Last week, the voters took back control. Damn! That means no $5,000 payout from Donald J. Trump for us.
Like everyone else, we’re trying to understand what the midterm results mean for the nation. It seems likely the Democrats will steer us into trouble since they now hold the reins.
Our political parties bicker over trivialities, yet when it comes to critical issues, both sides are rolling the same loaded dice. They feign progress by enacting laws, funneling funds, and bombing foreign nations. However, this model, prevalent in America and Europe alike, has reached its limits. Funds have dried up, interest rates are climbing, populations are stagnating, and bombing has historically produced nothing but more enemies — whether living or dead.
Across Europe, students, laborers, and protesters have taken to the streets. In the US, people expressed themselves at the ballot box. One path was marred by extreme violence and disorder; the other by solemn rhetoric and comforting falsehoods.
The Democrats’ obsession with culture war topics — DEI, pronouns, bathroom policies, racism, and similar nonsense — is what handed the Trump team the reins in 2025.
In the most recent election, the Democrats wisely sidestepped those topics entirely, as if over two years they had abandoned their core creed. They were all drilled to stick to one word: affordability.
Now that they’ve won, they need to remember their promises while dodging their own betrayals. They were fully aware that ‘affordability’ couldn’t truly be tackled. The only genuine answer would be to scale back the very thing both parties crave most — government authority.
The initial battleground is likely to be tariffs. Broadly, a 10% tariff on imports means import prices rise by 10%. The logical conclusion: eliminate tariffs and prices drop.
Foreign Policy:
Trump’s Next Trade War Could Be with Congress
Trump’s tariffs are unpopular, and lawmakers want to claw back their authority.
Dissatisfaction with U.S. President Donald Trump’s disastrous, expensive, and self-defeating trade policies were a big reason for the sweeping Democratic victory in the U.S. midterm elections—and may turn tariffs and trade into one of the crucial battlegrounds of the next Congress.
Tariffs have always been a novice’s error. Essentially, they act as a tax burdening US consumers. Like inflation, tariffs provide the federal government with increased revenue without forcing anyone to cast an uncomfortable vote.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert, France’s First Minister of State, once likened taxation to plucking a goose, aiming ‘to get the most feathers with the least squawk.’
Tariffs caused minimal outcry because most believed someone else was footing the bill. Yet the true gauge of government cost lies in its spending. Sooner or later, it must secure funds. Democratic lawmakers will resort to familiar fixes — rent controls, taxing the wealthy, capping executive bonuses, and the like.
None of those tactics will truly improve ‘affordability.’ They might satisfy certain voters in a spiteful way, but unless government expenses are genuinely reduced, the money will still be extracted from the very pockets the politicians vowed to help.
Removing tariffs would indeed be smart, enabling a more efficient economy and offering consumers greater choice and leverage. However, abolishing tariffs alone doesn’t reduce government expenditures… and those costs must be covered somehow.
Among these costs is the interest on the $40 trillion worth of federal purchases left unpaid. These liabilities keep growing due to annual budget shortfalls nearing $2 trillion.
In theory, Democrats could fulfill their promises by simply cutting spending. Taxpayers would retain more income, naturally easing affordability concerns. DOGE claimed to be able to slash enough spending to balance the books. Had it succeeded, affordability wouldn’t be an issue—and Democrats might not control Congress today. But the DOGE plan collapsed spectacularly.
Now, those same Democrats — mostly big spenders — could still honor their affordability pledges, but only if they reluctantly reduce federal power’s size and scope.
That’s not going to happen.
About the Author
