Tag: taxes

FBI Wins Court Ruling to Keep Twitter Payments Secret

A federal judge has handed the FBI a win in its attempts to keep secrets. On February 4th, Chief Judge James Boasberg ruled that the bureau can keep secret the precise amounts it paid Twitter between 2016 and 2023 for complying with legal process requests.

Judicial Watch, which had sued under the Freedom of Information Act, walked away empty-handed.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

You may remember our earlier reporting on how the FBI was paying Twitter. The payments totaled at least $3.4 million between October 2019 and February 2021 alone. That figure emerged from the Twitter Files released in December 2022. The FBI has never confirmed it. Neither has Twitter. And now, thanks to Boasberg’s ruling, the quarterly breakdown that would show exactly when the money flowed, and how much, stays buried.

Keep reading

NYC Socialist Mayor Eyes Activist Who Called CPS ‘Genocide for Black People’ to Lead Child Welfare Agency

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is considering Angela Burton, a 65-year-old activist known for her criticism of Child Protective Services (CPS), to lead the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS).

Burton has described CPS as a form of “slow extractive genocide for black people in America” in a 2023 X post and likened it to “child slavery” in another post from July 2023.

“Leave Black people alone. Your numbers and methods are treasure. Racist garbage in, racist garbage out. We don’t need CPS. CPS is Slow extractive Genocide for Black people in America. We know what you’re up to,” Burton wrote.

Currently, Burton serves on Children’s Rights’ New York Mandated Reporting Working Group, which seeks to narrow mandated reporting laws to reduce what it calls over-surveillance and family separations, particularly affecting Black, Latino, and low-income families.

Burton has also posted on X calling CPS a “grave and imminent threat” to children and families, accusing CPS employees of racism, and advocating for defunding police and the abolition of the “foster care industrial complex.”

Keep reading

REPORT: Obama’s Hideous Presidential Center is Going to Cost Chicago Taxpayers A LOT MORE Than They Were Told

In addition to being ugly, the new Obama presidential center is going to be a massive financial burden on the people of Chicago.

They were sold a bill of goods about how the center was going to bring tourism and revenue to the city, but not so much about the costs.

In this sense, it is a perfect monument to Obama’s legacy. Overpriced and based on lies, much like Obamacare.

FOX News reports:

Bureaucrats hide true price of Obama Presidential Center as taxpayers hit with infrastructure bill

Former President Barack Obama once declared that his presidential center would be a “gift” to Chicago, but taxpayers are on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden costs related to the beleaguered project.

A Fox News Digital investigation shows taxpayers are now stuck footing the bill for surging public infrastructure costs required to support the project — and no government agency can provide an accounting of the total public cost, despite months of queries and FOIA requests…

When the project was approved in 2018, Obama pledged to privately fund construction of the expansive 19.3-acre campus in historic Jackson Park through donations to the Obama Foundation – a commitment that remains in place as the center’s construction continues to be privately financed.

But the extensive infrastructure required to make the campus operationally viable — including redesigned roads, stormwater systems, and relocated utilities — is publicly financed, and without those changes, the center could not function.

At the time, projections placed public infrastructure costs at roughly $350 million, split between the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago.

Eight years later, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) told Fox News Digital that approximately $229 million in infrastructure spending was tied to the site, up from its earlier estimate of roughly $174 million.

The $229 million figure reflects state-managed spending, which may include federal transportation funds routed through IDOT.

The report goes on to state that the agencies which are supposed to be overseeing the accounting on the project are not being upfront with taxpayers and are providing ‘estimates’ of ongoing costs.

Keep reading

Mamdani Is Collapsing Faster Than We Thought

You can’t say we didn’t warn New York what was going to happen if it elected Zohran Mamdani, but I gotta say, I don’t think anyone predicted it would start collapsing so quickly. But, alas, it has. That socialist utopia that Mamdani was supposed to deliver has instead turned into a slow-motion fiscal catastrophe a mere two months in — and even the liberal media is starting to notice.

Mamdani unveiled a $127 billion budget for fiscal year 2027 this week — a staggering $5 billion increase over the prior year.

But what’s $5 billion between socialists, right?

To put that into perspective, Mamdani’s proposed budget is actually larger than the budgets of 47 U.S. states, including Florida, which has nearly twice the population. And somehow, it still isn’t enough. The city is staring down a $5.4 billion deficit, with the real gap potentially closer to $12 billion when you do the actual math.

So what was his plan? Tax someone else.

Mamdani went straight to Albany looking for a handout, demanding that Gov. Kathy Hochul raise taxes on the “ultra-wealthy” and the most profitable corporations. When Hochul told him to pound sand and cut spending instead, he obviously couldn’t do that, and now he is looking at saddling homeowners with a 9.5% property tax hike.

