Global elites think you’re too stupid for soda and beer



The latest wheeze from global public health elites? Jack up taxes on tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, and processed food by 50% to raise $3.7 trillion in new revenue. They call it “health policy.” In plain English, it’s government-sanctioned theft.

This isn’t about curing disease. It’s about expanding state power. These so-called health taxes, pushed by academic ideologues and international bureaucrats, are little more than economic punishment disguised as progress. They won’t meaningfully reduce illness, but they’ll absolutely hit working people the hardest.

Sin taxes don’t foster well-being — they weaponize economic pain against the people who can least afford it.

The new push for massive taxes on soda, smokes, beer, and snacks is social engineering with a hefty price tag. The goal isn’t better health so much as behavioral compliance. And who pays for it? Not corporations. Not policymakers. Regular people. Especially those already stretched thin.

The promise of $3.7 trillion in new revenue tells you everything you need to know. This is about cash, not caring. You’re not going to fix the obesity crisis by making a Coke cost $4. You’re just making life worse for the guy who wants a cold drink after work.

These aren’t just products. They’re small pleasures — a beer at dinner, a smoke on break, a soda on a hot afternoon. Legal, affordable, familiar. Stripping them from people’s lives in the name of “health” doesn’t uplift anyone. It makes life more miserable.

And this plan doesn’t educate or empower. It punishes. It uses taxes to bludgeon people into compliance. That’s not public health — that’s moral authoritarianism.

Proponents claim that higher prices discourage consumption, especially among young people. But that’s not smart policy — it’s an admission that the entire strategy relies on pricing people out of their own choices.

That’s not a sign of sound policy; it’s a confession that the aim is to price people out of their own choices. It’s hard not to see this as profoundly elitist. A worldview in which an ignorant public must be nudged, coerced, and taxed into making decisions deemed acceptable by a distant class of arrogant policymakers.

Sin taxes don’t foster well-being — they weaponize economic pain against the people who can least afford it. The more someone spends on a drink or a cigarette, the less they can spend on rent, groceries, or gas. In the U.K., economists found that sin taxes cost low-income families up to 10 times more than they cost the wealthy. That holds true in the United States as well. These are regressive by design.

History offers a warning. Prohibition didn’t end drinking — it empowered criminals. Today, in places like Australia, black markets for vapes and other restricted products are booming. When governments overregulate, people continue to consume. They just go underground, and quality, safety, and accountability go with them.

Public health bureaucrats love to talk about the “commercial determinants of health,” blaming industry for every social ill. But they ignore the personal determinants that matter even more: freedom, dignity, and the right to make informed decisions.

RELATED: Cigarettes and beer: The heady perfume that transports me to my childhood

guruXOOX via iStock/Getty Images

People already know the risks of smoking, drinking, and sugar consumption. They’ve seen the labels and heard the warnings for years. They don’t need lectures from bureaucrats, government ministers, or international agencies. What they need is respect — and the freedom to live as they choose.

These new tax schemes don’t offer support or alternatives. They rely on coercion, not persuasion. The state becomes the enforcer, not the helper. It’s a government model that punishes pleasure and equates restriction with virtue.

The sinister core of this health tax agenda lies in its relentless condescension. It assumes people are too stupid, too reckless, or too addicted to choose what’s best for themselves, and so government must intervene forcefully and repeatedly.

This is control, not compassionate governance.

A better path exists — one rooted in harm reduction, not prohibition. Encourage low-sugar drink options. Expand access to safer nicotine alternatives. Support moderate alcohol consumption. Respect the people you’re trying to help.

If public health advocates truly want to improve outcomes, they should abandon these regressive, punitive proposals. They should promote innovation, not punishment. Education, not enforcement.

Because real public health doesn’t treat people like problems to be managed. It treats them like citizens — free to live, choose, and thrive.

A tax hike is coming — and it’s not just for the rich



Academy Award-winner Elizabeth Taylor, married eight times to seven men, likely entered each union with the hope it would last. Good things, after all, should be permanent.

Yet in Washington, permanence is too often treated as a liability. Nowhere is this more apparent than in tax policy. Thanks to arcane rules surrounding budget reconciliation, Congress routinely enacts pro-growth reforms with an expiration date baked in.

A permanent extension of the reconciliation bill’s pro-growth elements would produce more ‘bang for the buck’ than a temporary extension.

Consider the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Though the measure would extend and build upon President Donald Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it fails to permanently extend several of the law’s most pro-growth elements.

That’s a mistake. Again, good things should be permanent.

