely weakened the power of public sector unions in Wisconsin by only permitting them to bargain for wage increases that did not surpass inflation. It also raised what public employees paid for healthcare and retirement, ended the automatic withdrawal of union dues, and required workers to recertify their union votes every year.

The law has had a major impact on the Wisconsin workforce. Between 2000 and 2022, no state saw a steeper decline in its proportion of unionized employees, a drop that the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum partly attributed to Law 10. Unions say that the law has caused a "crisis" for the state's education workforce, as 40% of new teachers leave within six years due to low pay and an unequal wage system. There is also a 32% vacancy rate for state correction officers.

Act 10 had one exception, however: Certain "public safety" employees such as police and firefighters were exempt from the collective bargaining restrictions imposed on "general" employees. It was this division that unions used to challenge the law in November 2023, arguing that it violated the equal protection clause of the Wisconsin Constitution. In July, Frost affirmed that the law was unconstitutional when he struck down an attempt to dismiss the suit. Then, on Monday, he specified exactly which parts of the law would be struck down.

"Judge Frost's ruling is a monumental victory for Wisconsin's working class," Democratic Wisconsin State Assembly Member Darrion Madison toldCourthouse News Service. "All Wisconsinites deserve the opportunity to live in a state that treats all workers with respect and dignity."

The lawsuit was brought by Ben Gruber, Matthew Ziebarth, the Abbotsford Education Association (WEAC/NEA), AFSCME Local 47, AFSCME Local 1215, Beaver Dam Education Association (WEAC/NEA), SEIU Wisconsin, Teaching Assistants Association (TAA/AFT) Local 3220, and Teamsters Local 695.

"Today's decision is personal for me and my coworkers," said Gruber, who serves as president of AFSCME Local 1215. "As a conservation warden, having full collective bargaining rights means we will again have a voice on the job to improve our workplace and make sure that Wisconsin is a safe place for everyone."

The news was also celebrated by state›wide advocacy groups and national leaders.

"We applaud today's ruling as a win for workers' rights and as proof that when we come together to ensure our courts and elected leaders are working on behalf of our rights and freedoms instead of partisan antics, we can accomplish great things," said A Better Wisconsin Together deputy director Mike Browne.

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said: "This decision is a big deal. Act 10 stripped workers of the freedom and power to have a voice on the job to bargain wages, benefits, and working conditions. It's about the dignity of work. And when workers have a voice, they have a vehicle to improve the quality of the services they provide to students, patients, and communities."

"Former Gov. Scott Walker tried to eliminate all of that, and it hurt Wisconsin," she continued. "Now, many years later, the courts have found his actions unconstitutional."

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote on social media, "I voted against Act 10 more than 13 years ago, and am thrilled our public servants are able to once again organize and make their voices heard."

This is not the first time that Act 10 has been challenged in court, but it is the first time since the state's Supreme Court switched from a conservative to a liberal majority in 2023. Since Republican lawmakers have promised to appeal Frost's ruling, the law's ultimate fate could depend on elections in April 2025, which will determine whether the court maintains its liberal majority, according toThe Associated Press.

As they celebrated, the plaintiffs acknowledged the legal fight was not yet over.

"We realize there may still be a fight ahead of us in the courts, but make no mistake, we're ready to keep fighting until we all have a seat at the table again," Gruber said.

WEAC President Peggy Wirtz-Olsen said: "Today's news is a win and, while there will likely be more legal legwork coming, WEAC and our allies will not stop until free, fair, and full collective bargaining rights are restored."

Betsy Ramsdale, a union leader who teaches in the Beaver Dam Unified School District, said that public sector collective bargaining rights ultimately helped the state.

"We're confident that, in the end, the rghts of all Wisconsin public sector employees will be restored," she said. "Educators' working conditions are students' learning conditions, and everyone benefits when we have a say in the workplace."

Watchdogs say world's richest man has 'declared war on Social Security'

A lengthy series of X posts attacking Social Security as a "nightmare" caught the attention of the platform's mega-billionaire owner, Elon Musk, who could soon take aim at the beloved New Deal program as co-chair of an advisory commission tasked with identifying federal spending to slash.

"Interesting thread," Musk, the world's richest man, wrote late Monday in response to the posts by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who once said he hopes to pull Social Security "up by the roots and get rid of it," along with Medicare and Medicaid.

In his new thread, Lee characterized Social Security—which lifts more Americans above the poverty line than any other federal program—as a "tax plan" insidiously disguised as a retirement plan and condemned the Social Security Act of 1935 as one of many "deceptive sales techniques the U.S. government has used on the American people."

Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), replied Tuesday that Lee's posts amount to "a misrepresentation of Social Security's history and how the program works."

"There is nothing deceptive about Social Security. The social insurance program has been working just fine for nearly 90 years and has never missed a payment," said Richtman. "The kind of propaganda Sen. Lee posted undermines public support for Social Security, making it easier to cut or privatize the program. It is perhaps no coincidence that Sen. Lee's second-biggest campaign contributor by industry is the securities and investment sector."

"The money is ours, Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. You're not going to get a penny of it."

Lee also claimed the federal government "routinely raids" the Social Security Trust Fund—a longstanding and misleading right-wing talking point.

Social Security Works (SSW), a progressive advocacy group, said Tuesday that by amplifying Lee's thread to his hundreds of millions of followers, Musk "just declared war on Social Security."

"For 89 years, through war and peace, boom time and bust, health and pandemics, Social Security has never missed a single payment," said Alex Lawson, SSW's executive director. "Compared to the risky alternatives on Wall Street, Social Security is a rock of retirement security. If billionaires like Elon Musk paid into Social Security at the same rate as the rest of us on all of their income, we could expand benefits for everyone and pay them in full forever."

"This is a declaration of war against seniors, people with disabilities, and the American public," Lawson said. "The Republicans are coming for your Social Security, which they call a 'nightmare.' Elon Musk's commission is a plot to destroy our Social Security by giving it to Wall Street executives—so that you get nothing and they get everything."

"We've seen this play again and again," he added. "When Republicans destroyed defined-benefit pension plans, they claimed that the market would be able to create amazing returns for everybody. Instead, workers got pennies, while Wall Street managers got billions. That is always the plan. We will defeat this Republican effort to steal our earned benefits. The money is ours, Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. You're not going to get a penny of it."

Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, similarly denounced Lee's thread and Musk's promotion of it, saying both "should enrage and concern every single American who has contributed to Social Security."

