If red states can’t deliver DOGE promises, what can they deliver?



The DOGE revolution has identified federal waste, forced Washington politicians to rethink their spending habits, and exposed the decades-long crusade by Democrats to funnel taxpayer money into activism. In a state like North Dakota — a deep-red stronghold — you’d expect Republicans to seize November’s America First mandate and gut bloated budgets.

Think again. Too many unprincipled legislators are choking on the swamp’s fumes, betraying the voters who rejected the status quo. It’s time to call them out.

Politicians care more about re-election and climbing the ladder than they do about your wallet. They’ll dodge tough cuts to keep their seats, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

North Dakota’s Legislative Task Force on Government Efficiency — a state-level DOGE — was established by House Bill 1442 to tackle the state’s $20.3 billion 2025-27 budget. The mission: Slash waste, end duplication, and put taxpayers first.

For fiscal conservatives, it looked like a dream come true. But after its first meeting July 30, conservatives are sounding the alarm. This committee is packed with spendaholics who will keep the gravy train rolling for as long as they can.

If we want real cuts, we need to stop coddling politicians and start fighting in Republican primaries.

Some get it; some don’t

Credit where it’s due: the leadership is solid. Chairman Rep. Nathan Toman (R-Mandan) is a budget hawk. Vice Chairman Sen. Chuck Walen (R-New Town) has a good record with his conservative base. Both men understand that North Dakota’s budget bloat calls for a chainsaw, not a Band-Aid.

But their grit is drowned out by a committee built to fail — thanks to GOP leaders afraid of losing votes by cutting unnecessary funds. Legislative Management appointed Senate Minority Leader Kathy Hogan (D-Fargo), a Democrat who has never met a spending bill she didn’t love, especially in human services and health care. Her role is to protect the status quo, not shrink it.

RELATED: Don’t let rural America become the next New York City

Photo by StanRohrer via Getty Images

Then there are Republican Reps. Glenn Bosch and Robin Weisz — appropriations loyalists who rubber-stamped 99% of the state budget. They are not reformers. Expecting them to cut waste is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.

State problem, national roots

This isn’t just North Dakota’s mess — it’s politics everywhere. Red-state Republicans talk tough about fiscal discipline but crumble when the time comes to act. Why? Cutting spending risks votes, dries up PAC money for re-election, and alienates lobbyists.

It’s why North Dakota GOP leaders play nice with Hogan. It’s why Bosch and Weisz keep the spending spigot open. And it’s why our $36.2 trillion national debt keeps climbing.

Politicians care more about re-election and climbing the ladder than they do about your wallet. They’ll dodge tough cuts to keep their seats, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

The only fix: Primaries

The DOGE is a great idea. But across red states, task forces like North Dakota's stall when Republicans fear backlash more than they fear waste. Without legislators willing to fight, this will become another powerless committee generating reports nobody reads.

The fix? Get serious in Republican primaries.

In North Dakota, Citizens Alliance is backing challengers to big spenders like Bosch, Weisz, and their allies. In Pennsylvania, the group has added more than 55,000 GOP voters — 250 per day — because primaries are the contact sport that scares RINOs straight. In Idaho, Citizens Alliance helped oust Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Winder in 2024 and backs more than 40 lawmakers with proven conservative records.

North Dakota needs that same fire if it wants the state task force on government efficiency to roar instead of roll over. Republicans who dodge the DOGE mandate aren’t just failing — they’re betraying voters who demanded lasting reform. If they can’t bring a bulldozer to budget bloat, they don’t belong in leadership.

Trump Moves To Keep Leftists From Pilfering Tax Dollars For Radical Agendas

'Propagating absurd ideologies'

Dr. Oz exposes the nonprofit lie at the heart of US health care



American health care is a paradox. We spend more than any nation in history — nearly 20% of our GDP — yet our outcomes remain stubbornly mediocre.

New hospitals rise like monuments to excess. Their parking lots fill with luxury cars. Tax dollars pour in from every level of government. Private spending remains sky-high. But while the profits flow, patient satisfaction and results don’t keep pace.

At a bare minimum, nonprofit hospitals should be required to deliver real value — quality care, satisfied patients, and meaningful charity work.

That’s because the system doesn’t reward quality. It rewards short-term financial performance.

