Tag: taxes

F-47 6th Generation Fighter Future Force Size Questions Emerge

The U.S. Air Force is firmly of the view that its new F-47 6th generation stealth fighters are key to “how we win” in future fights, according to the service’s top general in charge of force structure planning. Though the Air Force previously said it would buy 200 of the next-generation combat jets, how many of the aircraft the service now plans to acquire is an open question as its vision of the core air superiority mission set continues to evolve.

Air Force Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel talked about the F-47 and how it factors into his service’s current work on a new over-arching force design during a virtual talk that the Air & Space Forces Association (AFA) hosted today. Kunkel is currently the director of Force Design, Integration, and Wargaming within the office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Air Force Futures at the Pentagon.

Kunkel described the announcement in March that Boeing’s F-47 had won the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) combat jet competition as “a fantastic day for the Air Force” that has “assured air superiority for generations to come.” The Air Force had put the NGAD combat jet program on hold for a deep review last year, which ultimately concluded that the service needed to acquire the aircraft to be best positioned to achieve air superiority in future high-end fights.

Keep reading

4 Admissions Of Social Security Fraud In April Alone Show Waste And Abuse Are Real

When Elon Musk announced in February that there were 10 million Social Security numbers belonging to holders apparently aged 120 years and older, instead of acknowledging the great potential for fraudulent activity, the corporate media downplayed the concerns. They insisted that Social Security fraud is “not very common” and maligned the Trump administration’s efforts to purge the federal government of waste and abuse.

However, multiple instances of Social Security fraud confirmed in April alone are a reminder that the system has enabled abuse for years.

In late March, DOGE announced that, following a “major cleanup” of records, 9.9 million number holders listed with ages 120 years and older “have now been marked deceased.” (While people do live past 100, the oldest person who ever lived in modern times was Jeanne Louise Calment, of France, who died in 1997 at 122 years old.)

Corporate media and so-called experts have claimed that the listed ages of these centenarian number holders may be the result of “coding quirks” in the system and that efforts to mark these number holders as deceased could lead to more errors. But this does not change the fact that unused Social Security numbers marked as live are ripe for fraud.

What can you do with a spare Social Security number? You could register to vote again or sign up for social welfare, like housing, health insurance, cash assistance, and SNAP. Noncitizens can get a job, and of course, collect Social Security retirement or disability benefits.

Last month, a White House fact sheet, citing an inspector general report from 2024, noted how “The Social Security Administration made an estimated $72 billion in improper payments between 2015 and 2022.”

Keep reading

The Rich Control Their Kids’ Education — The Middle Class And Poor Deserve That Choice, Too

As the school choice movement notches major wins and the Department of Education begins winding down, there is no doubt that the government’s future role in education will be very different than the role it has played in the past.

With this sea change comes new questions about what the education system ought to look like when the federal top-down model finally ends. An emerging group of advocates believes the government should not be involved in schools at all.

The ultra-libertarian position contends that no tax dollars should be used for schooling and all schools should be private schools. Every child’s academic pathway would be up to his parents to design and fund.

While this might sound great to some, the fact remains that many families lack the ability to pay for their children’s education. They would still lack that ability even if tax rates were cut to account for privatizing education, since those at the bottom of the income scale pay no federal income tax. Millions of children would be unable to access a quality education because their parents cannot afford it.

If that outcome sounds familiar, it may be because it’s so close to our current government schooling system: Children whose families have the means can receive a great education, but those from low-income families are stuck with a school experience so terrible it can hardly be called an education at all. Only 17 percent of public school eighth graders from low-income families are proficient readers, according to the latest Nation’s Report Card.  

These devastating results are not the result of a lack of funding. To the contrary, the U.S. public schools spend $17,227 to educate one student for one year. That’s more than nearly any other country. Still, our test scores continue to fall in the international rankings. Our Nation’s Report Card scores, revealing rampant illiteracy and innumeracy, are a national embarrassment.

In an ideal educational system, parents would have control over the tax dollars allocated for each child’s schooling. The money would follow the child to wherever he or she learns best, whether that is a public school, a private school, or even the family’s kitchen table.

