Bill Shines Faster Light On Federal Government Spending

'In a free society, you can't have accountability without visibility,' said John Hart, CEO of Open the Books.

America Can’t Be A Welfare State And A Republic At The Same Time

A country whose citizens depend on government for basics such as income, food, and shelter is going to have to make big changes.

MAHA is sick: RFK’s FDA is drifting the wrong way



If Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to be true to his word and “Make America Healthy Again,” he must reform the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Vinay Prasad, whose actions thwart medical freedom, endanger the unborn, and compromise patient choice, needs to go now, not at the end of April.

Prasad is a “Bernie Sanders acolyte” who “doesn’t think patients can be trusted to make their own healthcare decisions,” as Allysia Finley put it in the Wall Street Journal. Prasad disparages the 2018 right-to-try law, which give terminal patients access to experimental treatments, calling it “terrible” and “disingenuous,” written by people who “want to weaken the FDA.”

MAHA won’t survive as a slogan alone. Behind the facade of RFK’s rhetoric is an ideological agenda at odds with key conservative values.

Prasad claims that dying patients already have access to drugs through the FDA’s expanded-use programs and blames drug companies as the “major barrier” to unapproved drugs, downplaying the government’s role in blocking patient choice.

His personal crusade against faster drug approvals has chilled medical innovation. When Prasad originally resigned in July, months into his FDA tenure, amid backlash, the market predicted a shift toward a more patient-centric “right-to-try” approach, potentially cutting the bureaucratic red tape stifling cell and gene therapies and patient access.

Prasad’s pro-abortion record is even worse. He proudly identifies as “pro-choice” and progressive, a stance fundamentally at odds with pro-life conservatism. His appointment to the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research overseeing drug development that affects pregnant women and unborn children is a direct threat to the culture of life.

Prasad consistently casts abortion as a medical issue rather than a moral issue. He also fiercely defended mifepristone, the abortion pill, when a Texas judge tried to suspend its FDA approval. Prasad called the court’s intervention a “dangerous precedent,” and applauded the Supreme Court for preserving access to the drug, framing the issue purely as protecting “FDA authority” and “scientific integrity.” To pro-life voters, that posture reads less like neutrality and more like a commitment to keeping the abortion drug regime insulated from challenge.

Small-government promises are colliding with Prasad’s big-government dogma. Conservatives assumed RFK Jr. and his FDA appointees would shrink regulatory excess in support of President Trump’s innovation agenda, but they have done the opposite. Prasad came in with a “stringent regulatory mindset.” Rather than trusting patients to weigh risks for themselves, he has tightened the FDA’s grip with paternalistic, ideological rules. He has sidelined MAHA’s promise and expanded oversight instead.

Prasad’s policies have often expanded the FDA’s reach in ways that could seriously harm timely access to treatments. He is imposing tougher requirements on industry, insisting on larger trials and refusing to rely on surrogate endpoints for approvals, which means more delays and more red tape before new solutions can reach the public.

RELATED: MAHA allies rage over Trump’s support for controversial weed-killing chemical

Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images

The internal dynamics under Prasad reflect a top-down, bureaucratic rigidity and are under formal investigation, with the FDA retaining an outside investigator to examine workplace complaints alleging a toxic environment. Instead of signaling healthy reform, Prasad’s authoritarian rule of CBER is run on control and fear of pushback, where staff worry that dissent will be punished and experienced voices are pushed out or sidelined. Rather than “draining the swamp,” this approach fortified an insider bureaucracy loyal to Prasad’s agenda.

When the FDA held a meeting on a Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher drug, the voting members were top leaders like Prasad, not the scientists who reviewed the application. Career reviewers were excluded from the vote entirely, a major break from the FDA’s long-standing practice of empowering these staffers to make the final scientific call in order to shield approvals from political pressure.

The paradox for conservatives is obvious. Kennedy and Prasad earn plaudits for pulling back certain excesses, including scaling down aggressive vaccine promotion. Yet at the same time, they are building a larger, more controlling FDA bureaucracy in other domains — one that constricts medical freedom, slows innovation, and keeps pro-life concerns at arm’s length.

