Tag: taxes

‘Obama Bros’ admit they should’ve done ‘some of the stuff’ Trump is doing with DOGE

Former aides to President Barack Obama admitted on an episode of “Pod Save America” they should have done “some of the stuff” President Donald Trump is doing with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 

When discussing DOGE’s initiatives to cut federal spending, the “Obama Bros” admitted to “lamenting” their situation.

Jon Lovett, a former Obama speechwriter, implied he “didn’t know” they could make government so efficient. 

“Honestly, some of this is pretty annoying because it’s some of the stuff we should’ve done. We didn’t know you could do some of this,” Lovett said. 

Jon Favreau, also a former Obama speechwriter, shared Lovett’s frustration, admitting the Obama administration tried to cut through bureaucracy and create government efficiency, but “it’s hard to do.”

“We all know that government is slow. We all know government can be inefficient. We all know that the bureaucracy can be bloated. We all worked in the f—ing White House. We tried to reorganize the government. We tried to find efficiency. It’s hard to do,” Favreau said. 

Keep reading

Mythologies About Musk

Here are some of the untruths told about Elon Musk and DOGE:

“Musk has no right to cut USAID.”

Elon Musk and his team are not cutting any federal programs.

They are auditors. They were given legal authority under a presidential executive order creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Its mandate is to identify waste, abuse, fraud, and irrelevance in the federal budget at a time when the U.S. is $37 trillion in debt.

The agency will expire on July 4, 2026.

Ultimately, Musk can propose program cuts, but Trump holds the authority to approve or reject them. He may or may not act on all, some, or none of the DOGE recommendations.

“No one elected Musk.”

Like hundreds of government officials, Musk was appointed by an elected president to run an agency that does not require Senate confirmation.

Musk is as legally legitimate as the national security advisor and his National Security Council, none of whom require Senate confirmation.

Does the left believe former national security advisor Jake Sullivan, who made decisions far more pivotal than Musk, had no authority to do so because he too was neither elected nor confirmed by the Senate?

“It is a dangerous precedent to give a private citizen billionaire like Musk so much power.”

In fact, Musk has far more legal authority than did FDR’s best friend Harry Hopkins. Hopkins moved into the White House and de facto set U.S. foreign assistance policies toward Stalin’s Russia.

Musk’s position is more akin to past captains of industry like Henry Ford, Henry Kaiser, and William Knudson appointed by FDR to run the wartime economy.

None of them were either elected or confirmed by the Senate. All of them helped to save a poorly armed U.S. after the debacle of Pearl Harbor.

Keep reading

EPA head Lee Zeldin reveals no real oversight of shocking $20B that Biden admin funneled through Citibank: ‘Tip of the iceberg’

A $20 billion Biden administration green-energy slush fund was collecting interest at a private bank and is being distributed without proper oversight, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin reveals in an exclusive interview.

President Joe Biden’s EPA parked $20 billion at the financial institution, which The Post has learned is Citibank, as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. But the awardees weren’t announced until August 2024 and Citibank was not brought in until September — after Biden’s disastrous June debate performance led him to withdraw from his re-election effort in July, making for a very different race with Vice President Kamala Harris the Democratic nominee.

Zeldin’s team is looking into whether former EPA employees are working at any of the grantees, which include the Opportunity Finance Network (receiving $2.29 billion), where vice president Laura Silverman says she brings “economic, financial, and social justice to communities,” and the Native CDFI Network ($400 million), which has featured Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as a speaker. Power Forward Communities, a $2 billion recipient, has no list of employees on its website — but does have openings for government affairs VP, communications VP and special assistant.

The others: Climate United Fund (which got the biggest grant, nearly $7 billion), Coalition for Green Capital ($5 billion), Inclusiv ($1.87 billion), Justice Climate Fund ($940 million) and Appalachian Community Capital ($500 million).

Here Lee Zeldin tells The Post’s Kelly Jane Torrance why it was “a high priority for me and my great team to get to the bottom of these questions as quickly as possible.”

This was on our radar during the transition, when the video was posted online at the beginning of December of the Biden EPA political appointee admitting on camera they were “throwing gold bars off the Titanic.”

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s ‘Proof’ of Government Waste Is in the Pudding

Earlier this week, Elon Musk appeared at the Oval Office with President Donald Trump; Musk’s son, X Æ A-Xii, even made an appearance. Citing a desire for “maximum transparency,” the tech billionaire discussed the efforts of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to identify and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse within the federal government.