Right now, homeschool families pay for education twice: First, with their tax dollars, which are sent to schools their children never set foot in. Second, with the sacrifice of one parent’s income, plus the cost of materials, including curricula, textbooks, and other supplies.  

Private school families pay twice, too: First, again, with their tax dollars, and secondly with tuition. Access to a good public school costs a great deal, too: A family that buys a house near a top-rated public elementary school will pay 78.6 percent more than if they bought a typical house in the surrounding area, according to Realtor.com.

Keep reading

Stop All Federal Funding Of Universities

The Trump administration has found itself in a dispute with Harvard University. It began when the President’s team sent several Ivy League universities a list of changes they expected the schools to make.

The move is part of a new right-wing strategy which recognizes that we currently live under a vague, necessarily politicized system of civil rights law and aims to begin interpreting civil rights laws in ways more in line with the values and social aims of the right.

By threatening to withhold federal funds, the administration was able to get schools like Columbia University to agree to enact changes like banning masks, granting campus police more powers, and appointing an administrator to oversee the Middle East Studies Department with the authority to crack down on rhetoric about Israel that the administration considers antisemitic.

Harvard, however, refused to abide by the administration’s demands. As a result, Trump froze a little over $2 billion in federal funds going to the school last week and announced plans to freeze an additional $1 billion earlier this week—all while threatening to withhold all $9 billion the Ivy League school receives from the federal government each year if they refuse to agree to the President’s demands.

The showdown is largely being framed as either a battle to protect academic freedom from an authoritarian president or an overdue effort to rescue one of the nation’s oldest universities from the radical far-left administrators leading it off course.

But as politicians, pundits, and university officials battle over which characterization is accurate and, therefore, what ought to happen next, few are paying any attention to one of the more outrageous details that this dispute has brought attention to: that taxpayers are being forced to send $9 billion a year to one of the wealthiest colleges in the world.

Keep reading

Voluntary Remigration: Sweden Offers Migrants $61K Incentive to Leave Europe

Sweden’s center-right coalition government—supported by the national-conservative Sweden Democrats—is set to roll out a sweeping new plan that will dramatically increase financial incentives for migrants who voluntarily leave the country, marking one of the most generous “return grant” programs in Europe.

Unveiled on Wednesday, the proposed policy would offer up to SEK 600,000 ($61,134) to migrant families who choose to repatriate or resettle outside the European Union and select neighboring countries.

Individual adults could receive SEK 350,000 ($35,974), while couples may qualify for up to SEK 500,000 ($50,933). Families would also be eligible for an additional SEK 25,000 ($2,490) per child under 18, capped at the SEK 600,000 total.

“This is about giving people who feel excluded or who haven’t found a place in Swedish society the opportunity for a dignified return and a new beginning elsewhere,” Migration Minister Johan Forssell said in a statement to the Swedish TT news agency. “But this won’t be a free ticket. If they return to Sweden, they’ll be required to pay the money back.”

The plan comes in response to the country’s ongoing challenges with migrant integration, particularly for those with permanent residency who remain outside the workforce or social mainstream.

Migrants—primarily from Islamic countries—not only rely on Sweden’s generous welfare system at disproportionately high rates compared to native-born Swedes, but are also significantly overrepresented in violent crime statistics.

Keep reading

Florida Bills To Regulate And Tax Hemp Products Advance To House Floor Votes

A measure that would regulate hemp-derived THC products in Florida passed unanimously in its second and final committee in the Florida House on Tuesday, but only after hemp entrepreneurs expressed their strongest criticism of such regulations this legislative session.

The bills (HB 7027 and HB 7029), sponsored by Panhandle Republican Rep. Michelle Salzman, are different in some respects to the Senate version that passed unanimously in that chamber two weeks ago—most significantly in that it puts a 15 percent excise tax on the sale of all such products.

Another difference with the Senate version is that it doesn’t ban consumption of delta-8, the hemp-derived THC product that has grown in popularity since hemp was legalized in the United States through the 2018 U.S. Farm Bill.