Health care costs keep rising faster than inflation. Voters resist higher taxes, so deficits explode. The federal government now routinely runs annual shortfalls exceeding 6% of GDP — even during boom times. Something’s got to give.

Enter Dr. Mehmet Oz. Once a fixture on daytime TV, now head of Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Trump, Oz has zeroed in on the real source of bloat: hospital executives enriching themselves under the guise of nonprofit care.

Oz recently urged Americans to review tax filings and publicly “shame” hospital administrators pulling down massive salaries. He’s right to sound the alarm.

Most hospitals claim nonprofit status — but their leadership rakes in pay packages in the tens of millions, complete with bonuses, stock perks, and golden parachutes. Those compensation schemes only make sense because the IRS grants nonprofits huge tax breaks. And the standards for maintaining that status? Laughably weak.

As a result, the federal government forfeits tens of billions of dollars annually — revenue that could support real health care reform or reduce the deficit.

Consider Nazareth Hospital in Philadelphia. It belongs to Trinity Health Mid-Atlantic, a large nonprofit chain. Trinity’s CEO earns over $1.4 million a year. Yet, Nazareth carries a dismal one-star Medicare rating, charges high prices, and provides very little charity care. Despite funneling more than $160 million annually through its doors, it contributes almost nothing in taxes — while local, state, and federal governments foot the bill for many of its patients.

It’s a rigged system: Taxpayers pay, executives profit, and patients suffer.

RELATED: Medicaid for millions, misery for the middle class

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Dr. Oz is asking the right questions. Where does the money go? Who benefits most? Are we getting anything close to our money’s worth?

At a bare minimum, nonprofit hospitals should be required to deliver real value — quality care, satisfied patients, and meaningful charity work. When they fail, they should lose the privileges that come with tax-exempt status.

Congress must act. Update the laws. Close the loopholes. Scrutinize executive pay. Tie compensation to performance. And most importantly, re-center the system on patients — not the almighty dollar.

Thanks goes to Dr. Oz for breaking the silence. The American people deserve transparency, accountability, and a health care system that serves them — not the bureaucrats and fat cats feeding off the public trough.

Americans didn’t elect a Boston judge president



How much longer will Congress and the executive branch keep bowing to rogue judges?

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston ordered the federal government to continue reimbursing Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. She warned that cutting funding could cause women to “suffer adverse health consequences,” face more unintended pregnancies, and go without treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power.

Congress had already voted to end the funding. The law is on the books. It went through the full legislative process and was signed by the president. But Judge Talwani believes her opinion overrides all of that. She not only reinterpreted the law, she ordered the appropriation of funds to a private abortion business.

That crosses a major constitutional line.

Judges don’t have the power of the purse. They can’t spend money. They can’t fund private organizations. Only Congress can do that. Yet that core principle of the separation of powers now seems optional. We are left with a system where unelected judges act as legislators, executives, and arbiters — and no one challenges them.

Too many conservatives hesitate to confront this reality. They’ll cheer when Trump ignores Congress on TikTok but wring their hands when he considers defying an unlawful court ruling. But judicial opinions don’t carry binding force simply because a judge wrote them. Presidents and lawmakers swear the same oath to the Constitution as judges do. They don’t swear loyalty to the judiciary.

If a court orders the government to fund Planned Parenthood in direct defiance of a law passed by Congress, and the executive branch complies, then we no longer have a functioning constitutional system. We have a judiciary with a veto power over the other branches.

This didn’t start with Talwani’s ruling, and it won’t end here. Judges now routinely issue sweeping decisions that affect the entire country, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that supposedly reined in nationwide injunctions. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito warned that lower courts would continue to defy precedent unless checked. They were right.

The time for deference is over. If Trump continues to honor every lawless edict from every federal judge, he only encourages more of the same. He entrenches the notion that judges make law and everyone else must obey.

RELATED: Democrats created this court monster — now it’s eating them

Prasong Maulae via iStock/Getty Images

Imagine Congress passes and Trump signs a reconciliation bill that strips federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration enforcement or Planned Parenthood funding. Under Judge Talwani’s logic, the courts could simply declare the law unconstitutional and order the executive branch to act against it — up to and including spending money Congress never appropriated. That’s not judicial review. That’s a judge acting like a one-woman super-legislature with a gavel and a god complex. Where does it end?