Keep reading

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani Raiding Retirement and Health Funds

Mayor Zohran Mamdani is already short of funds for his socialist dream for New York City. Like a true communist, his plan is to increase taxes on homeowners while raiding retirement and healthcare funds. Ironically, communists are supposed to support the working man, but in reality, they support the non-working man who needs more money from the working man to keep from having to work.

On February 17, 2026, Mayor Mamdani presented his first preliminary budget and framed the city’s finances as a choice between two paths. He delivered an ultimatum to Governor Kathy Hochul and the state legislature: approve higher taxes on the wealthy or he would use the limited tools under his direct control to close a projected $5.4 billion shortfall.

His preferred path calls on Albany to raise personal income taxes by 2 percent on New Yorkers earning over $1 million and to increase corporate taxes on the most profitable companies. If the state refuses, he says he will pursue what he describes as a last resort: a 9.5 percent property tax hike, the first major increase in more than 20 years, affecting roughly 3 million residential units, along with drawing down approximately $1.2 billion from the city’s reserves, including the Rainy Day Fund and retiree health benefit trusts.

The proposal to tap retirement-related funds has generated the strongest backlash. Mamdani’s plan includes taking $229 million from the Retiree Health Benefits Trust, which pays health insurance premiums for retired city workers such as teachers, police officers, and sanitation workers.

Using money set aside for future medical costs to cover today’s operating deficit shifts long-term obligations into the current budget cycle. Budget watchdogs, including the Citizens Budget Commission, warn this would leave the city less prepared to meet healthcare costs for an aging workforce.

Mamdani insists he does not want to touch these funds and describes this as a harmful path he hopes to avoid. He is using the threat to pressure Governor Hochul into approving higher taxes on the wealthy.

Mamdani has also pushed to shift city pension investments away from what he calls harmful industries, including certain fossil fuel companies and firms tied to the conflict in Gaza. Pension trustees and union leaders argue this amounts to political intrusion into retirement assets and conflicts with their fiduciary duty to maximize returns for retirees.

By law, trustees must focus solely on financial performance. Critics contend that divesting from high-performing sectors for ideological reasons narrows the investment pool and can reduce long-term returns. Analysts noted that the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange significantly outperformed the S&P 500 in 2025.

Avoiding such assets means forfeiting gains that help keep pension funds solvent. Even a one or two percent underperformance compounded over time could create substantial funding gaps.

The dispute has escalated into a showdown with New York City Comptroller Mark Levine, the legal custodian of the pension funds. Levine recently announced plans to resume investing in Israel Bonds, calling them a long-term, secure investment that has never missed a payment in 80 years. Mamdani opposes the move, arguing the city should not support a foreign government involved in the Gaza conflict.

However, the mayor does not control the pension boards outright. The comptroller and union representatives hold significant seats, limiting Mamdani’s ability to force divestment. Critics say he is attempting to pressure the boards into adopting his position.

Keep reading

From €1.5B to €5B: Did Romania’s Globalist Government Conceal the Real Cost of Supporting Zelensky’s War Effort?

A heated national debate has erupted in Romania after fresh claims suggested that the true cost of Bucharest’s support for Ukraine may be much higher than the public has been told.

What began as a routine televised discussion on the country’s budget priorities quickly escalated into a broader confrontation over transparency, sovereignty, and the price Romania is paying for its alignment with Brussels’ “prop up the failing Ukrainian state at any cost” policy.

During a recent broadcast, journalist Robert Turcescu pressed former Finance Minister Adrian Câciu on the following question: how much is the Romanian government really spending on Ukraine? The answer he received has fueled growing skepticism toward the government’s official narrative.

Câciu acknowledged that the publicly cited figure of approximately €1.5 billion reflects only direct public expenditures, such as housing, food, and social assistance for Ukrainian refugees inside Romania. But he argued that this figure represents only a fraction of the total fiscal burden ultimately borne by Romanian taxpayers.

According to Câciu, when defense spending, border security operations, and interior ministry costs related to the war are included, the real figure could approach 1.5% of GDP. With Romania’s GDP estimated at roughly €370 billion, that percentage amounts into approximately €5 billion.

The distinction between direct aid and broader security-related expenditures lies at the heart of the controversy. Government officials have emphasized the lower figure, while critics argue that the public deserves a consolidated, transparent accounting of the full cost.

Turcescu reacted sharply to the suggestion that Romania’s total war-related spending could be closer to €5 billion. He publicly questioned why, amid domestic austerity measures and tax increases, such sums would be directed toward Kyiv without full disclosure.

Official data provided by Romania’s Fiscal Council in response to an inquiry from right-wing populist AUR MEP Gheorghe Piperea paint a different picture. According to that response, Romania’s total military, financial, and humanitarian support from February 2022 through mid-2025 amounted to around €1.5 billion — approximately 0.6% of GDP.

