Welker Shocked Illegal Aliens Affect Jobs Numbers (And Other Meet The Press Questions)
Warm or adversarial, these are the questions Kristen Welker asked Republicans and Democrats on Sept. 7's edition of 'Face The Nation.'Warm or adversarial, these are the questions Kristen Welker asked Republicans and Democrats on Sept. 7's edition of 'Face The Nation.'Report: America’s Debt Situation Will Soon Be Worse Than Right After World War II
Our country cannot get its fiscal house in order unless and until it starts slowing the explosion of Medicare spending.The budget hoax that nearly sank Trump’s biggest win (so far)
Conservatives are celebrating a once-in-a-generation legislative triumph with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4 by President Trump. But the victory almost didn’t happen — thanks to what can only be described as the “budget hawk hoax,” a long-standing tactic used by phony conservatives to block meaningful reforms from becoming law.
The heart of this hoax is that the overriding problem facing America is “the deficit crisis” — and that nothing else on the conservative agenda can ever be moved forward until we deal with it.
Too many conservatives have fallen for the 'budget hawk hoax' for far too long.
But when the conversation turns to cutting wasteful spending, these same so-called budget hawks introduce a poison pill: the notion that the only serious way to reduce the deficit is by gutting Social Security and Medicare — before touching any other government waste.
They know this is a nonstarter — and we all know it’s a nonstarter — because there is no way voters will ever allow Nana’s Social Security to be cut while we’re still using taxpayer money to fund LGBTQ+ programs in Nepal and Botswana.
The impossible dream?
Even worse, the faux-conservative “budget hawks” have generally dismissed any efforts to cut other wasteful government spending, insisting that it would have been a mere insignificant drop in the bucket. Yet when President Trump tried to secure $5 billion in funding for the border wall in his first term, budget hawks protested that we couldn’t afford it.
When the Trump administration began dismantling corrupt NGOs under USAID, legacy “conservative” media scoffed at the effort because it didn’t yield massive dollar savings. Yet if we don’t eliminate such foundational waste first, long-term entitlement reform has no credible path forward.
The truth is, of course, that Conservatism Inc. was just desperately trying to protect the corrupt status quo, keep left-wing spending in place, and deny any spending that advances the conservative agenda.
The same old playbook was rolled out again with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Critics labeled it “budget-busting,” but that claim was misleading. The bill didn’t increase spending. In fact, it prevented a scheduled tax hike that would have rolled back Trump-era tax cuts and restored pre-2017 rates.
RELATED: The reality behind this week’s One Big Beautiful Bill spectacle
To be fair to the bill’s critics, the history of omnibus bills is fraught with corruption. Typically, omnibus bills have been legislative horse trades: Republicans secure pork for their districts, and Democrats secure massive expansions of the welfare state. But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different. It actually slashes major government spending in ways that align with long-standing conservative demands.
For instance, the $7,500 federal incentive for electric vehicle purchases is set to expire almost immediately. Under the old playbook, such a subsidy would have increased in exchange for some infrastructure funding in a red district. Not this time.
By trying to defeat the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, “budget hawks” were actually striving to protect and perpetuate the following left-wing agenda items, all in the name of “fiscal conservatism”:
- A massive tax increase, restoring Obama-level tax rates.
- Allowing able-bodied Medicaid recipients to continue taking welfare without being required to work.
- Maintaining all the federal EV rebates and green energy incentives, which are designed to deny Americans the right to affordable energy and reliable transportation.
- Blocking border security by denying funding for the border wall, additional detention centers, and additional Border Patrol staffing.
It’s even more obscene when you consider the enormous cost to taxpayers of providing social services for illegal aliens — services the “budget hawks” are trying to save — while also perpetuating open borders because “we can’t afford” measures to seal the border.
Too many conservatives have fallen for the “budget hawk hoax” for far too long, accepting that we cannot have any conservative victories so long as we have a national debt. Perhaps that day has finally ended.
Yes, our country’s fiscal crisis is real, and it will persist. But forsaking any victories over the left because of the deficit is not a matter of high principle. It’s simply surrender.
The “budget hawks” will never be able to fix the deficit. They don’t want to. But given the chance, they would continue to use the issue to prevent real conservatives from ever passing useful legislation.
The hoax failed
They lost this round — and thank heaven for that!
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act stops income tax hikes in their tracks. It strips funding from Planned Parenthood, rogue judges notwithstanding. It shuts down the EV grift. It tightens border security and reins in Medicaid fraud.
This is what winning looks like — and the self-styled “budget hawks” hate it. Why? Because it derails the left’s agenda and puts the public back in charge.
Credit goes to President Trump and Speaker Johnson for delivering this landmark victory. And to Stephen Miller — relentless as ever — for making sure the truth broke through.
Here’s What’s Next In The Battle To Get Federal Spending Under Control
Congress should do its job and keep restricting the growth of exploding federal spending.The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal
Picture your local leaders — the ones you elect to defend your rights and reflect your values — stripped of the power to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented. Not in some dystopian future. In Congress. Right now.
Buried in the House version of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a provision that would block every state in the country from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years.