The House bill would limit the amount of THC in derived products. Regarding hemp-infused drinks, beverages cannot contain more than 5 milligrams of THC hemp per 6-ounce contains. The bill limits “inhalables” (such as joints and vaping machines) and edibles to 5 milligrams per serving (an increase of 2.5 milligrams from last week’s version).

Another provision would prohibit anyone from receiving more than 100 milligrams of hemp-derived THC in a single 24-hour period.

The bill would prohibit any individual from ingesting hemp consumable THC products within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary, middle or secondary school between 6 a.m. and midnight. A violator would be subjected to a $25 fine or 50 hours of community service.

Salzman amended her bill from last week in two key respects: It would now allow places like gas stations to sell hemp-infused THC drinks, and it would not place any limitations on non-intoxicating CBD products.

Keep reading

South Carolina’s Play To Nullify Tariffs In 1832 Failed Spectacularly. Newsom’s Will Too

Oh, the irony! California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the gel-haired darling of the left, has decided to play President Andrew Jackson’s foil in a modern-day Nullification Crisis. His lawsuit to block President Donald Trump’s tariffs — filed with all the fanfare of a Hollywood premiere — smacks of South Carolina’s 1832 tantrum over federal tariffs. Back then, the Palmetto State tried to nullify federal law, claiming it could pick and choose which national policies applied.

Newsom, it seems, fancies himself a latter-day John C. Calhoun, strutting onto the national stage with a States’ Powers swagger. The only problem? He’s reading from a script debunked by history, law, and common sense.

Let’s rewind to 1832. South Carolina, peeved over the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 — derisively called the “Tariff of Abominations” — declared them null and void within its borders. The state’s economy, tied to slave-driven cotton exports, chafed under duties that protected northern industry but raised costs for southern planters. Calhoun, then vice president, penned the intellectual case for nullification, arguing states could override federal laws they deemed unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson called this treasonous nonsense. He issued a Proclamation of Force, threatening troops, and Congress passed a compromise tariff to cool the feud. South Carolina backed down, but the episode laid bare a dangerous question: Can states defy federal authority rooted in the Constitution? Gavin Newsom, on a different day, would say that the Civil War answered that one with a resounding “no.”

Fast forward to 2025, and enter Newsom, California’s self-anointed guardian of the “resistance.” On April 16, Newsom announced a lawsuit to halt Trump’s tariffs, which slap a 10 percent baseline on imports and far steeper levies on goods from China. Trump justifies these under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law granting presidents broad authority in national emergencies.

Newsom, flanked by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, claims the tariffs are “unlawful” and will wreak “chaos” on California’s economy — think higher prices for almonds, wine, and Hollywood flicks as other nations hike their tariffs in response. Sound familiar? Like South Carolina, California is griping about federal policy hitting its economic interests. Like Calhoun, Newsom is betting on state power to thwart Washington. And like 1832, this is a clash over who gets to call the shots.

The parallels are uncanny, and the irony is thicker than a blanket of Sacramento Tule fog. Newsom, a Democrat who’s spent years preaching federal supremacy on everything from climate to immigration, now cloaks himself in the mantle of state sovereignty to dodge Trump’s trade agenda.

Let’s be clear: States don’t have rights; they have powers, delegated by the Constitution. Only people have rights, a truth the Founders etched into our framework. Newsom’s rhetoric, implying California can opt out of federal policy like some sovereign republic, misreads the Constitution as badly as Calhoun did. This is the same governor who has cheered federal overreach when it suits his progressive piety — think EPA mandates or Obamacare. Yet when Trump wields federal power to address trade deficits, Newsom cries foul, claiming California, the “world’s fifth-largest economy,” deserves special treatment. Newsom is dusting off Calhoun’s playbook, arguing his state can nullify federal law.

Keep reading

Say goodbye to retirement at 67 – New government proposal suggests working longer for fewer benefits

The United States wants to completely change its Social Security system. The alarm has gone off because the trust fund that supports pensions is running out, and it is estimated that it could be depleted in less than a decade. Although there are no firm decisions yet, proposals are already on the table: from raising the retirement age to reducing benefits. Among those leading the debate are Donald Trump and Elon Musk, of course, the two most controversial voices of this year.

