Have you considered voting by mail?


The following is adapted from remarks delivered on November 18, 2025, at a Hillsdale College reception in Franklin, Tennessee.
The first of the contrary winds fueling our national firestorm is Donald Trump, who has closed out his first whirlwind year. Crime is down in several cities where he sent the National Guard. The economy is doing pretty well, and predictions are that it will continue, decline, or quicken (I think it will fluctuate). The stock market is high, and the range of predictions is the same. Iran and Hamas are weaker, thanks in vital part to Israel, and the cauldron of the Middle East is a little cooler. 300,000 fewer people work for the federal government (after the number had increased by 240,000 during the Biden administration). Military recruitment and defense spending are up, and Secretary of War Hegseth gave a stirring speech to the military about its purpose, which is to fight. Secretary of State Rubio has given some wonderful speeches about the purpose and manner of American foreign policy, and he and others shuttled around the Middle East at speed to put together a fragile yet promising peace deal. Secretary of Education McMahon has cut the Department in half and is after the rest. Secretary of the Interior Burgum is looking for ways to use the land, and Secretary of Energy Wright is looking for energy. Attorney General Bondi seems to know no fear. Vice President Vance frightened the daylights out of Europe, calling for the elimination of wokeness and for increased defense spending.
A blizzard of executive orders has given regulatory relief, stemmed the tide of DEI, and reduced the size and reach of the federal establishment. Shower pressure is up: you can now take a hot shower under a heavy stream. Pressure is up on colleges, too, which have been violating civil rights law systematically. Tariffs are higher here and abroad, and that is still shaking out. The federal debt is rising a bit slower. The border is closed. The Ukraine War is a stubborn disaster; Trump is working on it and asking Western Europe to pay the bill.
The other wind blows from the self-described “resistance” to the elected government, and it is picking up. The “No Kings” demonstrations have turned out a lot of people—or fewer than a lot, depending on who you talk to. Mamdani is the first self-proclaimed socialist Mayor-Elect of New York. Virginia went bluer. Jews have been harassed on our college campuses with almost European intensity. An assassin killed Charlie Kirk, and reports are that several Trump administration officials and their families have been moved onto military bases due to threats to their safety. Violent attacks upon law enforcement officers proliferate.
Zany radicalism abounds both on the left and the right, left and right being promiscuous terms that mean even less today than usual. Young people on the left seem enamored of Marx; on the right, many gravitate towards Nietzsche. Nick Fuentes, who has a big audience, professes to like both Hitler and Stalin, who to be fair did cooperate to carve up their neighbors before they waged merciless war on each other. Churchill made sense of that by saying that national socialism and communism differ as the North Pole differs from the South. Many young people do not seem to realize that the North and South Poles are bad places to live. Their confusion stems from reasons that are deep but also limpid, visible to the bottom.
Larry P. Arnn is the twelfth president of Hillsdale College. He received his B.A. from Arkansas State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from the Claremont Graduate School. From 1977 to 1980, he also studied at the London School of Economics and at Worcester College, Oxford University, where he served as director of research for Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill. From 1985 until his appointment as president of Hillsdale College in 2000, he was president of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. From October 2020 to January 2021, he served as co-chair of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission. He is the author of several books, including The Founders’ Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constitution and Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government.
Aaron Del Mar - Chairman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 8/16/25

Palatine, IL — August 16 — Cook County Republican Chairman Aaron Del Mar today announced the appointment of Slobodan “BODO” Jokic as the new Republican Committeeman of Maine Township, succeeding longtime Committeeman Jim Stinson.
“Bodo Jokic is a proven community leader with a passion for strengthening our Republican Party and growing our grassroots presence in the northwest suburbs,” said Chairman Aaron Del Mar. “His dedication, energy, and vision will be a tremendous asset as we continue to build a stronger Republican organization in Cook County.”
Chairman Del Mar also expressed his deep gratitude to outgoing Committeeman Jim Stinson for his years of service and commitment to advancing Republican values in Maine Township.
“Jim Stinson has served with integrity and devotion to our party. On behalf of the Cook County Republican Party, I want to thank him for his leadership and all the work he has done to support Republican candidates and causes,” Del Mar added.
Jokic, widely known as “Bodo” in the community, is committed to uniting Republicans in Maine Township, engaging new voters, and ensuring strong Republican turnout in upcoming elections. His appointment marks a renewed effort to strengthen the GOP’s presence in one of Cook County’s most important townships.
###

The Illinois House GOP announced on X that a pending energy package backed by Governor J.B. Pritzker and Democratic lawmakers could significantly raise utility costs for families and businesses while imposing new green-energy mandates on local communities.
Illinois energy policy has become a focal point in recent legislative sessions, with lawmakers debating mandates related to renewable infrastructure and rate-setting authority. According to the Illinois Power Agency, state renewable standards require substantial investment from utilities and municipalities, contributing to local concern about future financial obligations. This regulatory backdrop provides context for the Illinois House GOP’s criticism of the proposed package.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that Illinois residential electricity prices have risen over the past several years, reflecting broader national trends tied to infrastructure upgrades and renewable portfolio costs. EIA data indicate that Midwestern states experiencing aggressive clean-energy transitions often see above-average rate volatility. These figures help illustrate why consumer advocates and legislators continue to scrutinize large-scale energy legislation.
