The Sentinel: Editorial

Guest Commentary |
Tariffs, the goose, the gander and the American dream

by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator

Let’s give the tariffs time to work. I’m as anxious as you are since everything I have is tied to the stock market. If the stock market dies, I will be working or starving the rest of my life. Let’s hope things settle down soon. I believe they will and will grow even bigger.

The tariffs make sense. If China charges us a 25% tariff, then it’s only fair that we charge them one. The same goes for Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and all the others. If they want to charge us 40% then it’s only fair that we charge them the same. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Higher prices will come for a while. Car dealerships have seen a lot more people trying to make their deals before all the tariffs are tacked onto the prices.

People are worried about buying cheap stuff from China at Walmart or any other country. I honestly don’t want stuff from China. If China never ships another thing here it wouldn’t bother me. Sadly, everything I own today is, in some way, likely tied to a foreign country.

When I was a kid, I had a transistor radio made in Hong Kong. I thought it was funny to have such an item made from so far away. Throughout the years it became the norm. Cars, televisions, furniture, appliances and steel started coming from other places. Sadly, our American manufacturers were moving to Mexico, or any country on the planet where they could find slave labor. This turned into big profit for them because they shipped the goods cheaply back to the United States and made big profits.

We need jobs to come back to America.

The problem was that those jobs were forever lost in America. The American workers had to go out and find jobs at Walmart and Starbucks making $10 an hour which today is more like $15 to $18. They had been used to making $35 or $40 an hour before their job moved out of America.

People are crying today about what might happen to the prices at Walmart. Unfortunately, that’s all Americans can afford today is Walmart. Americans are so poor that we have to rely on Dollar General Store or Walmart.

Back in the fifties, sixties and even seventies people could go to one of the big cities in their state and find a good paying manufacturing job. There were lots of jobs. We made a lot of cars, televisions, radios, clothes, furniture, steel, lumber, and had coal mining and much more. These people made enough money to buy a house, buy two cars, buy food, raise their kids and have a real retirement after working 30 years. That was called the American dream.

Today the American dream is applying for disabled Social Security and then praying that you can afford to go to Walmart. Don’t even think about buying a new car, a new house or taking a vacation because on today’s income it is not going to happen.

Let’s try to keep breathing and see how these tariffs play out. We need jobs to come back to America. We need our own companies to come home. We need to buy our own American steel and make things here once again. If other countries will come to America and build their products here and hire our people that will be a good thing.

Just maybe, in a few years, once again, people in America will dream again.

About the author ~

Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.

This might also interest you:

Commentary |
Basic human needs are not fair fame for billionaire tax cuts

It’s clear that this nation’s safety net has to be stronger so that people like me don’t fall through the cracks.

by Marisa Pesce

OtherWords

Tens of millions of Americans rely on the public assistance programs — like Medicaid, SNAP, housing aid, and more — that Republican leaders are now threatening to gut.

I’m one of them.

My dream is to regain the financial independence I once enjoyed before life and systemic obstacles got in the way. I come from a family with a history of mental illness and domestic abuse, and I’ve suffered through mental health challenges myself.

I’ve always worked hard. After high school, I earned a college degree and found the calling of being a teacher. I earned and paid for my Master’s degree while teaching full time as a high school math teacher. I still struggled with challenges, but life was good. The system had worked. I had a home and was financially independent.

I’ve had to rely on someone who participated in the domestic violence against me to help with rent.

Then, I was the victim of a major, life changing domestic violence event, and my life started to unwind. I had to relocate to another state where I didn’t have a place to call home, my benefits were less, and my mental illness was exacerbated by the isolation and trauma.

Despite the challenges I faced, I was able to find some needed assistance for food and mental health care as I got on my feet.

Also known as “food stamps,” the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was a godsend for helping me put food on the table. Throughout my life both Medicaid and Medicare have helped with mental health treatment, and the Supplemental Security Disability Income (SSDI) program helped keep me out of poverty.

These are precisely the circumstances for which temporary assistance for basic needs like food, housing, and health care exists. But affordable housing was unavailable in my new home state, and SNAP benefits were much lower — even as my food needs stayed the same.

So my debts increased, and I’ve had to rely on someone who participated in the domestic violence against me to help with rent. I have a little income from SSDI, and I volunteer to stay engaged in my calling to teach and help others while I fight to recover from losing my home and my ability to keep up financially.

