Tag: taxes

Public Restroom in Los Angeles That Cost $1 MILLION to Build, Still Not Open Six Months After Completion

The city of Los Angeles spent a million dollars building a public restroom and six months after its completion, it’s still not open to the public.

This is a perfect example of government mismanagement. It also explains why it has been so difficult to rebuild there after the wildfires that happened over a year and a half ago. The city and state are drowning in red tape that comes in the form of permits and inspections.

To add irony to the situation, this restroom is in the district of Nithya Raman, the DSA candidate running for mayor of the city.

The New York Post reports:

Six months after completion, $1M Runyon Canyon restroom in Nithya Raman’s district still closed

Los Angeles hikers are fuming over a nearly $1 million public restroom that remains locked and fenced off six months after it was installed at Runyon Canyon.

The two-stall prefabricated facility was delivered by crane in February near the popular park’s Fuller Avenue entrance following months of controversy over its eye-popping price tag.

But despite the stalls, sinks, sidewalks and lighting appearing to be in place, visitors still can’t use it.

“I’ve had some close calls. I had to improvise, but that’s all I’ll say. I don’t want to incriminate myself,” frequent Runyon Canyon visitor Josh told FOX 11.

Construction began in January and was expected to take about 15 weeks, according to the Council District 4 website, which would have put completion around April or May.

The city later said the restroom was expected to open sometime this summer.

Keep reading

How Often Does Congress Show Up To Work? Will August Recess Be Cancelled? – Lawmakers Weigh-In

As the midterm elections loom and Republicans are at risk of losing at least one chamber, President Trump is pushing hard to pass his legislative agenda these next few months. Most notably the SAVE America Act.

Every single year, both the House and the Senate leave for the month of August for this yearly tradition known as “August Recess.” The House left at the end of July and the Senate is set to leave at the end of the week.

Given that Members of Congress will typically arrive in Washington DC around Monday afternoon the earliest and they usually fly back to their respective states by Thursday afternoon, they come to work an average of three days a week.

Keep reading

Why The Trump Administration Was Right To End The Medicare Part D Insurer Bailout

he Trump administration’s recent decision to end a temporary Part D subsidy program in 2027 attracted much press attention, and some criticism. The California Democratic Party claimed on  X that “25 million people, mainly seniors, count on Medicare Part D to afford their prescriptions. Donald Trump is putting their health on the line by ending the program.”

This is  absurd—and false. The Trump administration is not  ending the Part D program (established by Congress in 2003) and couldn’t do so even if it wanted to. However, it is ending a temporary and extralegal bailout program that provided billions of dollars in subsidies to insurers. That’s because Democrats made changes to the program that have cost far more than they claimed.

The Bailout, Explained

In summer 2024, the Biden administration announced a unilateral  “premium stabilization demonstration.” The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) noted the new program would start at the2025 plan year. This was just in time for premium announcements to land in seniors’ mailboxes just prior to the November 2024 election.

The program came into effect largely due to Democrats’ Inflation (Reduction) Act. That law shifted and restructured costs Part D insurers had to pay. It also reduced seniors’ out-of-pocket expenses on prescription drugs. The latter change will, all else equal, result in higher spending, because seniors will consume more and more costly drugs if they  have to pay for fewer or none of their own costs.

The IRA already included one “stabilization” mechanism in a statute running through 2029, intending to minimize any premium increases. But, after seeing preliminary plan bids for 2025, CMS effectively admitted this lone bailout would be insufficient to prevent large spikes in premiums or insurer exits. 

So it conjured a second, unilateral bailout to minimize any potential disruptions. Of course, as I noted at the time, this also amounted to using taxpayer funds to prevent Kamala Harris from suffering a big political controversy in the days leading up to the presidential election.

Unsustainable Costs

As the Washington Post wrote in a recent editorial, these “subsidies have helped keep premiums down but simply by shifting more of the cost on to the federal government,” rather than lowering costs. Indeed, while seniors traditionally paid 25.5 percent  of Part D benefit costs via premiums, this year seniors are paying only about half that amount, or 13 percent.  Taxpayers foot the bill for roughly seven in eight dollars of program spending (87 percent).

