Make Money Tracking Congressional Stock Trades

Seemingly well-timed stock trades by members of Congress have raised eyebrows in the heartland but official Washington continues to wink at their astounding good fortune. Portfolios of lawmakers on both sides of the aisles have often outperformed the S&P 500 Index by wide margins. 

Their stock trading skills cannot be chalked up to luck or skill. Speculation--supported by trading patterns--indicate Washington's elected officials are using privileged information to enrich themselves in the market. Forget hiring a financial advisor.  Just mimic lawmakers' portfolios.

Data from Unusual Whales and public disclosures required by Congress provide a public window into the trading activity of representatives and senators. Unusual Whales tracks two Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) for investors who want to imitate the portfolios of Democrat and Republican lawmakers.  

The two ETF funds have likely outperformed your portfolio. For the period from February, 2023, through August 31 of this year, the fund that follows Democrat trades has returned 73% while the Republican version logged a paper profit of 41%.

During that time frame, the Democrat-focused ETC outpaced Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF by 12 percentage points.  Republicans were less fortunate during that time period. The ETF mirroring their trades lagged Vanguard's ETF by almost 20 percentage points.

A 2024 research report found that senators as a group beat the stock market by an average of 12% per year in the 1990's.  An article in ScienceDirect found that politicians' trading activity increases when they are in session, fueling conjecture that publicly undisclosed information may be driving trading.

ScienceDirect based its findings on an examination of 181,029 congressional stock trades from 4,630 trading days.  Their research uncovered that politicians make more buy trades during times of high economic policy uncertainty and equity market volatility.  

Morningstar, an investment research firm, examined the Unusual Whales funds and found the top stocks currently owned by Democrats, included Nividia, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Apple, Salesforce, Crowdstrike and Netflix.  

Republicans favor JP Morgan Chase, Bitcoin ETF,  Nvidia, AT&T, Chevron, Allstate, Intel and Comfort Systems USA, which serves the Heating and Air Contractors industry. The stocks listed for Dems and the GOP represent their largest holdings, amounting to 40-to-50% of their portfolios. 

Some of the wealthiest members of Congress have been targets of scrutiny because they are among the most active traders in the market. Near the top is former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, whose estimated net worth is $267.6 million.  

The 84-year-old has extensive holdings in Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Netflix, according to Quiver Quantitative, a market research firm.  From 2014 to 2025, Pelosi racked up a 794.30% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) on her stock portfolio. 

Next to Warren Buffet, Pelosi may have the largest following among individual investors. 

Another whale is Virginia Democrat Senator Mark Warner, whose fortune is estimated at  $247.36.  Much of his wealth was built on founding the venture capital firm Columbia Capitol.  Since 2009, Warner has made 113 trades worth $65.59 million.  

In the Senate, Warner serves on four key committees, including the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Intelligence; Finance, and, the Budget.  His assignments give him special insight into financial institutions, securities, insurance, energy and international trade. 

Warner and Pelosi's wealth is eclipsed by Florida Republican Rich Scott, who is worth a reported $549.91 million, according to Quiver Quantitative and Investopedia. However, the exact amount of his wealth remains contested because of his debts.  

Scott was a co-founder of HCA Healthcare in 1988 and Solantic in 2001. Since 2019 , the Republican has made 352 trades worth an estimated $239.68 million. according to Quiver Quantitive. Scott serves on the Armed Services Committee, which oversees military spending and research.  

This glimpse into Congressional stock trading should raise red flags with Americans, especially those who struggle to build modest stock returns for retirement. In 2012, public outcry over charges of insider trading, shamed lawmakers into passing the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act.

The law prohibits federal officials from using nonpublic information gained from their positions for personal financial gain.  The act also mandated more frequent online public disclosures of certain stock trades and requires disclosure of mortgage information.  

It was a start but the trading in individual stocks continues unabated. It is nearly impossible to prove members have benefited from so-called insider information. In fact, no member of Congress has even been prosecuted for violating the law.  But that doesn't mean there haven't been indiscretions.

Business Insider and several others news organizations recently identified 78 members of Congress who have failed to properly report their financial trades.  They usually make excuses, pleading ignorance of the law, clerical errors or a mistake by an accountant.  It's just a game to lawmakers.

It is time for real reform.  A bipartisan bill to ban trading of individual stocks by lawmakers lies dormant in the House.  The bill, The Restore Trust in Congress Act, has 16 co-sponsors.  But behind the scenes, powerful lawmakers are blocking its path to a vote.  The president has pledged to sign the bill.

Without news coverage and support from voters, the bill is likely to be cremeated rather than buried.  You can help save it by writing or calling your Senators and House member.  If we the people won't act, then senators and representatives will continue to enrich themselves by trading in stocks.   

The Ugly Aftermath of Charlie Kirk Assassination

Sadness and shame haunt our nation in the aftermath of the political assassination of conservative Charlie Kirk. A bullet fired from a rifle ended the life of the 31-year-old who rose to fame touring college campuses to promote free speech and debate.  He leaves behind a wife and two children.

Charlie was a hero to millions of young people in Generation Z (13-28 years old). Charlie's podcasts, campus appearances and YouTube interviews generated billions of views.  His killing leaves the same searing memory for Gen Z as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy did for my generation.  

Details of the shooting and the craven assassin have been obsessively covered in the media.  There will be no rehashing of the evil that struck down Charlie but failed to silence his movement.  However, the shameless exploitation of a human being's death is a stain on the nation. 

Videos of people celebrating Charlie's murder peppered social media after the shooting. The Satanic messengers were mostly young, political activists, the disenfranchised, people of color and a few celebrities. The stench of hatred on social media was on full display for the world to see.  

Widely circulated memes claimed Charlie wished harm to LGBTQ people. He was racist, homophobic, a fascist and a Nazi. Charlie's quotes were taken out of context to smear his character.  Liberal detractors could not stomach Charlie being seen as a martyr. 

The corporate news media also performed disgracefully in this dark moment. In the aftermath, news reports labeled Charlie Kirk a right winger whose message incited violence.  A reporter on a cable channel insinuated Charlie had it coming because he used "hateful words." 

Their characterization exposes how little the media cares about honesty.  Charlie appeared on campuses and offered students an opportunity to debate ideas.  He was never mean spirited or treated students with disrespect.  Characterizing his views "dangerous" exposes the cultural rot in the country. 

Imagine the vacuous media calling "hate speech" Charlie telling college kids not to get abortions, to embrace capitalism, to be monogamous, to turn to God, to reject the notion of men competing in women's sports and to love America.  Those are traditional Christian values, not extremism.  

The dishonest media stooped to new lows once the identity of the shooter was released. Police and the district attorney painted the picture of a radicalized 22-year-old who was in a romantic relationship with a transitioning male.  Despite the facts, the media branded the assassin a Trump supporter. 

The killer was white and had a gun.  In the biased media's view, that screams MAGA.  Their characterization fell apart when the alleged assassin's parents recounted their son's descent into leftist dogma.  That didn't stop a comedian from asserting the killer was clearly "one of them"--MAGA. 

What the venal media should focus on is the increasing political violence in the nation, particularly among Generation Z.   A 20-year old shot and wounded President Trump.  A 23-year old opened fire at a Minnesota Catholic Church, killing two and wounding 21 parishioners.

The accused killer of the CEO of UnitedHealthCare is 26-years old.  Last week's shooter at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Dallas was 29-years-old. Authorities said the killer took his own life after shooting three detainees, including one fatally. 

Surveys from 2024 and this year indicate a concerning trend of increased acceptance of violence among young people, especially political violence.  While older generations overwhelmingly reject violence, a growing minority of young adults find it acceptable in some circumstances. 

A poll this month by YouGov showed among adults under 30, 19% said political violence can sometimes be justified.  The Edelman Trust Barometer in January reported its poll found 31% of Gen Z justify violence, property damage and misinformation as means for social change.

Another survey this year by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression polled college students and discovered 34% of these young people say "using violence to stop a campus speech" can be acceptable. 

And it's not just political violence that some young people endorse.   A study by Psychology of Violence found that 41% of young adults viewed the murder of a CEO to be acceptable. This should trip alarm bells with every parent, teacher, professor and counselor as well as society at large. 

Many blame the radicalization of today's young people on social media. It's a convenient scapegoat for the lazy. Virtually every young person in America consumes social media.  But only a tiny minority commit murder.  Shouldn't we demand personal accountability instead of just blaming algorithms?

The media, educators, parents, the police and politicians should be asking hard questions about the radicalization of Generation Z.  How can someone believe that it's okay to kill a person over political or social beliefs?  Why is violence  happening so often? What can be done to stop it? 

It doesn't seem too much to ask that the police reveal the motive of each shooter who commits horrific acts of violence, instead of lapsing into obfuscation.  There is a timidness among law enforcement and prosecutors not to assign blame to radicalization or political rhetoric for stoking hatred.

The politicians and media have no shame in finger pointing after each episode.  But digging into the profile of shooters, their background, influencers and media consumption could reveal what contributes to violence.  Surely terms such as Hitler, Nazi and Gestapo are ammunition for depraved minds.       

It is instructive that after Kirk was gunned down, his millions of followers--mostly Generation Z--did not commit acts of vengeful violence.  No property was damaged.  No buildings were torched.  Cars were not set ablaze.  There were no angry mobs protesting and assaulting police. 

The reaction stands in stark contrast to the property damage and assaults during ICE raids.  The burning of Teslas because of the company's CEO politics. The assaults on police officers trying to restore order to the streets during out-of-control protests.  Actual violence begets more violence.   

