A Crisis by Design: The “Starve the Beast” Strategy

For decades, many conservative policymakers have championed a deceptively simple strategy to shrink the government: “starve the beast.” Popularized during the Reagan era, this approach boils down to one core maneuver: pass enormous tax cuts, drain government revenue, and then turn around and claim that social programs must be cut because there’s no money to pay for them.

It sounds cynical — because it is. But it has proven remarkably effective over the past 50 years, reshaping the American economy and leaving social supports in a constant state of crisis.

Reagan and the Birth of the Modern Strategy

The modern “starve the beast” playbook emerged most clearly under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Reagan signed sweeping tax cuts, especially benefiting corporations and the wealthy, through the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The result? Federal revenue plunged, while deficits soared.

Rather than reversing the tax cuts, Reagan’s team used the growing deficit to push for spending cuts, especially on public housing, education, and health programs. David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, described the strategy bluntly: “We’re going to cut their allowance,” referring to social programs.

In other words, they manufactured a budget shortfall on purpose — then claimed there was no choice but to shrink support for vulnerable Americans.

Bush, Cheney, and the Early 2000s

The pattern returned under George W. Bush. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, some of the largest in U.S. history, again delivered huge breaks for top earners. Predictably, the deficit grew, worsened by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Vice President Dick Cheney made the philosophy explicit: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he reportedly told Treasury officials. But deficits did matter — as a tool to justify cuts. Conservative lawmakers soon demanded spending restraints on domestic programs while shielding the tax cuts.

The Tea Party and the 2010s

During Barack Obama’s presidency, the Tea Party movement took this strategy to the next level. After the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration passed emergency spending to stabilize the economy and expand health care through the Affordable Care Act.

Almost immediately, Tea Party-aligned Republicans began ringing alarm bells about deficits — deficits made worse by the Bush tax cuts and years of unfunded wars. They pushed harsh budget caps and automatic spending cuts known as “sequestration” under the 2011 Budget Control Act, slashing billions from public health, research, and infrastructure.

The pattern was clear: starve the revenue stream, then attack spending on social protections under the banner of “fiscal discipline.”

Trump and the 2017 Tax Cuts

Donald Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act marked another chapter of this same playbook. Corporate tax rates were slashed from 35% to 21%, and the top brackets saw significant reductions. These cuts disproportionately favored the wealthy and drove the deficit higher.

Soon after, many of the same lawmakers who cheered the tax cuts argued for cutting “entitlements” like Medicare, Medicaid, and food assistance. The deficit, once again, became the excuse to shrink programs serving everyday Americans.

The 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill”

Most recently, in 2025, Republicans rolled out the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” — a sweeping package of permanent tax cuts, environmental deregulation, and limits on federal agencies’ ability to regulate. Once again, the bill promised to boost growth and “pay for itself,” echoing claims made since the Reagan era.

Nonpartisan budget analysts warned it would add trillions to the deficit over the next decade. And, like clockwork, Republican leaders quickly pivoted after its passage to argue that the country could no longer afford Medicaid, food assistance, or affordable housing supports.

The pattern could not be clearer:

1. Cut taxes.

2. Watch the deficit explode.

3. Use the deficit as justification to slash social programs.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” may be the most sweeping recent example of starve-the-beast politics in action — showing the strategy is alive and well, even after 50 years.

Why It Matters

The starve-the-beast strategy is not just a historical curiosity. It is a deliberate, repeated tactic that has reshaped the American economy in deeply unequal ways. Over decades, these tax-cut-driven budget crises have channeled enormous benefits to corporations and the wealthiest households, while leaving the vast majority of Americans worse off.

Every time tax cuts drain federal resources, conservative leaders argue there is “no money” left for education, affordable housing, health care, or infrastructure. As these investments shrink, working- and middle-class families bear the brunt — seeing stagnant wages, rising costs, and crumbling public services.

Meanwhile, the wealthy — who benefit most from each new round of tax cuts — grow even richer, concentrating their wealth and power further. That wealth concentration then fuels more lobbying, more political donations, and more influence to keep the same cycle going.

Far from delivering broad-based prosperity, “starve the beast” policies have widened the wealth gap dramatically, hollowed out communities, and left everyday Americans with fewer opportunities to build a secure future.

Understanding how this crisis is created — on purpose — is the first step toward stopping it. Because when a budget deficit is manufactured by design, it is never an accident. It is a conscious choice to privilege the powerful, while starving everyone else.

The One Big Beautiful Bill: A $45 Billion Gift to Private Prison Profiteers

America’s federal prisons are overcrowded and underfunded. Nearly 156,000 people are locked up in a system designed for far fewer, while staff shortages and deteriorating conditions keep getting worse. Yet instead of addressing this crisis, Congress just passed the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill yesterday — sending tens of billions to expand immigration detention instead.

This bill marks the largest investment ever in ICE detention centers, aiming to double capacity while leaving federal prisons stuck at overcrowding levels. Private prison corporations and security contractors are the biggest winners, set to collect billions in new contracts funded by taxpayers. Many of these same companies have poured money into political campaigns to keep the cash flowing.

In this post, I’ll break down how much we spend on prisons now, what the new bill adds for ICE detention, who profits, and how the money circles right back to campaign donors.

Current State of Federal Prisons and ICE Detention

Federal Prisons (BOP)

• The Federal Bureau of Prisons operates on an annual budget of around $8.3 billion.

• It has a rated capacity of about 135,841 beds, but is currently holding over 155,000 inmates — running at roughly 115% capacity.

• That means tens of thousands of people are packed into overcrowded cells, with too few staff and growing safety problems.

ICE Detention Centers

• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) runs its own network of detention centers, mostly through private contractors.

• ICE has an average daily detained population of about 56,000 people.

• Its detention operations cost taxpayers roughly $3.5 billion each year.

In short, the federal prison system is bursting at the seams and ICE is already spending billions to hold migrants and asylum seekers. Instead of fixing chronic overcrowding or investing in alternatives, Congress just opened the floodgates to even more detention spending.

The One Big Beautiful Bill: A Massive Expansion

Yesterday, Congress passed what’s being called the One Big Beautiful Bill, a sweeping package that sends billions of new dollars into immigration enforcement. One headline piece is a staggering $45 billion over four years dedicated just to building and expanding ICE detention centers — including new family facilities and tent-style camps to double capacity.

Altogether, the bill directs up to $150–170 billion over five years for border enforcement, surveillance technology, and a massive hiring push. That means ICE detention capacity could jump from about 56,000 beds to over 100,000, the largest expansion in U.S. history.

Meanwhile, funding for the Federal Bureau of Prisons barely budged. Even though federal prisons are well over capacity and dealing with staffing and safety failures, they will see no major increase beyond the existing $8.3 billion annual budget.

This is a clear political signal: Congress is prioritizing more immigration detention while ignoring a federal prison system on.

Who Benefits From All This Money?

The biggest winners in the One Big Beautiful Bill are the private contractors that run or support ICE detention. These companies have long profited from the growth of the detention system, and now stand to make billions more.

GEO Group is one of the largest private prison operators in the country, running about 99 facilities with an estimated 80,000 beds. It already makes over a billion dollars a year from ICE detention contracts and is in line for even bigger deals under the bill.

CoreCivic, another major player, operates around 65 facilities with 76,000 beds. It has reopened several family detention centers and is positioning itself to grab a huge share of the new contracts.

Other companies like MVM, Inc. — which handles security staffing, transportation, and translation for ICE — will also benefit. And the bill sets aside funding for construction and “temporary” camp infrastructure, which means companies that build and maintain tent facilities, such as Deployed Resources or BLU-MED, are also likely to cash in.

In other words, the billions of taxpayer dollars approved yesterday will go straight into the pockets of private prison corporations and security contractors — not to public defenders, alternatives to detention, or real solutions to overcrowding.

Campaign Contributions: Follow the Money

It’s not just that private prison contractors stand to gain from this bill — they have also been major financial backers of Trump and pro-Trump causes, raising serious questions about whether this is a payoff for their support.

GEO Group is the biggest ICE detention contractor and has spent heavily to keep those contracts flowing. In 2024, GEO-related PACs and executives gave $78,124 directly to Trump’s campaign, with a total of $3.7 million donated across the cycle to GOP-aligned committees (source: OpenSecrets). GEO Group was also the first corporate PAC to max out donations for Trump’s 2024 run, and put another $500,000 into pro-Trump super PACs like MAGA Inc. (source: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington).

CoreCivic has also been a reliable donor. In 2024, the company contributed at least $223,223 to the Republican National Committee, plus hundreds of thousands more to other GOP committees (source: OpenSecrets). In January 2025, CoreCivic gave $500,000 to Trump’s inaugural fund, cementing its political ties (source: ABC News).

These donations line up neatly with the billions in new ICE detention funding approved under the One Big Beautiful Bill. It’s a pattern: the same private contractors who bankroll pro-detention politicians later win lucrative contracts when those politicians are in power.

Beyond campaign cash, there are also plenty of revolving-door connections — for example, former ICE acting director Tom Homan, a prominent Trump ally, later worked for GEO Group, while other ICE officials have landed jobs in private detention companies (source: Prison Legal News).

This cycle of donations, influence, and taxpayer-funded contracts is at the heart of how immigration detention keeps growing. It’s not just policy — it’s a profitable business backed by campaign money.

Conclusion: A Donor Payout

The One Big Beautiful Bill claims to strengthen border security, but the biggest effect will be to pour billions into the same corporations that have fueled the growth of private detention for decades. While federal prisons remain overcrowded and underfunded, private ICE contractors stand to collect record-breaking contracts, bankrolled by taxpayers.

The companies getting these contracts — GEO Group, CoreCivic, and other private operators — are the same ones that have spent millions to support Trump and his allies. That money isn’t charity; it’s an investment, paying off with massive new government contracts.

The pattern is unmistakable. Instead of fixing a broken, overcrowded prison system, Congress has prioritized expanding detention for migrants — all while funneling profits to political donors. This isn’t about making America safer; it’s about rewarding powerful corporations that help bankroll political campaigns.

If we really care about justice and public safety, we should be demanding accountability for these billions — not letting private interests write themselves a blank check.

Why Shrinking Social Supports Backfires on America

For decades, Republican lawmakers have leaned on wealthy donors and powerful conservative groups to fund their campaigns. In return, those donors have pushed a simple wish list: tax cuts for corporations and high-income households, along with a smaller government that spends less on programs like food assistance, Medicaid, and affordable housing.

At first glance, these priorities might sound like a way to reward hard work and encourage growth. But the truth is that cutting social supports does not strengthen America — it weakens it. Again and again, the evidence shows that shrinking these programs backfires, hurting working families and dragging down the economy as a whole.

Who Wins, and Who Loses?

The data is clear: the wealthiest 1% of Americans have captured over 38% of all new global wealth in recent years (Oxfam, 2023). Meanwhile, more than 40 million Americans rely on SNAP (food stamps), and about 85 million people use Medicaid — programs that repeatedly face funding cuts from lawmakers eager to satisfy wealthy donors.

When tax breaks are handed out at the top, the benefits mostly go to shareholders and corporate executives rather than working families. For example, after the 2017 tax law reduced corporate tax rates, large U.S. companies spent over $800 billion on stock buybacks in just two years — far more than they invested in worker raises or new hiring.

Shrinking These Supports Hurts the Economy

When vital public programs are cut, it becomes harder for working-class and middle-class families to stay afloat. Food assistance helps people keep groceries on the table. Medicaid ensures children and parents can see a doctor. Housing supports help prevent homelessness and keep communities stable.

Research consistently shows these investments pay off. Every dollar spent on SNAP generates about $1.50 in local economic activity because families spend that money right away at neighborhood grocery stores and small businesses (USDA, 2022). Medicaid protects hospitals from having to absorb unpaid medical bills, saving the broader health system billions of dollars each year.

Studies from Moody’s Analytics have found that benefits aimed at lower-income families deliver some of the highest economic returns of any policy — up to $1.70 for each dollar of unemployment insurance spending, compared to as little as 35 cents per dollar for corporate tax cuts. That’s because people with low or moderate incomes tend to spend rather than save, which supports local businesses, keeps workers employed, and stabilizes local tax revenues.

When supports are cut, families are forced to skip meals, delay medical care, or fall behind on rent. That pain doesn’t stay in one household — it spreads through entire communities, weakening growth and opportunity for everyone.

A Democracy Problem, Too

This isn’t just about dollars and cents. When politicians depend on wealthy donors to stay in office, they put those donors’ demands first — even if the broader public disagrees.

That is not how democracy is supposed to work. A system where lawmakers listen only to their wealthiest backers, while ignoring working families, leaves most Americans feeling voiceless and frustrated. It also feeds the kind of division and resentment that makes solving real problems even harder.

What Happens Next?

If these priorities continue — more tax cuts for the top, less support for everyone else — the country will grow even more unequal and more divided. And that is a dangerous path. History shows that societies with extreme wealth gaps are more vulnerable to instability, economic crises, and political unrest.

Instead, we could invest in programs that help people climb the ladder, stay healthy, and build secure lives. Those investments don’t just lift individuals; they strengthen the economy and the nation as a whole.

---

To understand how these priorities connect to current legislation, take a look at Why Are Republicans Pushing an Unpopular Bill? Here’s What You Should Know. That piece breaks down the political pressures and strategies behind recent proposals — and how they align with long-standing donor-driven goals.

How the 2017 Corporate Tax Cuts Fueled Record Stock Buybacks

…and What the One Big Beautiful Bill Might Repeat

In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Supporters promised that companies would reinvest this windfall in new equipment, expand operations, and boost worker pay.

But the reality turned out quite differently.

Record-Breaking Stock Buybacks

After the tax cuts took effect, corporate America went on a historic buyback spree. In 2018, companies in the S&P 500 repurchased over $800 billion worth of their own stock — the largest amount ever recorded. In 2019, they spent another $700 billion. Before the tax cuts, annual buybacks usually hovered closer to $500 billion.

Stock buybacks shrink the number of shares on the market, boosting earnings per share and pushing up stock prices. This helps wealthy investors and corporate executives, but does little for everyday workers.

Workers Left Behind

Despite big promises, wage growth remained sluggish. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, average hourly earnings grew about 3% per year between 2017 and 2019, barely keeping pace with inflation. Meanwhile, corporate profits soared — and went right back to shareholders.

Shareholders Got Richer, Inequality Widened

America’s richest 10% own roughly 89% of all corporate equities, so most of the gains from buybacks ended up with them. Instead of raising wages or funding new investment, corporations spent their tax savings rewarding their shareholders and executives.

Even Trump Didn’t Expect It

President Trump himself seemed frustrated by how corporations used their windfall. In March 2018, he said:

“We thought they would have known better but they didn’t know better … I am fine with restricting buybacks. In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don’t want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing.”

— Reuters, March 2018

Even the president behind the tax cuts recognized that companies had largely used their windfall to enrich themselves.

So Why Do It Again?

Now, some lawmakers are pushing to make these corporate tax cuts permanent through what they call the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” But there is little discussion about putting limits on stock buybacks this time around.

If the goal is to strengthen our economy and help workers, why would we hand corporations another giant tax break with no strings attached? We already saw what happened last time: corporations took the money and rewarded shareholders, while workers saw almost nothing.

If there is one lesson from the 2017 tax cuts, it is that without guardrails, corporate tax giveaways mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans. Any plan to extend these cuts should include strong rules to make sure the money supports job growth, wage increases, and investment — not just stock market gains.

Take Action

If you think tax policy should help workers and communities, not just the richest shareholders, reach out to your members of Congress and tell them:

No permanent corporate tax cuts without protections against stock buybacks. Tax breaks should build the real economy — not just inflate stock prices.

Why Are Republicans Pushing an Unpopular Bill? Here’s What You Should Know

Congressional Republicans are pushing through the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” even though it is widely unpopular with voters. This bill cuts essential benefits for working families, hands large tax breaks to the wealthy, and is projected to add trillions to the federal deficit.

So why would lawmakers support something so risky? It might seem confusing — or even suspicious — if you don’t look closer at the political incentives driving this move. Here’s what’s really happening behind the scenes, and why it matters for everyday Americans.

Donors and Long-Held Priorities

Republicans rely on wealthy donors and powerful conservative groups to fund their campaigns. For decades, those donors have demanded tax cuts for corporations and high-income households, along with smaller government programs. They want less spending on things like food assistance, Medicaid, and other social supports that help low- and middle-income families.

By advancing this bill, Republican lawmakers keep their donors satisfied and maintain critical financial backing, even if the broader public is opposed to it.

A Crisis by Design: The “Starve the Beast” Strategy

Many Republican leaders still believe in a strategy going back to the Reagan era, known as “starve the beast.” The logic is simple: pass massive tax cuts that drive up the deficit, then later argue there is no money left for safety-net programs like Medicare, food aid, or public housing.

In other words, they create a budget crisis on purpose so they can justify shrinking government support even further in the future. It may sound extreme, but it is a long-standing approach that still drives conservative policy today.

Selling an Unpopular Law

Even with public opposition, Republican leaders think they can frame this bill as “tax relief for working Americans,” despite most of its benefits flowing to corporations and wealthy households. They argue that cuts to programs are about fighting “waste and fraud,” though in reality, these cuts take away support that millions of families depend on.

They are counting on familiar messaging — repeated over and over — to soften the backlash or confuse voters about who will really be harmed.

Loyalty to Trump and the MAGA Base

Donald Trump continues to dominate the Republican Party. Many lawmakers see passing this bill as a test of loyalty to him. Trump wants to call this bill a historic win, and Republican members worry that breaking ranks could bring a Trump-backed primary challenger or a social media firestorm against them.

Even if moderates and swing voters dislike the bill, Republicans believe staying close to Trump’s base is their best bet for holding power.

Betting on Short Memories

In the end, Republican leaders are taking a calculated gamble. They hope voters will move on, get distracted by other issues, or simply forget by the next election. Some believe gerrymandered districts and stricter voting laws will help protect their seats, even if people are angry about losing benefits or seeing the deficit explode.

They are counting on the confusion and fast-moving news cycle to shield them from consequences — just as some tried after unpopular health care cuts in 2017.

Why It Matters

This bill is about more than just numbers on a balance sheet. It takes away resources from working- and middle-class Americans while delivering tax breaks to those who need them least. It creates the groundwork to slash public programs even further down the road, leaving families more vulnerable.

Republican messaging may sound pro-worker or populist, but the policy reality is very different. Low-income and working-class voters — including many who supported Trump — stand to lose the most, even as political leaders celebrate the bill as a “win.”

---

Quick Summary of the Big Beautiful Bill

Who Loses

• Medicaid: coverage reduced for millions

• SNAP: stricter rules, smaller food benefits

• Housing Aid: more evictions as Section 8 funding is cut

• School Nutrition: fewer resources for low-income kids

• Tax Credits: smaller refunds for working families

Who Gains

• Corporations: lower tax rates, expanded loopholes

• High-income households: big cuts in top tax brackets

• Pass-through businesses: new tax exemptions for wealthy owners

Deficit Impact

• Adds $3–3.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years

• Creates pressure for future cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other safety nets

---

Understanding these trade-offs is essential. Voters deserve to know the truth behind the slogans — and to hold lawmakers accountable for whose interests they really serve.

Iris Monterroso Lost Her Baby in ICE Custody. We Should All Care.

In May, the Nashville Banner reported on Iris Monterroso, a young woman arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Tennessee while she was eight weeks pregnant. Iris had no criminal record. She was detained in a facility that, by her account, failed to provide medical attention even as she began bleeding. By the time she was finally taken to a hospital, she had miscarried.

It’s a tragedy no matter where you stand on immigration.

It is also a reminder of what happens when enforcement policy pulls in ordinary people — people with no violent histories, no threats to public safety — and places them into harsh, overcrowded conditions.

The Bigger Picture

Since Trump returned to office in 2025, ICE has dramatically escalated arrests of non-criminal immigrants, even beyond the levels seen in 2017. According to the Cato Institute, arrests of non-criminal immigrants have risen more than 1,100%compared to the beginning of Trump’s first term.

• About two-thirds of people detained have no criminal convictions.

• Over 93% have no violent record.

This is a policy of pursuing the easiest targets, not necessarily the most dangerous. Many of those picked up were following the immigration system’s own requirements — checking in regularly, reporting their locations, working toward legal status. These are not the people most Americans believe should be prioritized for detention.

Yet they are the ones filling up the beds in detention centers, creating dangerous overcrowding and stretching medical care to the breaking point.

Meanwhile, the immigration courts remain hopelessly backlogged, leaving people stuck for months or even years in stressful, unhealthy detention. Without serious reform to reduce court delays, no amount of oversight alone will fix this.

Why It Should Matter

No pregnant woman should fear losing her baby because she was placed in a government facility.

Iris Monterroso’s story crosses every line of decency. She wanted her baby. She was trying to comply with the system. Yet she was ignored, neglected, and left to lose her pregnancy while in government custody.

This should move every one of us. Whether you see yourself as Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, or somewhere in between, there is a basic principle at stake: human dignity. It should not depend on immigration status.

No one should lose a pregnancy because of neglect in U.S. custody. No child should be lost this way.

What Needs to Change

Oversight of ICE facilities is vital. Congress must step up its inspections, demand transparency, and hold agencies accountable.