A 2023 report from the Illinois Commerce Commission found that utility rate cases—particularly those related to clean-energy transitions—have led to significant increases in delivery charges across several Illinois service territories. The report notes that pending decarbonization requirements may further elevate costs unless mitigated by legislative planning. These documented cost pressures align with the concerns highlighted in the Illinois House GOP’s message.
The Illinois House GOP identifies itself as the Republican caucus of the Illinois House of Representatives, advocating for policies focused on fiscal responsibility, public safety, and government accountability. The caucus engages in legislative negotiations, public communication, and constituent services across the state. Its platform emphasizes reducing taxes, limiting government mandates, and promoting affordability for Illinois residents.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on September 30, 2025, at Hillsdale College’s Blake Center for Faith and Freedom in Somers, Connecticut.
While being interviewed on a recent podcast, Texas Democrat Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett decided to opine on crime, a topic on which she apparently considers herself to be an expert. Her nutty conclusion was this: “Just because someone has committed a crime, it doesn’t make them a criminal.”
I can see how this logic would have a wide range of uses for politicians: “Just because someone told a lie, it doesn’t make them a liar”; “Just because someone took a bribe, it doesn’t make them corrupt.” It’s a bit like the thought experiment: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” If a crime is committed and no one is responsible, was there actually a crime at all?
Of course, it’s nonsense. A criminal is defined precisely as a person who has committed a crime. But when Crockett chooses her own definitions, she is simply echoing a progressive shibboleth that has turned blue cities across the country into lawless hellholes. It holds that people who commit crimes have no agency—that they are helpless victims of circumstance. Therefore, any attempt to hold them accountable by arresting them or putting them in jail is unjust—it further victimizes them.
The obvious result of this logic is that criminals are emboldened and their real victims become helpless hostages to lawlessness.
It is a short step from Crockett’s logic to the justification of defunding the police as a way to “make communities safer.” That communities become safer by having fewer police is, of course, a lie, but defunding police is what progressives have been doing since the anti-cop, BLM-Antifa riots of the “Summer of Love” in 2020.
As a former police reporter, I’ve seen how soft-on-crime policies hurt the very people progressives pretend to care about. It’s precisely the most vulnerable in our big cities who need the most policing and have the least resources to protect themselves from mayhem.
The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on September 29, 2024, during a conference on “Christianity in America.”
One of the most beautiful things written during the American Founding period is George Washington’s 1790 Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. Washington had visited Newport in August of that year, and shortly after his visit, one of the leaders of the Jewish community sent Washington a letter thanking him and congratulating him on his conduct as president.
Washington responded, in part:
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. . . . May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.
Washington here magnificently summarizes the principle of religious liberty, a principle at the heart of the American Founding and one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. Today, this principle has been under assault—think of the vicious antisemitism we have seen on many college campuses recently or the persecution of Christians by our federal government. The faith of American Christians and Jews has been mocked and increasingly threatened by an aggressively secular, even atheistic, ruling class.
We are in danger of losing the precious gift of religious liberty, which took almost 2,000 years for the Christian West to put into practice.
Glenn Ellmers is the Salvatori Research Fellow in the American Founding at the Claremont Institute. He received a B.A. from Boston University and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the Claremont Graduate University. He has served as a visiting research fellow at Hillsdale College and as a speechwriter for two cabinet secretaries. He has written for numerous publications, including the Claremont Review of Books, The New Criterion, Perspectives on Political Science, Law & Liberty, and The American Mind. He is the author of The Soul of Politics: Harry V. Jaffa and the Fight for America and The Narrow Passage: Plato, Foucault, and the Possibility of Political Philosophy, and he is co-editor, with Michael Anton, of Leisure with Dignity: Essays in Celebration of Charles R. Kesler.

Back in May, I argued that the growing crisis of housing unaffordability was the most potent threat to the American Dream. Now, major voices on the political right are recognizing that fact as well, also highlighting how making homeownership more attainable for more people is a crucial step in preserving the vitality and longevity of the conservative movement.
Independent commentator and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson thrust the issue into the mainstream during remarks at a Turning Point USA conference last month. Carlson’s comments about Jeffrey Epstein garnered the most headlines, but by far the most important part of his speech concerned housing unaffordability and how that crisis is driving a generational collapse of confidence in our entire economic system.
This section of Carlson’s speech is worth quoting at length:
“Basic economics really matter. They matter because, not that it’s bad that rich people are getting richer. It’s bad that everyone else is getting poorer. And it’s especially bad that young people can’t afford homes.
Let me just put a very precise point on this. If you want a measure of how your economy is doing, I personally favor eliminating GDP as a measure. I don’t even know what that is. It’s clearly not relevant.