"Sen. Mike Lee has dreamed about 'phasing out Social Security' and the benefits generations of Americans have earned for more than a decade. His bad ideas have been rightfully ignored but last night he got a big assist from Elon Musk, who amplified Lee's wrongheaded views about Social Security on X."

"Social Security is a solemn promise between the American people and the government," Fiesta continued. "We pay for Social Security's guaranteed benefits with every paycheck and expect them to be there when we retire, lose a spouse or parent, or become disabled. No one voted to phase out Social Security or let Wall Street gamble with their earned benefits. Older Americans will rightly punish any politician who tries to cut their benefits or gut the system that has worked for generations."

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump pledged to defend Social Security while simultaneously pushing proposals that would wreck the program's finances.

Many Republican lawmakers, who are soon to be in the majority in both chambers of Congress, have called for raising the Social Security retirement age—a change that would cut benefits across the board. On Tuesday, Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) toldFox Business Network that "we're going to have to have some hard decisions" on Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare—a euphemism for benefit cuts.

Richtman of NCPSSM said that the kind of attack advanced by Lee and other Republicans "conflicts with President Trump's promise not to tamper with Americans' earned benefits."

"It signals where Trump's MAGA allies in Congress are heading—toward privatization and benefit cuts, something the majority of Americans across party lines say they do not want," Richtman added.

Stunning chart shows 'mindblowing' rise in manufacturing under Biden — that Trump gets to 'ribbon cut'

During the 2024 presidential race, Donald Trump relentlessly attacked President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on the economy — blaming both of them for post-pandemic inflation in the United States. And the message resonated with enough voters for Trump to pull off a narrow victory over Harris.

According to the Cook Political Report, Trump defeated Harris by roughly 1.5 or 1.6 percent in the popular vote and picked up 312 electoral votes compared to 226 for the vice president.

A victory of 1.5 or 1.6 percent is hardly a "landslide," as Trump's allies have been claiming. But it's a victory nonetheless, and Trump will be sworn in for a nonconsecutive second term on January 20, 2025.

READ MORE: Trump’s tariffs on Mexico could devastate border region: TX economists

Some of Biden's supporters have argued that history will be kind to the outgoing president — not unlike the kind words for the late President George H.W. Bush after he lost the 1992 election to President Bill Clinton. And history, they argue, will remember Biden's job-creation record and the low unemployment of his presidency.

In October, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. unemployment was 4.1 percent.

In a December 2 post on X, formerly Twitter, Alex Armlovich — a senior housing analyst for the Niskanen Center — praised Biden's record on creating manufacturing jobs. And he made his point by tweeting a chart from Joey Politano, who publishes a financial newsletter.

Armlovich tweeted, "This rise in US manufacturing construction spend via @JosephPolitano is absolutely mindblowing. So many CHIPS & IRA-fueled factories are about to start opening in January you're not gonna believe it."

READ MORE: Bombshell report details 'dangerous' new allegations against Trump Cabinet nominee

In a separate tweet, Armlovich laments that Trump, in 2025, will get the credit for Biden's economic achievements.

Armlovich predicts, "Trump's name will be on every IIJA, CHIPS, & IRA ribbon cut b/c key Dem factions thought NEPA red tape was more important than permitting reform to finish projects in <4 yrs FDR didn't respond to the 1930s by saying 'Mussolini is too fast we need NEPA.' He just started building."

READ MORE: Data shows dire election postmortems could soon be in store for GOP: columnist

Trump’s tariffs on Mexico could devastate border region: TX economists

President-elect Donald Trump’s intention to levy a 25% tariff on goods imported from Mexico and Canada sent shockwaves across the country — especially on Texas’ southern border, where the vast majority of trade between the U.S. and Mexico passes through.

In a post on Truth Social on Monday, Trump said he plans to levy a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico as soon he takes office until drugs and undocumented migrants stop crossing the border. He also threatened to impose a 10% tariff on all products from China, saying the country is sending illegal drugs to the U.S.

Mexico, China and Canada are the U.S.'s largest trade partners, and tariffs would likely disrupt the economies of all three countries by crippling exchange among auto and electronic manufacturers, which ship goods at various stages of production across borders to take advantage of each country’s unique production strengths.

Consumers can expect to see the cost of imported goods rise and the number of jobs in the manufacturing and warehousing sectors decline as the increased prices curtail demand, economists said.

“When we mess with trade relationships, we kind of shoot ourselves in our own foot,” said Jesus Cañas, senior business economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “If firms have to pay 25% more, they won’t take that out of their profits, they’ll just pass that on to us.”

A majority of goods traded across the U.S., Mexico and Canada are intermediary goods. For example, the U.S. might input Chinese electrical parts in a vehicle and send that vehicle to Mexico for a circuit board. That product might then be sent back to Texas to be stored in a warehouse in El Paso before the car is finished in an assembly line in Dallas.

An individual product could pass between the U.S. and Mexico between four and eight times, said Tom Fullerton, an economics professor at the University of Texas at El Paso. A tariff would therefore substantially increase the cost of the final product and make it less competitive on the international market.

While the entire country would feel impacts of tariffs, Texas would be disproportionately affected based on the amount of trade the state conducts with Mexico. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, from Laredo to El Paso, free trade has fueled job growth and improved the standard of living for residents.

Jon Barela, CEO of an economic development organization called the Borderplex Alliance, recalled unemployment figures in the double digits three decades ago. Now, they hover around 4%.

In 2023, trade between Texas and Mexico totaled $272.3 billion, according to the governor’s office, making Mexico Texas’ number one trading partner.

“The biggest impacts are going to be felt by manufacturing companies, transportation companies and warehousing companies,” Fullerton said. “We could end up with a repeat of the 1930s with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act,” which created a trade war and contributed to the Great Depression.

In response to Trump’s announcement, Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum suggested the country would retaliate with its own tariffs if Trump levies 25% import duties. She said Mexico has gone to significant lengths to stem the flow of migrants across the border, adding that migrant apprehensions at the southern border have declined every month this year. In addition, she said Mexico could not control the U.S. demand for drugs.

In 2020, the U.S., Mexico and Canada ratified a free trade agreement that replaced NAFTA. The imposition of tariffs would likely violate that agreement, which is set to expire in 2026.

Texas elected officials expressed support for Trump’s tariffs. Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said tariffs are a good negotiating tool and could encourage Mexico to shut down the border. He dismissed any potential economic impacts as temporary.