Pro-growth policies need permanence

Earlier this month, Unleash Prosperity Now — a nonprofit aligned with President Trump — organized a letter signed by more than 300 economists, myself included, urging Congress to “extend President Trump's tax cuts permanently to prevent a tax increase on January 1, 2026.”

Why do we insist upon permanence? Permanent pro-growth public policies result in better economic outcomes. In contrast, temporary policies create troublesome uncertainty, which, in turn, sows confusion for consumers and businesses, making financial planning and investment needlessly difficult.

A permanent extension of the reconciliation bill’s pro-growth elements would produce more economic “bang for the buck” than a temporary extension. It’s that simple.

According to the Tax Foundation, “Permanence for the [bill’s] four cost recovery provisions would more than double the long-run economic effect.” These provisions would include 100% bonus depreciation, expensing of research and development investment, and a more generous interest deduction limit, among others.

The Tax Foundation concludes:

The current package produces meager effects on GDP and a smaller U.S. capital stock over the long run because the cost recovery provisions sunset. As lawmakers continue to debate the tax package, they should not compromise on permanence for the most pro-growth provisions.

This view aligns with the prevailing economic literature. For example, a 2019 study by the St. Louis Federal Reserve concluded, “A rise in uncertainty is widely believed to have detrimental effects on macroeconomic, microeconomic, and financial market outcomes.”

If that warning were plastered on the side of a pack of cigarettes, it would read, “Congressionally induced policy uncertainty is hazardous to the country’s economic health.”

Jobs under threat

Fortunately, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) is determined to extend the reconciliation bill’s most pro-growth elements permanently. Bravo, Mr. Chairman!

Permanence aside, why did more than 300 economists call for preventing the tax increase scheduled under current law?

RELATED: I was against Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ — Stephen Miller changed my mind

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

If taxes increase as planned, the economic fallout could be steep. Wells Fargo warns that average monthly job creation could plummet from 133,000 in the first quarter to just 25,000 next quarter — and then turn negative, with an estimated loss of 17,000 jobs per month in the fourth quarter.

If Congress fails to “spike the hike,” Wells Fargo estimates economic growth will slow to a tepid 1.1% this year and next.

A warning to deficit hawks

For those worried about the deficit, here's the paradox: Letting the economy slow — or worse, slip into recession — is the surest way to worsen the nation’s fiscal health.

To further underscore the situation, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who directed the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, cautions: “Given the weak state of the economy, it [the scheduled tax increase] would likely trigger a recession, and the budget outlook never gets better in a recession.”

Yes, it’s that simple.

Elizabeth Taylor once quipped, “If you hear of me getting married [again], slap me!” At least, she had the right intentions. Congress, on the other hand, routinely resorts to temporary policies to game the reconciliation process. That needs to stop.

To guard against recession, Congress should reconsider the tax increase scheduled for next year. But to boost economic growth, Congress should follow Crapo’s lead and extend permanently the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act pro-growth provisions.

Split the Big Beautiful Bill Act, seal the border … and give Trump a real win



The GOP doesn’t resemble a big tent any more — it looks more like a boundless landfill. No shared vision or coherent guiding principles bind the party’s disparate factions beyond not having a “D” next to their names. That’s why it’s impossible to pass a reasonable budget bill that cuts spending without including massive subsidies for high-tax blue states.

The rift between the Freedom Caucus, the K Street crowd, RINOs, and the Trump White House remains unbridgeable. So what’s the realistic path forward on budget reconciliation?

With real leadership, Trump could sign the most consequential part of his 2024 mandate into law — before the smoke clears in LA.

Focus on the one issue that unites the base: immigration enforcement.

Riots in Los Angeles this week have made the case for an immigration-only reconciliation bill even stronger. The public sees the connection. The urgency is obvious. And President Trump, understandably frustrated by the calendar — it’s June and he hasn’t signed a single major legislative win — wants action now.

But cramming unrelated tax and health care provisions into one big, bloated bill guarantees disaster. Good members will face a bad vote. So why not act decisively?

Split the immigration provisions from the rest. Make them tougher. Pass the bill right away, while the chaos in L.A. is still at the front of everyone’s mind. Save the fiscal brawls for later.

The math of an immigration-focused bill

The current draft of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill, includes about $185 billion in new funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and new and improved border infrastructure. It also tacks on another $150 billion in defense spending — a top White House priority.

Even strong provisions need offsets. But in a party this fractured, cutting spending isn’t just difficult — it’s practically taboo.

Still, by limiting the bill to the Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon spending and scrapping the tax components, Republicans would only need to offset $335 billion over 10 years.

RELATED: How much Green New Scam spending will survive the One Big Beautiful Bill?

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

That’s well within the realm of possibility. They could hit that number using the consensus cuts and immigration reforms already in the bill. No gimmicks. No sleight of hand. Just political will and a sense of timing.