Charlie Kirk above all else was an evangelist.  He proudly professed his faith in Jesus Christ on college campuses. He called others to return to God and to live out their faith.  He would've been proud that his followers refused to bow to hatred by singing hymns, praying and comforting one another.

Their example gives a ray of hope to a nation scarred by violence. Meanwhile, Charlie's legacy has ignited a religious and political awakening that is reverberating throughout the country.   

Crime Data: Misleading Statistics

Questions are swirling around crime data in the wake of the deployment of National Guard members to the nation's capital. City officials claim murders have declined.  National data suggests all crime has shrunk. But how reliable are the numbers?  There is evidence the data is problematic. 

Pew Research Center analyzed data in an effort to answer the question: "How much crime is there in the U.S." Their answer: "It's difficult to say for certain." The two primary sources of government crime statistics--the FBI and The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)--paint an incomplete picture.

FBI reports, once the gold standard, is pocked with Swiss cheese holes. In 2019, 89% of municipal police departments submitted crime data to the agency.  To compensate for the incomplete data, the FBI estimated the missing municipalities crime numbers.  

In 2020, the FBI recorded a historic single-year increase in homicides of 30% in the aftermath of the George Floyd nationwide riots. There are some experts who believe the violent crime data that year was actually worse because big city police were swamped and reporting may have suffered as a result. 

The 2021 FBI data failed to improve. The bureau modernized its data collection system. Thousands of police agencies fell through the cracks. Only 63% of police departments submitted crime data, meaning 6,000 municipalities failed to report numbers. The FBI reported crime fell.   

Then in 2022, the FBI under Christopher Wray regrouped to right the data ship.  Pew reports 83% of police agencies participated. Two of the largest police departments in the country--New York and Los Angeles--were missing from the final FBI crime report. Unsurprisingly, crime declined.   

The FBI initially reported an estimated 1.7% decrease in violent crime. Later in 2023, the agency quietly revised the data, reporting a 4.5% increase in crime for 2022.  The FBI failed to include 1,699 murder, 7,780 rapes, 33,459 robberies and 37,091 aggravated assaults--a staggering oversight.

The bureau reported 19,800 homicide victims in 2023.  The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its cause of death data for the same year, counting 22,830 homicide deaths.  Its records are compiled from the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program provided by 57 jurisdictions. 

Last month the FBI issued its 2024 report from 16,419 police departments, still short of the 18,000 previously reporting crime data. Violent crime decreased 4.5%.  Leaving aside the issue of the veracity of the data, a violent crime occurred on average every 25.9 seconds somewhere in America.  

The Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is second only to the FBI in perceived importance. It is a national survey of about 240,000 people 12 and older.  Participants are asked if they have been a victim of a crime in the past six months.  The methodology obviously eliminates murder victims, an obvious flaw.

However, the NCVS is recognized as more accurate in capturing the overall picture of violent crime, which includes rape, robbery aggravated assault, robbery and manslaughter.   While the FBI reported decreases in 2021 and 2022, the NCVS data for the same period shows violent victimization rose 75%.    

Data from most sources depends on local police records. And that's another problem.  In Washington, D.C., the flashpoint for crime, the head of the Metropolitan Police Department's top union official claims higher ups are fudging the crime data by directing cops to downgrade felonies to a lesser offense,

The union boss Gregg Pemberton shared his accusations with NBC Washington.  The contention followed the police department's suspension of a commander in mid-May for allegedly changing crime statistics in his local district. No word on how widespread the practice is.  

Even though the nation's capital has recorded a 27% drop in violent crime this year, it still has the fourth highest homicide rate in the country, nearly six times higher than New York City.  The city has recorded 103 fatal shootings this year.  For comparison, there were 105 murders in 2014.

Chicago has been in the spotlight after President Trump threatened to send the National Guard to the Windy City.  Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has stiff armed any suggestion of federal assistance, pointing out homicides decreased by 7.3% last year, but still higher than pre-pandemic figures.

A University of Chicago Crime Lab report underscores the "persistent challenging patterns" of violence in the city.  Black residents are 22 more times likely to be killed compared to white residents. In some Chicago neighborhoods, a black person is 68 times more likely to be a victim of a fatal shooting.

And, while violent crime is down, the Crime Lab notes it is still higher than the five year average.  The primary contributors are soaring aggravated assaults, aggravated batteries and robberies, according to the Crime Lab. Since 2010, the rate at which shooting victims die from a gunshot has soared 44.9%.

You won't hear those numbers from the mayor, who has overseen the shrinking of the Chicago police force.  There are now fewer officers than the city had in 2018, a decline of nearly 13%.  In addition, Johnson has failed to deliver on a campaign pledge to add 200 more detectives, WGN reported.

The mayor's credibility took another hit Labor Day weekend when 58 Chicagoans were shot, eight fatally.  This underscores the issue in many large cities.  Crime may be down, if you believe the statistics, but it begs the question: How much crime is too much?

In many big cities such as Chicago, too many repeat offenders with long criminal records are arrested and freed without bail.  Failure to address this situation results in career criminals preying on the most vulnerable. Until district attorneys incarcerate thugs, systemic violent crime will continue.  

The credibility of crime data is not some conservative conspiracy as Democrats contend.  The Legal Defense Fund, a liberal group, called crime statistics "unreliable" because many crimes go unreported by victims.  Even reported crimes may not be recorded by police, the group points out.

Another liberal group, the VERA Institute, examined the FBI data and gave this assessment: "The FBI estimates national and state totals, sometimes using a relative small percentage of jurisdictions in a state" to flesh out its data making the numbers "deeply problematic."

VERA performed its own research on the quality of policing data from 94 of the country's largest cities.  Researchers concluded: "The results were, perhaps, predictably underwhelming.  Of the 94 localities included, only 21 scored more than 50 out of 100 on Vera's index, which rates the data's completeness. 

Public safety and crime are key issues with voters.  A recent national poll commissioned by the Associated Press (AP) found that 81% of Americans believe crime is a major problem in big cities.  Those running America's largest cities often seem out of touch with local concerns.    

It's time for Congress to standardize crime reporting methodology for local and state police organizations, while ending voluntary participation, and instead mandating records be furnished to the FBI. The agency also should be required to overhaul its processes in the interest of accuracy.

Crime data is not an academic exercise.  The numbers are essential to understanding the resources--both funding and manpower--needed to make all Americans safer.    

Harnessing AI's Power Without Sapping Resources

The Artificial Intelligence arms race between nations dwarfs the nuclear weapons competition of decades past.  Investments in AI are estimated to eclipse $7 trillion worldwide by 2030.  The capital intensive technology will require massive amounts of resources, including electricity, water and land.

Many countries are waking up to the perils of the explosive growth of generative AI and the rapid deployment of the technology.  It is dawning on leaders at the national, state and local level that there are unprecedented challenges fueled by the AI gold rush with little time to adapt.

At the birth of AI,  experts worried the technology would replace millions of jobs. That issue temporarily has been taken a backseat as the world watches the relentless building boom of data centers. A new AI data center is expected to come online every day this year, totaling 504 by year's end.

Capital required to finance this rapid expansion in AI data centers is expected to hit $6.7 trillion by 2030, according to a study by McKinsey & Company.  The price tag includes money for land, site development, power and cooling generators, hardware and human capital.

Private sector investment in AI topped $100 billion in the U.S. last year, nearly 10 times as much as China.  During the period from 2013 to 2023, private sector firms spent $470 billion, four times more than China. The government, mostly defense, spent $5.2 billion during the same ten year period.

Amazon leads the tech titans with a cap ex investment this year projected to top $100 billion and potentially could reach $118 billion. The corporate behemoth operates more than 100 data centers worldwide, each of which houses about 50,000 servers to support cloud computing services.

This insatiable demand for capital is stressing corporate balance sheets and forcing a recalibration of the financial resources needed to build the backbone of the new economy.  For perspective, that $7 trillion figure represents more than the Gross Domestic Product of every country but two: the U.S. and China.

Although data centers have been around since the 1940's, training and using AI requires enormous amounts of computing power in data centers.   AI centers consume seven to eight times more energy than a typical computing workload, according to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)  study.

AI data centers house advanced computing, network and storage architectures, buttressed by energy and cooling systems to handle high density workloads. AI centers are crammed with graphics processing units (GPU) that generate intense heat.    

A unique feature of generative AI is the increased fluctuations in energy use which occur over different phases in training machine learning.  One study estimated the training process to deploy a recent Open AI model consumed 1,287 megawatt hours of electricity, enough to power 120 average homes. 

Scientists estimate the power requirements for data centers nearly doubled just between 2022 and the end of 2023.  MIT researchers calculated that by 2026 the electricity consumption of all data centers will approach 1,050 terawatt hours. Each terawatt equals one trillion watts of electricity.  

A major new International Energy Agency (IEA) report calculates that data centers worldwide are expected to more than double by 2030, requiring around 945 terawatt hours of electricity, less than the MIT estimate by still a hefty amount.  That is more than the entire electricity consumption of Japan.

An already taxed electricity grid has prompted major technology companies to invest in their own energy facilities and to strike agreements for  dedicated electricity resources. Microsoft, for instance, has agreed to purchase  $16 billion in energy from the restarted Three Mile Island nuclear facility. 

Goggle is collaborating with Karios Power and the Tennessee Valley Authority to deploy advanced nuclear energy to supplement the electricity grid to power its data centers in Tennessee and Alabama. Amazon is partnering with Talen Energy to secure nuclear power from the Susquehanna power station.

Current data centers are already contributing to rising consumer electricity rates. The 13-state region served by PJM Interconnection is home to the largest concentration of data centers. Residential consumers were hit with a 20% spike in rates this summer as PJM's costs soared $9 billion.

Today's hyper scale AI data centers require as much as 1,200 acres or more to build.  To accommodate those acreage requirements, data centers are being constructed farther and farther away from cities. Currently, data centers have gobbled up 282.8 million square feet of land in the U.S.   

Northern Virginia, home to a high concentration of data centers, reports 51 million square feet of land dedicated to the facilities.  Operators require large tracts of land to develop multiple buildings over time. The acreage includes buffer zones for cooling plants, backup generators and electrical substations. 

Water consumption is often an overlooked issue when it comes to AI data centers. Training AI models generates significant heat, increasing the need for water to cool and to keep the humidity low. One study found that as much as 720 billion gallons of water annually will be needed by 2028 for AI data centers.

Googles's data center in Henderson, Nevada, consumed 352 million gallons of water in 2024, according to data obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.  Goggle reported using more than 6 billion gallons of water in 2023 for all of its data centers.

The water and power resource drain is already causing some cities to rethink support for construction of massive data center projects. Tucson's city council recently defeated a proposal for a 290-acre data center in Pima County over concerns about water and electricity consumption.

The project would have generated $250 million in tax revenue and created 3,000 temporary construction jobs and provided 180 permanent positions.  Local officials identified the company as Amazon, but the firm declined to comment on the proposed Henderson facility.

This litany of thorny issues facing AI should not detract from its enormous potential.  Goldman Sachs predicts AI will boost the global GDP by $7 trillion over ten years.  McKinsey projects generative AI will add between $2.6 trillion and $4.4 trillion annually to the world's economy. 

The winner in the AI race will be those countries that encourage industry to address the requirements for power, water, acreage and financing before it's too late. The good news is the AI transformation is already fueling cutting edge solutions that will help fulfill the promise of the technological revolution.    

A Perspective On Removing Illegal Immigrants

Removing illegal immigrants from the country is not a new idea hatched by the Trump Administration. You wouldn't know it, judging by today's news coverage. Few, if any, Americans know a 1995 law signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton paved the way for millions of deportations and removals.  

Bipartisan legislation known as The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act green lighted the removal of illegals. Under Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Barrack Obama there were 27 million illegal immigrants ushered out of the United States.  

Likely, you are shaking your head.  That number--27 million--can't be accurate.  You won't find it in reporting by The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and MSNBC.  Those media hide behind bogus fact-checkers to claim the number is inflated.  But it's not.

The legacy media cabal claim the past "removals" data cannot be equated with Trump's deportations.  Fact checkers parse the word "due process" to argue previous administrations did not ignore the Constitution to send illegal immigrants out of the country.  

The truth is illegal immigrants were deported under previous presidents, regularly without hearings.  Whether you use the term "removals" or "deportations," the outcome was the same. Semantics aside, illegals were sent out of the country at the border and from the country's interior.   

Also, illegal immigrants who lived in the U.S. for 365 days or more were required to remain outside the country for ten years, unless they obtained a waiver. The act allowed the deportation of illegal immigrants who committed a misdemeanor or a felony. Those who overstayed visas could be removed.

Raise your hand if you knew about these provisions. Even fewer Americans know that many of the bill's provisions remain in force today. The Biden Administration chose to ignore the law, inviting in at least 10 million illegal immigrants to waltz into the country, while lying that the border was secure. 

Other Democrat presidents and President Bush viewed illegal immigration differently than Biden. 

Under Clinton, 12 million illegals were either deported, removed or returned during his two terms. The terminology doesn't matter. The fact is 11.4 million of those illegals were apprehended at the border and were given the choice: return to Mexico or face formal deportation hearings.  Most returned to Mexico. 

During the Bush Administration, more than 10 million illegals were sent out of the country. A large majority of those immigrants--8.3 million--were stopped at the border and returned to Mexico. About 1.6 million were deported over eight years.  

The data for Bush and Clinton removals and deportations comes from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The number of deportations ratcheted up during President Obama's eight years in office. Between 2009 and 2012 the administration deported 1.6 million illegal immigrants, according to Pew Research. Of those, Pew found that 690,000 had criminal records. The final tally under Obama was 5 million. 

Obama defenders prefer to point out that as president he signed an executive order in 2012 protecting certain young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children from temporarily being deported.  However, Obama's action was at least partly in response to criticism from some in his party.

Immigration activists labeled Obama the "Deporter In Chief" for his rapid removal of illegal immigrants.  

For the record,  Obama officials deportation priorities were national security threats; noncitizens convicted of three or more misdemeanors or one serious crime; those who abused visa or visa waiver programs. DHS also targeted illegals who had a pending removal issue on or before January 1, 2014, but had remained in the country.  

A Democrat untruth is that every illegal immigrant received their day in court under Obama. Not according to the American Civil Liberties Union.  Here's what the ACLU posted on its website during the Obama years:

"The reality is that this (Obama) Administration has increasingly relied on methods, such as expedited removal and reinstatements of old decisions, which bypass a judicial hearing where a judge can consider U.S. ties and individuals circumstances and also fail to offer basic protections like notice to counsel."

Obama also had the cooperation of local police in cities.  His DHS department asked local police to hold an immigrant already in custody for forty-eight hours to give the feds can opportunity to place the migrant into deportation proceedings or take the individual into custody.

Given recent history, the Democrat hysterics and borderline delirium over current Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests and deportations are hypocrisy.  There is very little daylight between the Trump Administration's deportation priorities and those of Obama. 

What's changed is the name of the president.  Obama deported more noncitizens than any president in U.S. history. Mayors didn't threaten DHS agents. No Congressmen or women demanded to peek inside detention centers. No federal judges halted deportations for lack of due process. There were no riots.

Moreover, the Border Patrol under Obama put children in detention centers , encircled by razor-wire fences.  Here's what the Arizona Republic wrote at the time:

"But they are still children in cages, not delinquents.  Just children, 900 of them, in a makeshift border town center that is longer than a football field." Similar articles appeared in the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times.  When Trump later used the same detention centers, he was skewered.

Criticize President Trump's deportations if you wish. But what the administration is doing is not beyond the norm of previous Democrat presidents. Some may suggest that the Trump plan includes deporting non-criminals or individuals who have been in the country for years but are not citizens.

It is beyond naive to claim that under Obama there were no such instances.  There was no oversight by Congress or the media.   

What America is dealing with today goes beyond what Obama faced.   Former President Biden created a nightmare immigration scenario that undid decades of immigration policies aimed at protecting the country. He and his administration deserve the blame for the current chaos.

The immigration issue was at least partly responsible for Americans voting for Donald Trump.  Democrats ceded the high ground on illegal immigration during the last four years.  Their current faux outrage and performative protests are nothing more than political theater.   

The Myths and Misinformation About Tariffs

The latest four-letter word has not one but two "f's."  Although it has six letters, "tariff" rouses the same nastiness as the other "f" word.  The ongoing tariff war between President Trump and U.S. trading partners stirs passionate supporters and detractors at home and abroad.  

Democrats, the media and many on Wall Street land solidly in the camp of critics. The cabal has carried out an assault on Trump's plan to implement reciprocal tariffs.  The detractors have been guilty of deceptive partisanship rhetoric and a torrent of disinformation. 

Perspective has been universally ignored or deliberately obfuscated. Listening and reading the commentaries the average American might legitimately assume levying tariffs is a new phenomena instituted by Trump.  Or that tariffs are somehow unAmerican. Both assumptions are wrong.

For perspective, the U.S. trade deficit surged to an eye-watering $1.1 trillion in 2024 as Americans bought more imported products than our producers exported. The U.S. ran a $226 billion deficit with its top trading partners: Mexico and Canada. The largest deficit was with China: $270 billion.  

Trade deficits lead to job losses in domestic industries, particularly the manufacturing sector. Reduced production in key technology, military and mineral sectors increases dependence on foreign suppliers.  Deficits can also contribute to the nation's debt, as the U.S. relies on foreign borrowing to finance imports. 

Tariffs were first levied by the nascent United States in 1789.  The architect was Alexander Hamilton who shepherded a law passed by the new government authorizing tariffs.  Duties were slapped on a range of imported goods to help pay down Revolutionary War debts and protect American markets.

Trump's goals for reordering tariffs are similar to Hamilton's motives. The president favors reciprocal tariffs, mirroring each country's tariffs on American goods.  Some tariffs, like those on steel, are designed to protect our manufacturing base. Tariff income will go toward paying down national debt. 

U.S. tariff revenues for June eclipsed the $100 billion mark for the fiscal year after the country received $27 billion in custom duties for June. Compared to last June, the figures have skyrocketed 301%, according to the Treasury Department's Customers and Certain Excise Taxes data.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent estimated that the heightened tariffs may generate as much as $300 billion for the federal government by the end of the fiscal year.  For clarification's sake, businesses pay the duties on imported goods directly to the U.S. government. 

Another perception created by the detractors revolves around changing tariffs. Many argue that the tariffs do not need to be  altered. Tinkering with tariffs creates turbulence and uncertainty, miffs allies and drives up the prices Americans pay for goods and services.  

Firstly, tariffs seldom have remained static.  Countries around the world are constantly tweaking tariffs, primarily to protect home markets.  For its part, since 1789 this country's tariffs have swung back and forth. Tariffs were changed in 1890, 1913, 1920 and 1921, just to name a few examples.

The Tariff Act of 1930, designed to protect American agriculture, raised duties on 20,000 imported products.  Canada, Britain and France among others retaliated with their own tariff increases.  Sound familiar?  In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there was a concerted effort to reduce tariffs.

During the back-and-forth over the years, tariffs have been as low as zero and as high as 49%.  