What once seemed unthinkable is starting to sound louder and louder. The system, as we know it, is in danger. And this is especially concerning for those who rely most on their monthly pension to survive, our elderly and people with disabilities. Because if no action is taken soon, automatic cuts of 20% in payments could occur starting in 2035.

Why has this debate opened up?

The problem has a clear root: there are more and more retirees and fewer active workers supporting the system with their contributions. And without a balance between what comes in and what goes out, the trust fund will eventually run out.

Since it was created in 1935, Social Security has been the financial support for millions of older Americans, people with disabilities, and families. But the demographic reality has changed. And with it, the urgency to do something to prevent the system from collapsing.

What are Trump and Musk proposing?

The proposals being discussed are not exactly the same, but they point in the same direction: to make the system sustainable in the long term, even if that means making tough and controversial decisions like the ones Musk has been making with DOGE.

Raise the retirement age

One of the most repeated ideas is to raise the retirement age from 67 to 70. This would reduce the time the system has to pay benefits. But it would also leave those working in physical sectors or those reaching 60 without real job options in a difficult situation.

Reduce payments to new retirees

Another proposal is to cut benefits for those who retire in the future. Those close to retirement may not notice the hit, but younger generations will: after years of contributing, they would receive less than expected.

Cut public spending in other areas

There is also talk of cutting government spending in other programs to redirect funds to Social Security. It sounds good on paper, but experts warn: this doesn’t always translate into real relief for the system.

Keep reading

Close the US Military Bases in Asia

President Donald Trump is again loudly complaining that the U.S. military bases in Asia are too costly for the U.S. to bear.  As part of the new round of tariff negotiations with Japan and Korea, Trump is calling on Japan and Korea to pay for stationing the U.S. troops. 

Here’s a much better idea: close the bases and return the U.S. service members to the U.S.  

Trump implies that the U.S. is providing a great service to Japan and Korea by stationing 50,000 troops in Japan and nearly 30,000 in Korea.  Yet these countries do not need the U.S. to defend themselves. 

They are wealthy and can certainly provide their own defense.  Far more importantly, diplomacy can ensure the peace in northeast Asia far more effectively and far less expensively than U.S. troops.      

The U.S. acts as if Japan needs to be defended against China.  Let’s have a look.  During the past 1,000 years, during which time China was the region’s dominant power for all but the last 150 years, how many times did China attempt to invade Japan?  If you answered zero, you are correct.  China did not attempt to invade Japan on a single occasion.

You might quibble.  What about the two attempts in 1274 and 1281, roughly 750 years ago? It’s true that when the Mongols temporarily ruled China between 1271 and 1368, they twice sent expeditionary fleets to invade Japan, and both times were defeated by a combination of typhoons (known in Japanese lore as the Kamikaze winds) and by Japanese coastal defenses.  

Japan, on the other hand, made several attempts to attack or conquer China. 

Keep reading

Canada’s PM vows to boost military spending to protect against ‘America’s threats to our sovereignty’

Mark Carney has vowed to ramp up military spending by £17billion to guard against ‘America’s threats to our very sovereignty’ if he wins next week’s Canadian general election.

The Prime Minister said his nation needed to ‘prepare’ for the coming years after US President Donald Trump made a series of threats to annex Canada.

Carney, who became Prime Minister last month following the resignation of Justin Trudeau, looks set to win a majority amid a war of words with the US, according to the latest polls.

His Liberal Party have enjoyed a significant uptick in support since Trump vowed to make Canada the 51st American state and imposed tariffs.

Unlike other leaders of major nations, Carney has pushed back on Trump’s thetoric, blaming the 47th President for a breakdown in US-Canada relations.

Releasing the Liberal Party manifesto, the Prime Minister’s tough stance on defending Canadian autonomy appeared to continue.

‘In this crisis we have to prepare for America’s threats to our very sovereignty,’ he said in a speech in Ontario.

‘They want our land, our resources, they want our water, they want our country. 

Keep reading