The idea that Washington can prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.
An earlier Senate draft took a different route, using federal funding as a weapon: States that tried to pass their own AI laws would lose access to key resources. But the version the Senate passed on July 1 dropped that language entirely.
Now House and Senate Republicans face a choice — negotiate a compromise or let the "big, beautiful bill" die.
The Trump administration has supported efforts to bar states from imposing their own AI regulations. But with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already facing a rocky path through Congress, President Trump is likely to sign it regardless of how lawmakers resolve the question.
Supporters of a federal ban on state-level AI laws have made thoughtful and at times persuasive arguments. But handing Washington that much control would be a serious error.
A ban would concentrate power in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats and weaken the constitutional framework that protects individual liberty. It would ignore the clear limits the Constitution places on federal authority.
Federalism isn’t a suggestion
The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. That includes the power to regulate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.
For more than 200 years, federalism has safeguarded American freedom by allowing states to address the specific needs and values of their citizens. It lets states experiment — whether that means California mandating electric vehicles or Texas fostering energy freedom.
If states can regulate oil rigs and wind farms, surely they can regulate server farms and machine learning models.
A federal case for caution
David Sacks — tech entrepreneur and now the White House’s AI and crypto czar — has made a thoughtful case on X for a centralized federal approach to AI regulation. He warns that letting 50 states write their own rules could create a chaotic patchwork, stifle innovation, and weaken America’s position in the global AI race.
— (@)
Those concerns aren’t without merit. Sacks underscores the speed and scale of AI development and the need for a strategic, national response.
But the answer isn’t to strip states of their constitutional authority.
America’s founders built a system designed to resist such centralization. They understood that when power moves farther from the people, government becomes less accountable. The American answer to complexity isn’t uniformity imposed from above — it’s responsive governance closest to the people.
Besides, complexity isn’t new. States already handle it without descending into chaos. The Uniform Commercial Code offers a clear example: It governs business law across all 50 states with remarkable consistency — without federal coercion.
States also have interstate compacts (official agreements between states) on several issues, including driver’s licenses and emergency aid.
AI regulation can follow a similar path. Uniformity doesn’t require surrendering state sovereignty.
State regulation is necessary
The threats posed by artificial intelligence aren’t theoretical. Mass surveillance, cultural manipulation, and weaponized censorship are already at the doorstep.
In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of digital tyranny. And if federal leaders won’t act — or worse, block oversight entirely — then states have a duty to defend liberty while they still can.
RELATED: Your job, your future, your humanity: AI just crossed the line we can never undo
From banning AI systems that impersonate government officials to regulating the collection and use of personal data, local governments are often better positioned to protect their communities. They’re closer to the people. They hear the concerns firsthand.
These decisions shouldn’t be handed over to unelected federal agencies, no matter how well intentioned the bureaucracy claims to be.
The real danger: Doing nothing
This is not a question of partisanship. It’s a question of sovereignty. The idea that Washington, D.C., can or should prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.
If Republicans in Congress are serious about defending liberty, they should reject any proposal that strips states of their constitutional right to govern themselves. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. That’s how America was designed to work.
Artificial intelligence may change the world, but it should never be allowed to change who we are as a people. We are free citizens in a self-governing republic, not subjects of a central authority.
It’s time for states to reclaim their rightful role and for Congress to remember what the Constitution actually says.
No, The Federal Reserve Shouldn’t Monetize The National Debt Again
Lawmakers of all parties keep thinking that some magic bullet will solve all of the country’s fiscal problems. It won’t.Feds waste billions keeping ancient tech on life support
The federal government’s bloated, outdated information systems have finally come under scrutiny. On his first day in office, President Trump signed a series of executive orders to cut waste and boost efficiency. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reinforced that mandate, spending his first 100 days reviewing the Pentagon “from top to bottom to ensure that we're getting more, faster, better, and more efficient.”
Earlier this month, Hegseth announced that in partnership with the Department of Government Efficiency, officials had uncovered $5.1 billion in savings — “and that's just the beginning.” That’s a good start. But if the DOGE hopes to prove its worth, it must confront the federal government’s disastrous record on IT spending and performance.
Companies should not have to wade through red tape at every agency — or even within the same agency — to deploy new solutions.
It can’t happen fast enough. A staggering 80% of the annual $100 billion IT spending goes to maintaining decades-old systems. According to the Government Accountability Office, “The older the systems are, the more the upkeep costs — and older systems are more vulnerable to hackers.”
Not only is outdated software expensive to maintain, but it also poses a significant vulnerability for our government — and that is particularly dangerous when it comes to national defense.
The Trump administration should make it a top priority to modernize federal IT infrastructure while also addressing how we got such a dysfunctional IT infrastructure in the first place.
Targeting outdated regulations
In today’s AI world, government agencies cannot adapt to the most innovative and efficient technology when burdened with regulations often written before the internet even existed.
The Department of Defense is a prime example. The U.S. military buys IT systems in a ridiculously bureaucratic fashion. It takes years and millions of dollars for a company — regardless of size — to get its software approved just to pitch a product to the department. When time and money are of the essence, the only firms that can wade through the red tape are big, entrenched companies with lawyers and lobbyists to throw at outdated rules.