Critics have cried foul, fearing that Trump's tariff threats will disrupt the free flow of goods.  However, a trade war has raged under the radar against the U.S. for decades.  Tariffs and non-tariff barriers have been levied against America's producers by foreign countries, including traditional allies.

At the end of 2024, the average U.S. rate on all imports was 2.5% with no restrictions.  Canada had a duty free import tax, but it has many restrictions.  For example there are restrictions on dairy, chicken and eggs, putting a quota on imports. There are additional restrictions on fruits, beer and alcohol. 

Mexico also had a duty free levy on imports, but bans the importation of U.S. medical devices, pharmaceuticals, steel products, agricultural chemicals, cheese, milk, yogurt, mobile devices and genetically engineered corn and dough.  

Other countries have higher duties, for example: Japan; 3.9%; India 18.1%; European Union, 5.1%; China, 7.5%; Brazil, 11.1%; Argentina; 13.3%; Malaysia, 5.6%; Norway, 5.2%; Pakistan, 10.3%; Switzerland, 5.6%; Taiwan, 6.5%; Thailand, 9.7%; Turkey 16.8%; and Vietnam, 9.6%. 

The European Union has particularly onerous restrictions on U.S. imports. The confederation imposes a 26% tariff on fish and seafood; 10% on passenger vehicles; and, a 22% tariff on trucks. Additionally, the EU restricts or prohibits U.S. imports of beef, wine, pork and beef to name just a few products. 

The data is unambiguous. It's inaccurate to claim there is free and unrestricted trade among U.S. trading partners. 

The tariff pundits, particularly those on Wall Street, postulate that a tariff is a tax on goods and services.  That is a misleading characterization.  The EU places an average value added tax (VAT) of 21.8% on U.S. imports in addition to the tariffs.  The U.S. has no equivalent tax on imports. 

By using the misnomer "tax," critics want consumers to believe import duties automatically boost retail prices. The truth is companies that import goods decide how much, if any amount, to pass along to the consumer.  Often, foreign exporters lower their costs of goods to offset the tariffs.

Companies in competitive markets are more likely to find ways to mitigate the impact on consumer prices.  But firms with market power can pass the full cost of the tariff to the consumer.  For the sake of fairness, the factual answer on consumer prices is: "it depends" on market competition and the business.

The anti-Trump brigade on Wall Street point to the recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 2.7% as proof tariffs are increasing consumer prices. However, the Producer Price Index, which measures wholesale costs, showed no change in June.  In fact, the June number was the lowest since September 2024.

Unlike the CPI which measures prices from a consumer perspective, the PPI focuses on the producers costs. The latter provides insight into inflationary pressures in the economy and is closely followed by the Federal Reserve.  Rising wholesale prices often signal higher consumer prices.   

This helps validate the administration's view that tariffs are not solely responsible for increases in  consumer prices. The prices reflect retailers of goods and services choosing to increase costs for other reasons, such as wage hikes, transportation costs and supplier increases.

The biggest losers in any trade war will be the countries that export to the U.S., which has advantages of size, economic resilience and consumers with money to spend. Despite what you may hear, there is no other country's economy that could absorb the lion's share of  the imports transported to the U.S. 

In spite of complaints by free-trade hawks and naysayers, President Trump's tariffs are aimed at leveling the playing field for U.S. exports to foreign countries and reviving U.S. manufacturing.  No question it's a high risk strategy.  But fair treatment for American workers and companies is worth pursuing.  

It's Big, But Is It Beautiful or Ugly?

Dueling political narratives have flared up with the passage of President Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill.  Democrats argue it doles out tax breaks for billionaires and penalizes the poor.  Republicans retort it boosts paychecks for working families and cuts waste and fraud.   

The 887-page bill hashed out between the Republican controlled House and Senate was signed into law on July 4 after days of intrigue, party in-fighting, partisan rancor, arm-twisting and all-night voting sessions. The political war of words is becoming a flashpoint for next year's mid-term elections.

Democrats have lifted the curtain on their tactic for next year's attack ads aimed at building a majority in both houses of Congress.  Here's an early preview of criticisms of the bill along with the specific provisions in the mega package: 

• The bill is just a tax break for billionaires.    Tax rates on every person--from the poorest to the richest--will remain where they are. The legislation makes the tax cuts permanent, with annual inflation adjustments for those in the 10, 12 and 22 percent tax brackets.  It also increases standard deductions from $15,000 to $15,750 for individual taxpayers and from $30,000 to $31,500 for married couples filing jointly, subject to income limits. Taxes on businesses remain at 21%.  Prior to the 2017 law businesses were taxed at 35%. There are also reduced limits on business expensing and deductions. 

• But billionaires are getting the biggest tax break.  Households making under $50,000 receive a 14.9% tax cut in the legislation.  Households earning under $100,000 got a 12% tax break.  The top 1%--the billionaires and millionaires--received a 2.4% tax cut from the rates they paid prior to 2017.  

• The bill does nothing for the middle class and poor. New deductions for tips, overtime and car loan interest support hourly workers. The new law increases the child tax credit to $2,200 from $2,000 starting in 2026. The credits are adjusted annually for inflation.  The bill will allow individuals to deduct tips on wages and overtime pay for tax years 2025 through 2028. The bill caps the deductions on tips at $25,000 per year.  Under the legislation, no taxes apply to overtime up to $12,500 per individual. The tax benefits phase out for individuals making $150,000 or more. It also allows borrowers to deduct up to $10,000 in car loan interest payments for the next four tax years, if final assembly for the car was in the U.S. Eligibility is tied to income: Those earning $100,000 or less ($200,000 for joint filers) qualify. The mortgage interest deduction remains capped at $750,000 for joint filers.   

• The law does not eliminate taxes on Social Security as promised.  Indeed, taxes on Social Security remain the same, despite the President Trump's campaign pledge.  However, the bill allows individuals 65+ with up to $150,000 in household income (joint filers) to subtract $6,000 from their income. Taxpayers earning more than $250,000 jointly or $175,000 individually are not eligible to receive the benefit. The standard deduction for Americans 65+ has been raised by $2,000 for individuals and $1,600 for households. An estimated 64% of seniors receiving Social Security will benefit from the changes.These deductions will expire at the end of 2028.The bottom 20% of taxpayers remain exempt from taxation on SS benefits. They pay no tax today.  Eliminating taxes on Social Security would have lowered federal revenues by $1.5 trillion over ten years, raising the federal debt.

• People will die because of Medicaid cuts. There are no cuts in Medicaid payments to eligible recipients. The law stipulates new requirements in 2027 for those who enroll in Medicaid.  Abled-bodied recipients will no longer be eligible unless they meet certain requirements, primarily working 20 hours a week.  The legislation exempts the disabled, pregnant women, those enrolled in school, anyone caring for a child younger than 14 or persons who volunteers at least 20 hours a week.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates there are 4.8 million of the 84.6 million people on Medicaid who will no longer qualify. Medicaid costs have spiraled out of control since 2019, rising 60%.  

•                                               
• People will go hungry without food stamps. There are 42.6 million people receiving benefits under Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps.  Despite fewer unemployed persons today, those receiving benefits remain the same as 2012. Under the Clinton Administration, there was a work requirement for food stamps.  The Biden Administration waived work requirements for able bodied people.  The new legislation adopts work requirements and requires states to contribute to SNAP benefits, which are now 100% funded by federal government. The bill specifies able-bodied adults without dependents must work 80 hours per month (or 20 hours per week) to qualify for food stamps. Exemptions are made for physically or mentally handcapped, pregnant women, those caring for young children and individuals enrolled in certain educational and training programs.  Additionally, veterans, the homeless and foster care youth under the age of 24 are exempted from work requirements. SNAP payments will continue at current levels.  It is unclear when the new work requirements will take effect.  The Agriculture Department is charged with issuing the final guidelines.                                         

• People will lose their healthcare coverage. The legislation imposes stricter income verification requirements while enhancing premium tax credits for purchasing Obamacare (Affordable Care Act).  The credits will lower out-of-pocket costs for Americans who enroll in ACA plans, which may lead to increased enrollment, particularly among low-to-middle-income facilities. Critics claim the eligibility verification will add more red tape for enrollees, causing some to drop out of the program. A total of 6.4 million individuals were fraudulently enrolled in ACA plans in 2025 alone, costing taxpayers an estimated $27 billion. In addition, the legislation excludes illegal immigrants from enrollment.   

• Medicare benefits are at risk.  Medicare benefits and spending are not changed under the legislation. However, about 1.3 million people who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid may have an increase in out-of-pocket costs. Some illegal immigrants may potentially lose their coverage, depending on the final rules adopted by Medicare.   

• The BBB will increase the national debt and produce budget deficits.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation will reduce tax revenues by $3.7 trillion over the 2025-2034 period, hiking the deficit by $2.4 trillion.  The estimate does not account for how the tax reduction will impact economic growth. The Tax Foundation puts the estimated federal budget deficits at $2.9 trillion covering the years 2025 through 2034.

• The bill negatively impacts the environment and eduction.  The bill ends the $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles on September 30.  It maintains tax credits for hydrogen, carbon capture, nuclear energy, geothermal energy and boosts oil drilling. Individual tax credits for residential energy projects, such as solar panels, expire after 2025. Tax credits for commercial wind and solar projects will continue as long as construction begins by June 2025 and facilities are placed in service by 2027. College endowments with more than $2 million in assets per student will pay an 8% tax on investment income. Institutions with fewer than 3,000 tuition paying students are exempt.  Under the legislation, student loan interest payments will resume this year after being suspended by the Biden Administration under a loan forgiveness program that was blocked by a federal appeals court. 