Here was how The New York Times described the press conference: “In Oval Office, Musk Says Without Proof That Bureaucracy Is Rife With Fraud.”

Later, the newspaper tweaked the headline to read: “At Oval Office, Musk Makes Broad Claims of Federal Fraud Without Proof.”

To be maximally charitable to the Times, they did not actually state that claims of federal fraud are baseless, just that Musk failed to proffer examples. Musk did cite examples of government processes clearly in need of updating, including the infamous, inefficient limestone mine where government employee papers are kept—something that sounds completely ridiculous but actually exists.

Keep reading

UK Could Weaken Online Censorship Law To Avoid US Trade Battle

As European leaders scramble to shield their economies from impending US tariffs, the UK’s Labour government appears ready to make significant concessions. Facing the risk of economic fallout, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration has reportedly signaled to Washington that it is open to revising the controversial and dangerous Online Safety Act — legislation critics have described as an aggressive censorship regime.

The Act, which gives UK regulators the power to fine tech companies for failing to remove vaguely defined “harmful content,” has been a major point of contention between the two allies and has become a major threat to free speech online. The Trump administration has been especially vocal in its opposition, viewing the law as an affront to free speech and a potential financial burden on US tech giants.

According to The Telegraph:

“Downing Street is willing to renegotiate elements of the Act in order to strike a trade deal, should it be raised by the US, The Telegraph understands. The law has been heavily criticized by free speech advocates and economists, who argue its broad provisions to tackle harmful online content could lead to excessive censorship and deter investment from American tech giants.”

The Online Safety Act arms UK media regulator Ofcom with sweeping new authority over social media platforms, enabling the imposition of multimillion-pound fines for failing to police content according to government directives. While supporters claim the law is necessary to protect users, critics argue that its vague wording and punitive approach encourage preemptive censorship — where platforms remove lawful content simply to avoid regulatory punishment.

Keep reading

Elizabeth Warren’s Hubris Allowed Trump To Defund the CFPB

Since at least the days of the ancient Greeks, humans have known that one way to write a compelling story is by including a bit of hamartia—a tragic flaw.

Sometimes that is a physical shortcoming—Achilles had that famously vulnerable heel—but it is often more interesting if the flaw is a more innate thing tied to a character’s understanding of themselves. Hubris, or excessive pride, is the famous one. After all, it wasn’t really Achilles’ unprotected heel that took him down, but his false belief that his mother had made him invulnerable.

You might say the exact same thing about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). It could be headed into a sort of coma later this year because of a fatal flaw embedded by its own parents: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and former President Barack Obama.

Unlike every other department and agency within the federal government, the CFPB is not funded via congressional appropriations. Instead, its funding flows directly from the Federal Reserve. Each year, the White House submits a budget to the Federal Reserve, and the central bank hands over the necessary amount—$729.4 million last year, in case you were wondering.

For a long time after the CFPB was created in 2010, there were serious questions about the constitutionality of that structure. That finally got resolved last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress was within its powers to hand off the purse strings. So, funding the CFPB via the Federal Reserve is not unconstitutional—it’s just unorthodox and foolish.

Here’s where the hubris enters the story. When Warren and Obama created the CFPB, they designed that unorthodox funding structure specifically to prevent a future Republican-led Congress from trying to defund the bureau. Remember, this was in the age when Republicans were running around the country telling voters they intended to repeal Obamacare too. By isolating the CFPB from Congress’ budgetary powers, Warren was trying to make it invulnerable to attack.

Instead, she simply gave it a fatal flaw.

Keep reading

Thomson Reuters, a Far-Left Propaganda Arm, Receives Funding from the U.S. Department of Defense for ‘Active Social Engineering Defense Large-Scale Social Deception’ — Elon Musk Responds

Thomson Reuters Corporation, the parent company that both owns Thomson Reuters Special Services LLC (TRSS) and the far-left propaganda arm Reuters News, has been funded by none other than the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).

Recent investigations have revealed that Thomson Reuters Special Services LLC was awarded a contract by the Department of Defense titled “Active Social Engineering Defense (ASED) Large Scale Social Deception (LSD).”

Thomson Reuters Special Services LLC (TRSS) is a U.S.-based subsidiary of Thomson Reuters that provides software and information services to U.S. government agencies.

TRSS reports to an independent Board of Directors and operates under the oversight of the U.S. Department of Defense to offer classified and sensitive services to the U.S. Government.