They tell me Japan has a stagnant GDP. Have you been to Tokyo? It’s the single most radicalizing experience you’ll ever have. Because it’s just so nice. You lost the war, really? Can we lose the war and wind up like this?
GDP. No. I don’t know what even that is. Total economic activity, no, no. My measure’s really simple. I got a bunch of kids. Can they afford houses with full-time jobs at like 27, 28? The answer is, no way.”
Even many avowed Carlson critics on the left begrudgingly acknowledged how accurate his diagnosis of the problem is. For all the obscure economic data that leaders in both parties are so eager to shove in the faces of the public, they can’t solve the riddle of why a young person who goes to college, gets a good job, and shows up to work every day can’t afford to purchase a home to raise his or her family in – and they have shown no real indication that they are able to reverse that trend.
Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk put an even finer point on what this means for the conservative movement in a post on X:
“The next generation is primed for a permanent CONSERVATIVE political realignment – the most dramatic realignment we’ve seen since Woodstock. But it’s not guaranteed.
We have to address the honest economic anxieties of our youngest voters. We need to ensure they become a generation of owners, not renters. If we don’t, there will be more Zohran Mandanis, Omar Fatehs, and Abdul El-Sayeds.
The populist energy in America will either flow into MAGA populist conservatism that restores the American Dream, or racial grievance-driven, free-stuff socialism that destroys it.
It’s a race against the clock. We have 3.5 years to deliver, and if we do, we will change the course of American history for the better. We must deliver.”
Kirk is spot on here – the “economic anxieties” he mentions are a latent radicalizing force that will upend our politics, economy, and culture. The political movement that best channels and addresses those concerns stands to become the ascendant political power in the United States.
America stands at a crossroads. If conservatives present the clearest answer to young people for how they can have a stable, prosperous, and independent future – a dream defined by homeownership – then the conservative movement is primed for a revival that will usher in a return of the traditional values that first made this country an economic powerhouse. Alternatively, if the Marxist vision advanced by the likes of Zohran Mamdani wins out, the country may be doomed to repeat the failures of every other socialist state throughout history.
Seemingly with each passing month, the statistics on homeownership become more disheartening. The median home sale price reached a new all-time high of $435,300 in June even as sales slumped, indicating that some buyers may be giving up on the dream of homeownership altogether. The median age of a first-time homebuyer was 38 in 2024, up from 29 as recently as the 1980s.
Perhaps most astonishingly, the average income required to afford a single-family home has risen by 60 percent since just 2021. As I wrote earlier this year, in 1985 the median household income in the United States was about $22,400, while the median home price was $78,200 – a price-to-income ratio of 3.5. By 2022, the price-to-income ratio for a new home had skyrocketed to 5.8.
Wall Street Journal opinion columnist William Galston offered some potential solutions in a thoughtful column earlier this month. Some of them hold promise, such as regulatory reforms to reduce closing costs and “a sustained program of fiscal restraint” to bring down interest rates.
But other supposed solutions Galston offers only underscore how the housing unaffordability crisis became so bad in the first place – and why the conventional wisdom from the political establishment isn’t going to solve it. Most egregiously, Galston argues that the United States should “change its immigration policy to ensure the adequate supply of labor for the construction industry.”
Really? That sort of “amnesty lite” talk should enrage every American who understands that allowing in millions of migrants was a major reason why houses became so unaffordable. In addition to undercutting American wages and destroying the domestic construction industry, flooding the country with low-wage workers created a supply crunch that sent prices soaring.
Galston also fails to mention a major problem that lawmakers have an obligation to address: big banks buying up millions of homes and outbidding everyday Americans. In 2022, investment banks bought one of every four homes sold, many of them purchased with cash and over asking price. In the first three months of 2025, nearly 27 percent of homes sold were bought by investors. That’s 265,000 homes that could have gone to American families.
Free-market purists will cry that government intervention in the housing market smacks of a socialist command economy. But the reality is that big banks are using anti-competitive practices to drive the dream of homeownership out of reach for everyday families, intentionally turning America into a nation of permanent renters. Republicans today should adopt the trust-busting conservative mentality of Teddy Roosevelt a century ago to address this threat.
Promoting homeownership is essential to the future of the conservative movement – and the country. More than just financial security, homeownership fosters stability, responsibility, and long-term thinking. When people own homes, start families, and put down roots, they develop a stake in preserving what they have built. They have something to conserve.
A nation of homeowners is a nation invested in the future. Property owners are more likely to vote, to care about schools and public safety, and to resist the pull of radical ideologies that promise destruction rather than renewal. This is the cultural backbone of a healthy society built on ownership, not dependence.
If conservatives lead on this issue, they can win over a generation desperate for stability and direction. But if nothing changes, the movement risks surrendering to a vision of dependency and decline.
Shane Harris is the Editor in Chief of AMAC Newsline. You can follow him on X @shaneharris513.
Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump declared that he and his supporters were “the party of common sense.” In his Inaugural Address on January 20, Trump returned to this theme. With his flurry of executive orders, he said, “We will begin the complete restoration of America and the revolution of common sense. It’s all about common sense.”
I agree. But what is “common sense”? At the beginning of his Discourse on Method, René Descartes said that common sense was “the most widely distributed thing in the world.” Is it? Much as I admire Descartes, I have to note that he was imperfectly acquainted with the realities of 21st century America. If he were with us today, I am sure he would emend his opinion.
After all, is it common sense to pretend that men can be women? Or to pretend that you do not know what a woman is? During her confirmation hearings, a sitting member of the Supreme Court professed to be baffled by that question.
Is it common sense to open the borders of your country and then to spend truckloads of taxpayer dollars to feed, house, and nurture the millions of illegal migrants who have poured in? Is it common sense to sacrifice competence on the altar of so-called diversity? To allow politicians to bankrupt the country by incontinent overspending? That’s the start of a list one could easily enlarge.
In the cultural realm, is it common sense to celebrate art that is indistinguishable from pornography or some other form of psychopathology? Is it common sense to rewrite history in an effort to soothe the wounded feelings of people who crave victimhood? Is it common sense to transform higher education from an institution dedicated to the preservation and transmission of the highest values of our civilization into a wrecking ball aimed at destroying that civilization?
Continue reading this article at IMPRIMIS
This article is adapted from a talk delivered on January 29, 2025, at Hillsdale College’s Blake Center for Faith and Freedom in Somers, Connecticut.
Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterionand publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator World, American Greatness, and The Telegraph. He is author or editor of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America, The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.

Add in additional stipends worth up to $30,000 for House and Senate leadership positions and a large portion of lawmakers receive far more than $100,000 annually.
Remember, these are the same lawmakers that have done nothing to provide Illinoisans with property tax relief. Property taxes have risen by several billion dollars in total over the past few years and Illinoisans continue to pay the nation’s highest property taxes.
They’re also the same lawmakers that locked-in automatic increases to the state’s motor fuel tax, which they doubled in 2019.
The same ones that made sure public unions get the most-protected powers and benefits in the country.
The same ones that pass laws that strip voters of their rights, like the one recently used by the Effingham School District to try and bypass a taxpayer referendum.
Illinois lawmakers have destroyed affordability. And ditto for the state’s job creation and economy.
Such a terrible job performance deserves pay cuts, not raises.
A final note. Lawmakers don’t deserve all the blame. Gov. Pritzker has signed off on all of the above.
Illinois Policy - Ravi Mishra - July 2, 2025
Despite Illinois’ poor road conditions, Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s 2026 budget will take $308 million from the state’s dedicated road building and repair fund to fix short-term budget gaps.
That includes $171 million in motor fuel tax revenues that were supposed to go to the Road Fund but are being diverted for other state spending. The money was intended to finish Pritzker’s $45 billion Rebuild Illinois infrastructure plan launched in 2019 to fix roads, bridges, railways and airports.
That plan launched a slew of new taxes to pay for the infrastructure, including doubling the state gasoline tax that is now being diverted. It also contained at least $1.4 billion in pork projects, including dog parks, pickleball courts and renovation of a shuttered theater.
And while lawmakers and Pritzker had to rob the Road Fund to prop up their spending plans, they were able to stuff $237 million in pork projects in the new budget, but just for Democrats. That means 1 in 3 taxpayers was left out.
Pritzker just last year reaffirmed his commitment to his infrastructure plan: “Rebuild Illinois has been among my highest priorities since I became governor, after years of neglect and disinvestment that held back our state’s growth.”
Another $137 million was taken from the Road Fund to cover state employee health benefits. State leaders said the move complies with provisions that allow the Road Fund to be used for payments towards “expenses related to workers’ compensation claims for death or injury,” including health care.
These funding shifts come as Illinois ranks just 31st in road quality. U.S. Bureau of Transportation data shows as of 2023, only 80.4% of Illinois’ roads were in acceptable condition, a minimal change since 2015 despite all Pritzker’s spending. The national average is 81.2%, but other Midwestern states such as Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota maintain conditions above 90%.

Lawmakers continue to prioritize gimmicks and short-term solutions as analysts warn these moves can weaken Illinois’ long-term infrastructure funding. Investing in road infrastructure is a crucial part of economic development, as Pritzker said. Maintaining proper funding can enhance trade and commerce, boost tourism, improve connectivity, create jobs and improve property values.
This is nothing new in Illinois. Lawmakers have long used the Road Fund as a piggybank for unrelated expenses, a move that voters overwhelmingly tried to block. In 2016 they approved the “lockbox,” a constitutional amendment which was supposed to protect transportation revenues from lawmaker pilfering. Despite this voter mandate, lawmakers have continued using workarounds such as delayed transfers and reclassifying spending.
If Illinois wants to be serious about improving infrastructure, it must stop misusing dedicated funds. Adopting a performance-based budgeting model such as Minnesota’scan help the state plan and preserve necessary funding for road and bridge maintenance. This model ensures infrastructure money is spent on need, value and measurable outcomes, rather than politics.