But that is only the beginning. Congress must also fix the overwhelmed immigration court system and direct ICE to focus its resources on genuine public-safety threats — not on parents, working people, or others who pose no harm.

This is not about “open borders.” It is about smart, fair priorities and ensuring taxpayer dollars go toward real threats, not the easy-to-catch targets that make families suffer while criminals walk free.

Oversight, immigration court reform, and smarter enforcement priorities — together — are what it will take to prevent tragedies like Iris’s.

Iris Monterroso deserved better. Her baby deserved better. And our country can do better.

Congress must act.

---

Sources

https://nashvillebanner.com/2025/05/27/iris-monterroso-pregnancy-loss/

https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-arresting-1100-percent-more-noncriminals-streets-2017

https://www.cato.org/blog/65-people-taken-ice-had-no-convictions-93-no-violent-convictions

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/21/texas-family-detention-adults-kids-fighting/

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/05/nx-s1-5413364/concerns-over-conditions-in-u-s-immigration-detention-were-hearing-the-word-starving

https://www.vera.org/news/the-truth-about-immigration-detention-in-the-united-states

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/immigration-customs-enforcement-congressional-oversight-facility-conditions/

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/as-communities-mobilize-against-increasing-ice-abuses-members-of-congress-must-fulfill-their-responsibility-to-conduct-oversight-of-immigration-detention

‘No Kings’ Isn’t a Gotcha

Looking back at fear, freedom, and what we were really fighting for

You may have seen a viral post making the rounds recently. It reads like this:

No kings, but put your mask on.
No kings, but lock us down.
No kings, but I’m firing you for not vaccinating.
No kings, but you can’t go outside.
…but you need 12,380 boosters.
…but you can’t worship the REAL King.
…but you’re responsible for my health.
…but no family gatherings over 10.

It’s meant to expose what some see as a contradiction: that people who claim to oppose authoritarianism were too comfortable with government control during the pandemic. And let’s be honest—many of us did feel powerless at times, confused, even angry. The rules changed quickly. Our routines were disrupted. Our sense of control was shaken. That frustration is real, and it deserves to be acknowledged.

But that post—and others like it—draw the wrong conclusion. It treats “No Kings” as a punchline, not a principle. It frames democratic decision-making during a crisis as the same thing as tyranny. And that’s where we need to pause, step back, and take a closer look at what “No Kings” actually means.

No Kings Doesn’t Mean “No Rules”

At its core, “No Kings” is about opposing unchecked, absolute power. It doesn’t mean no one ever tells you what to do. It means no one person decides everything for everyone.

In a monarchy, power is centralized in one figure. There are no votes. No accountability. No appeals. No participation.

In a democracy, even under strain, decision-making is distributed—among elected officials, public health agencies, school boards, local governments, and yes, even private businesses. The pandemic created pressure, urgency, and sometimes confusion. But the power was still divided. The decisions were still debated. And the people still had recourse.

If you disagreed with a rule, you could protest. People did.
If you thought a mandate went too far, you could sue. People did.
If you didn’t like how your leaders handled it, you could vote them out. People did that too.

That’s not tyranny. That’s democracy under pressure—still functioning, still flawed, but still ours.

You Had a Say. You Still Do.

That’s the key difference. In a real monarchy, you don’t get a say. There are no protests without punishment. No courts to appeal to. No elections to change the course.

But in our system—even when the stakes are high—you still have power. You may not get your way every time. No one does. But you are part of the system that shapes the rules.

That’s what “No Kings” is supposed to mean: that no one person gets to rule over you without limits or consequences.

And if our idea of freedom can’t coexist with shared responsibility, maybe what we’re calling freedom isn’t really that at all.

Some of This Wasn’t Even the Government

Another important piece often left out of the conversation: not all the frustrations people faced during the pandemic came from the government.

A lot of mandates and restrictions came from private companies—firings, customer policies, event rules, travel protocols. That’s not federal overreach. That’s private actors making decisions within a capitalist system that already gives them enormous latitude.

That doesn’t make it feel any better—but it does change the accountability equation.

If you’re angry about how much influence corporations have over your life, you’re not alone. That’s a conversation we should absolutely be having. But let’s not confuse that with democratic governance. In many cases, government was the only thing limiting corporate overreach, not causing it.

The Irony: Be Careful What We Call “Freedom”

Here’s what gives me pause: some of the loudest critics of the “No Kings” message today are cheering for a political figure who says things like:

• “I alone can fix it.”

• “I will be your retribution.”

• “If you come after me, I come after you.”

These aren’t the words of someone who believes in checks and balances. That’s not local control. That’s not collaborative governance. It’s unilateral power with vengeance attached.

And if we’re going to oppose kings, that opposition has to be consistent. It has to apply even when the would-be king shares your values—or your enemies.

Because history has shown us over and over: concentrated power never stays friendly for long.

What “No Kings” Really Means

So what does it really mean to say “No Kings”?

It means:

• No one person drags us into war.

• No one person jails us without trial.

• No one person decides what we believe, say, or do.

• No one person uses the machinery of government to punish dissent.

It doesn’t mean we always agree. It doesn’t mean the system always gets it right.

But it means we decide—together. Through law. Through debate. Through elections. Through systems designed to correct course, not cement control.

It’s slower. It’s messier. And in a crisis, it can feel frustrating.

But it’s not tyranny. It’s freedom with guardrails. And it’s worth protecting.

So yes:

No Kings.
Not then.
Not now.
Not from the left.
Not from the right.
Not from anyone.

The Real Cost of U.S. Wars by Party: 50-Year Breakdown

When politicians talk tough on foreign policy, it’s often framed as strength. But behind the patriotic rhetoric lies a more sobering truth: wars are expensive—devastatingly so.

Over the past 50 years, U.S. presidents from both major parties have initiated military operations abroad. But when we follow the money, a clear pattern emerges.

Republican administrations have consistently initiated more expensive conflicts—by trillions of dollars.

We examined the long-term costs of major armed conflicts started under Republican versus Democratic leadership. This includes not only direct military spending, but also long-term care for veterans, reconstruction efforts, and the interest accrued on war-related debt.

The Cost Breakdown

Conflict	President	Party	Estimated Long-Term Cost (2024 USD)
Iraq War (2003–)	George W. Bush	Republican	$2.5–3.0 trillion
Afghanistan War (2001–2021)	George W. Bush	Republican	$2.3 trillion
Gulf War (1990–1991)	George H. W. Bush	Republican	$30 billion
Panama Invasion (1989)	George H. W. Bush	Republican	$1–2 billion
Grenada Invasion (1983)	Ronald Reagan	Republican	$130 million
Lebanon Deployment (1982–1984)	Ronald Reagan	Republican	~$2 billion
Libya Air Campaign (2011)	Barack Obama	Democrat	$1.1 billion
Syria/ISIS Operations (2014–)	Barack Obama	Democrat	$40–50 billion
Kosovo War (1999)	Bill Clinton	Democrat	$5–10 billion
Bosnia Intervention (1995)	Bill Clinton	Democrat	~$5 billion
Drone Campaigns (2009–2017)	Barack Obama	Democrat	$10–20 billion

Estimated totals

• Republican-initiated conflicts: $4.8 to $5.5 trillion

• Democratic-initiated conflicts: $60 to $85 billion

Why It Matters

War doesn’t just cost lives—it also drains national resources that could otherwise be invested in healthcare, education, infrastructure, or debt reduction. These long-term financial commitments often extend for decades, long after the troops come home and the headlines fade.

Despite common narratives that portray Democrats as weaker on defense or Republicans as more fiscally responsible, the historical record tells a different story.

Final Thought

Before accepting any argument that equates military aggression with leadership, it’s worth asking: Who actually pays for these wars? Because the people making the decisions often aren’t the ones footing the bill—or living with the consequences.

Theater of Cruelty: Why the Administration’s Immigration Crackdown Solves Nothing

The current administration wants you to believe it’s tough on immigration. They want headlines filled with arrests, detentions, and deportations. They want to project an image of control. But what they’re offering isn’t immigration policy — it’s political theater. It’s expensive, cruel, and completely detached from the root causes of the immigration challenges we actually face.

Let’s break this down.

Arrests Without Judges, Oversight, or Urgency

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is picking people up on administrative warrants — not criminal ones signed by a judge, but internal paperwork signed by ICE itself. There’s no immediate legal oversight, no court sign-off. In many cases, the people detained won’t see a judge for months or even years, because our immigration court system is so overwhelmed.

This would be like getting pulled over for allegedly speeding, then being jailed indefinitely without seeing a judge — all because a DMV official filled out a form.

Aggressive Tactics for Minor Infractions

Reports show ICE deploying militarized raids, midnight arrests, and detaining individuals for nothing more than civil infractions—expired visas, missed paperwork, or routine check-ins. In many cases, these actions are taken against people with pending asylum applications or Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—not violent criminals. One Los Angeles “military-style” operation resulted in over 40 arrests and was described by advocates as an “oppressive and vile paramilitary operation,” targeting nonviolent individuals in their homes or neighborhoods.

Immigration courts are no longer safe havens either: ICE has been arresting asylum-seekers in courthouse hallways, immediately following hearings or check-ins—even when a person has complied with all legal requirements. According to The Guardian, there were over 1,400 arrests at check-ins in the first month of the new term, mostly targeting individuals with no criminal history.

This isn’t targeted enforcement—it’s intimidation masquerading as policy, wielded against nonviolent, law‑abiding residents.

Due Process Denied

When people are deported — or detained for indefinite periods — without access to a timely hearing, that’s a due process failure. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t say “except for immigrants.” Everyone in this country is entitled to basic procedural fairness, especially when what’s at stake is a person’s freedom or life.

Instead, we have people being sent back to countries they fled from — without having their case properly heard. Or worse, we keep them locked in overcrowded detention centers for years while their case languishes in a backlog.

Congress Kept in the Dark

What’s happening inside those detention centers? It’s hard to say. Lawmakers have reported being denied access or limited to sanitized tours — in direct conflict with Congress’s oversight authority. In fact, the DHS recently imposed a new policy requiring 72 hours advance notice for visits to ICE facilities and explicitly reserving ICE’s “sole and unreviewable discretion” to deny, cancel, or reschedule visits—even when federal law guarantees unannounced access for oversight purposes. Critics argue this is a transparent attempt to shroud detention conditions in secrecy.

If there’s nothing to hide, why the secrecy?

Root Causes Ignored

Here’s what’s really happening: the current surge in migrants isn’t due to lawlessness. It’s due to failed states, violence, climate change, and economic collapse in parts of Central America and beyond. People are not “invading” — they’re fleeing. The U.S. system used to recognize this through legal protections like asylum and TPS.

