Mark Pocan EXPOSES Scott Bessent on Who Really Pays Trump’s Tariffs

Introduction

When economic policy is debated in Congress, the stakes are more than theoretical—they ripple through every invoice, every payroll, and every checkout counter in America. The recent exchange between Representative Mark Pin and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant during a hearing on tariffs brought this reality into sharp focus. Pin’s relentless questioning—“Who pays tariffs?”—cut through the jargon and exposed the gap between political rhetoric and lived experience. What followed was a lesson in economic truth, accountability, and the consequences of policy for small businesses and consumers.

Act I: The Question That Won’t Go Away

Tariffs are often discussed in terms of strategy, negotiation, and global competition. But at their core, tariffs are taxes imposed on imported goods. The simple, direct question—who pays tariffs?—is one every American deserves an answer to.

Rep. Pin didn’t ask for theory. He asked for reality. “Who pays tariffs?” he pressed, as Bessant dodged, deflected, and tried to steer the conversation elsewhere. The refusal to answer wasn’t just evasive—it was revealing. For small business owners, the answer isn’t complicated. They see it in higher costs, squeezed margins, and price hikes passed down to customers.

Act II: Economic Context—Beyond Wall Street

Pin set the stage by laying out the economic facts: the stock market under Trump’s first 100 days hit lows not seen since Nixon; tariff rates jumped from 2.5% to levels economists say resemble the early 1900s; cargo volumes dropped sharply, supply chains tightened, and ports slowed. These weren’t ideological talking points—they were observable data points affecting Main Street businesses.

He contrasted the lived experience of small business owners with the world of investor conferences, cocktail parties, and global summits that dominate policy discussions. While Bessant referenced game theory and “strategic uncertainty,” Pin spoke about auto body shops, specialty printers, and family-run suppliers. These businesses don’t hedge with global portfolios—they pay invoices weekly and make payroll bi-weekly.

Act III: Tariffs in Practice—The Real-World Impact

For small businesses, tariffs aren’t abstract. They’re line items on invoices, higher prices on shelves, jobs delayed, orders canceled, and margins squeezed. Pin described receiving a “tariff surcharge” from a supplier, followed by price hikes on American-made goods—unrelated to tariffs but piggybacked onto the chaos.

This is the deeper lesson: economic instability creates permission for price gouging. When tariffs are unpredictable, companies raise prices across the board. Even on domestic products, because consumers can’t tell what’s driving the increase. Chaos becomes cover.

Act IV: The “Crazy Ivan” Theory—Strategic Uncertainty or Economic Chaos?

Bessant attempted to frame the administration’s tariff policy as “strategic uncertainty”—a negotiation tactic borrowed from game theory, sometimes called the “Crazy Ivan” strategy. The idea: unpredictability forces rivals to the table, creating leverage in trade talks.

But Pin wasn’t buying it. For small businesses, strategic uncertainty means empty ports, delayed shipments, and lost sales. They don’t have the luxury of waiting out volatility. They can’t absorb shocks like global investors. “Crazy Ivan is great for really rich people like you,” Pin said, “but for people like me, it’s not right.”

Act V: Accountability and Obfuscation

Pin’s repeated “reclaiming my time” wasn’t rudeness—it was a refusal to let obfuscation replace accountability. Bessant’s answers grew more convoluted, finally landing on “it’s a complicated mix.” Pin delivered the line that mattered: “It’s not complicated. Consumers pay Trump’s tariff tax. That’s the reality.”

This moment was brutal not because of interruptions, but because of the clarity of the question and the refusal to answer. Pin approached Bessant from the perspective most Americans actually live in—small business, tight margins, and real-world consequences.

Act VI: Translating Policy to Plain Truth

Pin’s approach stripped away abstraction. Tariffs aren’t patriotic slogans—they’re higher prices for families and businesses. The administration’s defense relied on negotiation theory and elite investor logic, but Pin forced the conversation back to reality.

He explained how small businesses are squeezed between rising costs and shrinking demand. When officials describe tariffs as a “temporary detox,” they’re talking to investors, not Main Street. Small businesses don’t have the luxury of waiting out volatility—they live it, week to week.

Act VII: The Broader Lesson—Economic Instability and Price Gouging

Economic instability, especially when driven by unpredictable tariffs, creates cover for price gouging. Companies raise prices on everything—not just imports—because consumers can’t separate tariff effects from opportunistic hikes. This punishes those with the least ability to absorb shocks: small businesses and everyday Americans.

Pin’s testimony showed that unpredictability may sound clever in theory, but in practice, it undermines the stability that Main Street depends on. Tariffs become a tax that’s passed down the chain until it lands on consumers.

Act VIII: Tariffs and the American Consumer

Economists have long debated who pays tariffs. While importers pay at the border, those costs are almost always passed on to consumers through higher prices. Studies from Yale and other institutions confirm that the effective tariff rate has soared, impacting costs across the supply chain.

Pin’s insistence on a direct answer wasn’t just for rhetorical effect—it was a demand for transparency. Consumers deserve to know how policy affects their wallets, not just how it plays in negotiations.

Act IX: The Political Stakes—Rhetoric vs. Reality

Bessant’s refusal to answer highlighted a broader problem in economic policy debates: the tendency to hide behind complexity and jargon. Pin’s plain truth—“consumers pay”—was a rebuke to this tendency.

Economic policy only works when it’s explained honestly. Tariffs may serve as tools in trade negotiation, but their real-world impact is felt by those least able to absorb new costs. Pin’s breakdown forced the administration to confront reality instead of rhetoric.

Act X: Moving Forward—Policy, Advocacy, and Accountability

The hearing ended with a call for more honest conversation. Pin urged policymakers to focus on Main Street, not Wall Street. He demanded accountability, transparency, and a recognition of the real-world impact of tariffs.

What Should Change?

Transparent Communication:

Support for Small Business:

Stable Policy Environment:

Consumer Protection:

The Role of Congress

Congress holds the key to tariff policy. Lawmakers must balance negotiation tactics with the needs of Main Street. Accountability and transparency are essential.

The Role of Small Business

Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. Their voices must be heard in policy debates. They deserve stability, support, and a fair playing field.

Conclusion: Beyond Talking Points—Economic Policy and Everyday Life

The congressional showdown over tariffs was a microcosm of the broader struggle between rhetoric and reality in economic policy. Pin’s simple question—“Who pays tariffs?”—cut through the noise and demanded accountability.

Tariffs are more than negotiation tools. They’re taxes that land on consumers and small businesses. Economic instability creates cover for price hikes and squeezes those least able to absorb new costs. Pin’s insistence on plain truth was a reminder that policy must serve the real needs of Americans, not just the logic of global investors.

As debates continue over trade, tariffs, and the future of the American economy, moments like this offer a lesson: economic policy only works when it’s explained honestly and designed for those who live its consequences every day.