The current bill would generate about $77 billion in new revenue from immigration-related fees and taxes on remittances. It saves hundreds of billions more over the next decade by cutting off illegal aliens from Medicaid, Obamacare, and food stamps.

Republicans should go farther and ban illegal aliens from claiming the child tax credit — a move that could save another $50 billion.

Instead of loading the first reconciliation bill with a jumble of unrelated and divisive provisions, Republicans should focus on consensus items: national security, enforcement of sovereignty, and policies that put Americans first.

If the Republicans were more ambitious, they would use this bill to repeal the Green New Deal. Funding illegal immigration and the Green New Deal were the Biden administration’s two most transformative and unpopular policies. Target both. Pass the bill right away. Deliver a win that matches the mandate voters gave Trump — and give the president a badly needed legislative victory.

Enforcement money isn’t enough

Throwing $180 billion more at enforcement won’t solve the immigration crisis. Spend a trillion on deportations, and it still won’t matter if courts continue to block action.

Even in Trump’s rare Supreme Court wins on immigration, the justices insisted every illegal alien must receive due process — despite deportation being a civil process, not a punishment.

No president can litigate his way out of an invasion. Even with favorable rulings, Trump won’t deport enough illegal immigrants before the next Democrat takes office. That’s the hard truth.

Now is the moment to fix it.

Americans are watching a violent, coordinated invasion unfold in real time. The bill should formally declare an invasion — and include an amendment by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) to strip judicial review from deportation cases involving noncitizens and, ideally, legal permanent residents.

Under that reform, the administration’s removal decisions would stand. No federal judge could second-guess them. No more delays, appeals, or lawfare.

Roy’s amendment would transform the first reconciliation bill into a singular focus on Trump’s most unifying, necessary, and popular campaign promise. It would hand him a quick, clean victory while the nation remains fixated on the border invasion.

RELATED: Americans didn’t elect Trump to bust SALT caps or overhaul Medicaid

Photo by Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images

So why not just split the agenda into two bills and get on with it?

Here come the usual GOP excuses. Let’s knock them down one by one.

Excuse 1: “We only get one bite at the apple.”

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller claims Republicans must use reconciliation just once to avoid the Senate filibuster.

But Democrats already broke that precedent in 2021, pushing through two separate reconciliation bills with a green light from the Senate parliamentarian, who noted that reconciliation should be reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.”

But ultimately, this isn’t the parliamentarian’s call. The decision rests with President Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). If Biden’s team could do it, so can we.

Excuse 2: “Without this bill, Americans face massive tax hikes.”

This line is pure fearmongering. The 2024 election wasn’t about taxes. MAGA never revolved around tax cuts for their own sake — that was the old GOP. Yet somehow, this bill morphed into another tax-centered mess.

The truth? Most tax provisions in the current draft — from an expanded child tax credit and higher standard deduction to new breaks for seniors, overtime, and tips — enjoy broad bipartisan support.

No Democrat wants to get blamed for letting these expire. Even in a lame-duck session, they wouldn’t allow a public tax hike. The only serious dispute involves the top marginal rate. Trump has already signaled he’s open to a modest increase if it means getting the rest of the agenda passed.

And let’s be honest: The current bill isn’t exactly Reaganesque. It’s loaded with progressive goodies, including an obscene expansion of the SALT deduction.

Even the pro-tax-cut Tax Foundation calls the bill’s economic impact weak and overly complicated. This isn’t a bold, pro-growth package — it’s a muddled compromise.

The irony is that ending taxes on tips — perhaps Trump’s most prized tax provision — already passed the Senate 100-0. Why not pass that and similar provisions in the House and place it on Trump’s desk without wasting budget reconciliation?

Excuse 3: “We can’t include policy provisions in a budget bill.”

Critics claim the Byrd Rule blocks the inclusion of policy reforms — like immigration or judicial changes — in a reconciliation bill. That excuse doesn’t hold up.

The original House-passed bill included a provision that barred states from regulating artificial intelligence. That isn’t budget-related. That is pure policy.

By comparison, a provision removing judicial review from deportation cases would directly cut costs by eliminating thousands of court hearings. That’s a legitimate budgetary angle — and far more defensible than regulating AI through backdoor channels.

The Byrd Rule exists, yes. But the party in power determines what gets through. The president and Senate leadership can overrule the parliamentarian. Democrats did it. So can we.

Fast-forward to this week: The streets of Los Angeles are on fire again. And instead of seizing the moment to deliver on the most urgent national priority, Miller is using anti-ICE violence to ram through a bloated mega-bill — all because it includes ICE funding.