The IRA bailouts resulted in $40 billion in additional taxpayer spending in 2025 and 2026, and the costs will add up even more in coming years. I noted recently that this year’s Medicare trustees report increased the long-term cost of the Part D program by roughly one-third, or $5 trillion, compared to the 2025 trustees report.

Justifiable Action

Given these skyrocketing costs, it makes perfect sense to end the Biden administration’s unilateral bailout. Because the IRA’s major changes took effect in January 2025, insurers now have enough actuarial information (i.e., plan claims) to price their products without uncertainty leading to major variations in premiums. 

Eliminating one bailout—remember, the statutory bailout remains in effect through 2029—may increase Part D premiums slightly. But CMS noted that the majority of enrollees will either face no change or a decline in premiums (25 percent), or an increase of under $10 per month (30 percent). Given that taxpayers will still pay a greater share of Part D costs than before the IRA and premiums have fallen by more than one-third in inflation-adjusted terms over the past 15 years, Part D still represents a good value for seniors.

By ending the Biden administration’s unilateral insurer bailout, the Trump administration served as a smart steward of scarce taxpayer dollars, while restoring more of a competitive balance to Part D. False scaremongering by the left aside, the action will help to preserve a Medicare program that faces significant solvency concerns.

Keep reading

White House Moves to Accelerate AI Data Center Development on Federal Lands

The Trump administration has issued executive orders intended to accelerate the development of artificial intelligence data centers, including on federal lands, according to administration officials. The orders are designed to address rising electricity demand from AI computing and to strengthen U.S. competitiveness, the White House said. Data centers currently consume about 4.4 percent of total U.S. electricity, a figure projected to reach 12 percent by 2030, according to industry estimates cited by the White House. [11]

Executive Orders Direct Agencies to Open Federal Lands

The executive orders direct the Departments of Energy and the Interior to identify federal parcels for data center leases and to designate projects as priority infrastructure, according to the administration. Agencies have been instructed to expedite permitting and coordinate transmission connections, officials said. The Bureau of Land Management has already approved the Townsite Data Center project to construct, operate, and maintain a data center on 88.5 acres of public land, Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) said on Facebook, accusing the administration of approving the “first private data center on public land using a permit meant for a solar project.” [10]

A report by Children’s Health Defense, “Cheating the System,” details how developers have exploited legal loopholes following a May 2023 Supreme Court ruling that limited Clean Water Act jurisdiction, leaving many data centers outside Environmental Protection Agency oversight or eligible for streamlined nationwide permits that require minimal review. [12]

Power Demand Drives Energy Infrastructure Plans

Officials said the data centers will require electricity from natural gas, nuclear, and geothermal sources, along with expanded high-voltage transmission capacity. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum warned the Senate that the U.S. risks losing the global AI race to China unless it prioritizes reliable, baseload electricity generation, primarily from fossil fuels, to meet the energy demands of AI and data centers. [5] In its quest for more electric power, AI data centers are forming partnerships with nuclear power providers, with utilities owning about a third of U.S. nuclear power plants in discussions with AI centers about long-term electricity supply, according to the Trends Journal. [6]

The rapid buildout raises questions about grid reliability, water consumption, and environmental impacts on previously undisturbed federal lands. Local officials across the United States say rapid construction of data centers is creating environmental and infrastructure concerns, according to NaturalNews.com. [4] The backlash against AI data centers is intensifying across America, driven by growing awareness that these facilities are escalating electricity costs and displacing resources essential for human life, including water, farmland, and energy, according to BrightVideos.com. [14] According to U.S. Labor Department data cited in the Trends Journal, electricity bills are up more than 10 percent and homeowners’ insurance is up 13 percent over the past two years. [7]

Supporters Cite Competition; Critics Raise Concerns

Administration officials and industry representatives said the buildout is necessary for U.S. leadership in AI and for national security. State lawmakers and big tech are pushing back against what they call misinformation surrounding data centers, arguing that the facilities are vital for American jobs and technological leadership, according to Just the News. [9] Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in Senate testimony that without reliable baseload power, the United States risks falling behind China in the AI race. [5]

Opposition has also organized. More than 300 cities, towns, and counties have enacted bans or moratoriums on hyperscale construction, according to a count by The Information, and a poll cited by NBC News found 58 percent oppose local data centers. [8] Environmental groups and local residents have objected to land use and emissions, while public health advocates have cited concerns about noise and light pollution, according to BrightVideos.com. [14]

Keep reading

Mamdani: Nah, No IDs at City Grocery Stores — Illegals Welcome to Shop on the Taxpayer Dime

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) is now promising that his taxpayer-funded, socialist grocery stores will require zero identification — meaning non-New Yorkers, including illegals and tourists, can stroll right in and load up on discounted food while actual residents foot the bill.

This comes after one of his own officials floated a “library-card-esque” system to make sure only city residents could take advantage of the 30 percent markdowns, sparking immediate outrage.

While critics may portray this as a ‘damned if you do’ trap for Mamdani, it’s not. The criticism yesterday was in the irony of requiring ID, which leftists, in opposition to the vast majority of Americans, believe is racist.

The reality, however, is worse.

“We’re talking about a city-run grocery store, one in each borough, which, by the way, you do not need an ID to shop at, no matter what you’ve just heard in the news of today,” the mayor told Joy Reid.

The implication is clear here. The outrage was a construct of the right. A fiction. And of course, Mediaite helped spread that idiotic narrative, with their angle that Mamdani “laugh(ed) off” the “MAGA uproar.”

The “uproar” was over the hypocrisy. And the concerns were not made up. 

Jeanny Pak, the interim president and CEO of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, said: “We are looking to make sure that we target New Yorkers, whether it be a sort of library card-esque thing, and also we manage who’s buying and that it is focused on everyday New Yorkers.”

Pretty clear-cut statement there.

Now that the mayor has pivoted and done a 180, it’s safe to assume they are not, in fact, “focused on everyday New Yorkers.”

Non-New Yorkers, including illegal aliens and out-of-towners, will be able to shop at the taxpayer-funded stores.

“NYC Grocery stores will be open to everyone. There will be no system to verify identity, residency, or income, and no one will be asked to show ID to shop,” a City Hall representative told the New York Post.

Funded on the backs of New Yorkers. But anybody can reap the benefits. This move continues the trend of Mamdani being a weapons-grade economic illiterate. He likes to discuss fairness for all but implements a government program that is inarguably unfair to actual residents of the city.

Keep reading

Spain’s Socialist Government Allocates €25 Million to Immigrant Minors Who Invaded Ceuta as One in Three Spanish Children Lives at Risk of Poverty

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s Socialist government has announced an extraordinary €25 million package of public funds to care for the unaccompanied migrant minors (commonly known in Spain as MENAs) who arrived in the Spanish enclave of Ceuta during last week’s invasion.

The announcement comes as official figures show that between 28% and 33% of Spanish children live in poverty or are at risk of social exclusion—the highest child poverty rate in the European Union. That means roughly 2.6 million Spanish children are living in economically vulnerable conditions while the central government approves emergency funding for foreign minors who entered Spain during the recent border crisis.

The funding was announced Tuesday by Spain’s Minister of Inclusion, Social Security and Immigration, Elma Saiz, who said the money will be used to provide urgent assistance to the approximately 860 to 1,000 immigrant minors who remain under Ceuta’s custody following the illegal mass entry of tens of thousands of Moroccan nationals, most of them young men. The new funding comes on top of a previous €5.5 million allocation.

Saiz said the measure demonstrates the government’s “commitment” to protecting vulnerable people. Critics, however, argue that it effectively rewards what they describe as a mass illegal border incursion that challenged Spain’s sovereignty while thousands of Spanish children continue to face severe economic hardship.

Madrid Received Warnings—But Responded Too Late

The controversy intensified after reports emerged that Spain’s National Intelligence Center (CNI) had issued several warnings to the Interior Ministry in the days leading up to the border invasion about the risk of a mass crossing.

Keep reading

Palisades Fire Fraud: Man Headed To Prison After Scamming $64K Out Of FEMA

An East Hollywood man is headed to federal prison for a year and a day after collecting more than $64,000 in wildfire disaster relief on a Pacific Palisades home he had no connection to whatsoever.

Delvonne Dashon Johnson, 32, was sentenced on July 31 in Los Angeles and ordered to repay $64,148 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He pleaded guilty last year to fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits – a charge that carries a statutory maximum of 30 years.

In February 2025, weeks after the Palisades Fire tore through the coastline, Johnson filed a FEMA claim listing a Pacific Palisades address as a home he owned. FEMA wired him $64,138 later that same month – except, he didn’t own the house. Someone else did, and she was living in it.

The fraud unraveled only when the actual homeowner tried to file her own claim. FEMA told her someone had already submitted one on her property’s behalf. When investigators interviewed her on April 2, 2025, she told them she had lived at the address since 2015, that it was her primary residence, that she was there when the fire hit, that she had never rented the place to anyone, and that she had never heard of Delvonne Johnson.

Johnson was not working alone – he was one of several people federal prosecutors swept up for running the same play on the same disaster. Deanniah Hogan, 32, of Compton, allegedly posed as a renter at a Palisades home and drew roughly $17,351. Zenalyn McIntre, 38, of Sherman Oaks, allegedly submitted a fabricated utility bill and a driver’s license listing a different address, and received about $25,229. Hedeshia Robertson, 36, of Lakewood, pleaded guilty after obtaining some $24,899. Another defendant allegedly claimed a nonexistent Altadena address as her destroyed primary residence and collected $23,441, plus two FEMA-booked hotel stays. Jaime Arturo Carrillo, 48, pleaded guilty after claiming property damage and utility disruption at a South Los Angeles address roughly 20 miles from either fire.

The pattern extends well beyond Los Angeles County. In June, a Honolulu man was sentenced to two years for conspiring to submit false FEMA claims tied to both the Lahaina fire and the Pacific Palisades fire, with a co-defendant posing as his Maui landlord before turning around and claiming to have lived in Pacific Palisades herself. The pair collected more than $60,000. He then filed fabricated flight records with the court and picked up an obstruction charge on top.

Victims of the Eaton and Palisades fires could qualify for a one-time $750 FEMA payment, up to $43,600 in other-needs assistance covering personal property, transportation and medical costs, and housing assistance for as long as 18 months. Homeowners were eligible for up to another $43,600 in repair money. Money that moves fast enough to help people who just lost everything moves fast enough to reach people who lost nothing.

The two fires ignited on Jan. 7, 2025, burned close to 60,000 acres, destroyed more than 16,000 structures, and killed 30 people.

For claiming a slice of the recovery money set aside for those people, Johnson drew 12 months and one day.

Keep reading

Mamdani admin. denies that shoppers will need state photo ID or face mandatory door checks to buy food at upcoming city-run grocery stores

A national political firestorm erupted on Monday following viral social media claims that New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani would require shoppers to present identification to purchase food at proposed municipal grocery stores, prompting sharp criticism from conservative leaders, left-wing New Yorkers and a subsequent clarification from City Hall.

The controversy stems from comments made during a press conference addressing the Mamdani (D-N.Y.) administration’s new flagship “food affordability program.” Last week, Mamdani announced a $70 million initiative to open five city-owned, publicly subsidized grocery stores — one in each borough — offering a 30% discount on essential kitchen staples like meat, produce, and pantry goods.

During the press conference, which transpired in late July, a reporter asked the mayor, “How are you going to keep people from taking advantage of that deal, basically? And is there going to be a limit on the number of items that someone can take that are discounted at that level from that essential basket?”

“So our RFP (Request for Proposal) makes very clear this is a program for New Yorkers to be able to put food on the table, not a program for people to be able to make a quick buck through reselling,” Mamdani responded.

Jeanny Pak, the CFO of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, then floated the idea of a residency verification mechanism, mentioning a potential “library card-esque thing” or looking into state IDs to manage buyer eligibility and target local New Yorkers.

However, following the social media buzz, Mamdani’s office later issued a statement denying that shoppers will need to present a state photo ID or undergo door checks to enter or buy food at the proposed city-owned grocery stores.

Regarding the current official status, the Mamdani administration has not formally enacted a mandatory ID policy. They stated they are “still exploring options” to verify local residence, but no final decision has been made ahead of the planned 2027 opening in the Bronx, New York officials emphasized.

Nonetheless, prior to the clarification, video clips of the exchange circulated rapidly across political circles online, sparking immediate accusations of political hypocrisy. Prominent Republican figures seized on the clip to draw comparisons between food access policies and federal election laws.

Billionaire Elon Musk posted to X calling the situation ironic, while Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) labeled it hypocritical, arguing that advocating for residency verification at city grocery stores while opposing mandatory voter ID bills was inconsistent.

Keep reading

The Pentagon’s Hidden Housing Scandal: Outsourcing Duty Of Care

Sen. Jon Ossoff released a report on July 8 documenting lead exposure in a newborn, mold-related emergency room visits, and a cockroach infestation living inside a family’s oven, all in privatized military housing at Fort Benning and Fort Stewart. Read it and you’d think it was written in 2022. It wasn’t. That’s the scandal: the Pentagon outsourced a duty of care to private landlords and never enforced the contracts meant to keep it intact.

I’ve spent thirty years in institutional investment management and now serve as an expert witness in fiduciary litigation. The pattern is one I recognize immediately: an institution hands a core obligation to a private operator, collects a fee for oversight it doesn’t actually perform, and treats the delegation itself as if it discharged the duty. It didn’t. Outsourcing a duty of care doesn’t outsource the duty.

Congress created the Military Housing Privatization Initiative in 1996 to fix decrepit on-base housing without loading the capital cost onto the Pentagon’s books. Private companies would own, renovate, and maintain the homes under leases running as long as fifty years, with servicemembers’ Basic Allowance for Housing flowing straight to the landlord as rent. The Pentagon would keep oversight, backed by incentive fees for good performance and penalties for bad. On paper, a clean alignment of interests. In practice, a guaranteed revenue stream with an oversight function nobody actually staffed.

Fort Stewart’s housing has been run by Balfour Beatty Communities since the base was privatized. In December 2021, Balfour Beatty pleaded guilty to one count of major fraud against the United States, agreeing to pay more than $65 million in criminal fines, restitution, and a related civil settlement. The company’s employees falsified maintenance records and destroyed resident comment cards between 2013 and 2019 to fraudulently collect incentive fees they hadn’t earned. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said the fraud was “a consequence of BBC’s broken corporate culture” that put profit ahead of servicemembers’ welfare.

Four months later, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found the conduct hadn’t stopped. Its bipartisan staff report on the mistreatment of military families in privatized housing documented that Balfour’s post-2019 behavior mirrored the misconduct behind its guilty plea; in the same period the company was under active federal investigation. A company can plead guilty to defrauding the government over housing conditions and keep collecting Basic Allowance for Housing checks from the families living in the homes it failed.

Fast-forward to this month. Fort Stewart is still Balfour Beatty’s. Fort Benning’s housing is run by a different company, the Michaels Organization’s Villages of Benning. Ossoff’s report found nearly identical failures at both: mold, lead, cover-ups, families told their complaints were handled when they weren’t. That detail should stop anyone from treating this as one bad company. Two operators, two installations, the same pattern. The failure sits in the oversight structure, not the logo on the leasing office.

The government’s own auditors have said as much. In an April 2023 report, the Government Accountability Office made 19 recommendations to improve DOD’s oversight of privatized housing, including a priority recommendation that the Pentagon set clear, consistent, department-wide home inspection standards, after finding that comparable maintenance problems were getting graded differently depending on who held the clipboard. As of GAO’s most recent public status update, that priority recommendation was still open, with DOD not expecting signed guidance until mid-2025 at the earliest. Congress had to legislate the fix GAO had already recommended.

This is the same structural failure I’ve written about previously in public pension governance, wearing a uniform instead of a suit. A pension trustee who delegates asset management to an outside manager doesn’t delegate away fiduciary responsibility for the outcome; the law is explicit that the duty stays with the trustee. The Pentagon’s relationship with its housing contractors works the same way as a matter of principle, even though the enforcement mechanism is a lease rather than ERISA. Both share the same defect: an incentive-fee structure that pays out on paperwork instead of results, and an oversight office too thin to catch the difference until a senator’s staff does the job for it.

That fix is now in the books. The Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, signed in December, directs the Secretary of War to establish a standard inspection and audit program for privatized and government-owned housing using independent, qualified inspectors, and separately tightens the rules on when a housing company may close a maintenance work order. Falsified paperwork closed BBC’s work orders and inflated its bonuses for six years before anyone with subpoena power looked at the underlying data; an inspector who doesn’t answer to the landlord closes that loophole.

Keep reading

Newsom’s tax returns show annual income between $1.7M and $2M

The long-awaited release of California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom’s tax returns has been heavily criticized after it was revealed that he and his wife made $1.7 million to $2 million annually from 2022 through 2024 and paid half a million a year in federal and state taxes, according to the tax returns released by his office.

The criticism surrounding the release of Newsom’s (D-Calif.) tax returns stems primarily from the tightly controlled manner in which the documents were disclosed, the lack of itemized details regarding his business holdings, specific deductions, and the omission of his most recent tax filing.

Together, these factors have led political opponents, media commentators and other transparency advocates to argue that the release fell short of genuine public disclosure.

First, the method of release drew immediate pushback from media commentators and political watchdog groups. Rather than publishing the tax documents online for direct public inspection, the governor’s office restricted access to a select group of journalists inside a controlled environment. Reporters were required to review the 700-page filing using only pen and paper, without the ability to take photographs, make digital copies or release the raw files.

Second, the structure of the returns obscured important financial details about Newsom’s business empire. While the filings showed that the bulk of the couple’s multimillion-dollar income flowed from hospitality, restaurant and winery enterprises held in a blind trust, tax returns only report aggregate income.

Third, opponents highlighted major personal deductions revealed in the returns, including tens of thousands of dollars spent on high-end designer apparel and nearly two hundred thousand dollars allocated for his own personal household staff.

Finally, the pages provided to reporters covered only tax years 2021 through 2024, as the governor and his wife filed for an extension on their 2025 returns through October. While requesting an extension is standard tax procedure, political adversaries pointed out that the omission leaves his most recent financial activity unexamined as he lays the groundwork for a prospective 2028 presidential campaign.

Reporters from outlets like The New York Times and Politico were reportedly permitted to view the documents using only pen and paper, agreeing to hold their reports until Friday morning, as Newsom faced increasing pressure to publicize the records.

These disclosures mark Newsom’s first tax release since 2022. While his salary as governor pays around $200,000 per year, the bulk of his income is generated by winery and hospitality businesses he placed into a blind trust upon taking office.

The only exception occurred in 2021, when the family earned about $800,000 by selling a Marin County home for nearly $6 million. Their total earnings reached $4.2 million that year, resulting in over $1 million paid in combined federal and state taxes. In 2022, their income dropped back to approximately $2 million.

Noethelsss, the governor’s office later argued that there was nothing unusual in the filings.

U.S. Representative James Gallagher (R-Calif.) told The Post, “Newsom’s transparency is a lot like his homelessness policy — it leaves a lot to be desired … He talks big about things about never actually delivers. This is another instance of that — only allowing select people and only pen and paper. This isn’t real transparency. There are still a lot of questions where Gavin’s money comes from,” he declared.

Keep reading