“We are trying to shut down the flood of illegal immigration,” Miller said. “That factor alone offsets any temporary price increase.”

Gov. Greg Abbott did not immediately respond to The Texas Tribune’s request for comment. But on social media, he appeared to praise Trump for “prioritizing securing the border.”

Economists remain skeptical as to whether Trump will follow through on his plan. He has a history of using tariffs to promote negotiations. But they all agree that the tariffs would have inflationary consequences, even though Trump campaigned on a promise to reverse the high rates of inflation that set in after the COVID-19 pandemic.

“If you like your avocados from Mexico, expect to pay 25% more,” Barela said. “If you like Mexican beer, expect to pay 25% more. This will not only have the effect of killing jobs throughout our region, it will have a dire inflationary aspect.”

Disclosure: Borderplex Alliance and the University of Texas at El Paso have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/26/donald-trump-tariffs-texas-border-economy/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

New DNC chair candidate vows to 'fight for working people'

Current chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party Ben Wikler on Sunday officially threw his hat in the ring to take over the national party, leading with a promise to put the working class at the center of its organizing efforts following a crushing defeat to Donald Trump's far-right Republicans in November's election.

"If we're going to take on Trump, Republican extremists, and move our country forward, the Democratic Party needs to be stronger," Wikler said in a statement. "I'm running for Chair of the Democratic National Committee to unite the party, fight everywhere, and win."

With the term of current Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison expiring in the new year, Wikler said his focus will be on lifting up the needs of working-class people, improving communication strategies, and running a more aggressive political operation.

"The soul of the Democratic Party is the fight for working people," Wikler said. "Ours is the party that built the middle class, that won breakthroughs on civil rights, women's rights, workers' rights, freedom and opportunity for all—and has so much more to do."

Wikler, who got his start in state-level politics in his home state and later played a leading role at the national progressive advocacy group MoveOn, notes that while Trump and the Republicans made gains across the board against Democrats in the 2024 election, the swing was much less in Wisconsin where Wikler has rebuilt the party over recent years, taking back majorities in the state legislature and other key fights.

"What has made a difference in Wisconsin," he said, "can make a difference everywhere. We need a nationwide permanent campaign."

In an interview with the New York Times published Sunday, Wikler acknowledged that a significant explanation about the Democratic loss of the presidential race—as well as Republican's winning control of both chambers of Congress—was that too many voters simply don't believe Democrats take their economic concerns seriously or think the party is capable of addressing them.

"It's clear from this election that there are many voters, especially those hardest hit by rising prices, those who experienced the pandemic-era financial support slipping away, who voted primarily on the economy," he said. "We’ve seen in the United States and worldwide if you have to break pills in half to be able to afford your groceries, that is going to be the top-of-mind issue when you go to the ballot box."

The Democratic Party can win, Wikler argued, "when voters know that we're the ones fighting for them against those who will seek to rip them off to add an extra billion dollars to their bank account."

Calling Wikler a "party builder," The Nation's political correspondent John Nichols, also a Wisconsin native, said Wikler joins "an increasingly crowded list of contenders for the post, including Minnesota DFL chair Ken Martin, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and New York state Sen. James Skoufis."

In response to the announcement, former labor secretary Robert Reich gave his endorsement to Wikler in a Sunday blog post, calling him someone who "can turn the Democratic Party into a party that's once again on the side of the little guy."

With the Democratic Party in the midst of deep soul-searching following Vice President Kamala Harris' devastating defeat to Trump, progressives have called for a major rethink. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination both in 2016 and 2020 as a challenge to its corporate leanings, said last week that getting big money out of politics should be a top priority for the party's leadership going forward.

"If the Democratic Party is to become a democratic party, the first job of a new DNC Chair is to get super-PAC money out of Democratic primaries," Sanders said. "AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super-PACS cannot be allowed to select Democratic candidates."

Former Ohio state senator Nina Turner, a close Sanders' ally, said the same on Sunday, shortly after Wikler's announcement. "Every candidate running for DNC Chair must commit to getting dark money and corporate money out of the Party. Period," tweeted Turner.

Sanders, Turner, and other progressive voices have been adamant that without a real strategy to win back working-class families, the Democrats are lost.

Randi Weingarten, union president of the American Federation of Teachers, said Wikler "understands how to organize and communicate."

Reich embraced Wikler's call for a new, bolder organizing strategy as well as his record in Wisconsin. "Wikler organized and mobilized voters in a state that Republicans had rigged to ensure total dominance and control. Ben unrigged that system," Reich wrote. "He turned Wisconsin into a year-round organizing and fundraising powerhouse, winning seven of the last 10 statewide elections since he took over."

Reich also explained why it's important that someone like Wikler be the replacement for the outgoing Harrison, a former lobbyist and a staunch ally of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party establishment.

"For years, the Democratic National Committee has been little more than a fundraising machine, which means it's been tilted toward sources of big money—billionaires, big corporations, and Wall Street," argued Reich. "That's precisely the problem. That's why the DNC cut Bernie Sanders off at the knees when he ran against Hillary Clinton in 2016. That's why starting in the 1980s the Party began turning its back on the working class."

"There's no way the Party can speak for the majority of working people in America," concluded Reich, "when it's reluctant to bite the hands that feed it."

'Back off of stupid': Ex-RNC chair warns Trump will wreck economy with 'bully' threats

MSNBC's Michael Steele laughed at Donald Trump's tariff threats after Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau flew to Florida to ask the president-elect about the proposal himself.

Trudeau had dinner with the former president Friday at Mar-a-Lago after he threatened to impose 25-percent tariffs on Canadian products if the neighboring country didn't stop what he called the flow of drugs and migrants across the northern border, and the former Republican National Committee chair tried to imagine how their conversation went.

"I get it, I get what Tim Ryan was saying about, yeah, you got to go do the thing," Steele said. "I would have done it from Canada. You know, look, it's like, I think this playing into Donald Trump's ego is part of the problem and, you know, bullies bully, and we know he's going to do whatever he is going to do. You've just got to draw the line with him but, you know, Canada has to figure out for itself, and he figured it would be smart to go down to Florida and spend time and hopefully not get Donald Trump to do the thing he's going to do anyway."

The prime minister issued a statement afterward noting that tariffs would raise the cost of consumer goods, which Trump had promised to reduce during his campaign, but Trudeau said he had no reason to doubt the president-elect would carry through on his threat.