It never ends. Earlier this month, a judge in California ruled that ICE cannot carry out “roving” immigration enforcement in parts of the state’s Central Valley. The ruling lacked any constitutional basis. The judge simply decided too many illegal immigrants were being arrested and declared the enforcement itself a violation of rights — despite no evidence that a single American citizen had been wrongfully detained.

Rather than overturn the decision, the Ninth Circuit grilled government attorneys about whether ICE had an arrest quota. The implication was clear: Immigration enforcement itself is now suspect.

The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power. Congress holds the purse strings. The executive enforces the law. Judges interpret the law in individual cases. That’s the constitutional design.

Abraham Lincoln, in his fifth debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858, warned against treating court opinions as absolute. If citizens and lawmakers accept every ruling without question, Lincoln said, they prepare themselves to accept the next decision “without any inquiry.”

That mindset leads to tyranny. Not suddenly, but step by step.

The judiciary was supposed to be the weakest branch. It was designed that way. It has no army. It has no budget. Its legitimacy depends on its restraint. When judges cast that aside, the other branches must respond.

Otherwise, we will find ourselves governed not by the Constitution but by the whims of unelected lawyers with lifetime tenure.

If Trump does not confront the courts, we will be obliged to implement any rule from any judge who shares the same beliefs as Ilhan Omar or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I’d hate to see what the next decision looks like.

Pushing back against the big Medicaid lie



Democrats were virtually salivating as they unanimously voted against Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act ahead of the Independence Day holiday, which certainly should give pause to Republicans as they prepare for the midterms and the 2028 elections beyond.

What gives the Democrats hope that they can campaign effectively against Trump’s mega-bill? Is it the fact that Republicans were able to make permanent the 2017 tax cuts? Are they planning to campaign against the “no tax on tips” provision that even Kamala Harris supported? Will they claim that funding border security and mass deportation of illegal aliens is somehow bad for the country?

Remember, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is the codification of the agenda that President Trump ran on in 2024. It’s not tricky. It’s not nefarious.

No, no, and no. Democrats are not idiots. They know that they have the short straw on all of those 80-20 issues. So they are going back to the same issue they have demagogued since 2008 — health care. By tugging on the heartstrings of the American public, they know they can use fear to win votes.

Demagoguing Medicaid ... again

During debate in both the House and Senate, Democrats relied on questionable forward-looking interpretations of the impact of the mega-bill on Medicaid to claim that nearly 12 million low-income people would lose health coverage if the bill passed, as it ultimately did.

The left-leaning Congressional Budget Office supplied some of that data, and by the time the vote was finalized on July 3, various other groups were adding fuel to the fire. KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation, added the 12 million people who would allegedly lose Medicaid to the five million who KFF claimed would lose coverage in the Affordable Care Act marketplace, concluding that at least 17 million would be at risk. Then, there was the claim that Trump’s budget would deny food stamps to hungry children and pregnant women.

But not so fast. Despite the bleak picture painted by Democrats and weak-kneed RINOs that Trump wanted poor people to just die and be done with it, there were reasonable explanations for all the budget changes that had nothing to do with genocide.

Reductions in Obamacare premium subsidies are just an acknowledgment that the COVID crisis is over, and those boosted premiums are no longer necessary. Likewise, food stamps are still going to be provided to the disabled, families with young children, and the impoverished elderly, even if Democrats want to pretend otherwise.

And pretend they will, so if Republicans want to prevail in future elections, they had better fully understand the truth about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, because otherwise, they will be painted as heartless elitists who want their fellow Americans to die by the millions.

Telling the truth

Fortunately, the road map is already clear on how to respond to the demagoguery of the Democrats, and it was modeled by two members of the Trump administration on the Sunday morning talk shows over the long holiday weekend.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, faced down their hostile questioners on CNN’s “State of the Union” and CBS’ “Face the Nation” respectively.

Bessent, who by all accounts is the most competent member of Trump’s Cabinet, immediately pushed back on Dana Bash’s supposition that the bill would cut benefit programs like Medicaid:

Only in D.C. is a 20% hike over 10 years a cut. Medicaid funding will go up 20% over the next 10 years. The people who Medicaid was designed for — the pregnant women, the disabled, and families with children under 14 — will be refocused. The able-bodied Americans are not vulnerable Americans, so a work requirement or a community service requirement, that’s very popular with the public.