Parental Rights Under Assault In Education

A seminal cultural issue is the tug-of-war over parental rights and children's education. Increasingly parents are demanding more involvement in what's taught in schools. School districts are pushing back, contending they know what's best for students. Parental rights stop at the school's front door.  

A high-stakes battle over the issue has reached the nation's highest court.  The case involves Maryland parents pitted against the Montgomery County Board of Education.  Parents sued the district over LGBTQ themed books for pre-Kindergarten and elementary-aged children. 

The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in the case this summer.  The suit has reignited the simmering battle over school books, curriculum and teachers classroom guides. Many school boards and the teachers union have erected roadblocks to parental oversight of their child's education. 

At issue in the Maryland case, is the Montgomery County Board of Education's refusal to allow parents to opt out classes that use books with LGBTQ themes in elementary school.  Montgomery County is the 14th largest district in the nation with more than 160,000 students, including 70,000 elementary kids. 

In 2022, Maryland's largest district announced revisions to its curriculum would include new storybooks with young LGBTQ characters to foster diversity and inclusion.  Parents decided to take the issue to court in 2023 after the district refused to honor opt-out requests for students after saying it would.  

Maryland has a law as many states do that requires parental notification and the ability to opt-out of sexual education classes and controversial readings on related topics. The board's own guidelines guarantee parents may seek opt-outs and alternative assignments.  

The board reversed course when a vocal group of parents protested that the opt-out amounted to a violation of their First Amendment rights. Three families took issue with the powerful board, arguing the books subject matter infringed on their free exercise of religion. 

It's worth noting that the opposition group included members of the Catholic, Muslim and Ukrainian Orthodox churches.  They did not challenge the curriculum or demand the school district stop reading the books to other students.  All they asked was the right to have their children excused from the class.

The media has tried to frame this as book banning.  That is patently untrue. Others have contended that religious beliefs don't belong in public schools. But the parents are not lobbying to teach a religious point of view on LGBTQ.  They just don't want their kids exposed to gender affirming messages.

A Montgomery County district board member defended their decision by claiming if books "offend your family's religious values or your core beliefs is just telling (your) kid, 'Here's another reason to hate another person.'"  That irrational judgment reflects the board's contempt for parents. 

Parents should not be asked to surrender their right to instill religious upbringing for their children. Issues surrounding family life and human sexuality are at the heart of many religions teachings. Parents are the best guides on these matters, especially at the elementary and pre-K level. 

It helps to know the content of the richly illustrated books to understand the parents' position. The books, read to pre-K and elementary school-age children, champion pride parades, gender transitioning and pronoun preferences for children.  

As one example, a book tasks three-and-four-year olds to search for images from a word list that includes "intersex flag," "drag queen," leather and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Teaching guides suggest it is "hurtful" if students question these ideas.

The books included "My Rainbow," about a mother who makes a rainbow colored wig for her transgender daughter. Another, "Love Violet," tells the story of a girl who develops a crush on her female classmate Mira. Only Mira made "Violet's heart skip," the book emphasizes. 

One book describes the story of a girl attending her uncle's same-sex wedding. Another, innocently named "Puppy Pride," tells the story of a dog that gets lost during a pride parade.  The deceptively disguised LGBTQ ideology unfolds on the pages. 

The books were front and center when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April.  The case landed at the high court after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the parents of children enrolled in Montgomery County public schools had no right to be notified or opt-out their kids.

The high court has an opportunity to ratify parental rights and religious freedom in its decision.  In addition, the justices should make it clear that parents--not the state or school district--should have the right to decide when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.

Federal Taxes: Debunking The Democrat Narrative

Political theater is hogging the spotlight as Congress grapples with the issue of federal income taxes. The actors in Washington are repeating familiar lines.  Tax cuts benefit the oligarchs and billionaires. The wealthy don't pay their fair share. The tax burden falls on the shoulders of the little guy.

Leading roles are being played by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexander Ocasio-Cortez. The Democrat duo are barnstorming the hinterland braying about a "government of the billionaires, by the billionaires and for the billionaires."  The rich are to be scorned and their earnings confiscated. 

The truth is without millionaires and billionaires the federal government would run out of money.  But class warfare has always been viewed by Democrats as a winning political strategy.  Personal success is permissive as along as your income doesn't cross the border into seven figures. 

Taxes are on center stage because of the impending expiration of key provisions of President Trump's 2017 Tax cuts and Jobs Act. Republicans are pushing legislation to make the current taxes permanent, while Democrats are characterizing the package as a pay off to the wealthiest.

Facts are stubborn reminders of the progressive nature of America's tax code.  The more money you make, the federal government takes a larger share of your income.  The 2017 legislation reduced taxes for most Americans, including those in the top 1% of the income bracket.

What Democrats and their media allies are loath to admit is the Trump tax cuts benefited most those in three of the bottom four income brackets. Included are Americans who earn $12,250, $49,750 and $106,000.  Raising their tax rates would hurt the middle class. 

If the current tax cuts are not renewed and rates revert to 2016 levels, 62 percent of tax filers would experience increases in their personal income taxes in 2026. 

Those who rail about reductions in taxes for high earners ignore history's lesson.  Even as taxes have been reduced for the top tax bracket, their share of the income tax burden has grown.  Conversely, the bottom half of earners share of the tax burden has sharply declined. Those are indisputable facts.

In 1980 the top marginal rate was 70% for the wealthiest 1%.  They paid 19% of all federal income taxes.  Since then, their share of the tax burden has grown, even as the top marginal rates were lowered.  At the same time, the tax share of the bottom 50% has declined from 7% in 1980 to 2.96% in 2022.

The latest Internal Revenue Service data from 2022, shows the top 1%--those with incomes over $663,164--paid 40.43% of all federal income taxes. The current tax rate is 39.6% for top earners.The top ten percent of taxpayers--those earning $261,591 and above--paid 76% of personal income taxes.

Including the top 25%, the percentage of taxes paid reaches 89%.  The IRS collected 97% of all personal income taxes from the top 50%. Of the 161.3 million returns filed for the tax year 2022, a total of 50.7 million individuals paid no federal income tax.  

Liberals are quick to point out that taxpayers whose income are in the bottom 50% pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.  Employers collect these taxes from wages and pay the money directly to the IRS. Payroll taxes fund Social Security and Medicare. 

But that doesn't change the fact that the top 1% paid $855 billion dollars in personal income taxes in 2022, by far the largest share of any marginal tax rate group.  The wealthiest earned 22.4% of all the personal income yet paid nearly twice that percentage in taxes: 40.43%.

Tax fairness depends on your definition of what is equitable.  For historical perspective, the highest marginal tax rate was 94% during 1944.  From 1945 until 1963, it was 91%. By 1964, the rate fell to 77%. For the tax years 1991-1992, the rate dipped to 31%.  

Throughout those years, the top earners always paid the lion's share of taxes to Uncle Sam. 

The Trump tax cuts also lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.  Reverting to the higher rate would risk increasing inflation. Consumers ultimately pay corporate taxes.  Firms price their goods and services based on all their costs, including taxes.  Demagoguery doesn't change that fact. 

America does not have a revenue problem.  Spending is the chief issue. In the fiscal years of 2020-2024, the federal government spent $38.35 trillion. The gusher created a deficit chasm of $10.78 trillion over the same period. The national debt has ballooned to $36.22 trillion and counting. 

But even a suggestion of budget cuts triggers caterwauling throughout the halls of Congress.  People will go hungry if a smidgen is sliced from the federal government's budget.  But unless the federal budget growth is halted, taxes will need to be raised every year to avoid runaway deficits.

As the Washington drama unfolds, ignore the rhetoric.  This play acting is all about politics.  Democrats want to wreck the Trump presidency by raising taxes which will sink consumer confidence and rattle the  economy.  Winning the midterms is the goal without regard to costs to American household budgets.    

Unhinged Left Unleashes Attacks On Tesla

A hate fueled campaign targeting Elon Musk has turned violent.  The well-funded effort has rapidly escalated across at least 11 states.  Thugs have torched Tesla cars and trucks. Fired shots at dealerships. Vandalized Tesla charging stations.  Spray painted threatening signs: "Kill Elon."

The perpetrators have keyed Tesla cars in parking lots and garages. Spray painted swastikas, a symbol of Nazi Germany, on owners' cars. Tossed Molotov cocktails at parked cars.  Defaced cars and trucks with "f-Musk" in black paint.  The swarm of attacks appear to be more than just random acts.

A shadowy website called "Dogequest" has posted personal information of Tesla owners.  The dark site includes the names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of Tesla drivers. The anonymous creators claim they will remove the data when owners prove they have sold their Teslas.

The site has also posted personal information on employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).  Musk confirmed publicly that most DOGE employees have received death threats. This is not a peaceful form of protest, despite what activists assert.   

The dishonest media also has painted a target on Tesla with disparaging coverage. In the latest example, the Financial Times posted a story accusing Tesla of financial shenanigans, claiming it identified $1.4 billion in missing funds.  Days after the story tanked Tesla stock, the Times admitted it was untrue.

The politically charged backlash is driven by Musk's leadership of an effort to cut waste, fraud and abuse at the federal government at the direction of President Trump. Democrats, desperate for an issue, have made Musk a lightning rod for their often incendiary language about DOGE. 

Less than a year ago, Musk was a darling of Democrats and the left.  The electric car pioneer exemplified the drive to save the climate by making gasoline powered vehicles obsolete.  Democrats celebrated Musk for his financial support of the party's candidates, including Joe Biden in 2020.