ALSO READ: Ex-GOP lawmaker offers 'two options' for how to deal with new Trump administration

"Here's the thing," said MSNBC's Alicia Menendez. "There's almost like, go ahead – 25 percent tariff on these goods? During, in the aftermath of an election where people were saying, the price of goods, the cost of living is my motivation for coming out to vote."

"So my question, my question to Trudeau is what did you put on the table to tell him he needs to back off of stupid," Steele added.

"Maybe a calculator," Menendez interjected. "Let me explain to you what it's going to cost you over here."

"Draw a map for you," Steele offered. "You're going to see a 30 percent increase on the cost of good. The reality to your point of where the voters are, they, and Tim said this as well. Someone understands their pain and their problem. Well, he is going to bring more pain with this policy. It is not a policy that alleviates the economic struggle you are in, it exacerbates it. The thing about it is, again, I just don't know if people really fully appreciate how interconnected all aspects of our economy are. It's not just leveling a tariff on produce or on manufactured goods, it is the ripple effect, how that impacts the supply chain of other goods and services. So, you know, when you want to play the tariff game, there's going to be a price that the American people are going to pay and, you know, I guess Trudeau is trying to get ahead of that a little bit."

- YouTube youtu.be

How Trump’s own policies could doom his pledge for US 'energy dominance' and 'harm national security'

During President Joe Biden's four years in the White House, the United States, according to Politico, has produced record amounts of oil and natural gas. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, in March 2024, reported that the U.S., under Biden, was producing "more crude oil than any nation at any time."

But President-elect Donald Trump is promising an even greater emphasis on fossil fuels after he returns to the White House.

Biden, as president, has favored a combination of green energy and fossil fuels. Biden acknowledges climate change as a dangerous and perilous reality and has supported ramping up green energy use without abandoning fossil fuels.

READ MORE: Putin praises 'real man' Donald Trump but warns 'even now he’s not safe': reports

Trump, in contrast, doesn't consider climate change a problem and wants to make fossil fuels an even higher priority for the U.S. The president-elect has vowed to "drill, drill, drill," and he has proposed North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum — Trump's nominee for secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior — to head a new National Energy Council.

Trump has promised to establish American "energy dominance." But according to Associated Press (AP) reporter Matthew Daly, his energy goals "are likely to run into real-world limits."

"Trump's bid to boost oil supplies — and lower U.S. prices — is complicated by his threat this week to impose 25 percent import tariffs on Canada and Mexico, two of the largest sources of U.S. oil imports," Daly explains in an article published on November 29. "The U.S. oil industry warned the tariffs could raise prices and even harm national security."

Scott Lauermann of the American Petroleum Institute is among the fossil fuels promoters who are speaking out.

READ MORE: How Don Jr. is making sure Trump picks 'absolute warriors for the movement' to his Cabinet

Lauermann told AP, "Canada and Mexico are our top energy trading partners, and maintaining the free flow of energy products across our borders is critical for North American energy security and U.S. consumers."

Meanwhile, Jonathan Elkind — senior research scholar at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy in New York City and a former assistant energy secretary under President Barack Obama — is highly critical of Trump's emphasis on fossil fuels and his refusal to acknowledge climate change as an "existential" danger.

Elkind told AP, "Failure to focus on climate change as an existential threat to our planet is a huge concern and translates to a very significant loss of American property and American lives."

READ MORE: 'Up to us to stop him': Petition to block Trump Cabinet picks gets 44K signatures in 5 days

Read the Associated Press' full article at this link.


Trump's inflation nightmare: How his own policies could backfire and skyrocket prices

President-elect Donald Trump owes his political comeback in large part to voters’ concerns over the soaring price of everything from gasoline and housing to coffee and bagels.

Inflation has since come down to levels close to normal thanks in large part to a steep rise in interest rates. But in an ironic twist, some of Trump’s own policies – which he heavily promoted on the campaign trail – could send inflation soaring once more if enacted. Specifically, economists caution that his proposed policies on tariffs, immigration and taxes may do more to exacerbate inflation than curb it.

In my introductory economics classes, I teach my students about the unintended consequences of policies and how they can sometimes be counterintuitive. Common-sense economics often falls short, and this is evident in several policies proposed by Trump, where the expected outcomes may not align with their actual impacts.

Stagnant real wages

Exit poll data reveals that Americans felt the sting of rising prices in recent years, as inflation-adjusted wages strained household budgets.

Even as the Federal Reserve has managed to bring inflation much closer to its 2% target, many Americans continue to describe prices as “too high,” an echo of the past several years’ cost increases that persistently outpaced wage growth.

When inflation outpaces wage growth, the purchasing power of each dollar erodes, leaving workers struggling to afford the same goods and services. This erosion has been felt particularly hard in recent years, but it’s part of a long-term trend of sluggish wages.

Inflation-adjusted wages have been largely stagnant for decades, with certain metrics revealing a dismal reality. For example, the federal minimum wage, created in 1938 and set at US$7.25 since 2009, is now worth less than half of what it was over 50 years ago. Back in the late-1960s, the minimum wage was worth the equivalent of $14.50 per hour in today’s money after adjusting for inflation.

Median weekly earnings paint a similarly bleak picture. Today’s median weekly real earnings for men, adjusted for inflation, are below their level from the mid-1970s. This stagnation has been a critical factor in voters’ recent concerns, with inflationary pressures intensifying the burden on low- and middle-income households.

Trump’s campaign promised swift action to end what he called the “inflation nightmare.” But the following three Trump’s economic policies may have the opposite effect of what his supporters hope for.

1. Tariffs: Americans usually pay the bill

Protectionist policies, such as tariffs on imported goods, tend to increase costs for consumers by limiting supply and raising prices.

In Trump’s first term, tariffs on Chinese imports caused domestic prices to increase across various sectors, from consumer electronics to agricultural products. His renewed interest in protectionism could exacerbate inflation by restricting competition and limiting the availability of affordable goods.

In his second term, Trump has said he would increase tariffs on Chinese goods to as high as 60%, tariff rates significantly higher than the 7.5%-25% imposed on China during his first term.

Many voters express support for tariffs, often viewing them as a way to protect American jobs and industries from foreign competition. However, many might not realize that tariffs function much like sales taxes and are ultimately paid by American consumers rather than the countries exporting goods to the U.S.

Here’s how tariffs work: When the U.S. imposes a tariff on imports, it essentially adds an extra cost to those foreign goods. This cost is passed along the supply chain, leading to higher prices for American companies and consumers who buy these products.