Bessent then struck a blow against the argument that millions of Americans will lose their Medicaid coverage because they didn’t remember to reapply for benefits under the new rules.

“It is a group of Democrats who unfortunately seem to think that poor people are stupid,” he said. “I don’t think poor people are stupid. I think they have agency, and I think to have them register twice a year for these benefits is not a burden. But these people who want to infantilize the poor and those who need these Medicaid benefits are alarmist.”

RELATED: The budget hoax that nearly sank Trump’s biggest win (so far)

Photo by Tom Brenner For the Washington Post via Getty Images

Over on “Face the Nation,” Hassett was interviewed by Weijia Jiang, senior White House correspondent for CBS. She dutifully recited the claim that 12 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage, but Hassett struck back hard:

Let’s unbundle that a little bit. What we are actually doing is asking for a work requirement, but the work requirement is that you need to be looking for work or even doing volunteer work, and you don’t need to do it until your kids are 14 or older, so the idea that that’s going to cause a massive hemorrhaging in availability of insurance doesn’t make a lot of sense. And if you look at the CBO numbers, if you look at the numbers they say are going to lose insurance, about five million of those are people who have other insurance. ... If they lose one, they’re still insured.

Hassett also explained that the best way to get insurance is to get a job, and so if the Trump economy stimulates growth, it will help people to happily leave Medicaid after they gain employment.

On another question, about whether the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is harmful because it grows the national debt by between $3 trillion and $5 trillion over the next 10 years, Hassett responded by reminding the reporter that the Congressional Budget Office is underestimating growth in the economy compared to what happened in the first Trump term pre-COVID. Based on that historical record, Hassett expects the debt to actually shrink by $1.5 trillion in the next decade.

What Hassett didn’t say, but which should be on the lips of every Republican defending their votes for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is that over the 10 years from 2014 to 2024, the federal debt increased by more than $17.5 trillion. Admittedly, Trump’s first term played a role in that thanks to COVID, but only Trump and Republicans are making any effort today to shrink the debt. If left up to Democrats, every social program in the budget would see increased funding, deficit be damned.

Fight fear with facts

To summarize, here are the talking points that every Republican candidate for Congress must master if they hope to beat back Democrat distortions:

  1. Republicans voted to increase Medicaid spending over the next 10 years by 20%.
  2. Republicans voted to preserve Medicaid for the needy by making sure that everyone using the program’s valuable resources is truly needy — and eligible.
  3. Republicans voted to create an economy where more people can get jobs that provide high-quality health insurance. Emphasize this: Jobs are good.
  4. Republicans treat Medicaid recipients with dignity, asking them to follow simple rules to qualify for the benefit, rather than treating them as helpless wards of the state.
  5. Republicans are bending the curve downward on the national debt. Even if the CBO is right that the debt will increase by $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years, that increase is only 20% of what it was over the previous 10 years. And the Trump tax cuts are expected to stimulate the economy, so the national debt should actually decrease.

Those will do for a start. Remember, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is the codification of the agenda that President Trump ran on in 2024. It’s not tricky. It’s not nefarious. And if it is unpopular, that’s only because Democrats have been lying about it.

Now, it’s up to Republicans to fight back against the big Medicaid lie, or else pay the price for their silence.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

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

BackyardProduction via iStock/Getty Images

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 Suicide Squad’: How Democrats keep blowing themselves up



Donald Trump, now in his second term, has executed a political masterstroke — cornering Democrats into the unpopular side of nearly every 80/20 issue. From transgender athletes in women’s sports and the DOGE to the airstrike on Iran’s nuclear sites, he’s boxed them in. But Trump isn’t the Democrats’ biggest threat. Their worst enemy is themselves — and the radical candidates they continue to put forward.

The truth is that the left has always flirted with the absurd. Leftists rant that the rich must “pay their fair share,” but can’t define what “fair” means. They champion equity over equality and preach that government handouts — not markets — will lift the poor and working class. This worldview teeters between naivete and madness.

The Democratic Party isn’t just drifting — it’s accelerating toward the cliff. And no one pushed the Democrats. They drove themselves.