It’s clear that this nation’s safety net has to be stronger so that people like me don’t fall through the cracks. But House Republicans are currently trying to cut food assistance and other benefits, not strengthen them.

I just want to eat, get better, and afford safe housing so I can get back on my feet, back to financial independence, and back to doing all I can to help my community.

I need more help putting food on the table. But they’re proposing cuts to drastically reduce federal funding for SNAP, expand already harsh working requirements, and change how our need for healthy food is calculated, which is likely to slash benefits. And they’re doing it all to finance $4.5 trillion in tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest.

I just want to eat, get better, and afford safe housing so I can get back on my feet, back to financial independence, and back to doing all I can to help my community. Yet I and millions like me are nothing but pawns in a political game that aims to hurt us and help those who already have wealth.

When I was teaching, I taught my students about fairness and equality — about what it means to live in a society where we look out for each other, where no one is left to be ill, unhoused, and hungry. I think some politicians need to go back to school, because they seem to have forgotten lessons like these.

So it’s our job to school them. We must let them know that basic human needs are not fair game for getting money for tax cuts for billionaires. Instead, our priorities should be healthy and safe communities for all.

About the author:
Marisa Pesce is a teacher, human rights consultant, anti-poverty advocate, and volunteer with RESULTS from Providence, Rhode Island. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

Keywords:

Letter to the Editor |
Public school systems across the state are failing

Dear Editor,

Homeschooling is on the rise and some school administrators are very concerned that they’re losing tax resources with declining enrollment numbers.

Representative Terra Costa Howard (D-Lombard) is targeting homeschooling families with HB 2827, claiming that she wants to protect children from parents “who don’t do it the right way...”

During a committee hearing last week, she argued that government officials “have a duty to ensure that children actually receive an education and that they don’t fall through the cracks of our system.”

Yet, according to the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), less than 32 percent of high school seniors can read and less than 27 percent are proficient in Math.

ISBE reports an 88 percent graduation rate, which means that more than 228,000 students are being left behind.

Where is the concern about these students who are “falling through the cracks?”

Furthermore, students’ physical wellbeing is at risk. A 2018 Chicago Tribune investigation revealed over 500 cases of sexual abuse and rape by Chicago Public School staff against students over a decade, exposing grave deficiencies in hiring, training, reporting, and oversight.

This led to the creation of the Sexual Allegations Unit (SAU), which has reported 446 complaints of sexual misconduct in 2023, and 469 new complaints of adult-on-student abuse in 2024.

We know that these serious problems are not limited to Chicago schools. Public school systems across the state are failing in their responsibilities of educating and protecting children in their care.

Representative Howard doesn’t seem to understand that bureaucrats have proven themselves to be disqualified from doing the job that she thinks they can do.

Moreover: why diminish educational freedom in Illinois? Why usurp parental rights just to expand failing government authority over more students? Why try to fix something that doesn’t need fixing?

HB 2827 would punish families who do not file a declaration form with up to 30 days in prison and a $500 fine. This is alarming. Why would she separate families over a missing document?

This bill is unwarranted. Decades of homeschooling success demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that HB 2827 is a solution in search of a problem.

It is foolish to criminalize some of the best people in the state: Loving parents who want to educate, nurture and equip their children to be future productive members of society.

David E. Smith, Executive Director
Illinois Family Institute

Got something you want to get off your chest? Send us your letter to the editor today. Here is how: Read this.

Related articles:

Commentary |
Beware of Tax “Bipartisanship”

Op-Ed by Dr. Todd J. Barry

In 2012, United States President Barack Obama faced a choice regarding how to legislate the permanency of the President George W. Bush Tax Cuts. In some ways, the dire economic growth of “the Great Recession” called for one obvious path, of making the tax cuts permanent. But, in other ways, President Obama was “suckered” into supporting this path, because of exhortations that economic calamity would otherwise result (then termed the “fiscal cliff”) which was largely an exaggeration. Mr. Obama opted to push to make some of the tax cuts permanent, for the middle-class, but this policy still greatly increased the United States (U.S.) deficit and debt.

Trump tax cuts will cause excessive demand, much of it going to people who do not need it, leading to higher prices.