Economists widely agree that tariffs can drive inflation by increasing consumer costs and limiting the availability of affordable options. This basic lesson from Economics 101 underscores how protectionist policies like tariffs, while appealing in principle, often bring unintended consequences for everyday shoppers.

In addition, imposing tariffs on imports risks retaliation from other countries, which may impose their own trade restrictions on U.S. exports. This can reduce demand for American goods, especially in industries like agriculture and manufacturing, slowing economic growth and potentially leading to job losses.

For example, in mid-2018, the U.S. and China engaged in a series of escalating tariffs on each other’s goods, targeting billions of dollars in imports and leading to reciprocal trade restrictions that significantly hurt both economies. A series of studies highlighted the costly economic toll of the U.S.-China trade war, including estimated job losses of nearly 300,000.

In short, tariffs could backfire, hurting both our exports and economy.

2. Deporting millions of migrants could create a labor shortage

Trump’s plan to deport millions of undocumented immigrants also may unintentionally drive inflation higher, as employers across key industries like food production and hospitality would likely face a labor shortage.

Immigrants play a vital role in these sectors, often taking on roles that are difficult to fill. For example, immigrants make up a significant portion of the workforce in agriculture, food processing and hospitality, where they perform essential tasks to keep costs low for American consumers. And they play a key role in the construction industry, including in building new homes.

If deportations proceed as proposed, employers in these industries may be forced to raise wages to attract new workers or lower the supply, leading to higher prices. These added expenses would ultimately trickle down to consumers, increasing prices on everyday items like fruits and vegetables, as well as services like dining out and hotel accommodations.

In short, the loss of this critical workforce could contribute to inflation, making basics like groceries and restaurant meals more expensive for American households.

3. Tax cuts risk fueling too much demand – and price hikes

Economists are also worried about the inflationary impact of tax cuts.

Trump’s tax plans include extending the trillions of dollars in cuts his administration signed into law in his first term – most of which are set to expire in 2025 – and eliminating or reducing other taxes.

While cutting taxes can temporarily boost disposable income by increasing the money households have on hand, it can also drive up inflation by increasing what economists call “aggregate demand” – that is, the total demand for goods and services across the economy.

When this rises sharply, it can put pressure on prices, especially if the supply of goods and services can’t keep up. This imbalance risks fueling inflation, as businesses raise prices to keep up with the surge in demand.

This dynamic is similar to what we observed after the COVID-19 pandemic, when pent-up desire to buy goods and services — built up after months of lockdowns and restrictions — was unleashed. Households, eager to spend, drove up demand in areas like travel, dining and consumer goods.

But businesses faced challenges: supply chain disruptions, labor shortages and limited production capacity. With demand outpacing supply, inflation soared as prices spiked in many sectors.

Could the ‘inflation nightmare’ return?

Expectations that inflation is once again on the rise could have another result that would be painful for consumers: higher interest rates.

The pace of inflation came down from about 9% in the summer of 2022 to 2.4% in September 2024 after the Fed began aggressively hiking its benchmark interest rate. By driving up borrowing costs on everything from car loans to mortgages, the Fed forced many consumers to cut back on spending and priced many Americans out of the housing market.

The drop in inflation, coupled with concerns about the strength of the economy, prompted the central bank to switch course a few months ago and cut rates twice by a total of 0.75 of a percentage point, bringing some relief to consumers. But if the Fed believes inflation is headed higher due to these new policies, it may have to reverse course again and raise rates to fight it.

This, of course, would make it harder for Americans to afford a home – especially when coupled with a labor shortage in the construction industry.

Taken together, many of Trump’s proposed policies may inadvertently fuel another “inflation nightmare.”The Conversation

Veronika Dolar, Associate Professor of Economics, Pace University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Disruption or destruction? Inside the hidden cost of Trump's tech-friendly policies

Some venture capital investors, who have funded the tech boom in Silicon Valley and beyond, say they are excited by the prospect of a lighter regulatory environment under a new Trump administration than they saw under President Joe Biden.

But they warn that Trump policies that will benefit many technology companies may come at a cost to other pro-Trump voters.

The Bay Area bubble of Silicon Valley, which is home to institutional tech giants like Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe, had been previously seen as a left-leaning region, like many other California communities. But the 2024 election was a unique one, venture capitalists and founders say.

“There’s been a significant shift in the Valley rightward since the last election,” said Joe Endoso, a Silicon Valley investor. “And you’ve seen that in the financial flows — in the level of dollars — that were directed towards supporting President Trump’s campaign from the technology sector.”

Endoso, president of financial tech platform Linqto, said some tech industry people who previously voted for progressive issues and candidates this time cast their ballot for Trump. He said he’s heard more concern about potential regulations in the tech industry and negative economic effects under continued Democratic leadership.

This turn toward Trump wasn’t universal in the Valley. The majority of donations from employees at companies such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft went toward Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, Reuters reported in September. But tech billionaires like Elon Musk and venture capital investors, like Andreessen Horowitz co-founders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, poured millions into his campaign.

While Trump didn’t receive unanimous support from the tech sector, many American tech giants and investors are excited about the light-handed approach to tech regulation that’s likely to come in the next four years. Congress has struggled to pass any federal laws around emerging technology like artificial intelligence, though states have done so on their own on issues like data privacy, transparency, discrimination, and on how AI-generated images can be used.

The Biden administration, however, on its own issued a number of “best practice” guides for emerging technologies and aggressively pursued antitrust cases against some tech giants, including an ongoing case against Google that could force the company to spin off its popular Chrome web browser.

It appears unlikely that Trump will continue the Biden era regulatory and enforcement drives.

Those working in emerging technologies like AI are making advancements so quickly that regulators are unlikely to be able to keep up anyway, Endoso said. The tech industry mindset — move fast and break things, first coined by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg — will likely continue under Trump’s administration.

“You’re running through walls and hoping that when the regulations come about, they’re not going to be so, you know, restrictive,” Endoso said. “But you’re not going to sit and wait for the regulators. You can’t afford to.”

Why care about the VC market?

Venture capitalists pour money into many promising startups in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, looking for the ones that will create lucrative new technologies or “disrupt” existing ones. Silicon Valley successes include Uber, which received its first round of venture capital investment for just about $1.3 million in 2010, and Airbnb, which started with just a $20,000 investment in 2008. Today, the companies are worth $146 billion and $84 billion, respectively.

Many more, however, fail. High-visibility startups that folded after raising very large sums include streaming platform Quibi, which raised $1.75 billion and ChaCha, the SMS text-based search platform that had raised $108 million.