But if solving immigration were the real goal, Republicans would just split the bill already. They’d put the judicial reform language in the first package. And they’d pass it immediately.

With real leadership, Trump could sign the most consequential part of his 2024 mandate into law — before the smoke clears in L.A.

Why is Gavin Newsom going full Jefferson Davis?



What triggered the American Civil War were state officials who refused to honor federal law and instead boasted of their open defiance of Washington.

That precedent appears to be the incendiary model for the increasingly erratic behavior of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

Has Newsom accepted the polls and decided to end his political career in a blaze of ideological glory?

He now backs the often-violent protesters in Los Angeles resisting federal enforcement of immigration laws. Newsom labeled President Trump’s use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain those here illegally “reckless,” “chaotic,” and “eroding trust.”

Does he imagine that this rhetoric is calming the situation or building public trust? Or is he consciously following the model of Confederate President Jefferson Davis?

Does Newsom also support the defiance of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D), who nearly called for official resistance to federal law, declaring, “We will not stand for this”?

— (@)

Bass — who was junketing in Ghana as large swaths of Los Angeles burned in January — used the term “we.” Does she mean the entire city? The LAPD? Will Bass direct city police to block federal officers lawfully enforcing federal immigration statutes?

Does the governor understand that his reckless rhetoric about “states’ rights” empowers violent protesters who torch vehicles, assault civilians, and attack officers?

Consider fellow California Democrat Rep. Norma Torres. She issued a vulgar message to federal immigration officers: “Get the f**k out of L.A.”

Does Torres now believe Los Angeles should become the 21st-century South Carolina, circa 1861, defying the federal government outright?

Is she echoing House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who recently boasted he would “identify” endangered ICE agents and publicize their personal information? His words: “Every single one of them, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, will of course be identified.”

— (@)

Does Torres view ICE officers — outnumbered, undermanned, and increasingly under siege — as modern-day incarnations of the federal troops cornered at Fort Sumter?

Newsom didn’t stop at siding with street protesters who resist federal authority. He also lashed out again at the Trump administration for warning California that it must comply with federal Title IX executive orders prohibiting biological males from competing in women’s sports.

Trump, in this case, followed the precedent set by the Obama administration, which also threatened to cut off funding from schools to schools that refused to follow its Title IX interpretations.

Here’s how Newsom responded: “Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back. Maybe it’s time to cut that off.”

— (@)

Cut that off?

Has Newsom read the Constitution?

Is he actually calling for Californians to stop paying federal taxes? Does he understand he just implicitly endorsed felony tax evasion under 18 USC Section 2?

States have no legal authority to withhold federal income taxes from their citizens. In 1861, rhetoric like that nearly destroyed the Union.

RELATED: Lies, flags, and firebombs: Just another ‘mostly peaceful’ riot in LA

Photo by BLAKE FAGAN/AFP via Getty Images

And does Newsom really believe that California’s supposed $80 billion “contribution” somehow bankrolls the federal government? That surplus amounts to just 1.5% of the $5.5 trillion in federal revenue this fiscal year. Hardly enough to “pay the bills.”

California taxpayers are American citizens first, Californians second. Newsom, with his history of championing sanctuary cities and nullifying federal law, increasingly resembles a modern-day George Wallace.

But Newsom, Bass, and Torres aren’t just echoing Confederate-style defiance. They’re also swimming against public opinion.

Despite media theatrics and left-wing outrage, even CBS’ own polling found that 54% of Americans support deportation as a legitimate enforcement tool.

Meanwhile, Newsom’s political stock continues to plummet. Just 2% of Democrats in one recent poll want him as their 2028 nominee. In a broader average of 30 polls, only 27% of Americans view him favorably.

So does Newsom think violent lawbreakers — some burning the American flag while waving foreign ones — are winning over the American public?

Does he understand that 97% of Americans in a Pew Research survey said they favor deporting violent criminal aliens like those seen sowing chaos on the streets of Los Angeles?

Or has he accepted the polls — and decided to end his political career in a blaze of ideological glory?

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally on X.

How Rand Paul Can Seize A Golden Opportunity To Cut Federal Waste

Fiscal conservatives on Capitol Hill are right to raise concerns about the rising federal debt and unsustainable deficit spending. But voting no is not enough.

The fiscal iceberg is dead ahead — and Washington is asleep at the helm



The USS Titanic — our ship of state — is headed straight for a fiscal iceberg. And Americans are still rearranging the deck chairs.

Complacency has become our gravest threat. We cling to a false sense of invincibility, comforted by the size and legacy of the U.S. economy. After all, we’re the United States of America. What could possibly go wrong?