MAHA won’t survive as a slogan alone. Behind the facade of RFK’s rhetoric is an ideological agenda at odds with key conservative values. Conservatives who cherish medical freedom and rapid innovation find themselves at odds with Prasad’s FDA. A few welcome policy tweaks cannot obscure the reality of an expanding bureaucracy and pro-abortion policies.

With the 2026 midterms fast approaching, continuing this pattern will hurt Republicans and erode the trust of voters, handing Democrats an easy narrative about broken promises. Such an outcome would leave MAHA dead and MAGA mortally wounded. We must do better.

Trump Is Reading Leftist Desperation As Strength

The desperation of petulant anti-ICE activists is a sign that the Trump administration is fighting a gang of adult children who can't and won't prevail in any serious fight.

Buried In Debt: Report Finds Government Spending Per Person Soared 10,000 Percent Over Last Century

'While American families and businesses find a way to do more with less, the government does less with more,' said OpenTheBooks' John Hart.

Why the laws of government physics remain undefeated



In an age when government grows with the regularity of the sunrise and the humility of a bonfire, Dan Mitchell’s “20 Theorems of Government” land not as abstractions but as reminders of truths America’s founders understood almost instinctively. The theorems, devised by the co-founder of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, capture the recurring failures of centralized authority and the virtues of free people operating in free markets.

These theorems are not predictions. They are explanations of what government always does when left unchecked and how society always suffers when the state’s reach exceeds the citizen’s grasp.

The problem is not the quality of the people in government. The problem is the nature of government itself.

Mitchell’s First Theorem, which describes how Washington actually functions, could be carved above every federal agency door. Politics rewards the spending of other people’s money for other people’s benefit. The entire system is designed to avoid accountability and to maximize political reward. Once you accept that incentives drive outcomes, the rest of the theorems follow naturally.

The Second and Third Theorems make this point bluntly. Any new program will grow, metastasize, and waste money. Centralization magnifies inefficiency because bureaucracies face no competition, no profit-and-loss constraint, and no personal consequences for failure. When the private sector gets something wrong, it pays for its mistake. When government gets something wrong, it demands a larger budget.

Theorems Four through Seven widen the gap between political rhetoric and economic reality. Good policy can be good politics, but incentives push politicians toward superficial fixes and short-term gratification. Even strong ideas rot inside bureaucratic execution. And the larger the government becomes, the more incompetent and unresponsive it grows. Bureaucrats answer to political pressure, not consumer choice, and the results are inevitable: waste, rigidity, and indifference.

The Eighth through 10th Theorems confront the moral dimension of government overreach. Politicians who obsess over inequality rarely seek to lift up the poor; they seek justification for more control. Crises — real or imaginary — become tools for expanding that control. And politics almost always overwhelms principle. This is not cynicism. It is observation backed by centuries of evidence.

Theorems 11 through 15 dismantle common misconceptions. Big business is not the same thing as free enterprise. In many cases, it is free enterprise’s most persistent enemy. Corporations often work hand in hand with government to protect themselves from competition. Meanwhile, anyone who opposes entitlement reform is endorsing massive, broad-based tax hikes, because arithmetic leaves no other option. You cannot fund European-style welfare states without European-style taxation. And history shows voters resist paying for the bloated government they claim to want.

RELATED: Free markets don’t need federal babysitters

Afry Harvy via iStock/Getty Images

This leads naturally to the 16th and 17th Theorems. Economic progress becomes a race between private innovation and public consumption. When government grows faster than the private sector can produce, stagnation follows. Worse, when dependency becomes a norm, the cultural foundations of liberty erode. A nation that forgets how to rely on itself cannot long remain free.

The final three theorems complete the picture. Climate policy becomes hypocrisy when elites demand sacrifice from others while refusing it themselves. Politicians operate under incentives that reward short-term benefit at long-term cost. And the fiscal results — from rising deficits to ever-multiplying promises — are exactly what those incentives predict.