The high-risk, high-reward nature of the industry makes for a rarified business, and there’s a high barrier to entry. To become an accredited venture capital investor, one must have an income of at least $200,000 a year, or be worth $1 million. The handful of firms pouring the most money into the United States technology market are usually worth billions.

Yet, the technology being developed and funded by wealthy investors today will shape the next decade of everyone’s lives. Some of the most influential technology in the global economy has been released under President Joe Biden’s administration in the last three and a half years.

Advancements in generative AI and machine learning technology, rapid development of augmented and virtual reality, further adoption of cloud computing and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, such as internet connected appliances and home devices, along with automation of many industries have already shifted much of American life. ChatGPT, one of the most recognizable examples of generative AI that the public can use, was only released two years ago, but the sector of generative AI is already threatening many American jobs.

Those with writing-focused careers like copywriters and social media marketers, are already feeling the disruption, and experts believe STEM professionals, educators and workforce trainers and others in creative and arts fields are going to see much of their job responsibilities automated by AI by 2030.

The venture capital market has been a volatile one over the last four years. Though many of Trump’s attacks on Democrats during his campaign cycle centered on the healthy economy under his first term, the COVID-19 pandemic was the single-biggest economic factor to disrupt the venture capital market and others.

The U.S. saw its biggest year for venture capital investments in 2021, but supply-chain issues and the continuing reliance on remote work changed the trajectory of many companies’ plans to go public on the stock market. High inflation and interest rates have kept many investors from deploying capital and many companies from completing mergers and acquisitions since then, although the second half of 2024 is looking up.

The economy quickly became the number one issue for Americans in the presidential election cycle. And though thriving venture capital markets usually benefit those that are already wealthy enough to invest, we’ll likely see a positive correlation in the general markets too, said Scott Nissenbaum, president and CEO of Ben Franklin Technology Partners, an innovation-centered fund in Pennsylvania.

“A thriving, efficient market is good for venture capital. And the flip side is also true,” he said. “We feed into and create the innovations and the efficiencies and the next generation … that create the robust and the boom.”

How investors and founders are preparing for Trump

Nissenbaum predicts that Trump may remove regulations for technology used by U.S. transportation and military systems, allowing for more tech integration than previously permitted without human safeguards in place. That might look like more flight optimization technology, or more drone usage by military branches. Nissenbaum also thinks Trump will attempt to open up space travel, especially with big backing by Musk, who runs SpaceX.

Health care also has been implementing technology rapidly, and Nissenbaum believes could see some major changes under Trump.

That is of note for health tech founder Sipra Laddha, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist and cofounder of LunaJoy, which provides in-person and virtual wellness visits for women. The 3-year-old company raised venture capital in 2022 and 2023, despite a more challenging fundraising market. Women’s health care companies saw a surge of VC investment in the wake of the overturning of Roe V. Wade in June 2022, an exception to the generally slower investment market at the time.

But she is uncertain about how Trump’s potential cabinet appointees, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was appointed to head the Department of Health and Human Services, will affect LunaJoy’s operation. Kennedy has made health a key issue in his public advocacy and political activity, but he has also espoused eccentric and even false views on issues such as vaccines and pharmaceuticals.

“When women don’t have choices, mental health is significantly worse, and that’s something that goes on, often, for the entire time of that family’s trajectory,” Laddha said. “So I’m not quite sure what’s going to happen, but you know, those are certainly things that, as a women’s mental health company, we are looking at and watching closely to see what sort of legislation, rules and laws come out.”

When it comes to fundraising early next year, Laddha is optimistic. She’s focused on how fragmented the health care industry is right now, and plans to showcase how companies like hers will aim to integrate with larger health systems.

“Our role is to be really as disruptive as possible, and to bring to the forefront the most innovative solutions that we can do while still working within the current framework of health care that exists today,” she said.

Some sectors worry about Trump economic policy

While software and cloud-based technologists seem excited by the effects of deregulation, startup founders that make physical products, especially using microchip technology, are wary of Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on imported goods.

Samyr Laine, a managing partner at Los Angeles-based Freedom Trail Capital, specializes in consumer tech and consumer packaged goods. Laine said he feels a sense of relief in ending the “uncertainty” around who will take the presidency the next four years, but he predicts many founders will feel the costly effects of Trump’s planned tariffs, and pass those additional costs to consumers.

Though the existing companies in his portfolio won’t be hit too hard, it’s a factor they’ll be forced to review when considering investments in companies in the future. Those that will incur the additional costs of imported goods will have to adjust their profit margins and might not be as attractive to investors.

“As a consumer and someone who isn’t in the space, not to be like a fear monger, but expect that some of the things you typically pay for, the price will go up,” Laine said.

The effect on work

Although Trump was successful in picking up a significant amount of tech industry elite support this election season, much of his voter base is working class people who will not feel the positive effects of tech industry deregulation.

Endoso, the Silicon Valley investor and founder, says the Trump coalition of tech entrepreneurs and working-class voters represents “a division between the haves and the have-nots.” The usual basis on which people pick their electoral preferences, like race, geography, income and proximity to city life, were “shattered” this time around.

“It was a revolt of the working class, at least in my view,” he said.

The advancements of AI and machine learning, which will enrich the investor class, will have large implications on employment for those working class voters. The vast majority of Americans who are not college educated, and work physical jobs, might struggle to thrive, he said. We’ll likely see overhauls of industries as robots replace and automate a majority of physical labor in warehouses,and as self-driving vehicles take over jobs like long-haul trucking and ride services such as Uber and Lyft.

“I think those are important questions to be asking from a policy standpoint, and I think that the intelligent answers shouldn’t be ‘let’s shut the innovation down.’” Endoso said. “That didn’t work in 19th century England. It won’t work here today, right? But it does require our rethinking the definition of work, and the definition of how you … organize a society along lines where you don’t need to have the same level of maybe direct labor input as we had in the past.”

Nissenbaum agreed, saying that AI has already begun to leak into every field and industry, and will only continue to disrupt how we work. As revolutionary as the internet and internet companies were in the late 1990s, the web has become the infrastructure for artificial intelligence to become more efficient and effective at everything it does.

With lighter regulation under a new Trump administration, we’re likely to see AI develop at unpredictable rates, he said. And laborers will definitely be feeling the effects over the next four years.

“You’re not going to lose your job to AI,” Nissenbaum said. “You’re going to lose your job to someone who understands how to do your job with AI.”

