Tag: taxes

Senator Rand Paul OBJECTS TWICE to Senator John Kennedy’s Proposal to STOP Congressional Pay During Schumer Shutdown

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) objected twice to Senator John Kennedy’s (R-LA) proposals that would have blocked members of Congress from receiving pay during the ongoing government shutdown, legislation Kennedy says is necessary to make lawmakers feel the same pain as the Americans affected by Washington’s dysfunction.

Kennedy introduced his “No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act”, calling for an immediate halt to congressional pay during the shutdown and the elimination of back pay once government funding is restored.

Kennedy argued that his proposal is both simple and fair, emphasizing that federal employees like air traffic controllers, military service members, and staffers are already suffering without pay. His bill, he said, would ensure lawmakers are not shielded from the same financial consequences.

Kennedy asked for unanimous consent to immediately pass his bill, but Rand Paul was quick to object.

Paul, reserving the right to object, said the focus should be on re-opening government and paying those who are working, not punishing members of Congress.

Paul argued that withholding pay from lawmakers distracts from the larger problem of bureaucratic dysfunction and the unfair treatment of federal workers who are continuing their duties during the shutdown.

He even proposed an alternative, the Shutdown Prevention and Pay Workers Act, which would ensure essential government workers, including the military, are paid during any future shutdowns.

Kennedy rejected Paul’s amendment, accusing him of derailing a bill that could actually pass both chambers and be signed into law.

Keep reading

Vance Blasts Court Order to Fund SNAP as ‘Absurd’

Vice President JD Vance on Thursday slammed a federal court ruling requiring the Trump administration to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for November, calling the decision “absurd” and an overreach during a government shutdown.

“It’s an absurd ruling because you have a federal judge effectively telling us what we have to do in the middle of a Democrat government shutdown,” Vance said during a roundtable with Central Asian leaders at the White House.

Vance said the administration wants to restore full funding once Democrats agree to reopen the government, but argued that the court should not dictate how the administration prioritizes spending during a shutdown.

“What we’d like to do is for the Democrats to open up the government, of course,” he said.

“Then we can fund SNAP, and we can also do a lot of other good things for the American people.

“But in the midst of a shutdown, we can’t have a federal court telling the president how he has to triage the situation,” Vance said.

U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ruled earlier Thursday that the administration’s plan to issue partial payments failed to comply with his earlier order.

The Justice Department said it will appeal the ruling, leaving the fate of SNAP benefits for millions of Americans uncertain.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Must Fully Fund Food Stamps for November: Judge

The Trump administration must pay the approximately $9 billion to fully fund food stamps for November, a federal judge ruled on Nov. 6.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must pay states the money by Nov. 7 to distribute to the approximately 42 million Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants, according to an oral order from Judge John McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

“People have gone without for too long. Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable,” McConnell said.

USDA officials had declined to fund SNAP amid the government shutdown, arguing that they could not use contingency money or revenue from tariffs. McConnell, in response to a lawsuit, recently said that the administration could either partially fund November benefits with contingency money or fully fund benefits for the month with that money and the tariff revenue.

“If the Government does want to use its discretion to use funds available to make a full payment of SNAP benefits for November 6, then it must expeditiously resolve the administrative and clerical burdens it described in its papers … but under no circumstances shall the partial payments be made later than Wednesday, November 5,” McConnell wrote in a temporary restraining order on Nov. 1.

The government chose to partially fund the November benefits using the contingency fund, which it said contained $4.6 billion. The government stated that it would not use the tariff revenue, or Section 32 funds, because if it were to, then child nutrition programs funded by that revenue might eventually run out of money.

Keep reading

SNAP Recipients Will Receive More Food Stamps Than Initially Estimated: Filings

Food stamp recipients will receive up to 65 percent of their normal benefits in November, Trump administration officials said in court filings on Nov. 5.

That’s an increase from up to 50 percent that was outlined in previous filings, as well as a memorandum sent to states.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said in the Nov. 4 memorandum that it was reducing the maximum benefit households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) can receive to 50 percent of the current maximum allotment.

“Since that time, USDA performed further analysis and determined that the maximum allotments need only be reduced by 35%, instead of 50%, to deplete the SNAP contingency fund, and has issued a revised memorandum and allotment tables to State agencies,” Patrick Penn, a USDA deputy undersecretary, told the federal court in Rhode Island.

The revised memo, distributed on Nov. 5, said that maximum benefits will be 65 percent of the typical maximum benefits.

Trump administration lawyers in a separate filing described what happened as an error and said it worked to issue accurate information as soon as the error was discovered.

Keep reading

Norway to Send $7 Billion to Ukraine – Everyone is Sending Funds Ahead of 2026

Norway is providing Ukraine with an additional $7 billion in 2026, or an astounding 1.23% of GDP. Norwegian Defense Minister Tore O. Sandvik invited Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal to participate for the first time in the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) meeting. The two sides signed a memorandum to establish joint defense manufacturing in Ukraine, and a subsequent memorandum to establish unified quality standards for such products.

Norway is building defense industry links with Ukraine and positioning itself as a major player in the European/NATO frameworks. Norway gave Ukraine the green light for free trade back in April 2025. The Norwegian government already poured $15 billion into Ukraine since the start of the war in 2022, but nothing among governments is charity.

All European leaders believe Ukraine has a chance of winning this war, with those at the top believing it will provide them with access to the riches of Russia. Governments are broken beyond repair. The belief in Brussels if that sovereign debt defaults could be avoided through raiding Russia and profiting on the ongoing war.

Norway’s long-term Nansen Support Programme framework envisages providing a total of 275 billion kroner (about $27 billion) in aid to Ukraine for the period 2023-2030. The nation believes it can rebuild Ukraine through green initiatives, collaborating with Nordic Environmental Finance Corporation (Nefco) to provide Ukraine 25.5 million euros in green infrastructure projects. Nefco had already been operating in Ukraine for 20 years, but managed to mobilize 400 million euros since 2022 for, or through, Ukraine.

Keep reading

Carbon taxes and Digital ID systems in 50 countries by 2028: Albo has signed up with UN

Two months ago, just before the UN gathered in New York, I warned you that a decisive moment was coming.

That moment is now.

The moment the globalists move from plans on paper to control in practice—unless we stop it.

On my long flight to Doha, Qatar, I couldn’t shake one thought: how fast things have escalated. In just a few short weeks, the agenda has accelerated at breakneck speed… and it’s nothing short of chilling.

  •  In the UK, digital IDs are now being pushed to access employment.
  • In Vietnam, millions of bank accounts were frozen overnight for failing to comply with new “social responsibility” regulations.
  • The UN is calling for a global carbon tax to pump massive amounts of tax money into its Socialist and Globalists coffers … YOUR tax money to control YOUR economy and decisions
  • The plan call for imposing digital ID systems in 50 countries by 2028—tracking people from birth to death. Your right to travel or work could be canceled with the click of a button.
  • The EU continues pushing forward with its programmable “Digital Euro,”—where access to your own money could be restricted by unaccountable bureaucrats because of an action or statement.

This is no longer a theory. It’s already underway, touching finance, work, and speech, and targeting every corner of our lives.

In just hours, the UN will open its World Summit for Social Development—where they intend to lock in Agenda 2030 as the world’s official roadmap. Not mere guidelines, but binding frameworks pushed into national laws, school curriculums, funding programs, and more. All funded with buckets of your tax money.

Let me be clear: this summit isn’t about development. It’s about centralizing control.

They’re assembling the machinery of a global system—one that dictates how you live, what you can buy, where you can travel, even what you’re allowed to say or believe.

This is where it all comes together …censorship, digital surveillance, control over farmers, families, faith, finance … you name it!

But here’s what they didn’t count on: you and thousands like you speaking up—right now.

Keep reading

New York City Council Member Wants Almost $200 Million to Defend Illegal Immigrants From ICE

A member of the city council in New York recently outlined a plan to allocate almost $200 million in taxpayer funds to be used to legally defend illegal immigrants from ICE and the Trump administration.

If you watch the video below, it is crystal clear that this woman and the people like her believe that their power supersedes the power of the federal government and federal immigration laws.

It’s almost like these people think that New York City is a country within the country and that it belongs to them.

From Stu Smith on Twitter/X:

NYC Council Member Tiffany Cabán, a Democratic Socialists of America member and one of Zohran Mamdani’s closest allies, says the possible deployment of the National Guard to New York City is reason to triple the city’s immigration defense budget.

“What we witnessed in Los Angeles, Chicago, and elsewhere this year is nothing less than a full scale assault on democracy.”

“Federal troops sent onto city streets to serve Donald Trump’s fascist agenda and terrorize our immigrant siblings.”

“They’re looking for any pretext, any opportunity to invade our streets under the banner of ‘security.’”

Officials from the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs (MOIA) then cited Vera Institute of Justice data showing it would cost $188.5 million to “provide services to every immigrant New Yorker,” broken down as $145 million for free legal counsel and $43.5 million for other immigration services.

In June, the city doubled this budget to about $120 million, and now MOIA wants multi-year contracts and even more money—with Cabán urging that these networks operate “with the broadest, lowest barrier access to dollars as soon as possible.”

Keep reading

Ottawa spent $1.5M to find out who has air conditioning

It sounds like a parody headline, but it’s right there in black and white. According to a newly tabled order paper response (Q-335), the federal government spent $1.5 million on a Statistics Canada project studying which households in Canada use air conditioning.

The 2025 report, titled “A Heated Discussion: Who Uses Air Conditioning in Canada,” found that 68% of Canadian households have some kind of cooling system — a four-point increase from 2021.

The survey also broke down results by income, province and whether people rent or own their homes.

Ontario topped the charts, with 83% of households reporting AC access, while British Columbia lagged behind at 45% — likely thanks to its milder climate and sky-high hydro rates.

But the real heat came from Ottawa’s own wallet.

Despite being asked for details, the Industry Department refused to provide a line-by-line accounting of how the $1.5 million was spent, dodging questions on vendor names, contracts or whether the study was outsourced.

Keep reading

Trump’s Tariff Power Grab

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the landmark case of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which will determine whether President Trump can use an emergency declaration to unilaterally impose tariffs on foreign goods that Americans buy, as he did earlier this year.

Although the Constitution is pretty clear that only Congress has the power to tax, the Trump administration cited a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify the suite of tariffs it rolled out on April 2—what Trump called “Liberation Day.”

According to the president and his lawyers, the fact that the country has a trade deficit—that American consumers spend more on goods and services from foreign producers than American businesses make from sales to foreign consumers—is a national emergency.

Trump considered attending the hearing himself over the weekend. He eventually decided against it, but stressed to his followers on Truth Social that he views this case as “one of the most important in the history of the country.”

The president clearly wants his allies on the Supreme Court to understand that he would take a ruling against him very personally. And, based on their previous rulings, the Court’s Trump-friendly majority probably wants to again give a green light to Trump’s expansion of executive authority.

But that could prove difficult. To strike down several of Biden’s more blatant power grabs, this Court relied on the so-called “major questions doctrine,” which requires Congress to use plain and direct language to authorize sweeping economic actions by the executive branch. All that the 1977 law Trump is using to justify his tariffs authorizes him to impose are “regulations” on imports.

It would be transparently hypocritical for these justices to agree that “tariffs,” “taxes,” or “duties” can be implied by the word “regulations” when they just refused to grant that level of leniency to the previous administration.

Which isn’t to say it won’t happen. The idea that the Supreme Court, and the entire federal judiciary, are independent, non-political entities driven solely by a commitment to the letter of the law is, after all, a myth.

But it’s still a difficult position for Trump’s allies on the Court. And further, it’s more evidence that Trump has abandoned his promise to rein in the power of the federal bureaucracy.

As Ryan McMaken pointed out back in April, Trump claiming unilateral control over the power to levy taxes is not at all unprecedented. That’s the direction the federal government has been moving for well over a century, as more and more of Congress’s core powers get transferred to the White House and the executive agencies making up the administrative state.

Further, the executive branch using “emergencies” it declares to justify its own power grabs has been one of the primary ways the executive state has grown in general.

In recent years, crises like the 9/11 attacks, the collapse of the housing bubble, and the covid pandemic have been used to give the permanent federal bureaucracy significantly more control over our lives.