But instead of investing in solutions — faster asylum hearings, more judges, legal representation, and regional diplomacy — the administration has chosen to invest in fear. Fear looks good on campaign ads, but it doesn’t solve the crisis. It just manufactures cruelty.

A Broken System Doesn’t Need More Punishment — It Needs Reform

Imagine this:

You’re accused of a traffic violation — let’s say going 10 MPH over the speed limit. But instead of getting a court date in a few weeks, you’re arrested on the spot. Then you’re told it’ll take 5 years to resolve your case because the courts are backed up. During that time, you sit in a crowded jail, even if you have a spotless record. You never get a trial. You can’t appeal. You might be sent somewhere you don’t know, without seeing a lawyer or judge at all.

That’s what’s happening right now — just swap the traffic court for immigration court.

We Need a Real Fix

We don’t need more agents, more raids, or more detention centers. We need judges, caseworkers, legal aid, and sensible timelines. We need a functional, humane immigration system — one that recognizes the difference between a paperwork violation and a criminal threat. One that lives up to America’s promise of fairness and due process.

What we’re doing now isn’t solving the problem — it’s just turning people’s lives into props for a political show.

If we truly care about justice, safety, and human dignity, we must stop treating immigration as a stage for cruelty — and start building a system that works.

It’s time to bring the curtain down and do some real work.

An Open Letter to Federal Agents: A Call to Conscience

To the agents of Homeland Security, ICE, and all others tasked with enforcing the laws of this nation:

You signed up to serve your country. You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States—not to obey a man, a party, or a political movement, but to defend the principles that have guided our republic since its founding. That responsibility comes with power, and that power demands accountability. In that spirit, I offer the following:

Don’t Hide Your Face

If you’re carrying out lawful orders in accordance with the Constitution, then you should have nothing to hide. In a democratic society, anonymity in enforcement is a red flag—not a badge of honor. Citizens have the right to know who is detaining them, questioning them, or searching their homes. If you obscure your identity, you erode public trust and make it harder for people to tell the difference between lawful authority and unlawful aggression.

Think for Yourself

It is not enough to follow orders. The law is not a shield for immoral action. You must know it, question it, and apply it judiciously. Study the Constitution. Read case law on unlawful orders and how to resist them within your chain of command. Learn how others before you—military and civilian alike—have stood firm in defense of principle when asked to do something wrong. History doesn’t look kindly on those who abdicate their conscience.

Treat Civilians with Respect

Your authority ends where someone else’s rights begin. The people you encounter may not know the law like you do. They may be scared or confused. But most are not your enemy—they are citizens, neighbors, or simply human beings who deserve to be treated with dignity. When you conduct yourself professionally, when you clearly identify yourself and your purpose, you help uphold the law. When you don’t, you undermine it. Ask yourself: if a group of unidentified men approached your family with weapons and refused to explain why—how would you respond?

Use Force Only as a Last Resort

You carry weapons. That is not a privilege—it is a grave responsibility. The power to detain, restrain, or harm another human being should never be exercised lightly or reflexively. De-escalation is not weakness; it is professionalism. Violence should always be the last resort, never the first instinct.

Every act of force you use is a message: to the person it’s used against, to the community that witnesses it, and to the country that you serve. That message should never be one of domination—it should be one of necessity, restraint, and accountability. Anything else diminishes the very rule of law you’re sworn to uphold.

Read the Constitution.
Read the Declaration of Independence.

Don’t just memorize the parts you’re told matter. Understand why these documents were written in the first place. Understand the grievances that led to their creation, the abuses they sought to prevent, and the balance of powers they enshrine. Remember: we were founded by people who resisted government overreach. The rule of law only survives when those who enforce it know where the line is—and refuse to cross it.

You are not just agents of the state. You are agents of the people. The Constitution needs guardians. Be one.

Further Reading and Resources

On Constitutional Rights and Civic Responsibility:

• U.S. Constitution (National Archives)

• Declaration of Independence (National Archives)

• Interactive Constitution (National Constitution Center)

On Lawful Orders and Accountability:

• Cornell Legal Information Institute – Search for relevant federal laws and legal commentary.

On De-escalation and Use of Force:

• NIJ: Use of Force Continuum

On Professional Conduct and Civilian Interaction:

• DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

• The Marshall Project

Whistleblower Aid

• Whistleblower Aid

No Kings

I’ve been struggling this past week to figure out what to write.

The immigration raids in Los Angeles. The protests that followed. The President sending in the National Guard — and then the Marines — to suppress what were, in large part, peaceful demonstrations. The political assassinations in Minnesota. The growing wave of “No Kings” rallies across the country.

It’s a lot.

Each of these events is heavy on its own, but together they form a storm of chaos and fear. And in trying to process it all, I keep returning to one underlying theme: there’s so much focus on what we’re against — but not enough on what we’re for.

This, more than anything, is the legacy of the conservative/MAGA movement and the opposition to it. Not policy or vision. Not even ideology, really. Just relentless opposition. It’s a politics of negation — built on grievance, resentment, and fear of change. What we get is a steady drumbeat of “Not That,” “Not Them,” and “Never This.”

But let’s be honest: they’re not the only ones guilty of this.

Across the political spectrum, our messages have started to mirror one another in tone — even if not in content. Our political climate has become a series of competing “anti” messages. “Not fascism,” “Not socialism,” “Not the establishment,” “Not the radicals,” “Not the elites.” Everyone is fighting against something. But who’s offering a real vision of what comes next?

Where is the leadership that shows us a future to move toward — not just more things to fear?

It’s not that people don’t care. It’s that everything around us — the algorithms, the cable news cycles, the clickbait headlines — is designed to amplify conflict, not resolution. To reward outrage, not understanding. To push virality, not vision.

In this environment, it’s easier to rally energy against something than to build momentum toward something. And that’s a problem — because if all we do is resist, we stay locked in place. Or worse, we spin in circles. We become like a fish flopping on the deck, reacting to every splash but moving nowhere.

At some point, we have to stop asking what we’re fighting against and start asking what we’re fighting for.

We need to find each other. Build bridges. Not in some vague, idealistic sense, but in a real, hard, uncomfortable way. We need to talk about where we’re going — together — because there is no going back. That’s a myth. The only path is forward.

And that path needs to be shaped by us — the people who still believe in democracy, dignity, and shared responsibility. People who believe we are all better off when we’re all better off. People who believe that “No Kings” doesn’t just mean resisting authoritarian power — it means rejecting the idea that any one person, party, or movement has all the answers.

“No Kings” means we govern ourselves. Together.

And that means it’s on us to define the future we want to live in — and then fight like hell to build it.

Two Fathers

A Reflection on Father’s Day and the Role of Government

Today is Father’s Day here in the United States — a moment to honor the men who raise, teach, and guide us. But it’s also an opportunity to reflect more broadly on what it means to lead, to care, and to nurture growth.

I want to offer a contrast between two very different kinds of fathers.

The first is a father who restricts. He tells his children what not to do. He lays down rules without explanation, limits their choices, and scolds them when they misstep. His love might be present, but it’s conditional and often cloaked in fear or shame. His children may obey, but they do so out of compliance, not understanding.

The second is a father who teaches. He explains why things are the way they are. He gives his children the freedom to make their own choices — and when they stumble, he’s there to help them learn from the experience. His love is steady and patient. Mistakes aren’t punished; they’re seen as necessary steps in the process of becoming wiser, stronger, more independent.

Now, imagine applying that contrast to something bigger: our country.

What kind of “father” is the United States?

Of course, this analogy isn’t perfect — a nation isn’t a parent, and citizens aren’t children. But the metaphor is still useful, especially when we consider how government functions in our daily lives. There are times when our policies, laws, and leadership resemble that first kind of father: controlling, punitive, suspicious of freedom. And there are times when we move toward the second: empowering, supportive, invested in helping people thrive, not just obey.

Some may bristle at the idea of thinking about a country in personal or familial terms. For many, government feels like an impersonal machine — bureaucratic, distant, and slow. But in a democracy like ours, that perception misses the point. Our system of government begins with three simple words: We the People.

We are not separate from the government — we are the government. Every law, every regulation, every program is a reflection of what we choose to value as a society. It’s how we decide to live together, to take care of each other, and to chart a path forward.

So on this Father’s Day, as we think about what it means to guide, support, and lead — let’s also ask what kind of country we want to be. Do we want a government that limits out of fear? Or one that empowers out of trust and compassion?

As with parenting, the answer will shape not just who we are today — but who we become tomorrow.

De-escalate. Redirect. Overwhelm.

Today’s Edition Newsletter

There is much to discuss regarding Trump's illegal and unconstitutional order nationalizing 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests in Los Angeles. I will not attempt to summarize breaking news. Instead, I will focus on the question, “What should we do?”

My answer: De-escalate. Redirect. Overwhelm.

“We All Are Going to Die”: Cruelty and the Gospel According to Joni Ernst

At a town hall this week in Parkersburg, Iowa, Senator Joni Ernst offered a response so callous it instantly went viral. Confronted by a constituent worried about Medicaid cuts in the GOP’s latest budget proposal, Ernst brushed it off with a smile and a shrug: “Well, we all are going to die.”

The room groaned.

That moment wasn’t just insensitive—it was revealing. It captured the flippant cruelty at the heart of the Republican Party’s so-called “big, beautiful” budget bill. And it highlighted how far removed today’s GOP is from both fiscal honesty and the values they so often claim to uphold—particularly when they wrap themselves in the language of Christianity.

The False Premise: Medicaid and Immigrants

Ernst, like other Republicans, tried to justify the cuts by claiming they only target people who aren’t eligible for Medicaid—especially undocumented immigrants. She parroted the number “1.4 million” as if millions of “illegals” are fraudulently draining the system.

Here’s the truth: undocumented immigrants are already barred from accessing full Medicaid. They’re only eligible for Emergency Medicaid—coverage that helps someone in life-threatening situations like childbirth or trauma, and only if they meet strict income limits. Emergency Medicaid accounts for less than 1% of the program’s total spending.

That “1.4 million” figure? There’s no reliable source backing it up. And even if fraud were happening at that scale (it’s not), uncovering it would require a larger budget and more oversight staff—not less.

This isn’t about rooting out fraud. It’s about justifying the unjustifiable: cutting healthcare from people who need it and can’t afford it.

The Real Impact: Kicking People While They’re Down

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GOP’s Medicaid proposal could strip health coverage from up to 8.6 million people over the next decade. That includes:

• Low-income families

• Elderly Americans in nursing homes

• People with disabilities

• Working-class folks who earn too much for traditional Medicaid but can’t afford private insurance

These aren’t people abusing the system. They are the system—exactly the people Medicaid was designed to protect. But instead of helping them, this budget proposes we sacrifice their well-being to give more tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy and the corporations already hoarding record profits.

It’s Robin Hood in reverse. It’s cruelty by design.

The Gospel According to Joni Ernst

The kicker came after the town hall, Ernst posted a video on social media, filmed in a cemetery, where she offered a sarcastic apology and suggested that those concerned about mortality should “embrace my lord and savior, Jesus Christ”.

Seriously.

This is the same Jesus who healed lepers and the poor for free. The same Jesus who said, “Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me.” The same Jesus who flipped tables over financial exploitation in the temple and told a rich man to give away everything to follow him.

Jesus didn’t cut Medicaid. Jesus was Medicaid.

Quoting scripture while pushing policies that punish the poor isn’t just bad policy—it’s spiritual malpractice. If Ernst and her colleagues want to invoke Christianity, they might start by actually reading what Jesus said about money, justice, and mercy.

Moral Clarity in a Time of Deception

This isn’t just about one senator, or even one party. It’s about a broader pattern of politicians using faith as camouflage for policies that are deeply anti-Christian—and anti-human.

We should call it what it is: a betrayal of the values they claim to hold.

The truth is, budgets are moral documents. They reveal what we value and who we’re willing to leave behind. And if this budget passes, millions will suffer so that billionaires can keep stacking wealth they’ll never use.

We don’t need hollow platitudes. We need compassion. We need truth. And we need leaders who understand that public service is about serving the public.

Because if “we’re all going to die” is the best defense our leaders can offer for stripping healthcare from the poor—then it’s time for new leaders.

Court Limits Trump’s Tariff Powers Under IEEPA

Today (28 May 2025), the U.S. Court of International Trade made a big decision: it ruled that President Trump went too far when he used emergency powers to impose broad tariffs on imports from around the world.

This is a major development for anyone watching how U.S. trade policy works—or doesn’t—and it puts real limits on what a president can do without Congress.

A Quick Reminder: What’s IEEPA?

In case you missed it, we recently covered the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in this earlier post. IEEPA was passed in 1977 to give presidents tools to respond to national emergencies involving foreign threats—mostly by freezing assets or blocking trade with specific countries. But it wasn’t meant to be a blank check.

What the Court Said

The Trump administration had used IEEPA to put tariffs on a wide range of goods from countries like China, Canada, and Mexico. The justification? That the U.S. trade deficit was a national emergency.

But the Court wasn’t buying it.

“The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country’s trade policy dependent on his whims.”
— AP News

In short, the Court ruled that IEEPA doesn’t let the president slap tariffs on whoever he wants just by declaring a trade emergency. That kind of decision belongs to Congress.

You can also read more from Axios and the Wall Street Journal if you want additional context.

Here’s what this Ruling Means

• The tariffs are struck down — Imports affected by Trump’s emergency tariffs are no longer subject to those extra costs.

• Trade deals may be shaken up — Negotiations with countries like the UK and China could be impacted since those tariffs are now off the table.

• Presidents can’t go it alone — The Court made it clear that major trade decisions need input from Congress, not just a presidential proclamation.

What Happens Now?

The Trump team is likely to appeal, and this could eventually end up at the Supreme Court. But for now, it’s a big win for those who believe in checks and balances.

Update

As of 29 May 2025, this ruling was appealed and there is a temporary stay leaving the tariffs in place. Parties have until June 5th to respond.

“The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t say anything at all about tariffs,” Bruce Fain, a former US associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, told Al Jazeera.

Fein added that there is a statute, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs in the event of a national emergency. However, he said, it requires a study by the commerce secretary and can only be imposed on a product-by-product basis.

Why It Matters

This ruling isn’t just about trade. It’s about the limits of executive power. IEEPA was never meant to give any president a free hand to reshape the global economy. This decision reminds us that even emergency powers have boundaries.

Undermining Justice: A Hidden Threat in the “Big Beautiful Bill”

You probably didn’t hear about it. That’s by design.

Tucked into the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” — a sprawling legislative package being pushed with Trump-era flair — is a provision that sounds technical but carries enormous consequences. If passed, it would undermine one of the judiciary’s most basic tools: the power to hold someone in contempt of court.

That might not sound like front-page news. But if you’re someone who believes in accountability, law and order, or the idea that no one is above the law — this should stop you cold.

What Is Contempt of Court?

At its core, contempt of court is how judges enforce their rulings. It’s what allows a judge to say, “You will comply with this subpoena,” and make it stick.

There are two main kinds:

• Civil contempt: Used to compel compliance — for instance, when someone refuses to testify or won’t pay court-ordered child support.

• Criminal contempt: Used to punish behavior that disrespects or obstructs the court itself.

This power isn’t just about courtroom drama. It’s how courts maintain authority, protect citizens, and ensure justice is more than a polite suggestion.

What the Bill Would Do

The clause in question — buried deep in the text — aims to strip judges of the power to enforce certain orders through contempt, particularly in cases involving government officials or political actors.

The language is murky, but the goal is clear: make it harder for courts to hold powerful people accountable, especially if they’re aligned with the bill’s backers.

If someone ignores a lawful subpoena? Shrugs off a court order? Under this provision, a judge might be forced to let it slide.

Why This Is a Red Flag — for Everyone

This isn’t just about legal procedure. It’s about power.

Attacking the court’s ability to enforce its own rulings undermines the rule of law itself. It’s a classic authoritarian tactic: hollow out the independent judiciary so that the powerful don’t have to answer to it.

History offers plenty of cautionary tales. In countries where courts lost their teeth, corruption exploded. Accountability vanished. And ordinary people — the ones without lobbyists, lawyers, or political connections — paid the price.

If this clause becomes law, it won’t just shield corrupt officials from subpoenas. It could affect workers trying to get unpaid wages, parents seeking custody enforcement, or small businesses trying to collect on contracts. Anyone who relies on the courts for fairness could be left powerless.

This Isn’t Just a Liberal Concern

If you believe in checks and balances, this matters.

If you believe in law and order, this matters.

If you believe that judges — not politicians — should decide what happens in a courtroom, this matters.

This isn’t about Trump, or Biden, or left vs. right. It’s about whether courts still mean something in this country. And whether our system still works when powerful people say “no” to accountability.

What You Can Do

This clause won’t make headlines — but it should. The more quietly it passes, the more damage it will do. So speak up.

• Call your representative. Ask them where they stand on judicial contempt powers. Demand transparency.

• Share this story. Most people haven’t heard about it — and that’s no accident.

• Pay attention. This won’t be the last attempt to weaken the rule of law. But it could be the one that breaks it.

Laws are only as strong as the courts that enforce them. Strip away that power, and what you have isn’t justice — it’s theater. And the curtain is rising.

Key Resources

• Full Text of H.R.1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act

• Section 70302 – Restriction of Funds

• Representative Laura Friedman’s Letter Opposing Section 70302

• Campaign Legal Center’s Analysis of Hidden Provisions

How Government Money Really Works — And What Most People Get Wrong About Taxes and the Budget

The Big Misunderstanding About Money

At some point in our lives, most of us absorb a simple, commonsense idea: money is limited. You earn it, you spend it, you try to save some. If you spend more than you bring in, you go into debt — and if that debt piles up, there are consequences. That’s how households work, how businesses work, and how most state and local governments work too.

So it seems logical to assume the federal government must play by the same rules. If there’s a budget deficit, it must mean the government is spending beyond its means. If we want better schools, safer roads, or stronger healthcare, then we either need to raise taxes or cut spending somewhere else. That’s just basic math, right?

Well — not exactly.

This familiar story about government money is tidy, intuitive, and deeply wrong.

The truth is that the federal government doesn’t operate like a household or a business. It’s not just one more player in the economy — it’s the referee, the scoreboard, and the person printing the tickets at the front gate. Unlike the rest of us, the U.S. government creates the money it spends. It doesn’t need to “raise revenue” before it can afford something. It spends first, and taxes later.

That idea might sound a little out there at first. If the government can just create money, why doesn’t it solve everything? Why are there still potholes, overcrowded classrooms, understaffed hospitals, and families living paycheck to paycheck? Why is there always talk of deficits and debt ceilings if those things don’t really constrain us?

This post is here to pull back the curtain.

We’re going to explore how government money actually works in a modern economy — how it enters the system, how it flows, and most importantly, how it sometimes gets stuck. We’ll dig into the real purpose of taxation, and why the most dangerous kind of money in our economy isn’t money that’s being spent — it’s the money that isn’t going anywhere at all.

This isn’t about party politics or economic theory. It’s about understanding the machine we all live inside — and why it so often feels like it’s broken, even when there’s more wealth in circulation than ever before.

If you’ve ever wondered:

• Why we always seem to “run out of money” for public goods…

• Why billionaires can accumulate fortunes beyond imagination while others struggle to afford insulin…

• Or why inflation rises even when wages don’t…

…then this post is for you.

By the end, you’ll see money — and taxes — in a very different light.

The Government Isn’t Like a Household Budget

The idea that governments need to “live within their means” is one of the most persistent beliefs in public life. You’ll hear it from politicians on both sides of the aisle, in news segments, campaign speeches, and budget debates: We can’t spend what we don’t have. We need to tighten our belts. Just like families do.

It sounds responsible. Humble, even. And it gives the impression that government finances are just a scaled-up version of our own — a bigger checking account, a more complicated spreadsheet, but ultimately the same rules.

But here’s the thing: that’s not how a currency-issuing government works. Not even close.

The federal government of the United States is not a household. It doesn’t need to earn money in order to spend it. It doesn’t need to borrow dollars before it can invest in a new bridge, fund research, or pay a soldier. Why? Because it creates the money to begin with.

Think about that for a second. The U.S. dollar doesn’t fall from the sky, and it doesn’t originate in taxpayer wallets. It’s created by the federal government, usually through the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, when Congress authorizes spending. That money enters the economy when the government pays for goods, services, salaries, or benefits — and only after that do taxes start pulling some of it back out.

It’s a bit like the way a casino works. The house creates the chips. It doesn’t need to “earn” them first. The chips flow out onto the floor when people buy in, and the house collects them back as games are played. The casino’s ability to issue more chips is not constrained by how many it collected from players yesterday — it’s constrained only by what the system can handle before things get out of balance.

In the same way, the federal government’s real constraint is not money, but resources. The number of people available to work. The amount of steel, concrete, bandwidth, energy. The capacity of factories and farms and freight trains. If the government spends too much money into an economy that doesn’t have the capacity to absorb it — meaning, too much money chasing too few goods — then you get inflation. That’s the real limit. Not a bank balance.

This is where a lot of confusion starts to clear. Because when you realize the government doesn’t need to collect taxes before it can spend, you start to ask new questions — like why the government still cuts back during times of need, or why it borrows money it doesn’t technically require. You also start to see why taxation matters, even if it’s not “funding” spending directly. We’ll get into all of that shortly.

But for now, the key point is this: the U.S. government is the source of the dollar. It can never run out. It can never go bankrupt in its own currency. It can’t default unless it chooses to. That doesn’t mean it can or should spend without limits. But it does mean we need to stop pretending that government budgeting is just a bigger version of our own household finances.

How Banks Create Money — and Why Debt Isn’t Just Borrowing From the Future

When most of us think of money, we picture something finite — like coins in a jar or bills in a register. It’s easy to imagine there’s a set amount out there in the world, being passed from person to person. But in reality, most money isn’t printed by the government or minted by the Treasury. It’s created by banks — and it’s created out of debt.

Here’s how it works: when you take out a mortgage, a car loan, or swipe your credit card, the bank doesn’t hand you someone else’s deposited money. It simply creates the money by typing it into your account. That loan becomes new money in the economy. And when you pay it back — with interest — the bank removes that money from circulation.

This process happens millions of times a day across the economy. A business borrows to buy new equipment. A student takes out a loan for tuition. A family finances a new roof. All of these actions create money in the short term. In fact, somewhere around 90–95% of the money supply exists not as cash or coins, but as digital entries born from private bank loans.

In this way, debt isn’t just a tool for consumers and companies — it’s the engine that drives most of the money creation in a modern capitalist economy.

But there’s a catch.

Debt-based money always comes with strings attached. It has to be repaid — with interest. And if too much borrowing happens at once, it can fuel bubbles, inflate prices, and saddle people with repayments that siphon off future income. On the other hand, when borrowing slows down — during recessions or periods of uncertainty — the amount of money being created also shrinks, and the economy can stall.

This is where the Federal Reserve comes in.

The Fed doesn’t create money the way Congress does — it doesn’t spend into the economy like the Treasury does. But it plays a crucial role in managing the flow of money by setting interest rates. When the Fed raises rates, borrowing becomes more expensive, which slows down new lending and cools the economy. When it lowers rates, loans get cheaper, encouraging people and businesses to borrow, invest, and spend.

What About Quantitative Easing (QE)?

You might’ve heard that during financial crises, the Federal Reserve “pumps money into the economy” through something called quantitative easing. That’s partly true — but not in the way most people think.

In QE, the Fed creates money to buy government bonds or other assets from large banks. This adds reserves to the banking system — kind of like topping off the fuel tank. But it doesn’t directly put money in your pocket or build a new school.

QE makes borrowing cheaper and asset prices higher, which can boost economic activity — but mostly by encouraging banks and investors to keep lending. It’s an indirect tool, and its effects tend to benefit Wall Street more than Main Street.

So yes, QE creates money — but it’s not the same kind of money creation you get from direct government spending or new loans to consumers and businesses. And like interest rates, QE can change the speed of money, but not its final destination.

Quantitative Tightening (QT) is the opposite.

In QT, the Fed sells assets (usually government bonds) or lets them expire without replacing them. This slowly pulls reserves out of the banking system. It’s not the same as taxing or deleting money directly, but it does tighten credit. Banks become more cautious, loans become more expensive, and money moves more slowly.

QT is one of the tools the Fed uses to fight inflation.

It works by making borrowing more expensive and reducing the money supply available for lending and speculation.

But here’s the catch:

QT mostly affects banks and investors. It doesn’t do much to remove stagnant wealth sitting in tax shelters or luxury assets. That’s why taxation is still necessary — it targets money that’s already stuck, not just money flowing through the pipes.

In essence, the Fed acts like a thermostat, adjusting the “temperature” of the economy by nudging the speed of money creation up or down. But here’s the important part: the Fed doesn’t actually remove money from the system. It doesn’t pull dollars out of circulation — it just influences how fast those dollars are created or destroyed by the banking sector.

Only taxation does that.

Taxes are the one tool that reliably drains money out of the economy. That’s why, even in a world where banks create money and the Fed adjusts interest rates, taxation remains essential. It’s how we prevent the financial system from overheating with too much credit — or from concentrating too much wealth in places where it stops moving altogether.

So while government spending and private borrowing both create money, they do it in different ways, with different tradeoffs. And when the private sector slows down — when people are maxed out on debt or reluctant to spend — it’s often the public sector that has to step in and keep the economy from grinding to a halt.

What Taxes Really Do

If the government can create its own money, and most new money comes from loans, that raises a natural question: why do we still need taxes at all?

This is where the story starts to shift.

Most people assume that we pay taxes so the government can afford to do things — fix roads, fund the military, send out Social Security checks. And at the local and state level, that’s largely true. Those governments are currency users. They have to balance their books just like households or businesses. But the federal government — the one that issues the U.S. dollar — doesn’t need your tax dollars before it can spend. It spends first, and taxes later.

So what’s the point of taxation if it’s not to “raise revenue”?

It turns out, taxes play a completely different — and much more important — role in keeping the economy healthy.

Taxes Control Inflation

When the government spends money into the economy, that money becomes part of the pool we all use to buy things. But if too much money builds up in that pool — especially when the economy can’t produce enough goods and services to meet demand — prices start to rise. That’s inflation.

Taxes act like a drain. They pull money out of the pool, reducing the total amount in circulation. This helps cool things down when demand starts to outpace supply. In this sense, taxation is a form of economic climate control — a way to maintain balance and avoid overheating.

Taxes Create Demand for the Currency

There’s a reason we all accept dollars, even though they’re just pieces of paper or entries in a database. It’s because we need dollars to pay our taxes.

The government doesn’t just create money — it also creates demand for that money. It does this by requiring that taxes be paid in U.S. dollars. That’s what gives the dollar value and ensures that people, businesses, and banks are all willing to accept it in exchange.

In this way, taxation isn’t just a money sink — it’s part of what gives money its usefulness.

Taxes Shape the Economy

Beyond managing supply and demand, taxes can guide behavior and shape society’s priorities. That’s why we tax cigarettes and give deductions for donations. Taxes can discourage pollution, support struggling communities, or promote investment in clean energy.

And perhaps most importantly, taxes can help address inequality. When wealth concentrates too much at the top, it tends to stagnate — we’ll get to that soon — and taxes can help redistribute it in ways that keep the economy moving.

So while taxes don’t “fund” spending the way we were taught, they’re still essential. They’re how we make room in the economy for public goods. They’re how we keep inflation in check. They’re how we make the dollar worth something in the first place. And they’re how we ensure the economy works for more than just the people who already have everything they need.

Without taxation, even a money-creating government would eventually hit a wall — not because it ran out of dollars, but because it overheated the engine.

The Problem with Stagnant Wealth

If you’ve made it this far, you now know something that turns conventional wisdom upside down: the government doesn’t need our money to spend, and taxes aren’t about “paying the bills.” Instead, taxes help manage inflation, create demand for currency, and keep the economy balanced and moving.

So that brings us to a deeper, more uncomfortable question:

If too much money in the system causes inflation, where exactly is that money piling up?

The short answer? At the top.

Over the last few decades, a staggering share of new wealth has gone not into public goods or productive investment, but into private fortunes — massive concentrations of money that sit relatively idle in financial portfolios, luxury real estate, stock buybacks, and offshore accounts. This isn’t money being spent on groceries or home repairs or small business expansion. It’s money that’s parked. Money that’s been extracted from the real economy and now lives almost entirely on spreadsheets.

This kind of money is what economists often call stagnant wealth. And it poses a growing threat to the health of the entire economy.

Stock Buybacks: Corporate Profits in a Holding Pattern

One of the clearest examples of stagnant wealth in action is the rise of stock buybacks — a financial maneuver that’s become almost routine among large corporations.

Here’s what happens: instead of using profits to raise wages, expand operations, or invest in research and development, many companies use their cash to buy back their own shares on the stock market. This reduces the number of shares in circulation, which usually boosts the stock price. Shareholders — especially major ones like executives and investment firms — see a windfall. And because so much executive compensation is tied to stock performance, buybacks often function as an indirect bonus system for top leadership.

But while stock prices go up, the real economy doesn’t necessarily benefit. No new jobs are created. No new products or services are introduced. No infrastructure is built. It’s a maneuver that moves money around without creating new value — and that’s the definition of stagnation.

Why This Matters:

Stock buybacks concentrate wealth at the top, not by making the economy more productive, but by manipulating financial optics. They redirect money that could be used to invest in workers, innovation, or communities — and instead lock it away in private portfolios where it rarely recirculates.

And this isn’t happening on the margins — it’s become central to how big business operates. In some years, companies in the S&P 500 have spent more on buybacks than on capital investment. That means the dominant use of corporate profits is not to build or grow — but to enrich those who already own the most.

Buybacks are just one example of how money can appear active but still contribute little to the broader economy. When paired with low taxes on capital, deregulation, and financial incentives that reward short-term stock performance over long-term growth, they create a system where money constantly floats upward — and then gets stuck.

Money That Moves vs. Money That Sits

In a healthy economy, money moves. It flows from paycheck to store to supplier to payroll to rent and back again. Every time money changes hands, it supports jobs, goods, services, and the taxes that fund public life.

But when money gets trapped — especially in large amounts — it stops doing its job. It doesn’t buy anything. It doesn’t build anything. It just sits.

And the more money gets stuck in those upper layers of the economy, the harder it becomes for that money to “trickle down” in any meaningful way. Because it doesn’t trickle. It pools.

Stagnation Is a Drain — Not a Sign of Success

One of the biggest myths we’ve been sold is that extreme wealth accumulation is a sign of merit or efficiency. But in reality, it’s often a sign of dysfunction — of a system that allows money to be siphoned upward faster than it can circulate outward.

Imagine if a town’s entire water supply started collecting in a single mansion’s pool, leaving the rest of the neighborhood with dry taps. That’s not prosperity. That’s hoarding.

And hoarding doesn’t just happen in corporate boardrooms or stock portfolios. Trillions of dollars in personal and corporate wealth are now parked in offshore tax shelters — hidden from taxation, untouched by commerce, and invisible to the real economy. This is money that could be funding schools, public transit, or clean energy — but instead, it’s legally shielded behind walls of secrecy, compounding interest for people who already have more than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes.

Then there’s real estate — not homes for living in, but high-end properties bought purely as investment vehicles. In many major cities, entire luxury apartment towers sit mostly empty, owned by global investors as safe places to park cash. These buildings don’t house families, create jobs, or generate much economic activity. They’re just vaults made of glass and steel.

In a money system like ours, where circulation matters more than accumulation, this kind of stagnation isn’t just inefficient — it’s a slow bleed. It keeps the economy running below its potential. It makes inequality worse. And it leaves more and more people wondering why — if there’s so much wealth in the world — everything still feels so hard.

Next, we’ll look at how taxation can play a powerful role — not as punishment, but as a way to restore balance. Because the problem isn’t that some people have too much money — it’s that too much money has stopped moving.

Why Taxing the Rich Helps Everyone

When people hear the phrase “tax the rich,” it often stirs up a mix of emotions — support, suspicion, even resentment. Some hear it as a call for fairness. Others hear it as punishment for success. And many, understandably, wonder how taking money from one group will make life better for everyone else.

So let’s set the record straight: taxing the wealthy isn’t about jealousy or revenge. It’s about function.

In an economy where too much money gets stuck at the top, taxation is how we get that money moving again — out of vaults and spreadsheets and back into the real world, where it can fund schools, rebuild roads, launch new businesses, and pay people to do useful, meaningful work. Taxing the rich doesn’t weaken the economy. It strengthens its foundation.

The Rich Are Different — Financially and Systemically

Let’s be clear: we’re not talking about someone making $200,000 a year and saving up for their kid’s college. We’re talking about the wealthiest 0.1% — people whose fortunes stretch into the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. People whose wealth grows not from wages or productivity, but from investments, inheritance, and financial instruments most of us will never see.

And here’s the kicker: the ultra-wealthy often pay lower effective tax rates than teachers, nurses, and construction workers. That’s because most of their income comes from capital gains — the increase in value of stocks or assets — which is taxed at a lower rate than wages. Often, it’s not taxed at all until the asset is sold. In some cases, it’s never taxed, due to loopholes and tax shelters.

This isn’t about breaking the law — it’s about exploiting a system that was designed to reward accumulation over circulation.

A Dollar Hoarded vs. a Dollar Spent

A dollar parked in a Cayman Islands trust or sitting in a third vacation home does very little for the economy. A dollar spent on childcare, public transit, or small business loans creates multiple rounds of activity: wages paid, goods bought, taxes collected. It circulates. It builds.

That’s why taxing wealth at the top is so powerful. It doesn’t destroy value — it reactivates it.

It takes idle dollars and puts them to work.

Counterpoint: “But They Already Paid Taxes on That Money”

This is a common objection — and a fair-sounding one. But in reality, much of the wealth at the top has never been taxed. That includes:

• Unrealized capital gains (wealth increase without selling assets)

• Inherited assets that bypass taxes entirely due to “step-up in basis” rules

• Money shielded in trusts, shell companies, and offshore entities

And even when income is taxed, it’s often at far lower rates than regular wages. The average billionaire pays an estimated 8% effective tax rate. Many working families pay double that.

So no — this wealth isn’t being double-taxed. In many cases, it hasn’t been taxed once.

Counterpoint: “But They Give to Charity!”

It’s true: many wealthy people make large charitable donations. And that’s commendable. But charity is not a substitute for a functioning public system. Donations depend on the donor’s whims, not on public need. You can’t run a national infrastructure plan or universal preschool on the hope that a billionaire feels generous this year.

Taxes are how we make democratic, accountable decisions about what we build together — not what we’re gifted from above.

Taxing the Rich Helps… Everyone

When wealthy people pay more in taxes, it:

• Frees up money for infrastructure, healthcare, education, and climate resilience

• Reduces the burden on working- and middle-class families

• Helps stabilize the economy by discouraging dangerous speculation

• Restores trust that the system isn’t rigged for the top

And most importantly, it gives the economy the oxygen it needs to grow from the middle out — not just from the top down.

Next, we’ll explore how we can use tax policy not just to patch holes, but to actively improve the economy for everyone. Because once you understand that money is not the constraint — but stagnant wealth is — the path forward becomes clearer.

A Healthier Economy Through Smarter Taxation

So far, we’ve seen how money really works: how it’s created, how it flows, how it gets stuck — and how taxation isn’t about punishing success, but keeping the system moving. That brings us to the real challenge: what should we do about it?

Because if too much wealth is stagnating in unproductive places, then the goal isn’t to tear down prosperity — it’s to make sure prosperity works. Not just for the ultra-wealthy, but for the people who grow food, teach children, drive trucks, code software, build homes, and care for aging parents.

The good news? We already have the tools to fix this. The better news? They’re not radical. They’re rooted in common sense.

Tax Wealth, Not Just Work

Right now, most of our tax system falls on people who earn a paycheck — not people whose money makes money. That’s backwards.

If you go to work every day and get paid $60,000 a year, you might pay 20–30% in taxes. But if you make $10 million on the stock market and never sell your shares, you might pay nothing for years — or ever. That creates an economy where passive wealth is rewarded more than productive effort.

We can fix this by:

• Taxing large unrealized capital gains on billionaires

• Closing loopholes that let assets be inherited tax-free

• Implementing modest annual wealth taxes on ultra-high net worth individuals

These policies don’t hurt the middle class. They don’t touch retirement accounts. They simply ensure that the very top isn’t forever insulated from contributing.

Close the Escape Hatches

It’s no secret that many wealthy individuals and corporations go to extraordinary lengths to avoid taxes — setting up offshore shell companies, exploiting vague trust laws, or using high-priced accountants to manipulate taxable income.

The solution isn’t complicated. It’s enforcement.

Fully funding the IRS, modernizing its systems, and enforcing existing laws would generate hundreds of billions in recovered taxes — without raising rates a single point. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that every $1 spent on tax enforcement brings in up to $6 in revenue.

Tax fairness doesn’t require new laws so much as the political will to apply the ones we already have.

Invest Where the Market Won’t

There are some things the private sector simply won’t do on its own — even when they’re urgently needed. Affordable housing. Public health infrastructure. Clean energy grids. Universal broadband. These aren’t luxuries; they’re the foundation for a stable and competitive economy.

Smart taxation gives the government the room it needs to invest directly in these public goods — especially during downturns when private investment dries up. And when done well, these investments create jobs, lower costs, and raise living standards for everyone.

Build an Economy That Works for More People

Ultimately, the goal of tax policy — and economic policy as a whole — shouldn’t just be “growth.” It should be broadly shared prosperity. We need to stop asking whether the stock market is up, and start asking whether people are housed, healthy, educated, and hopeful.

A smarter tax system can:

• Fund universal childcare and paid family leave

• Rebuild decaying infrastructure and climate-proof cities

• Lower costs for healthcare and education

• Support small businesses and local economies

• Ensure that essential workers aren’t living in poverty while billionaires fund their fourth space launch

None of this is about envy. It’s about value. It’s about making sure the people who create value in society — not just those who accumulate assets — can thrive.

Next, we’ll bring it all together. Because once you understand how money works, how taxes work, and how wealth gets stuck, a very different picture of the economy emerges — one that points not toward scarcity, but toward possibility.

How National Debt Fits Into the Picture

At this point, you might be wondering: if the government doesn’t need tax revenue to spend, why does it bother borrowing at all? What’s the deal with the national debt?

Here’s the key: when the federal government spends more than it taxes — what we call a deficit — it creates money in the economy. That deficit becomes part of the national debt, which isn’t a pile of unpaid bills, but rather a ledger of dollars the government has spent and not yet removed via taxation.

Those dollars don’t disappear. They show up as Treasury bonds — safe, interest-bearing assets held by banks, pension funds, individuals, even foreign governments. In fact, much of the national debt is simply money the private sector saves. From this perspective, the debt isn’t a burden. It’s a financial asset.

What happens if the government tries to reduce the debt? It would need to run surpluses — taxing more than it spends — which effectively pulls money out of the economy. This can be appropriate in times of overheating or inflation, but harmful during slow growth or rising inequality.

In other words, debt and taxes are both tools. Debt injects money into the system. Taxes remove it. The goal isn’t to balance the federal checkbook like a household — it’s to balance the economy: fight inflation, reduce inequality, and make sure public resources are serving the public good.

Money Is a Tool, Not a Trophy

For most of us, money feels like the finish line — the reward for hard work, saving, and sacrifice. And that’s not wrong. But when we zoom out and look at the economy as a whole, we start to see money differently.

Money isn’t just a prize. It’s a tool. A shared resource. A current that flows through our lives, connecting what we do with what we need. And like water or electricity, it has to keep moving to be useful. When it stops flowing — when it pools in the hands of a few or gets locked away in untaxed assets and empty condos — the rest of the system dries up.

That’s what we’re living through now.

We’ve built an economy that’s awash in wealth, yet constantly running short on what matters: affordable housing, good jobs, healthy communities, and resilient infrastructure. Not because we lack the money — but because too much of it is stuck. Idle. Hoarded. Trapped in a game of high-stakes accumulation that adds little and destabilizes much.

And yet, we continue to treat money like it’s scarce. We cut school budgets while billionaires fund private space races. We hesitate to fix our bridges or expand healthcare because someone insists we can’t “afford it” — as if the only money that counts is the money we can squeeze out of working people.

But now we know better.

The government is not like a household. It creates money. It spends first and taxes later. Taxes don’t fund spending — they manage the flow. And the biggest problem we face today isn’t too much spending — it’s too much wealth sitting still.

The national debt fits into this framework too. It’s not a threat looming over future generations — it’s a reflection of past investment, and a source of private sector savings. When used wisely, deficits and debt expand the economy. When reined in too harshly, they can choke off recovery and growth.

Taxation isn’t theft. It’s maintenance. It’s how we drain excess, reroute resources, and keep the engine of the economy from stalling out under its own weight. When done right, taxation doesn’t slow the economy down — it unclogs it. It frees money to move again. It turns passive wealth into active progress.

So when we talk about taxes — especially taxes on the wealthy — we’re not talking about punishing success. We’re talking about protecting the system that made that success possible in the first place. We’re talking about pulling money off the sidelines and putting it back to work — building homes, hiring teachers, funding science, raising kids, and solving problems that markets alone will never fix.

In the end, the question isn’t can we afford to tax the rich.

It’s can we afford not to?

Addendum: The “Big Beautiful Bill” — A Deficit That Deepens Inequality

Some readers might ask: if deficits can be useful, does that mean any deficit is good?

Not quite. Like any tool, it depends on how you use it.

The recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill” — a sweeping tax and spending package — dramatically increases the federal deficit. But unlike investments in infrastructure, education, or healthcare that broadly benefit society, this bill directs a significant portion of its benefits to the wealthiest Americans.

According to analyses by the Tax Policy Center, while more than 80% of households would receive a tax cut in 2026 under the bill, 60% of the tax cuts would go to the top 20% of households, and more than one-third would go to those making $460,000 or more.

In dollar terms, the average middle-class household earning between $51,000 and $92,999 could receive a projected tax cut of $815, whereas top 1% earners stand to gain significantly more—an estimated $44,190 in after-tax income.

This approach not only increases the national debt but also exacerbates wealth inequality by concentrating financial gains among the already affluent.