The contract, identified as FA865018C7886, was awarded in 2018 with a value of approximately $9.1 million. You can view the contract details at USASpending.gov.

Keep reading

DOGE Exposes Insane Federal Use Of Old Limestone Mine And 700 Mine Workers To Store Files

Elon Musk’s DOGE has revealed that the federal government is using an old limestone mine in Pennsylvania to store tens of thousands, if not millions of physical paper files in cardboard boxes.

The files are just retirement documents for federal workers, so could easily be digitised, yet the government has continued to physically store them.

The mine is 230 feet underground and requires over 700 workers with the Office of Personnel Management to operate and upkeep it.

What the hell?

At least if there is a nuclear apocalypse whoever survives in here will have access to…information on retired government workers.

Musk shared the insane finding, noting “Maybe it’s just me, but I think there is room for improvement here.”

Keep reading

From Oversight to Overlooked: The Government’s Failure to Control Trillions in Misspent Funds

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), created more than a century ago to assist Congress in its constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities, issued a report just last year which estimated that in a span of 20 years, including 2023, that the US Government made $2.7 TRILLION dollars in improper expenditures resulting from overpayments, inaccurate record keeping, and fraud. In fiscal year 2023 alone, GAO determined the federal government improperly dispensed $269 Billion.

Let this sink in for those who are getting the vapors about administrative overreach into sensitive Treasury payment systems: TRILLIONS of our tax dollars have been lost through faulty payment systems. Rising taxes, mounting deficits and loss of faith in government are the effects.

The problem isn’t that President Trump and Elon Musk are diving into this, but that sweeping action to attack corruption has not been attempted by Congress, or by the Executive branch, in many a year.

This critical condition is above and beyond political parties and personalities. The failure to root out financial and other corruption in the US government has placed our nation in grave jeopardy through rising, seemingly uncontrollable deficits.

Government elites, kleptocrats, conniving with contractors, have long enabled this perilous condition, not the work-a-day federal employees.

The revolving door, individuals moving from high office in government to highly paid positions in the private sector, and back to the revolving door, has represented a takeover of the government by private interests.

This awareness inspires caution about the motives, intent and direction of the present bureaucratic realignment.

As a member of the Government Oversight Committee for 16 years, I yelled “stop thief,” many times into a din of indifference, inertia and blind acceptance of corruption as the implicate order. It was extraordinary to witness elected officials who helplessly shrugged at a system riddled with thievery while they, and they alone, were empowered to set it right.

Years before I was elected to Congress, I was Mayor of Cleveland. In my first year in office, I was able to cut city government spending by 10% without reducing service –through the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse – and ran the government on a cash basis.

I look at present federal spending, approaching $7 Trillion annually, $5.2 Trillion coming from revenues and $1.9 Trillion borrowed (adding to the deficit), with the interest on the national debt now exceeding $1 Trillion dollars annually.

I can easily envision that the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse at a federal level could save the American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars annually, helping to protect revenues for basic government services and lowering the national debt’s dangerous trajectory.

Keep reading

The Demise of USAID: Few Regrets in Latin America

“Take your money with you,” said Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, when told about Trump’s plans to cut aid to Latin America, “it’s poison.”

USAID (US Agency for International Development) spends around $2 billion annually in Latin America, which is only 5% of its global budget. The temporarily closed-down agency’s future looks bleak, while reactions to its money being cut have been wide-ranging. Only a few were as strong as Petro’s and many condemned the move. For example, WOLA (the Washington Office on Latin America), a leading “liberal” think tank which routinely runs cover for Washington’s regime-change efforts, called it Trump’s “America Last” policy.

While USAID does some good – such as removing landmines in Vietnam (themselves a product of US wrongdoing) – as an agency of the world’s hegemon, its fundamental role is aligned with projecting US world dominance.

Not unexpectedly, the corporate media have largely come to the rescue of USAID. They try to give the impression that they are mainly concerned that some countries would be badly effected by its loss. In fact, the follow-the-flag media understand that USAID is part of the imperial toolkit.

Both the Los Angles Times and Bloomberg suggested that USAID’s shutdown would “open the door” to China. The Associated Press described the withdrawal of aid as a “huge setback” for the region; the BBC echoed these sentiments. The NYT and other mainstream media point to the irony that many of its programs help stem outward migration from Latin America, an issue which is otherwise at the top of Trump’s agenda.

Keep reading