RELATED: How DEI took a sledgehammer to the US military’s war ethos
This procurement model directly clashes with how the private sector works. In the business world, innovators attract investment quickly. The Pentagon, by contrast, consistently favors large, well-connected firms over smaller companies and startups. Promising new technologies get ignored.
It’s the defense contractor model over the SpaceX model — and we’re paying the price.
Streamlining the regulators
Fixing the rules isn’t enough. We need to fix the people who enforce them. Right now, overlapping Defense Department bureaucracies oversee the procurement and deployment of new technology. A single point of contact — with one set of rules — would reduce red tape and create a unified standard for the department to follow.
That standard should reach beyond the Defense Department. Companies shouldn’t have to navigate a maze of conflicting rules across agencies — or even within the same agency — just to deploy new solutions. Procurement reform, including better training and clearer rules, must be a core part of the DOGE’s mission.
Last year’s National Defense Authorization Act made some progress, but much more still needs to be done.
Falling behind on technological modernization in defense is not just an economic disadvantage but a threat to national security. As the DOGE takes a much-needed axe to inflated government spending, let’s make sure we also cut burdensome regulations that hinder innovation and improvement. We must unleash the power of American innovation to equip our military with the finest tools — otherwise, our enemies will beat us to it.
How Rand Paul Can Seize A Golden Opportunity To Cut Federal Waste
Fiscal conservatives on Capitol Hill are right to raise concerns about the rising federal debt and unsustainable deficit spending. But voting no is not enough.California’s budget trick is leaving poor patients to die
California politicians love to brag. GDP near $4 trillion. “Fourth-largest economy in the world.” Progressive pundits cite those numbers as proof that big government works.
But behind the glossy stats sits a system bloated with grift, distortion, and federal abuse. Nowhere does that dysfunction show more clearly than in California’s shell game with Medicaid reimbursements — a sleight of hand known as intergovernmental transfers, or IGTs.
Any private-sector CEO who ran a company like this would face prosecution. In Sacramento, these people get re-elected.
At first glance, IGTs look benign. Counties, fire districts, and public ambulance providers send money to California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal. The state then uses those funds to draw matching federal dollars.
In theory, it’s a cost-sharing mechanism to support care for low-income patients.
In practice, California weaponizes IGTs as a legalized money-laundering scheme. The state punishes private providers, guts rural health care, props up political patrons, and hides it all behind the banner of equity.
Here’s how the racket works: Private ambulance companies get stuck with the standard Medicaid reimbursement rate — $118 per ground transport. Public agencies, including fire departments and county EMS units, receive up to $1,400 per run. Same patient. Same service. Ten times the payout.
This isn’t health care policy. It’s a rigged system.
Private ambulance companies can’t compete. Most operate at a loss in low-income and rural regions. Once they go under, they don’t get replaced. The 911 calls still come — but the ambulances come slower. Or not at all.
And in emergencies, minutes cost lives.
California’s IGT scheme isn’t just a technical policy failure. It’s a public safety crisis disguised as social justice.
The people paying the highest price are the working poor — the same communities Sacramento claims to champion. These residents live in neighborhoods left uncovered. They suffer delayed response times. They watch public-sector unions cash in while their own emergency care collapses.
Meanwhile, the state expands Medicaid to undocumented immigrants — ignoring federal guidelines — while using IGTs to balance the budget. These patients can’t legally receive full Medicaid benefits, but California finds the loopholes. State officials cook the books to collect federal money anyway.
It’s a violation of the law. No one stops it.
Sacramento calls this fiscal ingenuity. Washington looks the other way. In truth, it’s federal fraud.
The cash goes to public agencies, which funnel it into inflated salaries, no-show contracts, and political favors. Rural ambulance crews shut down. Small hospitals cut staff. And working-class Californians wait longer to get help they used to take for granted.
RELATED: Every taxpayer ‘should be raising holy hell’
Any private-sector CEO who ran a company like this would face prosecution. In Sacramento, these people get re-elected.
This isn’t bureaucratic inertia. It’s engineered corruption. California’s 2024 and 2025 State Plan Amendments codify this scheme in black and white. They grant preferential reimbursement to government providers while sidelining the private sector completely.
That’s not policy. It’s pay-to-play.
And it’s working exactly as intended: Drive out private actors, centralize control, and soak the federal treasury while calling it compassion.
The fix is simple. Enforce federal Medicaid law. End special treatment for public agencies. Level the field so private ambulance companies — especially in rural areas — can survive.
Without reform, the collapse continues. The IGT scam rewards states for padding GDP with fake Medicaid spending. It rewards failure. It punishes success. And it leaves real people — sick people, poor people — waiting for ambulances that never come.
California can keep calling itself the world’s fourth-largest economy. But those numbers mean nothing when the foundation is rotten.
The ambulance isn’t coming. The budget is built on lies. And Gavin Newsom is on television doing Baghdad Bob impressions while the system falls apart.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com