The state also needs to structurally balance its budget rather than relying on short-term fixes. The state should adopt reforms from the Illinois Policy Institute’s Illinois Forward plan, including strict budget caps to match taxpayer income growth and necessary cuts to discretionary programs. These measures would reduce pressure to divert infrastructure funds to fill recurring budget deficits.
###
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 25, 2025, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Kansas City, Missouri.
Vice President J.D. Vance’s first major assignment from Donald Trump was to join a bunch of European leaders who thought of themselves as our close allies—and to read them the riot act. This happened at the Munich Security Conference on February 14. Instead of discussing armaments and armies, Vance said: “The threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia. It’s not China. It’s the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.” Europe, according to Vance, had become hostile to free speech. It was hostile to free speech because it was hostile to democracy. And you could measure its hostility to democracy by the fact that for 50 years European voters had kept asking for less immigration and had kept getting more of it. Vance admitted that it reminded him a bit of the United States.
Is Vance right about Europe and the West more generally?
Vance is certainly right that the Europeans’ situation resembles ours. Europe is split between two camps: so-called “populists” and “elites.” (Neither of the two camps has a name for itself, so—without any ill will—we’ll use the names applied to each by their foes.) The difference between here and there is that for the second time in three elections, populists have now taken power in the U.S. In Europe they have a harder time, ruling only in Italy, Slovakia, and Hungary.
As Vance sees it, that’s because Europeans have worked to make populist victories impossible. He has been particularly critical of Germany. In February, the main anti-immigration party there, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), became the country’s second-largest, close behind the Christian Democrats. The Social Democrats, who are one of the most successful political parties of modern times, have been contending for power in Germany since the middle of the 19th century. The AfD has now left them in the dust. And yet the AfD was kept out of the Munich Security Conference, so Vance went out and met with their leader, Alice Weidel. In so doing, he waded into a live controversy.
German progressives argue that ostracizing the AfD is necessary—even if it means excluding the AfD from legislative functions to which they are constitutionally entitled as the largest opposition party. Otherwise Germany risks repeating the horrors of Nazism. The AfD’s supporters counter that their party was founded in 2013 by a bunch of macro-economists concerned about German bailouts of deeply indebted European countries. It can have little to do with the Nazis. Of the war criminals long tracked by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, only three appear to be still alive, all of them about 100 years of age. Not much to build a revanchist movement around. And yet efforts to police Nazism have suddenly taken on a new life, ten decades after Nazism’s founding and eight decades after its defeat.
“Prices would rise — sharply — they said, reigniting an inflation crisis that tens of millions of Americans had elected [President Donald Trump] to solve,” CNN’s David Goldman wrote on Friday. “But that massive, tariff-induced inflation spike hasn’t materialized. Not even close.”
Indeed, it hasn’t. But who exactly is Goldman referring to when he says, “they said”? Well, Goldman might want to check his own newsroom.
On May 16, CNN’s Allison Morrow wrote, “There’s no denying it now: Tariffs are raising prices.”
“Donald Trump’s pitch to Americans on the campaign trail last year included a simple (and simplistic) promise: lower prices on Day One. Even if he didn’t mean it literally, it’s now Day 115, and the results of his only significant economic policy show that the opposite is happening,” Morrow wrote.
Three days prior, CNN’s Nathaniel Meyersohn wrote, “Tariffs have already made mattresses, strollers and power tools more expensive.”
Some other doomsday predictions from CNN include Auzinea Bacon’s May 24 article titled “These companies will raise prices because of Trump’s tariffs,” accusing Trump of giving “many Americans whiplash” as companies announced “daunting” price hikes. “Anything from groceries and clothing to toys and cars could cost Americans more,” Bacon wrote.
Samantha Delouya warned Americans their Memorial Day “cookout might be more expensive this year — thanks to tariffs.” In April Elisabeth Buchwald wrote, “Here’s what could soon cost you a lot more because of Trump’s massive tariffs.”
“President Donald Trump on Wednesday launched a US trade war with every country via a barrage of tariffs that are set to go into effect almost immediately. American consumers and businesses stand to pay a hefty price for that battle,” Buchwald said. “For the first time since Trump’s return to the Oval Office, it’s not a question of what could get more expensive due to tariffs but rather a matter of when.”
But as Goldman wrote on Friday, those “tariff-induced inflation spike[s]” didn’t materialize. As cited by Goldman, consumer prices rose just 2.4 percent annually in May: “That was less than economists had expected, and only slightly higher than the 2.3% rate in April, which was the US economy’s lowest inflation since February 2021.”
In fact, core inflation (which excludes things like food and gas prices) fell to 2.5 percent in April.
“That was the lowest reading since March 2021,” according to Goldman. “Tariffs through mid-June haven’t caused inflation to spike. Love tariffs or hate them, there’s no denying inflation is lower now than when Trump took office.”
Goldman floats the idea that some industries are still coasting on pre-tariff inventories. But even he can’t deny the facts.
“That’s a far cry from what economists and consumers have predicted,” he continued. “So what happened? Are economists just really bad at their jobs?”
