Amazon, Punchbowl News reported on April 29, “will soon show how much [US president Donald] Trump’s tariffs are adding to the price of each product …. The shopping site will display how much of an item’s cost is derived from tariffs — right next to the product’s total listed price.”

Cue whining from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who called the idea “a hostile and political act.”

Amazon quickly backed down, saying it had “considered the idea” but wasn’t going to actually follow through.

Then, for some reason, Walmart felt the need to weigh in and announce that it also has no plans to let its customers know how much of what they pay is due to Trump’s tax hikes on you because it does “not itemize what goes into the cost of goods on our website.”

That’s an odd claim. To test it, I just went to Walmart’s website and  put an item (supposedly priced at $17.16) into my cart.

Whaddayaknow, when I got to the checkout screen, the site itemized “estimated taxes” of $1.71, as well as $6.99 in shipping charges. Are those not “costs of goods” on their website?

The “estimated taxes” on that screen are state and local sales taxes. Most stores in most states (and on the Internet) break those tax costs out. In fact, in some states, they’re required by law to do so, which is why when you see an item for $1.99 at your local grocery store, you have to do a little mental arithmetic and add, say, $2.10 instead of $1.99 to your running total.

Imposing taxes on consumers is a “hostile and political act.”

From a business point of view, it makes sense to let customers know who’s imposing these  latest massive tax hikes. That way the customers know who to blame for — and who to hold accountable for — unnecessarily higher prices.

Why should tariffs be treated any differently than sales taxes? They’re taxes. You’re paying them. Why are Amazon, Walmart, and likely other businesses running and hiding instead of telling you so?

The only explanation that makes sense is fear. American businesses know that Trump can hurt them in various ways, from taxation and regulation to urging his base to boycott businesses who tell the truth to their customers. Who can blame them for fearing his wrath?

Truth, someone once said, is the first casualty of war.

Trump is waging war on all of us, in this case on our ability to buy the goods we need and want to live our lives. He doesn’t want us to know that, and rages against us knowing.

Amazon and Walmart shouldn’t let fear push them into our enemy’s ranks. They should tell us the truth … with every sale.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Bing search results inform me that women from Texas seeking abortion-inducing drugs can likely get them through Whole Woman’s Health of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Why on Earth would I care about that, or want to tell you about it? I’m not a woman, I’m not from Texas, I don’t happen to know any women from Texas whom I also know to be seeking medication-induced abortions, and I doubt that any such women would need my help finding the above information anyway.

BUT!

Texas’s legislature,  the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports, may soon pass  SB 2880/HB 5510, which would make it illegal to “provide information on the method for obtaining an abortion-inducing drug” to women in Texas.

I publish my columns to the Internet (as do many of the newspapers which choose to publish them).

The Internet is, I understand, accessible from Texas.

If the new law passes, this column will remain accessible to Texan women in violation of it, theoretically exposing me to both criminal and civil liability.

So, notice to future Texas law enforcement agents and litigious busybodies:

Bring it.

From my viewpoint, this isn’t about abortion at all. I don’t consider it my job to advise women on whether, or how, to obtain one. In fact, I’m somewhat sympathetic to some moral arguments (though not laws) against doing so.

It’s also clearly not about the “sanctity of life” where Texas’s government is concerned. That regime has arguably executed more than one innocent prisoner, and last year governor Greg Abbott pardoned actual, convicted, unrepentant murderer Daniel Perry to “own the libs.” These people don’t care about “life” per se; they just care about scoring points with their political base.

What it’s about is your right to discuss whatever you please, however you please, whenever you please. That right just isn’t negotiable. There are no circumstances under, nor any subject upon which, the Texas legislature gets to infringe upon or prohibit its exercise in any way, shape, manner, or form.

At least not without a fight.

So, Texas politicians, here’s your chance to show yourselves for who you really are yet again: Pass that evil law and issue a warrant for my arrest or get one of your toadies to file suit against me (or both).

I won’t back down — in fact, I won’t be ABLE to. As soon as I published this column at the Garrison Center’s web site and submitted it to newspapers, I also published it to a blockchain-based medium from which I can’t delete it.

If you agree with what I have to say, please join me in spreading the word. Fortunately, I suspect the courts will nix SB 2880/HB 5510 long before Texas’s tyrants get around to us.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Photo by Lennart Tange. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. says that HHS and the US Food and Drug Administration will phase out the use of petroleum-based food dyes over the next two years to “Make America Healthy Again.”

Of all the policy changes coming out of Washington DC, this is probably the most visible — literally.

If the changes go as planned, a lot of the foods you eat, liquids you drink, and medications you take will probably look a lot different than you’ve become used to.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, it depends on who you ask.

For decades, scientists have researched — and lobbyists and activists have fought over — the effects of those artificial colorants on Americans’ health. Some researchers and advocates claim links between artificial food colorings and various disorders. The companies using those colorings, naturally, deny such links.

In the 1990s, I knew a couple who did everything they could to keep Red Dye 40 out of their son’s diet. He’d been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. They believed (upon observation I had to agree) that getting the food coloring out of his diet greatly relieved his inability to sit still, concentrate, etc. That’s just anecdotal, of course, but the differences did seem dramatic.

Chicken or egg? Did consumers nudge food makers to give their products the “pop” of more brilliant colors, or did that “pop” condition consumers to associate bright hues with quality?

Would we buy fruit-flavored cereal if it didn’t come in a mix of reds, yellows, purples, and green?

Would we want those gummy bears or shell-covered candies if they were off-white?

I don’t claim to know, but color’s what they’re selling and we buy a LOT of it.

I don’t support a ban.

As long as sellers truthfully disclose what they’re putting in their products, we’re free to buy or not buy — and one positive outcome of the “information age” is that we have instant access to both scientific information and others’ opinion (well-informed or not) on the ingredients in our food.

In the normal course of things, I might or might not give credence to RFK Jr.’s opinion on the matter when deciding what to put in my shopping cart and in my body. You might or might not as well. That’s fine. What’s not fine is him just deciding for all of us, whether we like it or not.

Most of us aren’t old enough to remember, but at one time many states required margarine to be dyed bright pink as a way of discouraging its use versus butter (as you might guess, the dairy industry lobby backed such laws).

It’s not a hill to dye on (see what I did there?), I guess. I’m sure we’ll get used to the changes in how our food looks.  Maybe we really will get healthier physically — who knows?  But letting a politician control our choices this way is a worse disease than any malady associated with food coloring.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY