Senate Republican: ‘We can’t afford’ $2,000 tariff checks. This statement, made by a prominent Republican, cuts right to the heart of a recurring frustration: the perceived mismatch between the stated financial constraints of the government and the actual spending priorities. The simple declaration, “We can’t afford it,” seems to ring hollow when juxtaposed against reports of substantial funding for various other initiatives.
The central point here is the seeming unwillingness to distribute funds directly to the American public, particularly when that money originates from taxes and tariffs paid by those same citizens. This raises questions about the allocation of resources and the priorities of those in power.… Continue reading
In a recent spending bill, a provision allows GOP senators to sue the federal government over the lawful search of their phone records as part of the January 6th investigation, potentially costing taxpayers up to $500,000 per senator. Trump’s recent pardons, which are seen as a precursor for future election denialism, have also sparked controversy, as well as the ongoing preferential treatment of the politically connected and corrupt. Additionally, the Trump administration faces legal challenges and is under scrutiny for its actions on deportation, military actions, and diplomatic decisions.
Read More
Responding to questions about a court ruling concerning the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Trump emphasized the need for national “liquidity” to address potential crises, seemingly indicating his administration’s reluctance to fully fund the program. This stance appears to be a veiled criticism of “tax and spend” policies, attempting to deflect from the fact that his administration is defying court rulings. The national debt has been increasing at an alarming rate, especially with the current government shutdown costing the country billions weekly, despite Trump’s claim about spending. Trump’s claims are ironic since his presidency has also had a high cost to the country.
Read More
Reports indicate the Department of Homeland Security is acquiring two private jets for Secretary Kristi Noem’s travel, with the Coast Guard facilitating the purchase. The jets are intended to replace an older aircraft, with the Department citing safety reasons for the upgrade. Cost estimates for the Gulfstream jets vary, with reports from The New York Times and The Washington Post offering different figures. Two House Democrats have voiced concerns, questioning the priorities behind the jet purchases and raising concerns about the use of taxpayer dollars.
Read More
The Department of Homeland Security, under Secretary Kristi Noem, purchased two luxury Gulfstream G700 jets for $172 million, citing safety concerns and the aging of existing aircraft. Despite the Coast Guard’s request for a single, less expensive jet, this purchase is raising questions about the source of funding and the necessity of two jets, particularly amidst a government shutdown. Democrats are criticizing the expenditure as lavish, with concerns voiced by Representatives DeLauro and Underwood, who have requested clarification on the funding source. This spending follows scrutiny of Noem’s previous use of taxpayer funds, including renovations to the governor’s mansion and personal travel costs while she was governor of South Dakota.
Read More
Coast Guard Buys Two Private Jets for Noem, Costing $172 Million… This is where things get really outrageous. The news that the Coast Guard is purchasing two private jets for South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, at a staggering cost of $172 million, is shocking, to say the least. It’s hard to wrap your head around the idea that public funds are being used in this way, especially when you consider all the areas where funding is seemingly lacking. It’s a stark contrast when you think about schools struggling to feed children, or the ongoing debates about healthcare access.
Coast Guard Buys Two Private Jets for Noem, Costing $172 Million… The sheer amount of money involved is almost unbelievable.… Continue reading
President Trump recently boasted about utilizing tariffs as a foreign policy tool, neglecting to acknowledge that this power constitutionally belongs to Congress. Furthermore, the White House plans to use tariff revenue to fund the WIC program during the government shutdown, although the legality of this action remains unclear. This approach raises concerns as it allows the president to circumvent Congress’s “power of the purse” by unilaterally allocating funds without legislative approval. While the intention to support low-income families is positive, the underlying constitutional violation of presidential authority presents a significant problem.
Read More
During a Senate floor speech, Senator Brian Schatz criticized Republicans, urging them to collaborate with Democrats to end the government shutdown and address rising healthcare costs. He highlighted the allocation of significant funds for a tariff bailout and aid to Argentina while emphasizing the lack of resources to prevent substantial healthcare premium increases for millions of Americans. Senator Schatz pointed out that the rising costs are disproportionately affecting constituents in Republican states and proposed immediate action to resolve the situation. He concluded by stressing the urgency of protecting healthcare access for all citizens.
Read More
President Trump has publicly embraced his administration’s ties to Project 2025, a stark contrast to his previous attempts to distance himself from the far-right manifesto during the 2024 presidential campaign. He recently announced a meeting with Russ Vought, a key architect of Project 2025 and head of the Office of Management and Budget, to discuss potential cuts to various government agencies. This shift follows Trump’s previous denial of any association with the project, despite having implemented nearly half of its goals since taking office. Vought’s influence is evident as the administration aims to dismantle regulations and potentially establish a precedent for presidential control over government spending.
Read More
Trump administration scraps $8 billion for climate-related projects, and it’s hard not to feel a sense of disbelief, mixed with frustration. The news is clear: $8 billion, specifically designated for climate-related projects, is being pulled. What’s particularly striking, and frankly, infuriating, is that this cancellation appears to be targeted squarely at projects in blue states – California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
Now, it’s tempting to think, “Well, maybe those states just got all the funding in the first place.” But the reality is more complex.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker