Tag: taxes

National Public Radio Suggests Banning Trans Surgery for Minors Sets a ‘Dangerous Precedent’

National Public Radio (NPR) recently did a story about how the Trump administration is cracking down on the use of Medicaid and Medicare for so-called ‘gender affirming care’ especially with regards to children.

This is another 80/20 issue that the vast majority of the public supports, it might even be 90/10. Most people do not believe that children should be involved in any of this. We don’t allow children to get tattoos, why would we allow them to get irreversible (and unnecessary) surgery that will affect them for the rest of their lives?

Despite public outcry, Democrats and the left in general, have made it clear that they simply will not let go of this issue.

The language in the NPR story shows that.

NewsBusters reports:

Touted as an exclusive story on National Public Radio from health reporter Selena Simmons-Duffin, “Trump’s HHS abandons threat to withhold Medicare and Medicaid funding over trans care” dutifully repeated the “gender-affirming care for youth” misnomer in the lead while providing only trans-supportive sources.

The Trump administration is abandoning its most aggressive attempt to end gender-affirming care for youth nationally, according to an official document obtained by NPR.

The document shows that the Department of Health and Human Services will not be finalizing a proposed rule that would have blocked all Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals that provide pediatric gender-affirming care…

The broadcast version that aired on NPR’s All Things Considered Monday added a “dangerous” adjective to the mix.

Simmons-Duffin: ….The American Medical Association and the Children’s Hospital Association both urged the government to withdraw it. They said it violated several laws and set a dangerous precedent….

This is exactly why for years now, conservatives have been calling for the defunding of NPR.

Keep reading

Los Angeles Spent $60 Million on Nithya Raman Plan to Get Homeless People Off the Street – It Has Housed THREE UNITS

Nithya Raman, the Democratic Socialist (communist) running for mayor of Los Angeles, is also a member of the LA City Council, who chairs their special council on homelessness.

Last year, the city enacted a plan that was championed by Raman, which was intended to get homeless people off the streets and into apartments.

Despite carrying out the plan, which cost $60 million, only three units have been housed as a result.

Los Angeles residents can look forward to more of this kind of success in the future, no matter who wins the current race for mayor, Raman or incumbent Karen Bass.

The New York Post reports:

LA blew $60M on homeless ‘fix’ — it housed just three units

Just three out of a promised 2,000 apartments have been used to relocate the homeless in Nithya Raman’s failed $60 million project to get people off the streets.

Councilmember Raman, the chair of the Los Angeles City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee, introduced the Time Limited Subsidy program back in September as a cheaper alternative to Mayor Karen Bass’ Inside Safe Program — meant to get homeless people into an established residence.

Raman’s plan was to lease and move homeless people into 2,000 apartments and subsidize their rent, rather than pay for them to stay in motels or shelters.

However, nearly a year after that plan was launched — with $62.6 million in taxpayer funds behind it — only three apartments are occupied.

The City Council first approved investing in the subsidy model last September as part of its strategy for complying with a court settlement with the Los Angeles Alliance for Human Rights.

Four months later, on January 28, the council approved resources for a redesigned program targeting 2,000 households…

Keep reading

Bill giving $10,000 bonuses to NYC paraprofessionals heads to mayor’s desk

A bill to provide $10,000 bonuses to New York City’s full-time paraprofessionals is headed to Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s desk after it was approved by City Council members Thursday. 

Similar legislation introduced last year was backed by the United Federation of Teachers in an effort to address the city’s paraprofessional shortage. After the bill failed to move out of committee, it was reintroduced in February by multiple council members. 

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

If Mamdani signs the bill, full-time paraprofessionals will receive four payments of $2,500 throughout the 2026-27 school year. The bill allows the council to reauthorize stipends each year as long as New York City Public Schools has a paraprofessional shortage or until the city changes the practice of pattern bargaining — a local policy that lets the salary increases negotiated for one municipal union’s contract set the pattern for all the others.

The United Federation of Teachers and council members said pattern bargaining has contributed to low paraprofessional pay.

“Once the initial bargaining pattern is established, it becomes an enormous challenge to get the city to grant significantly better terms to another union,” the United Federation of Teachers said on its website.

New paraprofessionals earn roughly $32,000 in the city. Over the past 20 years, starting salaries have increased nearly $12,000 for paraprofessionals but top $86,000 for the highest-paid principals.

“We are going to pass this bill and we are going to put it on the desk of the mayor of New York City saying that the paraprofessionals have been unjustly treated and we are in a crisis,” said UFT President Michael Mulgrew at a union gathering at New York City Hall on Thursday. “And the paraprofessionals are dealing with that crisis each and every day with their work, going above and beyond, and now it’s time for our city to act and do the right thing.”

Keep reading

$100 Billion & Climbing: Iran War Price Tag Believed Far Higher Than WH Estimates

While the Pentagon publicly clings to a $30 billion price tag for its war against Iran, internal Defense Department assessments (unsurprisingly) paint a far more staggering picture: the true cost is rapidly closing in on the $80 billion to $100 billion range, according to NBC News.

The Pentagon’s Office of Management and Budget told Congress on June 30 that US military operations against Iran so far is $30 billion: “We’ve spent about $30 billion,” OMB Director Russel Vought told the House Appropriations Committee. 

NBC’s new assessment bluntly states the following, however: “The cost of the war with Iran could be more than triple the most recent estimate of roughly $30 billion, according to three U.S. officials and three people familiar with the internal cost estimates.”

The lower figure was reportedly initially floated based a classic Washington accounting trick which only evaluates the cost of expended missiles and munitions while conveniently ignoring the charred remnants of American hardware and damaged bases littering the Gulf states after Iranian retaliatory attacks, the report explains.

The estimate featured in the NBC report accounts for actually rebuilding those installations previously attacked by Iran. Judging by how things are going this week – after five consecutive days of renewed fighting – the final bill from damage will only keep pushing up from here.

It has been well documented that while American troops at Gulf bases across the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf were by and large pulled back from near ‘front lines’ – large US military assets like refueling tankers were in some cases left behind, resulting in scenes like the following:

“Five U.S. Air Force refueling planes were struck and damaged on the ground at Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia, according to two U.S. officials,” The Wall Street Journal reported in mid-March. Each one costs hundreds of millions.

“The tankers were hit during an Iranian missile strike on the Saudi base in recent days, the officials said,” WSJ detailed at the time. “U.S. Central Command declined to comment. The tankers were damaged but not fully destroyed and are being repaired, one of the officials said. No one was killed in the strikes.”

And in Bahrain, home of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, damage to military facilities is already estimated at $1 billion. Heavily fortified installations in Kuwait have also taken a severe beating, with both these tiny Arab Gulf states being favored targets of IRGC projectiles of late.

In the meantime, with a $1.5 trillion budget battle looming this autumn, the Pentagon is currently urging Congress to approve $68 billion supplemental funding package just to keep the lights on, but as the Iran war drags on with few clear objectives outlining an endgame, defense officials are hitting a wall of bipartisan skepticism among lawmakers.

One D.C. watchdog group, Public Citizen, has stated this week: “The American people are fed up with spending more on bombs and less on basic needs. And they are furious with a pointless, deadly, illegal, unconstitutional and protracted war that is costing lives and driving up gas prices.”

Keep reading

Stop the Presses! Congress Denies Netanyahu Something He Asked For!

“I want to stop American aid,” Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on June 30. “It’s like welfare; I don’t want it.”

Usually, Netanyahu gets anything he demands from Uncle Sugar. But on July 15, the US House of Representatives voted, 314-104 against even partially granting his wish.

Every Republican except Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and more than half of Democrats, voted down an amendment that would have removed $3.3 billion in “Foreign Military Financing” aid from the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.

What’s up with that?

Was Netanyahu perhaps a wee bit disingenuous in his public request, passing word through back channels that he didn’t really mean it?

Is US Congress more “pro-Israeli” than Netanyahu himself, or perhaps just so addicted to spending that they can’t bear to cut anything at all, even if the recipient doesn’t want it?

Some combination of the above?

This may be the first time I’ve ever found myself in agreement with Benjamin Netanyahu on anything.

Well, partial agreement, anyway.

US aid to Israel isn’t “like welfare.”

It IS welfare.

What does the US regime in return for its billions of dollars per year? Two things:

  1. A way of re-routing tax money to crony “defense contractors” with Israel as the cut-out to obscure the  domestic end of the corporate welfare pipeline; and
  2. Dragged into a Middle Eastern garrison ethno-state’s every conflict with other regional powers — powers which substantially differ from Israel mainly in ethnicity, prevailing religion, and actually having some oil to make the entanglement worthwhile.

Don’t give me the “liberal democracy” stuff. The Israeli regime censors the press, bans political parties it doesn’t like, confines millions of Arabs to apartheid-style “homelands” as rightsless, non-voting serfs under Israeli rule, and just passed a law declaring that theological studies in one, and only one, religion are “fundamental” to its existence and thus deserving of exemption from the compulsory military hitch mere “secular” Jews serve. Politically, the main difference between Israel and Iran is that in Iran, Jews are guaranteed at least one seat in parliament.

Some “pro-Israel” — and “pro-US-aid-to-Israel” — people I talk with love to inform me that Israel has a longer average lifespan, a lower infant mortality rate, and a lower homicide rate (excluding the  Palestinians ruled by, and murdered by, Israeli troops) than the US.

That doesn’t strike me as the “gotcha” they seem to think. Could those billions in aid possibly have anything to do with the statistical differences? Every dollar in US aid is a dollar more the Israeli regime gets to spend on healthcare and police salaries instead of on weapons to power its expansionist foreign policy.

This time, Congress should have given Netanyahu what he said he wanted.

Keep reading

Rhode Island Chooses Tax Hike Death Spiral

hode Island just enacted a tax increase that will chase the highest-earning households out of the state and ensure revenue shortfalls as long as it remains in place.

These millionaire taxes are an increasingly popular idea that benefits low-tax states while punishing everyone who remains stuck in high-tax ones.

Gov. Dan McKee on Friday signed a state budget that raises the tax rate on annual income above $1 million to 8.99 percent, up from the current 5.99 percent. That is a 50 percent tax hike on the state’s most successful people.

McKee, a Democrat, is up for reelection this year and is in a tough primary battle against wealthy opponent Helena Foulkes. That explains his support for a monster tax increase he opposed last year.

I am by no means convinced that all these governors and state legislators really believe that these tax hikes will raise additional money. Some dimwitted true believers certainly do imagine that people are so enamored of their current places of residence that they will accept anything as the price of remaining there. New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani, Los Angeles political boss Karen Bass, and Seattle chief executive Katie Wilson are apparently among these.

At a news conference early this month, Wilson “laughed off warnings of a millionaire exodus even as a new survey shows many business leaders are considering leaving the state,” the New York Post reported. “I still think that claims of a large exodus of rich people due to our statewide millionaire tax that the legislature passed this year are overblown,” Wilson told FOX 13 Seattle with a laugh.

Just a few days later, the Downtown Seattle Association issued a report stating the “JumpStart” business taxes Seattle passed in 2020 have resulted in the loss of 30,000 jobs, a near-quintupling of the downtown office vacancy rate to 32 percent, and a 21 percent decline in the value of office properties. As a result, “the taxable value of its office buildings has fallen 48% — even as Bellevue [Washington], which has no comparable tax, added jobs and saw commercial values rise 7%,” Geekwire reported.

Keep reading

Minneapolis Daycare Owner Fahima Egeh Mahamud Pleads Guilty to $5.45M Fraud in Child Care and Feeding Our Future Schemes

Fahima Egeh Mahamud, former CEO of Future Leaders Early Learning Center in Minneapolis, pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. She admitted to schemes that fraudulently obtained more than $4.6 million from Minnesota’s Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) through false claims and approximately $850,000 by falsely claiming to serve thousands of meals daily (at times up to 60,000 per month) through the federal Feeding Our Future nutrition program.

Prosecutors noted that her center received the highest amount of CCAP funding in Minnesota in 2025 (around $3.7 million that year alone, with over $10 million across recent years). Much of the money was allegedly used for personal gain, including real estate purchases, while minimal or no services were provided. Mahamud reportedly attempted to flee the country, booking a flight to London on the same day she notified the state of the center’s closure.

The daycare, located near George Floyd Square at 36th and Chicago Avenue, gained national attention after appearing in a viral December 2025 video by independent YouTuber Nick Shirley. His investigation into apparently empty or minimally operational taxpayer-funded facilities prompted intensified state and federal scrutiny across Minnesota. The center closed in January 2026.

Under her plea agreement, Mahamud faces a recommended sentence of 27–33 months in prison. She has been released on conditional bond pending sentencing, which has not yet been scheduled.

Mahamud’s case is part of the massive Feeding Our Future scandal, one of the largest pandemic-era fraud schemes in the U.S., involving roughly $250–350 million in alleged losses from federal child nutrition programs. By mid-2026, dozens of defendants had been convicted or pleaded guilty. The nonprofit claimed to serve millions of meals that were never provided.

Minnesota has seen multiple related probes into child care and social service fraud. In May 2026, federal authorities charged 15 defendants in a broader health care and benefits fraud takedown involving over $90 million, including additional child care cases. Earlier investigations revealed overbilling and weak oversight in CCAP, with critics pointing to insufficient verification of attendance and services.

Keep reading

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reveals up to 10% of US budget stolen each year

Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are being squandered on waste, fraud, and abuse each year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shockingly claimed in a recent interview.

Somewhere between 5-10% of the total federal budget gets gobbled up by wrongdoers each year, Bessent said, citing data from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

“If we can narrow that number, President Trump asked for a $500 billion increase in the defense budget to fortify the 10 to 20 years of neglect,” Bessent told journalist Christopher Rufo in a recent interview.

“If we need to flex up our military budget, if we can get rid of this waste, fraud, and abuse, we can finance a safer, sounder US with that, without taking on more debt. Sounds like a pretty good outcome to me.”

A GAO analysis found that between $233 billion and $521 billion was lost annually due to fraud during fiscal years 2018 through 2022.

Since fiscal year 2003, improper payments — separate from fraud — have likely cost taxpayers about $2.8 trillion, the GAO also found.

Federal spending has jumped dramatically in the time since the GAO study was conducted, meaning fraudulent expenditures could’ve shot up in the time since as well. 

Washington spent about $7.01 trillion in fiscal year 2025 and ran a deficit of about $1.8 trillion. Interest payments on the $38 trillion national debt totaled about $970 billion, more than what the US spends on its military.

Last week, Trump declared that he would like Congress to prepare a $1.5 trillion military budget due to “troubled and dangerous times” on the global stage.

Trump had tapped tech tycoon Elon Musk to helm the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which was tasked with tackling wasteful government spending.

Musk departed that role this past spring, and DOGE has since wound down.

Keep reading

A Budget of the Pentagon, By the Congress, and For the War Profiteers

The first sentence of Thomas Paine’s classic 1776 essay, Common Sense, urged the American people to challenge the legitimacy of the English Crown, something that had never been challenged before. He wrote:

“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them a great favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”

Two hundred and fifty years later, time and reason strongly suggest that the U.S. “defense” budget is out of control, unsustainable and absent of accountability.

Only the American people can rein it in.

Keep reading

The Cost Of Half-Empire

Introduction: The Question We Have Already Answered

The United States rejects the label “empire.” Yet it maintains overseas military installations, guarantees the security of allies across multiple continents, polices sea lanes, enforces sanctions with global reach, and repeatedly intervenes in the internal affairs of other states. Whatever term Americans prefer, the practical exercise of power increasingly resembles an imperial system.

The real question is whether it will continue practicing half-empire: exercising power without responsibility, spending lives, money, and credibility for temporary control while refusing to build the order that makes force politically meaningful. Power without responsibility is strategically self-defeating.

This is not an argument that empire is morally pure. It is an argument that incomplete empire is strategically disastrous: it kills people, drains wealth, leaves the United States less feared and less trusted, and then acts surprised when disorder returns more expensive than before.

America is no longer debating empire in theory; it is practicing it in fragments.

The Founders’ Warning—and the Reality of Power

The American republic was not designed for empire. The Founders feared permanent foreign entanglements because they concentrate power, require secrecy, and normalize executive discretion beyond ordinary consent.

That warning was right. Empire corrodes republican virtue. But the United States has already departed from the Founders’ design—not by declaration, but by accumulation: bases, sanctions, interventions, security guarantees, naval policing, and global commitments no pure republic could sustain.

This does not mean the Founders were naïve. It means the nation they built became powerful enough to inherit problems they hoped to avoid. Sea lanes, energy markets, hostile regimes, nuclear proliferation, and alliance commitments now pull the United States into decisions that look imperial even when officials avoid the word.

How Empires Actually Work: Trust, Trade, and Control

Modern debates fixate on imperial violence, but coercion is only the beginning. Successful empires pair force with economic integration, legal predictability, and public order.

Rome endured in part because conquered populations often found Roman administration more predictable than the fragmented political systems it replaced. Roads, law, contracts, currency, and infrastructure created incentives that made imperial rule sustainable beyond military conquest alone.

Keep reading