Staff Reports
In a recent debate, Vice President Kamala Harris attempted to put a fancy label on former President Donald Trump’s tariffs by dubbing them the “Trump sales tax.” This linguistic gymnastics is meant to alarm middle-class families who are already stretched thin by inflation, but it’s clear as day that Harris is playing fast and loose with the facts.
Trump’s ambitious plan to tackle the trade deficit includes significant tariffs on adversaries like China, with ideas floating around from a modest 10% to a hair-raising 20%. But let’s not get too bogged down in numbers. Harris, sensing an opportunity to make a dramatic claim, jumped straight to the “20% tax” figure. It’s almost as if she thinks throwing out a bigger percentage makes her argument stronger. It doesn’t, but it seems to be the go-to tactic for the left.
Debate highlights – Harris: "My plan is to give a fifty thousand dollar tax deduction to start up small businesses, knowing they are part of the backbone of America's economy. My opponent, on the other hand, his plan is to do what he has done before, which is to provide a tax cut… pic.twitter.com/kV2k5Ebgzu
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) September 11, 2024
What’s particularly comical is Harris’s assertion that this so-called “Trump sales tax” would pile on an extra $4,000 in annual costs for middle-class families. That figure seems to be plucked right from the ether, as it leans heavily on the exaggerated scenario of a sweeping 20% tariff slapped on everything from groceries to gadgets. Even economists who are often more liberal than a latte-sipping barista acknowledge that while tariffs can raise consumer prices, they typically have a more measured impact than Harris predicts.
To add a pinch of irony, Harris’s supposed “expert” opinions are often echoed by organizations like the liberal Center for American Progress Action, which proposes a slightly lower estimate of $3,900. Unsurprisingly, both these numbers ignore the reality that tariffs are not mysterious fees but rather a way to hold foreign entities accountable for their trade practices. The goal is to ensure that our hard-earned dollars benefit American workers, not those across the Pacific.
Ultimately, the debate over tariffs boils down to a fundamental ideological divide: should America prioritize free trade with nations that have taken advantage of it or take a firm stand to protect its economic interests? Trump’s approach of charging those who rip off American consumers should resonate with anyone tired of the status quo. Meanwhile, Harris’s fearmongering may entertain, but it ultimately falls flat when weighed against the benefits of protecting American jobs and encouraging fair trade practices. It’s going to be an interesting ride as the economic landscape continues to shift, and one thing is certain—making America competitive again is a lot more than just rhetoric.