Taken together, Mitchell’s 20 Theorems point to a conclusion Milton Friedman drew decades ago: The problem is not the quality of the people in government; the problem is the nature of government itself. A government that grows without limit will, eventually and inevitably, burden the citizens it claims to serve.

If Americans wish to preserve both prosperity and freedom, they will have to internalize these theorems as practical truths, not relics of libertarian theory. The path forward is not mysterious. Limit government. Unleash markets. These principles are old — and their urgency has never been greater.

What Does The Republican Party Even Stand For?

Unlike Democrats, Republicans have no unified vision of what they view as success for the country.

Democrats reject ‘current policy’ — unless it pays their base



Washington’s latest fights make one thing unmistakable: Democrats shift their arguments as needed, but always in service of higher taxes, higher spending, and a bigger federal footprint. When the question earlier this year was whether to keep current tax policy and avoid a massive tax hike, Democrats fought against keeping current policy.

Now, after forcing a government shutdown, they claim they must preserve current — but temporary — Obamacare subsidies. Two opposite stances, one consistent goal: bigger government.

On taxes, ‘current policy’ doesn’t count. On spending, ‘current policy’ functions like holy writ.

Earlier this year, Congress faced a hard deadline. Lawmakers had to choose between extending the 2017 American Job Creation Act tax rates or letting them snap back to pre-2017 levels — a $4 trillion tax increase across income brackets. Republicans pushed to retain the lower rates. Democrats pushed for the tax hike.

Democrats insisted the looming deadline was Republicans’ fault and said the surge in revenue would help slow growth in deficits and debt. Republicans ultimately prevailed and passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Democrats erupted.

We all know what happened next. Less than three months later, Congress approached the September 30 deadline for annual appropriations. With negotiations still incomplete, Republicans advanced a clean, short-term extension to keep the government open. The House passed it. President Trump signaled he would sign it. Senate Democrats filibustered it.

Republicans tried over a dozen times to reopen the government. Senate Democrats blocked them every time — until this week. Their central demand: extend the temporary “emergency” premium subsidies that Democrats expanded during the pandemic. Those subsidies, scheduled to expire, broadened eligibility beyond 400% of the federal poverty line and boosted benefits for those below it. Democrats already extended them once through 2025.

Now, with the pandemic long over — President Biden signed the resolution ending it on April 10, 2023 — Senate Democrats want the emergency expansions made permanent.

The inconsistency could not be clearer.

When expiring tax law meant taxes would rise, Democrats described preventing that increase as a tax cut — even though extending the law simply kept existing policy in place. The fact that the policy had been the law for eight years meant nothing.

But when expiring pandemic-era subsidies would return Obamacare to its original structure, Democrats suddenly insist that current policy must prevail. They now treat temporary emergency expansions — linked explicitly to COVID, extended once already, disproportionately benefiting upper-income households — as untouchable programs that must become permanent.

On taxes, “current policy” doesn’t count. On spending, “current policy” functions like holy writ.

RELATED: Trump officially ends ‘pathetic’ Democrats’ record-breaking shutdown

Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The reasoning shifts, but the outcome never does: Democrats always land on whatever argument leads to more government. Their broader shutdown demands confirm it — ending Medicaid reforms and restoring spending levels President Trump and Republicans reduced. Every item points in the same direction: more federal dollars out the door.

Democrats note that Republicans, too, support keeping some expiring policies. True. Which makes the underlying purpose even more important to identify.

Republicans fought to maintain 2017 tax levels so Americans could keep more of what they earn — and keep that income out of Washington’s hands. Democrats want permanent expansion of Obamacare subsidies to preserve and grow benefits for people who were never intended to receive them, locking in a larger federal role.

Future fights will come; today’s climate guarantees them. One more thing is just as guaranteed: Democrats’ arguments will continue to change as needed, and their demands for higher taxes, higher spending, and a larger federal government will not.

Exclusive: New Report Tracks $200 Million Spent On Illegal Immigrant Health Care

'When elected officials argue that taxpayer dollars aren't going to illegal immigrants that just isn't true,' Open The Books CEO John Hart said.