Deficits that fund broad-based investments—like schools, healthcare, and infrastructure—keep money moving.They create jobs, strengthen communities, and lay the foundation for long-term prosperity. These types of deficits tend to pay for themselves indirectly by boosting the productive capacity of the economy.

But deficits that primarily benefit the wealthy? They often lead to increased savings among the rich, reduced consumer spending, and greater economic disparity.

So while deficits aren’t inherently bad, deficits that deepen inequality are problematic. They not only strain public finances but also undermine the very purpose of taxation: to manage the economy’s flow of money and ensure a fair distribution of resources.

If we’re going to incur deficits, let’s ensure they’re used to lift people up—not to further enrich those already at the top.

Why Accepting a $400 Million Jet from Qatar Is a Bad Idea

The U.S. government just accepted a $400 million luxury jet from Qatar. It’s being pitched as a “gift” that could be used as a temporary Air Force One for Donald Trump. But this decision raises serious red flags.

Let’s break down why.

Security Concerns

This plane was built for a foreign government. Before any U.S. president can fly on it, the jet would need massive upgrades—everything from secure communication systems to defenses against electronic attacks. Experts estimate it could cost up to $1 billion just to make it secure enough to use.

Even then, some worry the plane could already be compromised. That’s not paranoia—that’s basic caution when it comes to transporting the president of the United States.

And let’s not forget “Signalgate”—when classified military information was accidentally shared in an unsecured group chat. That scandal showed this administration doesn’t always take security seriously. So should we trust them to vet and refit a jet from a foreign power?

Cost to Taxpayers

Sure, the plane was “free.” But turning it into Air Force One isn’t. All the upgrades and ongoing maintenance would come out of your pocket. And we’re already billions over budget on the new Air Force One project that was supposed to replace the current fleet.

This plane could become just another expensive distraction.

Legal and Ethical Red Flags

The Constitution says U.S. officials aren’t supposed to accept gifts from foreign governments without approval from Congress. The Pentagon claims all the rules were followed—but this kind of gift is unprecedented. It sets a troubling example: foreign governments giving massive gifts to U.S. leaders and getting what in return?

Trump’s Qatar Ties

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. Several Trump allies have ties to Qatar. Attorney General Pam Bondi even worked as a registered foreign agent for Qatar before joining the administration.

So is this really just a helpful gift? Or is it part of a deeper relationship that deserves more scrutiny?

Bottom Line

The U.S. accepting this jet is not just about optics—it’s about security, ethics, and accountability. We need to ask hard questions:

• Why accept a foreign government’s jet?

• Who benefits?

• And who’s paying the price?

Sources:

1. Pentagon Says It Has Taken Possession of 747 From Qatar – Wall Street Journal

2. Trump’s Free Plane From Qatar Will Still Cost Taxpayers a Fortune – Daily Beast

3. Trump’s Qatar Air Force One Is a Security Nightmare – Business Insider

4. US Air Force Tasked With Modifying Qatar Boeing Jet – Business Insider

5. Pam Bondi’s Qatar Links Under Scrutiny – Newsweek

6. Qatari Soft Power Influence – Wikipedia

7. Signal Group Chat Breach Raises Security Concerns – NPR

8. Signal Leak Controversy – Wikipedia

What’s Really in the “Big Beautiful” Budget Bill?

You may have heard that the “Big Beautiful” budget bill now moving through Congress is designed to cut taxes, help working families, and reduce wasteful government spending. That’s the sales pitch. But once you look at what’s actually in the bill, the picture looks very different.

This post breaks it down in simple terms — what the bill says it does, what it actually does, and who it’s really for.

What Supporters Say

Supporters of the bill say it will:

• Lower taxes for working people

• Cut taxes on tips and overtime pay

• Eliminate wasteful programs

• Reduce the national debt

All of that sounds good. But the fine print tells a different story.

What’s Actually in the Bill

Large Tax Cuts — Mostly for the Wealthy

• The bill makes permanent the 2017 tax cuts that mostly benefited corporations and high-income earners.

• It adds new tax breaks like eliminating taxes on tips and overtime, which will help some workers — but the biggest benefits, in dollar terms, go to people with high incomes and large estates.

• It raises the amount of money wealthy families can pass down to their heirs without paying any federal estate tax — from about $13 million today to around $15 million per person, and more for couples. That’s tax-free inheritance of up to $30 million per household.

Deep Cuts to Social Programs

• To help pay for the tax cuts, the bill includes nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, food assistance (SNAP), and other social programs.

• These are programs that help low- and middle-income Americans afford healthcare, food, and basic needs.

Adds to the National Debt

• Even with the spending cuts, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will add about $2.3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

• Other analysts suggest the total could be even higher.

What This Means in Practice

While the bill is being sold as pro-worker and fiscally responsible, the effects tell another story:

• People with the most wealth get the biggest long-term tax breaks — especially those planning to pass on large fortunes.

• People with lower incomes face reduced access to healthcare and food assistance.

• The national debt increases, despite claims of deficit reduction.

This is a pattern we’ve seen before: large tax cuts that mostly help the wealthy, followed by calls to shrink programs that working families depend on.

Final Thought

Whatever your political views, it’s worth looking past the headlines and reading between the lines. This bill gives a lot to those who already have the most — and asks those with the least to give something up.

The question isn’t whether tax cuts are good or bad. It’s: who are they for, and who pays for them?

This bill shifts money upward — not just now, but into future generations. And it does it while claiming to help working families and fix the debt. That’s a big promise. But it’s not what the bill actually delivers.

What is MS-13, and How Did the U.S. Help Create It?

In our last post, we explored how the language we use—"undocumented" vs. "illegal"—shapes how we treat immigrants. But words are just one piece of the puzzle. To truly understand today’s immigration crisis, we also need to look at the deeper forces that push people to flee their homes in the first place. One of the most common explanations we hear is "gang violence." And one gang in particular gets all the headlines: MS-13.

You may have heard MS-13 described as a foreign threat, a violent force from Central America invading U.S. cities. But the truth is far more complicated—and far more uncomfortable. MS-13 didn’t come from El Salvador. It came from the United States. And U.S. policy played a major role in making it what it is today.

What Is MS-13?

The gang known as MS-13, short for Mara Salvatrucha, began in Los Angeles in the 1980s. "Mara" is Central American slang for gang. "Salvatrucha" likely combines "Salvadoran" with "trucha," a slang term meaning clever or alert. The "13" refers to their allegiance to the Mexican Mafia, also known as "La Eme."

MS-13 was formed by young Salvadoran immigrants, many of them refugees fleeing a brutal civil war back home. In L.A., they faced violence from other established gangs and little protection from law enforcement. Banding together for protection and identity, these youths started what would become MS-13. At the time, it was a small, local street gang—not the international criminal network it would later become.

The U.S. Role in the Salvadoran Civil War

To understand why so many Salvadorans fled to the U.S. in the first place, we have to look at the Salvadoran Civil War (1979–1992). During this conflict, the U.S. poured billions of dollars into supporting El Salvador's right-wing military government, viewing the conflict as part of the global Cold War fight against communism.

The Reagan administration, in particular, funneled aid and weapons to Salvadoran forces despite widespread reports of human rights abuses. U.S.-trained military units like the Atlacatl Battalion were responsible for massacres, including the infamous 1981 El Mozote massacre, where over 800 civilians were killed. Even after this, U.S. support continued.

These policies prolonged the war, destabilized the country, and left tens of thousands dead and even more displaced. Many of the refugees from this war ended up in Los Angeles, where MS-13 was born.

How Deportation Spread the Gang Internationally

In the 1990s, U.S. immigration policy took a sharp turn. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), signed by President Bill Clinton, expanded the list of crimes that could lead to mandatory deportation. Even legal immigrants with minor convictions were now subject to removal, often with no chance to plead their case before a judge.

Thousands of young people with gang ties were deported to El Salvador, a country still recovering from war and lacking the institutions to reintegrate them. In this chaotic environment, MS-13 evolved. What started as a U.S.-based street gang became a transnational criminal organization with a foothold in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

Militarization and the Politics of Fear

After 9/11, the U.S. increasingly treated gang violence as a national security issue. MS-13 became a symbol used to justify tough-on-crime and anti-immigration policies. Successive administrations—Republican and Democrat alike—poured funding into militarized police, detention centers, and border security.

Meanwhile, U.S.-backed anti-gang crackdowns in Central America, like El Salvador's "Mano Dura" (Iron Fist) policies, often backfired. They filled prisons with young people, deepened gang identities, and gave MS-13 the structure and space to become more organized and violent.

A Bipartisan Legacy

The rise of MS-13 is not the fault of one party. It's the product of decades of decisions:

• Reagan and Bush Sr. funded the Salvadoran war effort and ignored atrocities.

• Clinton signed the 1996 deportation law that exported gang violence.

• George W. Bush framed MS-13 as a national security threat.

• Obama continued large-scale deportations while trying to stabilize the region.

• Trump used MS-13 as a political weapon to justify stripping asylum rights.

Each of these steps contributed to the conditions that allowed MS-13 to thrive.

Why It Matters Today

MS-13 is often cited to justify harsh immigration crackdowns. But many of the people arriving at our southern border today are fleeing the very violence that U.S. policy helped create. Instead of treating them as threats, we should be asking what it would take to stop the cycle of violence and displacement.

Toward Solutions: What Real Reform Looks Like

We can’t undo the past, but we can stop repeating it. Here are a few ways forward:

Reform Deportation Laws

• End mandatory deportation for minor, non-violent offenses.

• Restore judicial discretion and case-by-case review.

Expand Legal Migration Pathways

• Create regional asylum processing centers.

• Increase access to Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Invest in Central America—Beyond Police and Prisons

• Prioritize education, healthcare, and economic development.

• Fund anti-corruption efforts and civil society organizations.

End the Criminalization of Migration

• Make unauthorized border crossings civil, not criminal, offenses.

Restore Asylum Protections and Due Process

• Reinstate fair asylum interviews.

• Expand access to legal representation.

Fund Local Violence Prevention

• Support youth outreach, gang exit programs, and trauma care.

Invest in Root-Cause Solutions—They Cost Less and Work Better

• Detaining an immigrant in the U.S. costs about $165 per person per day (source).

• Vocational training in El Salvador can cost as little as $0.25 per hour (source).

• That means for the cost of one day of detention, we could provide 660 hours of job training—a far better investment in long-term safety and stability.

Conclusion: Accountability and Responsibility

MS-13 didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It was shaped by U.S. foreign policy, immigration law, and decades of political choices. We destabilized El Salvador, exported our gang problems, and then used the fallout to justify fear-driven policies.

But we have the power to break that cycle. By investing in people, not prisons, and by treating migration as a human challenge—not a criminal one—we can build a safer, more just future for everyone.

And let’s be honest: compassion isn’t just the right thing to do. It’s also cheaper.