Maybe. But if Goldman wants solid answers to questions about the economy and prices, he’d do well to avoid the CNN newsroom, where his colleagues spent weeks forecasting economic catastrophe. It turns out that the people igniting inflation fears the most were the so-called journalists reporting on them.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
Tariffs are among the oldest of taxes for the simple reason that they are easy to collect. Just send in the tax collectors and don’t let the goods being transported move until the duty has been paid. Being one of the earliest forms of taxation, it is not surprising that tariffs produced one of the earliest forms of tax evasion: smuggling.
In America’s colonial period, the east coast of the United States, with its many rivers and inlets that the small ships of those days could utilize, lent itself to smuggling, and the American colonists evaded British tariffs on a grand scale.
Indeed, Rhode Island, with its long coastline relative to the area and its many small harbors, was the epicenter of colonial smuggling, and it opposed any attempts to suppress it. Rhode Island was the first colony to foreswear allegiance to Great Britain, on May 4, 1776, two months before the Declaration of Independence. It was also the only state not to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, fearing that a stronger federal government, empowered to tax, would suppress smuggling. And it was the last state to ratify the Constitution, on May 29, 1790, more than a year after the federal government had come into existence. It did so then only under the threat of having its exports taxed as if from a foreign nation.
Continue reading this article on IMPRIMIS
This article is adapted from a lecture delivered in Washington, D.C., on May 6, 2025, as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. Sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, which is undergoing extensive expansion and renovation, the lecture was delivered in The Heritage Foundation’s Van Andel–Gaby Center.

Op-Ed submitted by Mark Batinick - Chicago Tribune - May 28, 2025
When my first kid started looking at colleges, I had one goal: Get them a great education at a price we could afford. As a proud University of Illinois alum, I thought the flagship school of my own state would be a natural choice.
Then I saw the price tag. I was stunned to realize it was not affordable anymore.
That’s the reality for thousands of Illinois families who discover in-state tuition has skyrocketed 49% since 2007. With the sixth-highest in-state tuition in the nation, sending students to an Illinois university now costs most families more than sending them out of state.
So, those young people leave. In 2021, nearly 48% of Illinois’ four-year, college-bound students chose schools elsewhere. They take their knowledge, income and tax dollars with them — often for good.
What’s maddening is how completely unnecessary this is.
We’re told Illinois universities are expensive because they’re underfunded. That seems to be the narrative every time tuition increases make headlines. But it doesn’t speak to the larger problem. While the Urbana-Champaign campus continues to see record attendance, the state’s regional universities are struggling to define their roles and demonstrate unique value. Enrollment across the 12 public universities fell from around 368,000 in 2009 to 278,000 in 2023 — a 25% drop — but the money keeps flowing.
Despite a shrinking student population, Illinois ranks No. 1 in the nation in higher education spending per full-time student at $22,590 — roughly double the national average. Much of it is getting swallowed by pension payments. Analysis from the Illinois Policy Institute finds that in 2009, only 7 cents of every higher education dollar went to faculty pensions. Today, it’s many times that.
But strip out pension costs, and Illinois still ranks third nationally in per-student spending. We’re not being stingy; we’re being inefficient.
That’s the real problem. Illinois makes everything more expensive: building buildings, running schools and hiring staff. When campuses need to redo road infrastructure, they pay $98,386 per lane-mile, which is double the cost for Minnesota, according to the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank. Prevailing wage laws, inflated procurement rules, lawsuits, bloated administrative payrolls — the whole system is weighed down by costs that have nothing to do with education.
The result is predictable. Tuition rises to cover the gaps. Taxpayers pick up the tab. And students head to other states instead of shelling out in Illinois.
The conservative think tank Wirepoints estimates that we now spend over $300,000 to educate each child from kindergarten through high school, only to watch them take a scholarship to Missouri, Indiana or Arizona. Then they get a job, buy a house, pay taxes and raise a family elsewhere. Illinois loses a college-educated taxpayer after we invested in that student for at least 12 years.
That’s not just wasteful. It’s self-destruction. It’s the Illinois model: Spend more, get less, repeat.
We can’t keep doing this. Illinois families deserve affordable, high-quality education without having to consider an out-of-state trip in a U-Haul as part of the college application process. We don’t need to spend more. We need to spend smarter. We need universities that compete and lawmakers who want to prioritize reforms.
Until then, don’t blame young adults for leaving. Blame the system that gave them every reason to go.
###
Mark Batinick, a Republican, served in the Illinois General Assembly from 2015 to 2023, representing the 97th District. He is the pensions policy adviser for the Illinois Policy Institute.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD | Chicago Tribune
In a state where one of the only job sectors that’s growing is the government, it’s a terrible idea to implement a new tax that hits private-sector employers and workers hard.
That’s what the payroll tax being considered in Springfield would do.
State Sen. Ram Villivalam, D-Chicago, wants to adopt a state payroll tax to do something that sounds good — cover paid family and medical leave. Called the Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program Act, Villivalam’s legislation would impose a new tax based on a worker’s wages and would be withheld automatically from paychecks, just like Social Security and Medicare. Both the employee and the employer would have to contribute toward this payroll tax.