Then came 2018, when “the Squad” stormed Congress and dragged the party from the edge of absurdity into full-blown lunacy.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — raised in a comfortable New York suburb — rebranded herself as “Alex from the block” in the Bronx. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota dismissed 9/11 as “some people did something” and still won a seat in Congress. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan was censured — by both parties — for chanting “from the river to the sea” after Hamas massacred Jews on Oct. 7, 2023. In 2020, Jamaal Bowman of New York joined their ranks and was later caught on video pulling a Capitol fire alarm to delay a budget vote. His excuse? He thought it would “unlock a door.”

Some Squad members have lost re-election bids, but the core group marches on, peddling the Green New Deal, defunding police, and attending Fighting Oligarchy rallies via private jet.

Meanwhile, Soros-backed prosecutors decriminalize shoplifting, eliminate cash bail, and release repeat offenders. These are not policy missteps — they are self-inflicted wounds. And Republicans couldn’t ask for better material.

Enter Zohran Mamdani — the 33-year-old Democratic Socialist running for New York City mayor. His platform makes Bernie Sanders look centrist.

Mamdani wants to defund police, make New York a sanctuary city, and jack up the minimum wage to $30 an hour. He calls for rent freezes, free buses, and city-run grocery stores — as if the Soviet model didn’t already prove that government-run markets lead to scarcity and dysfunction.

RELATED: Vance on Mamdani: ‘Who the hell does he think that he is?’

Photo by Kenny Holston/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Even more alarming is his plan to “shift the tax burden” from homeowners in the outer boroughs to “richer and whiter neighborhoods.” That’s not policy — that’s race-based redistribution.

And his foreign policy? Mamdani wants to “globalize the intifada.” That’s a genocidal rallying cry, and New York’s Jewish community should treat it like the five-alarm fire it is.

So can the Democrats still correct course? Can the party of JFK and FDR find its footing again?

One glimmer of sanity remains: Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Despite his hoodie-and-shorts aesthetic, to say nothing of the stroke that nearly killed him in 2022, he has emerged as a lonely voice of reason. He has called out the party’s excesses. But will anyone listen? Or will the Democrats toss him aside for failing the purity test?

The Democratic Party isn’t just drifting — it’s accelerating toward the cliff. And no one pushed the Democrats. They drove themselves.

A tax hike is coming — and it’s not just for the rich



Academy Award-winner Elizabeth Taylor, married eight times to seven men, likely entered each union with the hope it would last. Good things, after all, should be permanent.

Yet in Washington, permanence is too often treated as a liability. Nowhere is this more apparent than in tax policy. Thanks to arcane rules surrounding budget reconciliation, Congress routinely enacts pro-growth reforms with an expiration date baked in.

A permanent extension of the reconciliation bill’s pro-growth elements would produce more ‘bang for the buck’ than a temporary extension.

Consider the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Though the measure would extend and build upon President Donald Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it fails to permanently extend several of the law’s most pro-growth elements.

That’s a mistake. Again, good things should be permanent.

Pro-growth policies need permanence

Earlier this month, Unleash Prosperity Now — a nonprofit aligned with President Trump — organized a letter signed by more than 300 economists, myself included, urging Congress to “extend President Trump's tax cuts permanently to prevent a tax increase on January 1, 2026.”

Why do we insist upon permanence? Permanent pro-growth public policies result in better economic outcomes. In contrast, temporary policies create troublesome uncertainty, which, in turn, sows confusion for consumers and businesses, making financial planning and investment needlessly difficult.

A permanent extension of the reconciliation bill’s pro-growth elements would produce more economic “bang for the buck” than a temporary extension. It’s that simple.

According to the Tax Foundation, “Permanence for the [bill’s] four cost recovery provisions would more than double the long-run economic effect.” These provisions would include 100% bonus depreciation, expensing of research and development investment, and a more generous interest deduction limit, among others.

The Tax Foundation concludes:

The current package produces meager effects on GDP and a smaller U.S. capital stock over the long run because the cost recovery provisions sunset. As lawmakers continue to debate the tax package, they should not compromise on permanence for the most pro-growth provisions.