Nebraska Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Cate Folsom for questions: info@nebraskaexaminer.com. Follow Nebraska Examiner on Facebook and X.

'$213 per device': Prices for these products are expected to soar under Trump tariffs

Critics of President-elect Donald Trump's proposal for aggressive new tariffs were hoping that he would back down or reconsider his idea. Instead, Trump is promising to enact new tariffs on his first day back in office, including across-the-board 25% tariffs on goods imported into the United States from Mexico and Canada. Tariffs on items imported from Mainland China would be pegged at 10%.

Vice President Kamala Harris, during her 2024 presidential campaign, repeatedly warned that the tariffs Trump was proposing would, in effect, be a major "sales tax on the American people" if enacted. And many economists, including Robert Reich and the New York Times' Paul Krugman, have been warning that Trump's tariffs would lead to brutal inflation.

Reich and Krugman are liberals. But on the right, the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) has been equally critical of Trump's proposed tariffs.

READ MORE: Robert Reich: The last tariff increase 'ended up worsening the Great Depression'

CBS News reporter Megan Cerullo, in an article published on November 27, lists some of the many items that are likely to soar in price if Trump's new tariffs are enacted in 2025.

"For their part," Cerullo explains, "experts and business groups are clear that tariffs would lift prices. A barrage of new duties on foreign imports would likely boost consumer costs on everything from vacuum cleaners to tiki torches, which are largely imported from China and are already subject to tariffs, according to Scott Lincicome, a trade expert at the Cato Institute, a public policy research group."

Cerullo adds that Trump's new tariffs "would also reduce American consumers' spending power by $90 billion on products, including TVs, headphones, laptops and tablets, video game consoles, smartphones and other electronics, according to the Consumer Technology Association."

"The trade group — which modeled the impact of a 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports, coupled with a 60 percent levy on goods from the country that Trump previously floated — estimated that laptops and tablets would see the steepest price hikes, with costs surging as much as 45 percent," Cerulla reports. "Video game consoles and smartphones could also see double-digit gains. Researchers assumed retailers would pass all added costs related to tariffs along to consumers."

READ MORE: What will Trump and GOP congress do to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

Cerulla continues, "In the smartphone category, the average increase in price would be $213 per device, according to CTA."

Footwear, according to Cerulla, is also likely to soar in price if Trump's proposed tariffs are enacted.

Matt Priest, CEO of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America (FDRA), told CBS News, "We know that if they apply tariffs on Chines goods and Chinese footwear, it will hit working families the hardest."

READ MORE: GOP 'far from sold' on Trump’s tariff plan: report

Read Megan Cerulla's full report for CBS News at this link.


'Delete CFPB': Elon Musk declares war on key regulatory agency

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) came into existence when President Barack Obama signed into law the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. One of the most aggressive proponents of the agency was now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), an Obama adviser who argued that aggressive regulation of Wall Street was badly needed in light of the financial crash of September 2008.

In 2010, the United States was still in a deep recession. The Great Recession was the country's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, with the national unemployment rate averaging 9.6 percent that year (according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).

During its 14-year history, the CFPB has had both defenders and detractors. Some conservatives and libertarians claim that the regulatory agency hobbles the markets; Warren, however, has maintained that the CFPB is a safeguard against devastating financial events like the crashes of 1929 and 2008.

READ MORE: What will Trump and GOP congress do to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

In late 2024, the CFPB has a major foe in billionaire Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, SpaceX and X (formerly Twitter). President-elect Donald Trump has picked Musk, along with MAGA businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, to head a proposed government agency that would be called the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

On November 27, Musk tweeted, "Delete CFPB. There are too many duplicative regulatory agencies."

Forbes' Derek Saul reports, "Musk's post was in response to a recent podcast clip from Marc Andreessen, billionaire venture capitalist and fellow multimillion-dollar Trump donor, who said the CFPB's primary purpose is to 'terrorize financial institutions.' Yahoo Finance reporter Jordan Weissmann notes the CFPB shut down a portfolio company of Andreessen’s firm a16z in 2021."

The CFPB has also been a target of far-right Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's highly controversial 920-page blueprint for a second Trump Administration. Project 2025 has called for Congress to abolish the agency.

READ MORE: Robert Reich: The last tariff increase 'ended up worsening the Great Depression'

But Warren remains an outspoken defender of the CFPB, recently telling the Washington Post, "The CFPB is here to stay…. There's big talk, but the laws supporting the CFPB are strong."

READ MORE: ''Rocketships to nowhere:' Not everyone on Team Trump is happy with 'co-president' Elon Musk

Read Forbes' full article at this link.


'America depends on it': Nobel-winning economist reveals key lesson Dems must learn from 2024

Democrats were hoping to convince enough Americans that their management of the post-pandemic economy was good enough to keep them in power. But after a majority of voters instead chose to send President-elect Donald Trump back to the White House, one top economist argues that Democrats have an important lesson to learn if they hope to win future elections.

In a Thursday op-ed for the Guardian, Joseph Stiglitz — the former chief economist for the World Bank who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001 — said Democrats merely offering tweaks to the current economic order is no longer sufficient. While he credited President Joe Biden's administration for guiding the United States through the initial post-Covid spike in inflation rates and maintaining a near-full employment economy (the U.S. had the best economic recovery of all G7 nations in the wake of the pandemic), it "wasn't good enough."

"Americans haven’t forgotten that the Democrats let loose the financial sector (Clinton), then bailed out the banks while homeowners and workers who lost their jobs in the Great Recession carried the cost (Barack Obama). Moreover, it was Clinton who unleashed globalization, tacitly believing in a trickle-down economics that would ultimately benefit everyone," Stiglitz wrote. "The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this score is that Democrats claimed to feel the pain of those who were losing out."

READ MORE: Dems had an 'economic populist' message but voters were 'utterly indifferent': economist

Stiglitz emphasized that Trump's economy won't be friendly for most working-class Americans. He noted that Trump ran on and may enact another tax cut package that will overwhelmingly benefit the rich at the expense of workers, repeal the Affordable Care Act and implement broad tariffs that will harm both consumers and small businesses alike. He defined Trump's economic vision as "ersatz capitalism, run for and by the powerful" with the guiding principle that "money matters above all else."