But there have been some bright spots on this front. One of them was the Supreme Court’s embrace of the major questions doctrine, which restricted the administrative state’s ability to interpret vague language in legislation in whichever way granted itself the most power. On top of that, last year, the Court overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine.

Keep reading

Behind Democrats’ Sob Stories Is A Push For More Tax Dollars To Insurance Companies

Democrats like Sen. Amy Klobuchar are framing the fight over the government shutdown and a Republican refusal to keep funding health insurance subsidies as an attack on individuals.

Poor Bill and Shelly Gall — why are congressional Republicans being so mean to them?

The story Klobuchar links to does this remarkable thing, and read this carefully:

The Galls are among roughly 22 million ACA marketplace enrollees — about 92% of all enrollees — who face the prospect of higher premiums in 2026, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group.

Democrats are pushing Republicans to extend the enhanced subsidies that make enrollees’ health premiums cheaper, as part of a deal to end the federal government shutdown that began Oct. 1. Republicans have said they want to negotiate any extension of ACA subsidies outside of legislation that would reopen the government.

See the premise? Subsidies “make enrollees’ health premiums cheaper.”

They don’t. They make enrollees’ health premiums divided, splitting the cost between the person paying for the insurance and the taxpayers who fund the subsidy, but they flatly don’t make the premiums cheaper.

It’s like you go to the supermarket and buy filet mignon, and it only costs you a dollar — wow, filet mignon is so affordable now! — but the supermarket bills the federal government for $25 every time you make that purchase, and the government gets the $25 from you as taxes. The thing costs what it costs. Subsidies don’t make it cheaper. They just hide the expense at the point of purchase. Subsidies shift and obscure.

Klobuchar claimed, “Early retirees like Bill & Shelly will see their health insurance premiums increase nearly 300%—from $442 to $1,700 per month…” But the cost of their health insurance isn’t changing at all. What’s changing is who pays for it. And if Bill and Shelly pay taxes, they’re paying, at least in part, for their own subsidies. They’re taxed so that their taxes can be transferred to them as subsidies. What a remarkable game.

But then take it one more step.

Democrats frame the subsidy as a payment to Bill and Shelly, and don’t you want poor Bill and Shelly to have nice things? But the payment doesn’t go to Bill and Shelly. It goes to health insurance companies. It’s a subsidy to industry, allowing corporations to hide the cost of their product. It’s a federal gift to private corporations.

As the subsidies die (among other political changes), health insurance companies are talking about the market headwinds that they face: “trouble in the government-funded insurance sector.” The submarine warfare masked with photos of poor Bill and Shelly is over the explosive growth of health care spending as a share of GDP, and the attempt to hide it by paying for it in less-noticed ways. Here’s the big finish from a story this week about the poor recent performance of UnitedHealthcare stock:

Still, shares of UnitedHealthcare remain down some 35% in 2025 as the company struggles with rising medical costs and reimbursement cuts. And these pressures, in turn, reflect the deepest fault lines in the U.S. system, including a population that’s aging faster than the workforce paying for it, medical inflation that outpaces wage growth, and a financial model that assumes employers, taxpayers, and patients can endlessly absorb higher costs—even as the federal government shuts down amid an affordability fight.

The financial model assumes that taxpayers can keep paying more. The fight isn’t about Bill and Shelly. The fight is about a spectacularly unaffordable health care business model that relies on the federal treasury:

The federal government subsidizes health insurance for over 150 million Americans through various programs and tax benefits. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that in 2023, those costs and subsidies added up to $1.6 trillion, net of offsetting receipts, mainly from Medicare and Medicaid. A small portion of that spending — $91 billion, or 6 percent — goes toward subsidies for health insurance purchased through marketplaces established under the ACA and related spending.

The ACA subsidies are only $91 billion a year, though, so it’s practically nothing.

See also this 2023 CBO report, which projects explosive growth in federal health care costs over the next decade.

We’re not having a debate about giving money to Bill and Shelly so they can enjoy their early retirement. We’re having a debate about how much money the federal government — meaning you, if you pay taxes — is going to give to private corporations. Congressional Democrats are servicing their corporate clients.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”

Keep reading