Now Democrats and leftwing activist groups have made it their mission to financially destroy Elon and Tesla. Predictably, the rhetorical signaling has lent a sheen of virtue to the blitzkrieg of destruction. Attorney General Pam Bondi has labeled the violence "domestic terrorism," an apt description.  

Several perpetrators have been charged, but the combustible forces of vengeance and unhinged anger are showing no signs of abetting.  Arrests and prosecutions are welcome, however, the Department of Justice needs to follow the money funneled to organizations agitating the aggression against Tesla.

The money trail starts with a familiar Democrat billionaire: George Soros.  His Open Society Foundation has given $7.6 million to a group known as Indivisible Project.  The leftwing group also received $2 million from the Sandler Foundation, which funds the news platform ProPublica. 

From the Indivisible Project website in bold red letters: "Donald Trump and Elon Musk think this country belongs to them. We're taking to the streets nationwide to fight back with a clear message: HANDS OFF." Included on the site are signs reading: "GTFO Musk" and "Fire Elon Musk."

Indivisible Project is allied with Democratic Socialists of America, which is also backing protests against Musk. The group claims 78,000 members and has been a leading proponent of anti-israel protests.  The organization supports far-left Democrats, including Rep. Rashida Tlaib.

Ironically, a group which provides support for climate change protests is behind the effort against Musk.  Philadelphia-based Disruption Project urges anti-Musk opponents to: "Sell your Teslas.  Dump Your Stock."  On its website, it offers suggestions on how to support Gaza.  

Another leftwing activist group Action Network has aided Disruption Project and other groups to organize the "Tesla Takedown." Action Network brags it helped raise $70 million for Kamala Harris. The organization also donated $13 million to Harris, according to OpenSecrets.  

Action Network, headquartered in Washington D.C., has a fund raising arm that collects money for other activist groups.  The organization also helps like-minded groups set up a website.  In the past, it has hosted a site for the Communist Party and the Young Communist League.  

A joint effort by Action Network and Disruption Project was responsible for listing the addresses of Tesla dealerships for protestors to target. Disruption Project collects donations for its activities through Action Network, founded by a former vice president for the Service Employees International Union. 

Seattle-based environmental organization Troublemakers collects funds through Action Network as well.  Troublemakers has been involved in the "Tesla Takedown" protests at Tesla dealerships.  It's no coincidence that four Tesla Cybertrucks were torched and a car set ablaze in Seattle.  

These activists groups hide behind disclaimers professing they eschew violence.  However, they don't explicitly condemn it either.  The DOJ must hold these leftish organizations and their funders accountable for ginning up hatred that stirs anti-Musk adherents to commit violence.  

Dismantling Department of Failing Education

The Department of Education is failing America's 49 million public school children.  By its own standards, it has a dismal record of elevating student achievement.  Test scores for students have cratered to their lowest level in decades, despite billions of dollars in federal spending.

The latest figures show that federal, state and local spending on K-12 education reached $878.2 billion. That represents 6.1% of the nation's Gross Domestic product (GDP).  Except for tiny Luxembourg, the United States spends the highest percentage of GDP on elementary and secondary education. 

The Department of Education contributed $79 billion for K-12 education in the states in the 2024-2025 government budget cycle.  That represents 13.6% of the total funding. Many Americans might be surprised at the low percentage, given the agency's powerful influence over our children's education.

Congress allocated the agency a total budget of $238 billion in the latest rounding of funding. Lawmakers allotted an additional $190 billion to schools for tutoring and other interventions aimed at recouping the learning loss after in-person learning was suspended during COVID.  

Test scores from the most recent "Nation's Report Card" offer no evidence billions of dollars improved learning. Reading scores on the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress fell two points on average for fourth and eighth graders, marking a steady decline that predates the pandemic. 

In math, eighth grade scores were unchanged from 2022, the last time the test was given.  Fourth graders scores ticked up two points, but remained below their performance in 2019.  The gap between lowest and highest performing students widened in the test scores.

The scores don't tell the whole story.  More eight graders than ever before are testing below the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) group's lowest benchmark for reading.  One-third of eighth graders are below the "lowest" standard while 40% of fourth graders fall below the minimum. 

Internationally, 15-year old U.S. high school students rank 26th in math; 20th in reading; and 23rd in science.  The rankings were compiled by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2023, the latest year for which the data is available. 

The distressing test scores are partially a reflection of the ineffectiveness of the gusher of billions in COVID school funds. Education watchdogs found numerous cases of waste and abuse, according to testimony before a house subcommittee in 2024. 

Among the abuses: Funds were used to install Astroturf on a football field; purchase an ice cream truck; expand a nature center that belonged to a city; host a annual teachers conference in Las Vegas; and millions on internet service that was never launched.  The department's oversight was MIA. 

These failures underscore the unassailable fact: The Department of Education is a misnomer. It educates no children. It is a bureaucracy that serves as a middleman, dispatching our taxpayer dollars to states without adding value, while piling on burdensome complexity and onerous overregulation.   

                                            HISTORY  

The Department of Education traces its lineage to President Andrew Johnson who created the agency in 1867.  Two years later it was moved to the Department of the Interior. During the next 100 years, it was shuttled between agencies before landing in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 

The modern day department was birthed for a political calculation. President Jimmy Carter promised a cabinet level education department in his 1976 presidential campaign to win the support of the teacher's union (National Education Association). The union contributed to his campaign and turned out voters.

In 1979, Congress passed legislation which Carter signed into law. Lawmakers allocated $14 billion for the department's first budget. Over the years the department's mission morphed. Today the department lists its goal as to "promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness."  

Like many Washington agencies, the department has strayed far afield from its mission and increased its  authority to micromanage education. Congress writes a check for the department to meet its obligations and then lathers on discretionary dollars that allow the agency a wide berth in spending.

Under President George Bush, lawmakers ushered in the "no Child Left Behind" mandate that subjected schools to sanctions if students did not make yearly progress.  Every school that accepted any federal education tax dollars became accountable to Washington bureaucrats.

Test scores took precedent over everything.  Many public schools cut nonessential classes such as art, music and even physical education.  It was a disastrous experiment that lead to cheating by some schools to get a passing grade.  That should have ended the notion Washington could manage education.

However, during the Obama Administration it created "The Race to the Top," with a $100 billion budget to improve learning results. The agency created an open competition for funding, with the money being parceled out to schools with the most elaborate and creative proposals. Test scores failed to improve. 

Since 1979, the department has spent nearly $1 trillion in pursuit of its goal to boost learning with little to show for it.  The department's real customers--students--are the forgotten pawns in this taxpayer funded shell game.  

                                          THE FUTURE

It is time to acknowledge K-12 education is best left to the states. Education was never envisioned by the Constitution's framers as a federal responsibility.  States have their own Departments of Education, school districts, local school boards and funding.  

Not surprisingly, the legacy media and Democrats are throwing up roadblocks, claiming the nation's education system will be irreparably harmed if the agency loses its unchecked authority to deliver money. The feds attach strings to leverage taxpayer dollars, often including social agenda mandates.  

The predictable fear mongering is aimed at protecting the teachers union, which counts on the agency to do its bidding.  As just one example, the union lobbied Congress for the COVID funding, then worked with big city school districts to reward its members with pay increases and signing bonuses. 

As far as federal funding, the money should be transferred via block grants to the states.  One example is  money for special education, including counseling, therapy and transportation. Likewise, taxpayer dollars for research are fungible and can be sent to states, particularly for research on disability issues.

A New York Times article worried that employees responsible for the national report card on education would be lost in a downsizing. This is another red herring because many states already conduct their own surveys to assess student learning.  If a national survey is needed, turn it over to the Census Bureau.

The department's role in higher education is primarily administering federal student aid programs while managing the bloated $1.6 trillion student loan program.  It also oversees the accreditation process for colleges, investigates civil rights violations and collects education data.

The department's investigations into alleged civil rights violations at schools can be moved to the Department of Justice, which already is charged with enforcement.   The student loan program, overseen by the agency, rightly belongs in the Treasury Department.

What the nation can do without is the department's penchant for using taxpayer dollars to push for transgender men in women's athletics and funding of diversity, equity and inclusion in colleges.  Social issues only matter in the faculty lounges of elite universities, but contribute zero to learning.

The fact is states have the strongest incentive for improving education at the elementary, secondary and collegiate level.   

The competition for new businesses is fierce between the states.  States with the highest literacy rates and most proficient schools attract new industry and jobs.  Businesses in turn provide additional funding for public schools. Failing schools will hamper states economic growth and prosperity.

Additionally, educated young people are also less likely to live in poverty; more likely to get a job; less likely to end up in the prison system; more likely to earn higher income; more likely to improve their health outcomes and more likely to be active in their community. 

The viable long-term solution to revitalize education in America is to bring accountability for delivering academic results closer to the parents, teachers and local school boards.  Each state has unique schooling challenges which do not fit the cookie-cutter approach of Washington. 

Leave it to the states and local school boards to decide curriculum, performance standards, allocation of funds, teacher hiring and training standards, graduation requirements and long range planning. They know what's best for their children--not the 4,400 agency employees cloistered in Washington.    

DOGE is A 104-Year-Old Idea

Those squawking about efforts to root out government waste, fraud and abuse act as if it's a dangerous, new concept.  They obviously haven't been paying attention.  The Budget & Accounting Act of 1921 birthed the Government Accounting Office, which was DOGE before Elon Musk rode into Washington. 

The GAO is a non-partisan congressional watchdog overseeing how the federal government operates and spends taxpayers money.  The 104-year-old agency, renamed the Government Accountability Office in 2004, has recommended thousands of ways to save billions of dollars during its long history.