That figure would place Romania in the middle tier among European contributors. Countries such as Denmark and Estonia have devoted more than 3% of GDP, while Lithuania, Poland, the Netherlands, Germany, and France have also contributed proportionally more than Romania.

Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan has further stated that direct financial assistance in 2025 amounted to approximately €50 million, largely channeled through NATO mechanisms. However, many military expenditures remain classified through Romania’s Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT), limiting public oversight.

The result is a widening credibility gap. While the government emphasizes limited direct aid, critics argue that broader institutional and logistical costs — from troop deployments to enhanced border security — are effectively war expenditures that taxpayers ultimately finance.

Keep reading

Was Climate Change The Greatest Financial Scandal In History?

Environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg recently calculated that across the globe, governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex.

And for what?

Arguably, not a single life has been or will be saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources.

The war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy.

Since the global warming crusade started some 30 years ago, the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree—as even the alarmists will admit.

In other words, $16 trillion has been spent—a lot of people got very, very rich off the government largesse—but there is not a penny of measurable payoff.

But it’s much worse than that.

In economics there is a concept called opportunity cost: What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off?

What if the $16 trillion had been spent on clean water for poor countries?

Preventing avoidable deaths from diseases like malaria?

Building schools in African villages to end illiteracy?

Bringing reliable and affordable electric power to the more than 1 billion people who still lack access? Curing cancer?

Many millions of lives could have been saved.

We could have lifted millions more out of poverty.

The benefits of speeding up the race for the cure for cancer could have added tens of millions of additional years of life at an economic value in the tens of trillions of dollars.

Instead, we effectively poured $16 trillion down the drain.

Keep reading

Trump’s $2,000 Tariff ‘Dividend Checks’ Go Up in Smoke

President Trump’s promise to send Americans $2,000 “tariff dividend” checks appears all but dead after the Supreme Court struck down a key pillar of his trade agenda Friday, the New York Post reports.

In a 6-3 ruling, the high court found Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs tied to trade imbalances and fentanyl smuggling.

While the decision could save households hundreds of dollars on the goods marked up by tariffs — it also wipes out the revenue stream that would have funded the proposed rebate checks.

Before the ruling, the average U.S. household was projected to pay an extra $1,300 to $1,700 in 2026 due to tariffs, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

With the IEEPA tariffs now halted — though others remain in place and Trump has vowed to impose a new 10% global tariff effective Friday — that burden could fall roughly in half to about $600 to $800, John Ricco, associate director of policy analysis at the Budget Lab, told CNBC.

Still, experts cautioned that consumers may not see full relief.

“I’m actually shocked that the number wasn’t a little higher on the financial burden to the average American household than $1,000,” Erik Rosica, sales supervisor at OEC Group New York, told the Post.

“I do agree that the impact of reversing them would hopefully halve it — but again, that’s only if people lower their prices,” he added.

Rosica noted that companies may be reluctant to cut prices, particularly on higher-ticket goods, even if tariff pressures ease.

Keep reading

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker Demands $8.6B in Tariff Refunds from Trump

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) demanded that President Donald Trump give the people of the state a total of $8.6 billion in refunds after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

In a letter addressed to Trump that Pritzker posted to X, Pritzker described Trump’s tariffs as having “wreaked havoc on farmers,” having “enraged our allies,” and increased the cost of groceries.

Pritzker explained that he was demanding “a refund of $1,700 for every family” in the state, and that because there were roughly 5,105,448 households in the state, the total came to $8,679,261,600.

“Your tariffs wreaked havoc on farmers, enraged our allies, and sent grocery prices through the roof,” Pritzker wrote. “This morning, your hand-picked Supreme Court Justices notified you that they are also unconstitutional.”

Pritzker added: “On behalf of the people of Illinois, I demand a refund of $1,700 for every family in Illinois. There are 5,105,448 households in my state, bringing the total damages you owe to $8,679,261,600.”

Keep reading

5 Takeaways From Supreme Court’s Rejection of Trump’s Global Tariffs

The Supreme Court on Feb. 20 struck down many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, stating they violated an emergency powers law he invoked last year.

The president previously declared a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, saying the tariffs were needed to stem the flow of illegal drugs and to combat “large and persistent” trade deficits with foreign nations.

The act generally gives the president the power to regulate imports to address emergencies, but debate ensued over what that meant in practice.

Writing for the 6–3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump’s arguments, saying that the law’s phrasing did not clearly authorize tariffs.

Tariffs enacted under other laws are not affected by the ruling.

Tariffs Not Authorized Under Emergency Law

Roberts said Trump rested his claim of tariff authority on the words “regulate” and “importation” in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president authority to act.

“The President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts said. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Keep reading