This view aligns with the prevailing economic literature. For example, a 2019 study by the St. Louis Federal Reserve concluded, “A rise in uncertainty is widely believed to have detrimental effects on macroeconomic, microeconomic, and financial market outcomes.”

If that warning were plastered on the side of a pack of cigarettes, it would read, “Congressionally induced policy uncertainty is hazardous to the country’s economic health.”

Jobs under threat

Fortunately, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) is determined to extend the reconciliation bill’s most pro-growth elements permanently. Bravo, Mr. Chairman!

Permanence aside, why did more than 300 economists call for preventing the tax increase scheduled under current law?

RELATED: I was against Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ — Stephen Miller changed my mind

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

If taxes increase as planned, the economic fallout could be steep. Wells Fargo warns that average monthly job creation could plummet from 133,000 in the first quarter to just 25,000 next quarter — and then turn negative, with an estimated loss of 17,000 jobs per month in the fourth quarter.

If Congress fails to “spike the hike,” Wells Fargo estimates economic growth will slow to a tepid 1.1% this year and next.

A warning to deficit hawks

For those worried about the deficit, here's the paradox: Letting the economy slow — or worse, slip into recession — is the surest way to worsen the nation’s fiscal health.

To further underscore the situation, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who directed the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, cautions: “Given the weak state of the economy, it [the scheduled tax increase] would likely trigger a recession, and the budget outlook never gets better in a recession.”

Yes, it’s that simple.

Elizabeth Taylor once quipped, “If you hear of me getting married [again], slap me!” At least, she had the right intentions. Congress, on the other hand, routinely resorts to temporary policies to game the reconciliation process. That needs to stop.

To guard against recession, Congress should reconsider the tax increase scheduled for next year. But to boost economic growth, Congress should follow Crapo’s lead and extend permanently the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act pro-growth provisions.

Split the Big Beautiful Bill Act, seal the border … and give Trump a real win



The GOP doesn’t resemble a big tent any more — it looks more like a boundless landfill. No shared vision or coherent guiding principles bind the party’s disparate factions beyond not having a “D” next to their names. That’s why it’s impossible to pass a reasonable budget bill that cuts spending without including massive subsidies for high-tax blue states.

The rift between the Freedom Caucus, the K Street crowd, RINOs, and the Trump White House remains unbridgeable. So what’s the realistic path forward on budget reconciliation?

With real leadership, Trump could sign the most consequential part of his 2024 mandate into law — before the smoke clears in LA.

Focus on the one issue that unites the base: immigration enforcement.

Riots in Los Angeles this week have made the case for an immigration-only reconciliation bill even stronger. The public sees the connection. The urgency is obvious. And President Trump, understandably frustrated by the calendar — it’s June and he hasn’t signed a single major legislative win — wants action now.

But cramming unrelated tax and health care provisions into one big, bloated bill guarantees disaster. Good members will face a bad vote. So why not act decisively?

Split the immigration provisions from the rest. Make them tougher. Pass the bill right away, while the chaos in L.A. is still at the front of everyone’s mind. Save the fiscal brawls for later.

The math of an immigration-focused bill

The current draft of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill, includes about $185 billion in new funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and new and improved border infrastructure. It also tacks on another $150 billion in defense spending — a top White House priority.

Even strong provisions need offsets. But in a party this fractured, cutting spending isn’t just difficult — it’s practically taboo.

Still, by limiting the bill to the Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon spending and scrapping the tax components, Republicans would only need to offset $335 billion over 10 years.

RELATED: How much Green New Scam spending will survive the One Big Beautiful Bill?

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

That’s well within the realm of possibility. They could hit that number using the consensus cuts and immigration reforms already in the bill. No gimmicks. No sleight of hand. Just political will and a sense of timing.

The current bill would generate about $77 billion in new revenue from immigration-related fees and taxes on remittances. It saves hundreds of billions more over the next decade by cutting off illegal aliens from Medicaid, Obamacare, and food stamps.

Republicans should go farther and ban illegal aliens from claiming the child tax credit — a move that could save another $50 billion.

Instead of loading the first reconciliation bill with a jumble of unrelated and divisive provisions, Republicans should focus on consensus items: national security, enforcement of sovereignty, and policies that put Americans first.