Currently, Democrats in Congress will have to decide whether or not to be “suckered” into Mr. Trump’s tax permanency proposals, which are reminiscent of Mr. Bush’s. But, the economic situation today is different. Illinois Senators Dick Durban-(D) and Tammy Duckworth-(D) have, previously, sent letters to Republican leaders calling for tax “bipartisanship.” More recently, a similar letter from Michigan’s Senators was vague, though saying than that the tax cuts’ “permanency” would increase the U.S. deficit from $1.9 trillion dollars to $2.9 trillion.

America’s economy grew in 2024’s 3rd quarter at 3.1%, a very strong number. However, several Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson-(R-LA), have said, paraphrasing, that “we have to get the economy going again,” but the problem is not that the economy is sluggish, but that it is overheated.

This situation also has little to do with the absence of shovel-ready projects, that outgoing-President Joseph Biden lamented about. Consequently, a best-policy approach would not be one that is expansionary, but one that is actually contractionary, yet at the same time helps Americans buy more at the grocery store.

Hillary Clinton’s economic team created a novel idea, of giving tax credits for businesses that would share that money with workers.

To put it simply, the Trump tax cuts will cause excessive demand, much of it going to people who do not need it, leading to higher prices. These prices are on top of the proposed tariffs, whereby it is unfathomable that since the middle of the 20th Century presidents have had powers uncheckable by Congress. Also, the inflation is largely due to the dovish policies of the Federal Reserve, which continues to cater to gullible investors on Wall Street. Deficits will soar, leading to higher interest rates, to even more inflation, and eventually to greater unemployment.

In 2016, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s economic team created a novel idea, of giving tax credits for businesses that would share that money with workers. The plan, though, was ambiguous, and poorly promoted. Alternatively, a supply-side approach, of giving tax credits to businesses that cut prices, risks becoming bureaucratically complex in American’s capitalist framework, an enforcement conundrum.

Wage controls, vis-a-vie the President Nixon era, are equally complex, as are anti-price-gouging measures. While making the middle-class tax cuts alone permanent is feasible, it could engender political challenges. And, unfortunately, these topics did not arise during the 2024 presidential election, because political leaders misinterpret economics, albeit 16 Nobel Laureate economists sent a petition to Washington warning about the economy’s’ health.

Yet, today, I propose an idea similar to Mrs. Clinton’s, which could help Americans to buy more, while costing the government less. Congress could provide a tax credit to businesses sharing 50% of the credit to workers’ wages. Here-named “demand-supply-side economics,” the supply-side aspect would expand production, but even if some resources ended up in CEO’s pockets, the other half going to blue collar workers would increase demand. The combination of the increase in the demand and supply curves at the same time, albeit disregarding their elasticities (the slope of the curves), would result in little changes to prices, but a greater output for Americans- more “bang for the dollar” at the grocery store.

Unfortunately, unresponsive companies might experience labor strikes, but the labor market helps to keep wages consistent with inflation. Furthermore, the government could choose the size of the program, and its time-length, without adding as much to the debt, which is now $31.5 trillion dollars and growing, every time one blinks.

The permanency and details of the Trump tax cuts, including those for the middle-class, need to debated, carefully, before mistakes are made that lead to even higher prices, and to even greater deficits and debt into the future.

Dr. Todd J. Barry holds a PhD from the U. of Southern Mississippi, and teaches economics, with Hudson County Community College in NJ, USA. Sean R. Barry holds a master’s degree in public administration, and has served on town committees in Branford, CT.

Editorial |
Which candidate do we endorse for president? We're not the marrying type

During the 2016 election, only 20 papers endorsed Donald Trump's candidacy. Hillary Clinton received 243 endorsements from daily newspapers. Just six weekly papers endorsed Trump’s first run, while Clinton received support from 148. However, the endorsements had no measurable effect on the outcome. Clinton, who lost the election in the Electoral College, had 2.9 million more votes nationwide than her opponent, a margin of 2.1% of total votes cast.

"In 2016, nearly every newspaper in America endorsed Hillary Clinton. Obviously, the endorsements of Clinton did not lead to her victory, but it was a reflection of a widespread belief that Trump was unfit for office," David Mindich told Temple Now. Mindich is a professor of journalism at Temple’s Klein College of Media and Communication.

Last week, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, two of America’s most prominent newspapers, broke with the longstanding tradition of endorsing a presidential candidate. The owners of both newspapers forbade their editorial staffs from selecting and endorsing the candidate they deemed best suited to lead the United States.