Last month, the state Senate extended the normal deadline for considering the bill, suggesting there’s some momentum.
Revenue from the program, which would impose a 1.12% tax on paychecks (paid in part by the employee and in part by the employer), would fund benefits in a state-managed paid leave program, giving workers up to 18 weeks of paid family/medical leave each year, plus up to nine extra weeks for pregnancy. The tax would take effect Jan. 1, 2027, for employers with 25 or more workers.
Initially, the tax would apply at companies employing at least 25 people, but by 2029 all employers, no matter how small, would be affected.
Sounds good, right? Unfortunately, as with all new taxes, this one is all but sure to rise with time. Consider Minnesota, which is launching its own leave program and payroll tax. In 2023, legislators enacted a 0.7% payroll tax to take effect in 2026. The tax hasn’t even hit employers yet, but lawmakers already have boosted the rate to 0.88% since then.
If times were better in Illinois, a proposal like this might be worth considering, given the struggles new parents face. It’s especially egregious that many women, lacking federal paid leave or job protection, are forced to return to work just a few weeks after giving birth — or risk losing their jobs. But times aren’t good, not for the state’s economy or its finances — which continue to be plagued by $144 billion in pension debt and yearly budget deficits.
There’s already a major jobs issue in Illinois, where private-sector job creation is virtually stagnant. As of the end of last year, Illinois gained a net 32,000 nonfarm jobs since the end of 2019, just before the pandemic.
But 73% of them were government jobs. That’s not a recipe for a strong economy.
A state payroll tax would punish businesses for … hiring people, something we desperately need them to do. While intended to help workers afford time off for health and family reasons, it would increase the cost of hiring and maintaining jobs here and expose both employers and employees to future tax hikes if the program runs deficits.
In other words, it’s possible that the Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program Actcould lead to fewer workers around to take advantage of paid leave.
The last thing Illinois should be doing right now is creating new disincentives to hiring.
###
By Dylan Sharkey - Asst. Editor - Illinois Policy
March 14, 2025
Illinois state lawmakers again want to tax drivers on each mile of road they use – an idea that lasted a week the last time they raised the idea.
With electric cars and cars being more fuel efficient, Illinois is not seeing as much revenue per vehicle, so state lawmakers are considering a vehicle miles traveled tax to raise more money from motorists. State Sen. Ram Villivalam, D-Chicago, proposed legislation exploring a “road usage charge” to tax drivers by the mile.
The tax might involve transponders, meaning the taxman would be tracking a driver’s movement. Or a photo of the odometer could be sent. Both gas and electric vehicles would be part of a 1,000-vehicle test of drivers who volunteer to be taxed based on miles driven, and possibly on the time of day they use roads. The move would target Illinois drivers who don’t pay the gas tax by driving electric cars or use less gas because their vehicles are efficient.
Proponents say electric vehicle drivers should contribute more than they are to funding roads. Electric vehicle license plate renewals are $251 compared to $151 for a gas vehicle. The pilot program would incentivize EV drivers to join with a discount on annual registration.

Since Gov. J.B. Pritzker doubled the gas tax in 2019 and built in automatic annual increases so lawmakers would no longer vote on the unpopular taxes, the amount drivers pay in gas taxes has reached roughly $2 billion. Illinois drivers pay the second-highest gas taxes in the nation, behind only California.
Illinois last discussed a VMT tax in 2019, but the bill’s sponsor drew so much ire that he pulled the bill a week later.
This effort, Senate Bill 1938, was being co-sponsored by state Sen. Christopher Belt, D-East St. Louis, but he pulled his name off the bill. It is assigned to the Transportation Committee, where it must receive a passing vote by March 21.
It’s hard to believe Illinois would ever be strapped for infrastructure cash. The state is going to spend $40 billion on roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects during a six-year span.
Another broken promise would be easier to believe. Illinoisans were once promised “Toll free in ’73,” meaning toll roads would eventually cost drivers nothing, but that never happened.
###

The Illinois Supreme Court Building in Springfield on May 8, 2024. (John J. Kim/Chicago Tribune)
Chicago Tribune Editorial Board - April 11, 2025
Last month, we urged Illinois Supreme Court justices to consider state Republicans’ strong arguments against extreme gerrymandering in the Land of Lincoln. To no one’s surprise, on Wednesday the Democratic majority on the high court seized on a technicality to avoid confronting the obvious and refused to hear the GOP’s case.
That leaves intact legislative maps that badly undermine democracy in Illinois. Any reasonable, non-partisan person looking at the facts would arrive at that conclusion. State House districts are so distorted that GOP candidates won 45% of the total vote for the Illinois House of Representatives in 2024 and just 34% of the seats.
That’s plain wrong, and the justices ought to be ashamed.
After multiple failed attempts in the past two decades to get a fair hearing before the Supreme Court, the GOP thought this time might be different. A lawsuit led by House Minority Leader Tony McCombie presented hard data, strong arguments that numerous bizarrely shaped districts violate the state Constitution, and even responded to court decisions in the past that had tossed GOP litigation because it was filed too close to an election.