If the Republicans were more ambitious, they would use this bill to repeal the Green New Deal. Funding illegal immigration and the Green New Deal were the Biden administration’s two most transformative and unpopular policies. Target both. Pass the bill right away. Deliver a win that matches the mandate voters gave Trump — and give the president a badly needed legislative victory.

Enforcement money isn’t enough

Throwing $180 billion more at enforcement won’t solve the immigration crisis. Spend a trillion on deportations, and it still won’t matter if courts continue to block action.

Even in Trump’s rare Supreme Court wins on immigration, the justices insisted every illegal alien must receive due process — despite deportation being a civil process, not a punishment.

No president can litigate his way out of an invasion. Even with favorable rulings, Trump won’t deport enough illegal immigrants before the next Democrat takes office. That’s the hard truth.

Now is the moment to fix it.

Americans are watching a violent, coordinated invasion unfold in real time. The bill should formally declare an invasion — and include an amendment by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) to strip judicial review from deportation cases involving noncitizens and, ideally, legal permanent residents.

Under that reform, the administration’s removal decisions would stand. No federal judge could second-guess them. No more delays, appeals, or lawfare.

Roy’s amendment would transform the first reconciliation bill into a singular focus on Trump’s most unifying, necessary, and popular campaign promise. It would hand him a quick, clean victory while the nation remains fixated on the border invasion.

RELATED: Americans didn’t elect Trump to bust SALT caps or overhaul Medicaid

Photo by Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images

So why not just split the agenda into two bills and get on with it?

Here come the usual GOP excuses. Let’s knock them down one by one.

Excuse 1: “We only get one bite at the apple.”

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller claims Republicans must use reconciliation just once to avoid the Senate filibuster.

But Democrats already broke that precedent in 2021, pushing through two separate reconciliation bills with a green light from the Senate parliamentarian, who noted that reconciliation should be reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.”

But ultimately, this isn’t the parliamentarian’s call. The decision rests with President Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). If Biden’s team could do it, so can we.

Excuse 2: “Without this bill, Americans face massive tax hikes.”

This line is pure fearmongering. The 2024 election wasn’t about taxes. MAGA never revolved around tax cuts for their own sake — that was the old GOP. Yet somehow, this bill morphed into another tax-centered mess.

The truth? Most tax provisions in the current draft — from an expanded child tax credit and higher standard deduction to new breaks for seniors, overtime, and tips — enjoy broad bipartisan support.

No Democrat wants to get blamed for letting these expire. Even in a lame-duck session, they wouldn’t allow a public tax hike. The only serious dispute involves the top marginal rate. Trump has already signaled he’s open to a modest increase if it means getting the rest of the agenda passed.

And let’s be honest: The current bill isn’t exactly Reaganesque. It’s loaded with progressive goodies, including an obscene expansion of the SALT deduction.

Even the pro-tax-cut Tax Foundation calls the bill’s economic impact weak and overly complicated. This isn’t a bold, pro-growth package — it’s a muddled compromise.

The irony is that ending taxes on tips — perhaps Trump’s most prized tax provision — already passed the Senate 100-0. Why not pass that and similar provisions in the House and place it on Trump’s desk without wasting budget reconciliation?

Excuse 3: “We can’t include policy provisions in a budget bill.”

Critics claim the Byrd Rule blocks the inclusion of policy reforms — like immigration or judicial changes — in a reconciliation bill. That excuse doesn’t hold up.

The original House-passed bill included a provision that barred states from regulating artificial intelligence. That isn’t budget-related. That is pure policy.

By comparison, a provision removing judicial review from deportation cases would directly cut costs by eliminating thousands of court hearings. That’s a legitimate budgetary angle — and far more defensible than regulating AI through backdoor channels.

The Byrd Rule exists, yes. But the party in power determines what gets through. The president and Senate leadership can overrule the parliamentarian. Democrats did it. So can we.

Fast-forward to this week: The streets of Los Angeles are on fire again. And instead of seizing the moment to deliver on the most urgent national priority, Miller is using anti-ICE violence to ram through a bloated mega-bill — all because it includes ICE funding.

But if solving immigration were the real goal, Republicans would just split the bill already. They’d put the judicial reform language in the first package. And they’d pass it immediately.

With real leadership, Trump could sign the most consequential part of his 2024 mandate into law — before the smoke clears in L.A.