This little known agency has examined every nook and cranny of the federal government from Social Security, to the Department of Defense weapons systems, to Medicaid, foreign aid, cybersecurity, Internal Revenue Service, to Health and Human Services and federal disaster programs. 

The agency's reports are circulated to Congress, often detailing waste, potential fraud and efficiency improvements. On occasion, their findings are used by lawmakers to highlight the government's shortcomings in Congressional hearings.  Sometimes the agency work receives muted news coverage.

But there's one problem.  Federal agencies cited in the GAO's reports more often than not equivocate in adopting changes to address glaring weaknesses.  Unlike Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, the GAO does not have authority to force federal agencies to cut waste or implement findings.

An examination of selective reports by this writer found an alarming number of instances where agencies made little progress, despite calls to implement cost savings, modernize outdated systems, manage fraud risks, address human resource violations and harden cybersecurity protection.

To underscore the recalcitrance, the GAO in February catalogued 4,387 recommendations it had made since 2010, but noted that 764 had not been fully implemented five years later. Of the 1,881suggestions involving so-called, "high-risk" areas, 463 have not been completed as of this year.  

Translation: the government bureaucracy resists warnings and suggestions for improvement.   

In some cases, the GAO's reports have served as a road map for DOGE to inspect deficiencies.  For instance, agency reports in 2023 and 2024 pointed out that "fraud poses a significant risk" at the USAID (United States Agency for International Development.). 

In its letter to the agency, GAO used unsparing language: "Our first priority recommendation calls for agency guidance to require regular fraud risk assessments for USAID programs and documentation of program-specific fraud risk profiles.." 

Sure enough, DOGE ferreted out USAID funds that ended up funding Al Qaeda affiliated fighters in Syria and supporting poppy production in Afghanistan, benefiting the Taliban.  Two Hamas linked groups were on the receiving end of USAID funding funneled through a third party.

After the hurricane and fire damage devastated many cities, it came as no surprise to the GAO that residents were unsatisfied with the federal government response. The GAO offered this blistering assessment of the federal approach in its 2025 report:

"...disaster recovery is fragmented across 30 federal entities.  So many entities involved with multiple programs and authorities, differing requirements and timeframes, and limited data sharing across entities could make it harder for survivors and communities to navigate federal programs."

Translation: There should be a consolidation of agencies and responsibilities to improve efforts to get aid faster to Americans who need it. 

When Musk called for the return of government workers to their offices, it was greeted with cries of outrage from politicians and unions.  But not one media organization pointed out that the GAO had identified the cost to American taxpayers of maintaining empty buildings.

In a report, the GAO underscored annual maintenance and operating costs for the 277,000 government buildings was $10.3 billion in 2023. The agency calculated that with the wholesale adoption of telework, deferred maintenance and underutilization costs totaled $370 billion in 2024.

That's chump change for your federal government. Since 2002, the GAO wrote that federal agencies have reported about $2.8 TRILLION in estimated improper payments, including over $150 billion government-wide in each of the last seven years.

Now you know why there was so much push back when Musk wanted to review federal payment data.

DOGE and its champion Musk will eventually fade into history.  If government worked the way our Constitutional framers intended, lawmakers would grab the reins and hold federal agencies accountable. Unfortunately, they often have been doing just the opposite: feeding the unaccountable beast.

The GAO, with a workforce of 3,100, has demonstrated its chops for uncovering waste and inefficiency. But it lacks teeth to force change. Congress should consider legislating authority for the GAO to compel departments to comply in a timely manner with its recommendations or risk budget and force cuts. 

Without drastic changes, 100 years from now another Elon Musk will be needed to take a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy. 

Egg Prices Are Nothing to Yolk About

Egg prices are the center or yolk of the latest political ruckus. Democrats are egging on President Trump to lower the cost of a carton of a dozen Grade A large eggs as prices, adjusted for inflation, reached a 45-year high this week.  Democrat surrogates have flocked to social media to hen peck at the issue.

"I had to dip into my 401K to buy a carton of eggs," one woman posted. Another said: "Instead of cutting the government, cut egg prices." Others clucked: "The Powerball is up to 4 dozen eggs." "Broke an egg this morning.  My insurance company is sending an adjuster."  

You get the drift.  Donald Trump has single handedly jacked up egg prices to pay off his billionaire cronies. This is what passes as Washington political theater.  Twenty-one Democrat lawmakers dispatched a letter accusing Trump of "largely ignoring" the problem in his first three weeks in office.

The letter demands Trump "lower food prices by encouraging competition and fighting price gouging at each level of the food supply chain." The lawmakers, marshaled by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, pledged to work with the president to make eggs a great bargain again.

Democrats are the ones with egg on their faces if they believe Trump is responsible for surging egg prices.  They need to leave their cozy Washington nest and visit chicken farms in America.

Egg prices are skyrocketing because of a nationwide outbreak of avian influenza. The virus occurs naturally among wild aquatic birds (think ducks) worldwide. These migrating birds infect domestic poultry.  The highly contagious influenza spreads quickly among caged chickens. 

Euthanizing flocks is the best option to combat the spread. More than 150 million chickens have been killed in all 50 states to halt the virus since 2022, according to the Department of Agriculture (USDA).This is the largest outbreak in the United States since 2015.  

Even more worrisome, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports there have been bird flu detections in dairy cattle, including cows in Arizona. Although rare, there have been 68 human cases, including one confirmed death. CDC says the source of the human infections is unidentified.

As culling accelerates, egg prices have soared 53% since January of last year.  This past month prices for a carton of Grade A large eggs leapfrogged another 15%.  The national average price for a dozen eggs in January was $4.95.  That eclipses the record set in January 2023, when the price was $4.82.

Although prices are climbing, the demand has not slackened because high-protein eggs are considered a staple in most households. The average American eats 284 eggs a year, an increase from last year's total of 281.  (Per capita consumption is a measure of total egg production divided by the population.) 

There is little relief in sight for the American consumer.  In November, seven million chickens were destroyed. By last December, the number jumped to 18 million and rose to 23 million in January.  Despite the culling of infected chickens, the virus has been advancing like a Bataan Death March.

Most egg-laying farms maintain fewer than 100 chickens, but large producers house upwards of 100,000. Broiler farms, which bred chickens for meat, range in size from 40,000 chickens to more than 500,000. Once infections are detected, the safest course to euthanize the entire flock. 

Eggs Unlimited Vice President Brian Moscogiuri offers this perspective on the egg crisis. "In the last few months alone, since the middle of October, we've lost 45 million egg-laying hens. We've lost a significant amount of production, more than 13%." 

Eggs Unlimited is one of the largest international supplier of eggs. The firm ships eggs to major retailers, distributors and food service companies.  "For consumers, (we're) trying to limit their impact with the pricing and the supply chain shortages we're seeing right now," Moscogirui says.

Just this year about one-in-12 caged hens have been culled. Considering lifecycles, it takes about five months before hens begin laying eggs.  By comparison, chickens raised for meat are ready for slaughter after a month-and-a-half.  

With Easter on the horizon, the demand for eggs likely will shoot up. Some grocery stores are already limiting the number of cartons customers can purchase.  In a sign of the times, earlier this month 100,000 organic eggs worth an estimated $40,000 were stolen from a facility in Pennsylvania.

Consumers best hope are egg farmers. There are 48,952 businesses engaged in chicken egg production, centered in just ten states, accounting for 65% of the egg output. These small and large farms produced about 109 billion eggs in 2023, the latest year for which figures are available.

America's chicken egg-laying farms have dealt with adversity before and managed each time to scramble to restart production.   They will deliver again to  consumers who will no longer have to walk on egg shells when they search for egg cartons at the grocery store. 

Exposing The Troubled History Of The USAID

A storm of controversy swirls over a relatively unknown federal government agency that doles out billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to foreign countries.  New reporting has unearthed reports stretching over years warning about fraud, waste, sexual abuse and funding linked to terrorists.

President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) ignited the firestorm by uncovering reckless, wasteful spending and a lack of management accountability at the U.S. Agency for International Development.  The president shuttered USAID headquarters, locking out employees.  

USAID Background 

The agency, staffed by more than 10,000 workers, handed out $40 billion in 2023, the last year for which government figures are available. That workforce level does not include contractors.  USAID maintains more than 60 country and regional missions that develop projects to be funded. 

The bureaucracy distributed $42 billion to 130 countries, including Gaza.  In 2022, Congress appropriated an additional $46 billion to be managed partially or wholly by the agency for assistance to Ukraine. Since 2017, the USAID budget has more than doubled. 

An investigation and research by this writer found the troubled agency has a checkered history of a lack of transparency, credibility and a disregard for oversight.  Despite numerous admonishments, USAID continues to operate as if the agency is not answerable to the president or the federal government.

As a recent example, current and former USAID staff revolted when the agency's director Samantha Power voiced support for Israel after the country was attacked by Hamas in October. Many agency employees act as if they are running USAID, accountable only to themselves. 

Raising Red Flags

As far back as 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Inspector General for USAID sounded alarms over the agency's funneling of taxpayer money to outside groups with limited oversight. Not only did the agency ignore the red flags, it doubled down on obfuscation. 

The agency, which boasts it prioritizes diversity, equity and inclusion, gifted United Nations agencies, development banks and foreign-based non-governmental organizations (NGO) with billions to be spread across the globe, including in lawless hotspots, including Sudan, Syria and Haiti. 

These activities, in particular, attracted the attention of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the GAO. The two discovered an appalling lack of oversight by the agency's practice of funneling the money through third parties.  