Pundits love to say we’ve carried debt for decades without a crisis. That logic belongs in a casino, not a government.

Everything — if history’s any guide. Ask the Romans. Ask the British. Every great power that believed it was immune to long-term mismanagement eventually ran aground.

Let’s stop pretending. The federal government sits on a collision course with economic disaster. And unless we act, we’ll suffer the same fate as the Titanic — not too big to fail, but too big to save when the water starts pouring in.

In November 2023, Fitch Ratings downgraded America’s credit rating — joining Standard & Poor’s, which did the same in 2011. Moody’s followed suit. These weren’t partisan potshots. They were alarms backed by math.

The national debt has passed $37 trillion — 125% of gross domestic product. That ratio continues climbing and could exceed 200% within a few decades, if not sooner. At current trajectory, the federal government will owe more than $70 trillion by 2035.

This isn’t theory. It’s arithmetic.

Yes, the United States carried significant debt after World War II. But back then, we had a plan. The federal government remained lean. Policymakers promoted growth through low taxes, fewer regulations, and real fiscal restraint. Debt-to-GDP dropped below 40% within a generation.

Today, Washington does the opposite. More spending. Higher taxes. Heavier regulation. All while the clock ticks louder.

RELATED: Debt spiral looms as Trump tests tariffs to tame rates

Ekaterina Chizhevskaya via iStock/Getty Images

And that’s just the official debt. Add unfunded liabilities from Social Security and Medicare, and the real figure shoots above $130 trillion. That’s not a typo — it’s a debt bomb that dwarfs anything in our history.

Pundits love to say we’ve carried debt for decades without a crisis. That logic belongs in a casino, not a government. As Hemingway put it: Bankruptcy happens “gradually, then suddenly.”

The economy may look calm on the surface. But underneath, the pressure builds. Interest payments on the debt already surpass defense spending. Every dollar wasted on interest is a dollar unavailable for education, infrastructure, emergency relief — or even national security.

While the debt swells, politicians on both sides make it worse. Congress lurches from one bloated proposal to another, piling on $3-$5 trillion more in new borrowing under the guise of stimulus, "investments," or political horse-trading.

Printing money doesn’t create prosperity. Borrowing to fund political promises is economic malpractice.

Washington’s not just borrowing dollars. It’s borrowing time, trust, and prosperity from future Americans.

What kind of legacy will we leave our children?

A nation once defined by opportunity, self-reliance, and innovation now leads the world in debt and dysfunction. That’s not just policy failure — it’s moral failure. It’s a betrayal of the American promise.

Why does this keep happening? Because politicians chase the next election, not the next generation. And voters let them.

We reward short-term handouts over long-term discipline. We elect people who promise benefits without explaining the bill. And we pretend this can go on forever.

It can’t.

Americans must reclaim their role as stewards of the republic. That means asking tough questions, demanding truth from politicians, and supporting leaders who offer hard choices over easy lies.

We still have time. But not much.

Fiscal reform doesn’t require slashing everything or dismantling safety nets. It requires honesty, cooperation, and courage. We need to restructure entitlements, simplify the tax code, and eliminate programs that waste billions.

A leaner government, closer to what the Founders envisioned, would grow the economy and lift all incomes. That path still exists — if we’re brave enough to take it.

The alternative? A debt crisis that makes the Great Depression look tame. And no one will be able to say they weren’t warned.

The iceberg looms. The hull leaks. The music still plays — for now.

But the moment for change won’t last. The wheel is still in our hands.

Turn it.

Report: Biden Gave ‘Millions’ In Tax Dollars To ‘Soros-Backed NGO,’ Group Pushing Men In Women’s Prisons

'The American people overwhelmingly rejected these soft-on-crime, defund-the-police policies in the last election because they undermined the safety and security of their communities.'

States Have No Incentive To Stop Food Stamp Fraudsters From Stealing Your Money

The DOJ discovered millions of dollars in fraud hidden in false food stamp reporting.

Nearly One-Quarter Of U.S. Public School Enrollment Could Be Anchor Babies

Returning noncitizen children and noncitizen parents to their countries could save taxpayers hundreds of billions, especially in state budgets.

OMB: Rescission Bill Would Cut Funding For ‘Sexual Networks’ In Nepal And These 16 Other Boondoggles

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Screenshot-2025-06-04-at-5.34.58 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Screenshot-2025-06-04-at-5.34.58%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a rescission package to Congress on Tuesday, requesting $9.4 billion in funding cuts for various programs. This is the first package of proposed DOGE cuts since Trump was elected on the promise to eradicate waste, fraud, abuse, and excessive government spending. According to the OMB, […]