Nothing doing.
The court refused to take up this latest case, not based on its merits but because the majority of justices said the plaintiffs waited too long to act. There’s no winning with this bunch, which appears content to oversee a judicial version of Joseph Heller’s Catch-22.
While Illinois’ high court declined to intervene, our neighbors to the north took a different, more encouraging path. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court contest between conservative Brad Schimel and liberal Susan Crawford recently garnered intense national attention as a referendum of sorts on the early months of the Trump administration. Crawford prevailed, which cheered Democrats and worried Republicans.
But even before that contest, Wisconsin’s high court had thrown out the Badger State’s gerrymandered maps, ruling in December 2023 that similarly distorted district boundaries favoring the GOP in that state were unconstitutional.
Equally as important, and to the surprise of many, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in February 2024 compromised with the GOP-run legislature on new maps that are said to slightly favor the Republicans but are far fairer than the districts the court rejected. “Wisconsin, when I promised I wanted fair maps — not maps that are better for one party or another — I damn well meant it,” Evers said.
In Illinois, Gov. JB Pritzker said much the same when he first ran for office in 2019. But he most definitely didn’t mean it. And the Supreme Court has been happy to play along.
“Plaintiffs could have brought their argument years ago,” the majority wrote in an unsigned decision. “Their claim that waiting multiple election cycles is necessary to reveal the effects of redistricting is unpersuasive.”
That’s the court’s take. To us, the proof is undeniable. Illinois’ political maps don’t yield results that represent the will of the people. The justices missed a golden opportunity to emulate our neighbors to the north and instead have left too many voters dispirited and feeling like nothing can ever change.
As lawmakers in Wisconsin and Illinois have demonstrated, partisan gerrymandering is a bipartisan pursuit when the party in power has carte blanche to pick its own voters. When that happens, the judiciary — an equal branch of government — is tasked with upholding the Constitution, not aiding and abetting its partisan friends.
Illinois’ Supreme Court justices failed that most basic test.
Nationally, the Democratic Party in November failed to connect with independent and centrist voters who usually determine the outcome of elections in a relatively evenly divided country. Democratic hegemony in Illinois hasn’t produced a thriving state; to the contrary, Illinois isn’t growing, and its economic performance lags the nation as a whole.
A political party that has no fear of losing power too often is a political party that refuses to entertain new ideas or reconsider its own orthodoxies.
The path to Democratic renewal is not through disenfranchising voters. This was a highly unfortunate missed opportunity.
###
April 11, 2025
For years, the Democrat leaders of Illinois, Cook County, and the City of Chicago have proudly declared their sanctuary status. They boasted at press conferences, issued glowing statements of inclusivity, and virtue-signaled their defiance of federal immigration laws — all while ignoring the harsh realities their decisions would bring upon their own residents.
Now, those consequences are here — and they are devastating.
Illinois is facing a massive budget shortfall. So is Cook County. So is Chicago. The combined strain across these three overlapping governments is already in the billions, and it's growing by the day. Meanwhile, taxpayers are watching their schools, hospitals, housing systems, and public safety networks buckle under the weight of a migrant crisis that our leaders invited and enabled.
Let’s be honest: welcoming rhetoric is easy. Governing responsibly is not.
The hard truth is that this state and its major local governments have been funding the arrival, shelter, and care of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants—not with surplus funds, but with taxpayer dollars that were never meant for this purpose. Resources desperately needed for struggling seniors, working families, disabled veterans, the mentally ill, and homeless citizens are being siphoned off to uphold a political ideology that has become untethered from fiscal reality.
And now, a new president has taken office—one who has explicitly stated he will withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. Love him or hate him, that is immaterial. He is in office. He holds the power of the federal purse. And instead of preparing for that reality, Illinois leaders are choosing to double down on their sanctuary stance—even as they beg Springfield and Washington for more financial help.
That is not governance. That is ideological extremism at the expense of public duty. It is political malfeasance, plain and simple. What rational leadership looks like is reassessing policy when it fails. What responsible stewardship requires is putting the needs of your own residents first — especially when budgets are strained and services are crumbling. But in Illinois, far-left ideology has replaced accountability. Sanctuary status has become a sacred cow that Democratic leaders refuse to reconsider, even as the state teeters on the edge of financial collapse.
To be clear: No one is arguing against compassion or humanitarian concern. But compassion without structure, without fiscal limits, without a plan — that’s not compassion. That’s chaos.
It’s time for Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago to face reality. The federal money will not come if sanctuary policies remain in place. Our constituents — our citizens — are already being asked to sacrifice more in taxes, fees, and diminished services. We cannot afford to continue subsidizing lawlessness while pretending there is no cost.
If our leaders won't act in the best interest of the people they serve, then the people must demand new leaders who will. Enough with the slogans. Enough with the grandstanding. It’s time for fiscal sanity and responsible governance to make a return.
Our future depends on it.