Here are selected highlights from reports from the Inspector General and the GAO:

• USAID failed to document 519 instances of misconduct for funds transmitted to the UN'S World Food Program.  Instead, the USAID only reported  29 instances of potential misconduct for aid, reflecting non-compliance with the agency's own standards.
• Investigations were hampered by UN agencies to prevent diversion of USAID funds to the terrorist organization Hamas. The OIG also listed its concern that United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRA) employees implicated in the October 7 attack on Israel had infiltrated USAID funded organizations. 
• USAID failed to share with the Inspector General information about UN individuals who have been terminated for criminal and serious misconduct.  In 2023, World Health Organization officials were found to have sexually assaulted women and girls while performing USAID-funded Ebola programs in Africa.
• OIG special agents have encountered resistance from foreign-based NGO's when requesting information about individuals alleged to have perpetuated fraud or engaged in sexual exploitation in running USAID-funded programs.
• A GAO report noted the USAID bureaus and missions lack ability to conduct direct oversight in conflict zones to verify the funds are being used for the intended humanitarian purpose.
• Inspectors found the USAID does not have "quality" data to support its $150 billion climate change initiative.  "Specifically, the data was not complete, accurate, accessible or current" the inspectors found. 
• The OIG ferreted out a scheme by a non-governmental organization in South Africa to bilk USAID out of $671,914 after the group submitted false payment claims to the agency.  The OIG cited other examples of fraudulent claims in its 2025 report, including a $2.02 million payment to an  Norwegian aid group. 
• A GAO analysis of the agency discovered the USAID sent money through a cutout organization that ended up funding China's Wuhan Institute of Virology.  To date, even Congress has been able to determine the amount of the funding. 

In its 2025 report, the OIG concluded that "theft and diversion of cash assistance, food, medicine and other commodities frustrates the intent of the United Sates" while undermining the agency's mission of humanitarian assistance. 

These reports are nonpartisan, authored by federal government employees and agencies.  The information has been available to Congress and the executive branch.  Why has there been no action to address the concerns from either political party?  That is the question no corporate media are asking.

A few in Congress have been aware of USAID's pattern of obstructionism. Iowa Senate Republican Joni Ernst revealed how the agency has been "stonewalling" her office for years as she sought documents detailing aid to businesses in Ukraine.  

USAID claimed the information was classified to deny the senator's requests.  After Ernst demanded to speak to the USAID Office of Security, the agency handed over a few documents. She discovered that 5,000 Ukrainian businesses received awards of up to $2 million each. 

DOGE Findings 

DOGE has exposed hundreds of millions of dollars for dubious USAID directed aid:

• $2 million for sex changes and LGBTQ activism in Guatemala.
• $1.5 million to advance DEI in Serbia's workplaces and business communities.
• $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt.
• $70,000 for production of a DEI musical in Ireland.
• $47,000 for transgender operations in Colombia.
• $2.5 million for electric vehicles in Vietnam.
• $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru. 
• $2 million for pottery classes in Morocco. 
• $20 million for a Sesame Street workshop in Iraq to promote "inclusion, mutual respect and understanding across ethnic, religious and sectarian groups."
• $45 million to provide food assistance and economic support for Venezuelan migrants in Columbia. 

This reality stands in stark contrast to the growing legacy media stories that have appeared since the scandal broke. They paint a picture of USAID funding for desperate people in third-world countries in need of food assistance and medicine.  There has been no coverage of the OIG and GAO reports.

The media complicity has given cover for Democrats to spend political energy haranguing unelected "billionaire" Elon Musk for the revelations. The oligarchs are ruling Washington, they shout in defiance. Where's the outrage for USAID's wasteful spending of taxpayers dollars? Crickets. 

Democrats are targeting Musk as the villain because they endorse USAID's funding of social issues.  They are furious Musk exposed the foreign aid boondoggles. 

USAID Defenders 

USAID defenders make the case that the DOGE examples of millions of dollars of waste only amount to a fraction of the agency budget. Excusing a "little" misuse of funds is an example of Washington's hubris. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren reflects the Democrat Party's attitude:

"There is nothing in the constitution that says ordinary Americans have a right to see what we're spending tax dollars on," she said. Actually, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution requires the government to publish regular statements about how taxpayer money is spent.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear he intends to fold USAID into the State Department, thus ending the agency's autonomous operation.  The secretary wants to continue foreign aid, but with more oversight and funding supporting the administration's objectives. 

Referencing the USAID, the president said "the American's people's money must be spent to advance their priorities, not line the pockets of contractors or to maintain projects that don't work." Typical Trump, overstatement? No, that quote is from 2009 and the president was Barrack Obama.  

No government agency no matter how noble sounding its name or mission has the right to fritter away taxpayer dollars. By defending the indefensible, Democrats are showing they are out of touch with average Americans who expect efficiency, transparency and accountability in their government.   

The Resistance To Cutting The Federal Budget

Howls of protest erupted after President Trump temporarily paused federal spending to ferret out waste. A hyper-partisan cacophony in Washington claimed it was practically unAmerican to fiddle with funds that Congress had already approved as part of the 2024-2025 fiscal year budget. 

Trump's move is a precursor to the upcoming budget battle, the defining issue of his first term.  Expect a fear mongering campaign orchestrated by the media and Democrats to cast spending reductions as a threat to the poor, veterans, seniors, the unemployed and low income Americans. 

However, ignoring the federal spending binge is no longer an option. The budget ballooned to $6.75 trillion for fiscal year 2024, resulting in a deficit of $1.933 trillion.  For perspective, spending increased 45% in just a single year from 2019 to 2020, nearly 20 times the average of the previous four decades.

Deficit spending has hiked the nation's debt to more than $36.2 trillion. America's indebtedness is increasing $5.93 billion every day.  The current budget contains $952 billion allotted to servicing the debt. Interest payments on debt amount to 13% of the federal budget, eclipsing defense spending.

No amount of Congressional caterwaul should deter the Trump Administration from surgically removing pork and waste from the federal budget.  The president's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is already serving up ideas to trim the fat, a lightning rod for Democrat resistance.

In its first move, the DOGE budget cleaver severed more than 104 diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) related contracts at 25 federal agencies, saving taxpayers more than $1 billion. A total of 21 Treasury Department contracts were ended, saving $25 million in a single agency.

Democrat naysayers who huffed that shaving the federal budget was next to impossible were left red-faced. The irony is that the party of big government once championed slashing federal spending when Democrat Bill Clinton occupied the White House. 

Clinton launched a National Performance Review, nicknamed REGO, beginning in 1993. During his first term, the effort yielded a 180,000 reduction in federal government employees through buyouts and staff eliminations.  The push saved $136 billion and shrunk government to its smallest size in 30 years.

This Democrat led effort, supported by Republicans, closed superfluous government offices, cut 16,0000 pages of regulations, passed a major procurement reform bill and introduced the electronic filing of taxes, saving millions of dollars. The endeavor helped balance the federal budget. 

Trump's effort will fail unless there is the same bipartisan offensive. However, little progress will be made if lawmakers refuse to touch so-called mandatory spending, which includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment compensation and other safety-net programs.

These programs comprise about 66% percent of the federal budget and run on automatic pilot.  Each fiscal year the costs escalate as more people are added to the rolls of these programs.  Elected officials fear reprisal from voters if they even hint at addressing these programs.

There can be no significant reduction in spending without snipping at these entitlement programs. 

As just one example, the welfare roles have not shrunk one iota despite the jobless rate falling from 6.3% at the start of the Biden presidency to 4.1%.  Some 84.6 million individuals are enrolled in Medicaid, about the same as 2020. Another 42.6 million Americans receive food stamps, same as 2021.

More Americans are working yet social programs haven't seen a decline. The explanation is that the Biden Administration allowed Democratic states, such as California, to ease eligibility requirements for Medicaid funds to pay for other social spending, such as homeless housing.  

Biden bureaucrats also boosted food stamp allotments and waived work requirements for able-bodied adults.  The Wall Street Journal calculated that by simply returning to pre-pandemic Medicaid spending levels (adjusted for inflation) it would generate more than $1.4 trillion in savings over a decade.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided a range of options in December for carving addressing the federal budget, including changing cost-sharing rules for Medicare, reducing Medicare's coverage of bad debt and instituting new work rules for Social Security disability applicants.

There are a plethora of ways to place the federal budget on a diet, if Congress will act with courage.  For example, ending corporate welfare would save hundreds of billions of dollars that lawmakers regularly use to curry favor with big donors, lobbyists and industry special interest groups.

A 2022 bill known as the CHIPS and Science Act earmarked $53 billion for the country's semiconductor manufacturing industry.  One of the chief beneficiaries was Intel, which raked in $7.865 billion in taxpayer funds.  The money was supposed to create tens of thousands of jobs.

How well did that work out?  Intel announced recently it would layoff 15,000 employees, about 15% of its workforce.  A series of manufacturing missteps, the AI boom and a weak sales outlook was blamed for the layoffs.  Government has a checkered track record of funding private sector ventures. 

The so-called green energy bill, ballyhooed by the Biden Administration, shelled out $391 billion to invest in a variety of private businesses engaged in the manufacturing of solar panels and wind turbine components. Like most corporate largess, there is no accountability for results.

Another windfall for the green energy industry is tax subsidies.  The original price tag for this corporate welfare was $271 billion over 10 years.  The Biden Administration's last estimate projected a 170% jump in costs for the industry gift which was included in the laughably named Inflation Reduction Act. 

Unless Congress reins in spending, the United States is hurtling towards the debt cliff.  Mushrooming deficits and debt are unsustainable, approaching levels of third-world countries. Taxpayers should hold their elected representatives accountable for stopping the budget madness.