"Like nationalists everywhere, Trump blames America’s problems on outside forces, from immigration to 'unfair' trade' But while it is true that neither issue has been managed very well, his proposed solutions would be disastrous for the US economy and the world," Stiglitz argued. "The extent to which his voters understood this is unclear. Most seem to have been drawn to the political theatre. They wanted to send a message of dissatisfaction, and now they have done so."

According to Stiglitz, the opportunity for Democrats in future elections lies in "abandon[ing] neoliberalism and return[ing] to your progressive roots." He cited sweeping economic visions by former Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which he said "offer[ed] education and opportunity for all; where markets compete to better products that enhance living standards, rather than to devise better ways of exploiting workers, customers and the environment; where we recognize that we have moved on from the industrial age to an economy oriented around services, knowledge, innovation and care."

"A new economy needs new rules and new roles for government," Stiglitz wrote.

READ MORE: 'Not good enough anymore': Union leader explains why Dems lost economic argument to Trump

The Nobel Prize-winning economist criticized Vice President Kamala Harris' piecemeal fixes for the economy as "a little more education funding here, and a few dollars to help first-time homebuyers there." He argued that Democrats should instead be unafraid to propose bold new visions that will inspire millions of American voters who want drastic changes in the economic order.

"Articulating a robust program will not be easy, and implementing it would be harder still," he acknowledged. "But the future of America depends on it being done."

Click here to read Stiglitz's op-ed in full.

READ MORE: 'Chaos': Small biz owner it by Trump's last tariff reveals key flaw that hurts US companies

'Significant consequences': Major bank comes out swinging against Trump’s tariff proposal

Critics of President-elect Donald Trump's proposal for aggressive new tariffs were hoping he would back down from that idea. But Trump, in late November, announced that he plans to move forward with the tariffs as soon as he is sworn into office in January 2025 — including proposed 25% across-the-board tariffs on all goods imported into the United States from Mexico and Canada.

For some goods imported from Mainland China, Trump has proposed a 10% tariff.

Goldman Sachs is weighing in on Trump's tariff proposals — and not in a favorable way.

READ MORE: 'Chaos': Small biz owner hit by Trump’s last tariff reveals key flaw that hurts U.S. companies

Goldman Sachs, according to Bloomberg News reporters Yongchang Chin and Weilun Soon, is warning that U.S. consumers could face "significant consequences" if the tariffs are enacted.

"The 25% levy on all products from Canada proposed by Trump would likely raise the price of fuels in the U.S., Daan Struyven, the head of commodities research for Goldman, said during a roundtable interview," Chin and Soon report. "The tactic is reminiscent of the first Trump term and could be a negotiating tool, he added."

Struyven told Bloomberg News that Trump's proposed tariffs "could in theory lead to some pretty significant consequences for three groups of people: U.S. consumers, U.S. refiners and Canadian producers."

Struyven added, however, "Given the focus from Trump to lower energy costs, we think Canada tariffs are somewhat unlikely."

READ MORE: Robert Reich: The last tariff increase 'ended up worsening the Great Depression'

Chin and Soon note, "The U.S. imports almost 4 million barrels of Canadian crude a day, which allows American producers to export more of their own oil. The chief executive officer of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said tariffs would result in higher gasoline and energy costs for U.S. consumers."

READ MORE: 'Comeback of polio': Expert warns Trump picks will have 'major impact' on public health

Read Bloomberg News' full report at this link (subscription required).


'Chaos': Small biz owner hit by Trump’s last tariff reveals key flaw that hurts US companies

President-elect Donald Trump is following through on a key campaign promise of imposing double-digit tariffs on goods imported into the United States. One small business owner is worried that the new tariffs could set American companies back in more ways than one.

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Trump's proposed new day one 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico and 10% on Chinese imports is already provoking a back-and-forth with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. She warned that if Trump followed through, she would retaliate with a new tariff on imports from the United States. The Times pointed out that the tariffs would affect a vast number of industries, including auto manufacturing, where many American car companies depend on parts imported from Canada and Mexico.

In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced an emergency meeting with premiers of Canadian provinces to discuss how the proposed new tariffs could impact their local economies. Trump pledged that the tariffs would remain in place until the flow of undocumented immigrants and illegal drugs like fentanyl stop coming across U.S. borders.

READ MORE: 'Not immune': Walmart confirms new tariffs will mean higher prices for customers

In a recent interview with AlterNet, Prevelo Bikes founder Jacob Rheuban said the tariff will impact American businesses and consumers far more than international governments. Walmart — whose inventory is primarily made up of goods imported from China — has already signaled that the new tariffs would most likely be passed onto customers in the form of higher prices. Rheuban said while he'll do all he can to cut production costs to make up for the tariff, it may not be enough as his company doesn't "have a surplus operating budget."

(Jacob Rheuban)(Jacob Rheuban)

Rheuban's California-based company — which has six employees — primarily sells its bikes made for children domestically, though he said certain raw materials like tires and brakes are made in Asia and emphasized that the bicycle manufacturing industry as a whole uses those same Asian suppliers. He added that if Trump's goal is to make companies source their raw materials domestically, that would be a "really big undertaking" that would require years of planning.

"We're going to need support for that," Rheuban told AlterNet.

He added that his company — which was launched in 2016 — has prior experience with Trump tariffs implemented during his first administration. In March of 2018, Trump announced tariffs of 25% on imported steel and 10% on imported aluminum. Rheuban said the rapid timeline for implementation caught businesses like his off-guard. He also said that many businesses that imported goods scrambled to make orders before the tariff was imposed, which he said "snarled the global supply chain."

READ MORE: How Trump's tariffs would 'aggressively transfer wealth from the poor to the rich: journalist

"There was a little bit of chaos," he said. "the last tariffs were implemented relatively quickly without time to make supply chain shifts."

The Prevelo founder told AlterNet that he hopes the incoming administration takes a hard look at reforming the de minimis exemption, which President Joe Biden started to do this fall. That exemption makes it so products valued at $800 U.S. dollars or less is exempted from import duties, which Chinese companies like Temu and Shein have taken advantage of. Rheuban said small American companies like his suffer as international competitors are able to flood the market with cheap goods.

"[The de minimis exemption] puts domestic brands at a disadvantage to companies shipping direct from China," he said.

Trump has framed his tariffs as a tax paid by other countries, though economists say that this is false. During her campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris repeatedly warned that Trump's proposed tariffs would amount to an additional sales tax that would hit American families to the tune of roughly $4,000 dollars each year.

READ MORE: Trump's newest policy proposal would be a 'huge tax increase' for the middle class: analysis

@2024 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.