Newspaper endorsements of political candidates date back to before the 1830s. Newspapers were once partisan tools owned or funded by politicians themselves to disseminate political views and give endorsements. That changed with the rise of the independent press.

"After the commercial press in the United States was born in the 1830s, newspapers started to become independent. The leading newspaper of the so-called penny press era was the New York Herald, run by an editor named James Gordon Bennett," Mindich said. "From the inception of his paper to the American Civil War, Bennett endorsed candidates from both major parties. Endorsements became a regular feature of independent American newspapers."

Melita Garza, associate professor and director of graduate studies in journalism at the University of Illinois, said, "There is little empirical evidence that these presidential endorsements swayed readers to vote one way or another."

There is speculation that C-suite executives feared backlash and subscription cancellations from readers angered by a particular endorsement. Garza notes that journalists on the ground are ultimately the ones who suffer.

"The only people hurt by the cancellation were the journalists, who probably will face another round of layoffs," she said.

However, another likely reason for the abstinence from endorsements is the increasingly hostile climate created by conservative politicians and their social media agents. It is rare, if not unheard of, for liberal politicians to threaten media outlets or employees. Meanwhile, Trump has made numerous threats aimed at journalists and publishers. The fear of retaliation if he takes office runs deep not only among the billionaire owners of America’s largest news organizations but also among independent community publications that challenge or criticize him.

In 2022, at a Texas rally, Trump said he would jail reporters and “marry them to a prisoner” if they did not reveal confidential sources for stories he didn’t approve—a clear violation of the First Amendment. He repeated this stance weeks later at a rally in Ohio.

Donald Trump: "The reporter goes to jail, and when the reporter learns that he's going to be married in two days to a certain prisoner..." pic.twitter.com/wvK7Ilrhn9
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 8, 2022

While newsrooms and editorial boards are often operated as separate departments or even entities within a newspaper, readers may not understand the distinction between an editorial and a news article.

News articles state facts, answering the questions of who, what, when, where, why, and sometimes how. The purpose is to provide a clear, accurate account of an event as observed by the reporter or witnesses.

Editorials (and editorial columns) express opinions and viewpoints—right or wrong—by the publication’s editorial board. The objective is to present a perspective or stance and persuade readers toward that stance. Commentaries have the same purpose but are written by individuals not employed by the paper.

All that said, the editorial staff at The Sentinel agrees that the best candidate to lead the United States into the future would be one not leading a party that threatens the bodily autonomy of women, the freedom of the press, and economic recovery now in full effect. However, we won’t be endorsing either candidate because, as they say, we aren’t the marrying type.

Editorial |
Pro or Con?

Khalil Bendib / OtherWords.org

A nation of laws... or lawlessness?

American farmers are being robbed blind by corporation profiteers

by Jim Hightower
OtherWords

America’s agriculture policies were written by corporate lobbyists who couldn’t run a watermelon stand

A farmer was asked what he’d do if he won a million-dollar lottery. “Well,” he said, “I guess I’d just keep farming ‘til the money runs out.”

Trying to make a living as a farmer is not for the fainthearted. You have to take out high-interest loans from cold-eyed bankers to put in a crop and buy supplies. Then you’re also at the mercy of everything from bugs to monopolistic middlemen. And here’s a cruel twist: If you defy the odds and produce a great crop, you lose money!

Lynn Danielson/Unsplash

This is happening right now. With unusually-good weather this year, corn and soybean harvests are expected to set records. But this abundance creates a market glut, allowing middlemen to knock down prices paid to farmers. A bushel of Illinois corn, for example, costs farmers $4.30 to produce, but they’re only getting $3.70 for it.

Meanwhile, the cost of such basics as seed, fertilizer, and tractors are skyrocketing. High costs coupled with low crop prices means that farmers’ income is expected to drop by 25 percent this year.

You might call this good crop-bad price phenomenon “ironic.” But it’s deliberate – an inevitable product of America’s perverse agricultural policy that pushes farmers to over produce in order to keep commodity prices low for giant processors and retailers. Little known fact: Our national “farm policy” is not written by farmers but by corporate lobbyists, lawyers, and economists – people who couldn’t run a watermelon stand if we gave them the melons and had the highway patrol flag down the customers for them.

That has got to change. To join an effort to demand a farm bill written by and for farmers, consumers, workers, and our environment, go to: FarmAid.org/Take-Action.