That ‘tax loophole’ might be the reason America still builds things



As President Donald Trump delivers Tuesday’s State of the Union, lawmakers will applaud calls for economic strength, innovation, and American competitiveness. Many of those same politicians, however, attack the very policies that make those goals possible. Their favorite target: so-called “tax loopholes,” routinely described as corruption or favoritism.

That label distorts how tax policy works.

What critics dismiss as ‘loopholes’ often serve as the incentives that help ordinary Americans — not just the rich — build, grow, and prosper.

Politicians denounce “loopholes” as if businesses are exploiting accidental gaps in laws Congress never meant to create. The implication follows: close the loopholes, collect more revenue, spend more money, and the country improves.

That framing misses the point. Most so-called loopholes are not accidents. Congress created them on purpose to encourage behavior that strengthens the economy.

Tax credits and deductions are not tricks. They are policy tools. In many cases, they work better than direct spending programs because they rely on private-sector decision-making instead of bureaucratic discretion.

That distinction matters during a period of rapid technological change. Consider artificial intelligence.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last year built on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by making full and immediate capital expensing — commonly called bonus depreciation — a permanent feature of the tax code. That provision allows businesses to deduct the full cost of qualifying capital investments in the year they make them, rather than stretching deductions over many years.

Critics call that a “giveaway.” It is better understood as a growth policy.

In practical terms, full expensing matters whenever a company makes a large upfront investment — servers, advanced manufacturing equipment, or specialized hardware needed to build AI systems. Under traditional depreciation rules, a business recovers those costs slowly. That delays the tax benefit and discourages large productive investments.

Full expensing removes that penalty. It aligns the tax code with economic reality by letting businesses recover costs when they take the risk. It also works automatically, without bureaucrats deciding which firms or industries deserve support.

That design is intentional. If Congress wants more of a productive activity, it can tax it less.

The AI boom illustrates the point. The United States is competing to lead the world in private AI investment. Data centers are going up at record speed. Venture capital is funding startups that did not exist a few years ago. Large firms are racing to expand computing infrastructure for next-generation models. That kind of investment grows where policy rewards risk-taking.

By making bonus depreciation permanent, lawmakers reduced uncertainty and signaled that America intends to remain the best place to invest capital.

RELATED: At Trump’s State of the Union, remember the free-market miracle in your pocket

Shutthiphong Chandaeng via iStock/Getty Images

This provision does not benefit only trillion-dollar corporations with armies of accountants. Any business making qualifying investments can use it: a mid-sized manufacturer installing robotics, a regional logistics company upgrading its fleet, or a startup buying high-performance computing equipment. The tax treatment is the same.

In fact, the largest long-term effect may land far from Silicon Valley. Small and medium-sized businesses make up roughly half the U.S. economy. For those firms, cash flow often determines whether they can hire, expand, or modernize. Immediate expensing can make the difference.

This is not a “loophole.” It is deliberate economic policy.

Critics often argue that provisions like full expensing “cost” the government money. That view ignores the broader effect. When businesses invest more, they produce more. More production supports hiring, wages, and taxable income across the economy.

I work directly with small and medium-sized businesses navigating a tax code that is often caricatured in political debate. I have seen how these so-called loopholes function in real life. They are not exclusive perks for the wealthy or giant corporations. Their benefits extend to workers, customers, and communities through jobs, innovation, and competition.

What critics dismiss as “loopholes” often serve as the incentives that help ordinary Americans — not just the rich — build, grow, and prosper.

Uncle Sam does not always get tax policy right. But when Congress uses the tax code to encourage productive behavior instead of punishing it, the results can be transformative.

The next time a politician thunders about “tax loopholes,” ask a simple question: Is it really a mistake — or a policy designed to make the American economy stronger?

California Is Teaching America How To Destroy Itself

People running for elected office to govern the state promise an unbroken flood of new spending, while people holding elected office and governing the state grimly slash budgets.

Democrats threaten to shut down government over ICE funding: 'We are not powerless'



Democrats have worked energetically in recent months to demonize and delegitimize the men and women of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — those whom Democrat Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz branded as "Trump's modern-day Gestapo."

This messaging campaign helped set the stage for deadly confrontations such as those that led to Renee Good's death on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti's death on Saturday.

'I won't vote to fund murder.'

Now Democratic lawmakers — who wouldn't dream of letting a crisis go to waste — are threatening to shut down the government in order to starve the Department of Homeland Security of funds.

"What's happening in Minnesota is appalling — and unacceptable in any American city," said Democrat U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. "Democrats sought common-sense reforms in the Department of Homeland Security spending bill, but because of Republicans' refusal to stand up to President Trump, the DHS bill is woefully inadequate to rein in the abuses of ICE. I will vote no."

Schumer noted further that Senate Democrats "will not provide the votes to proceed to the appropriations bill if the DHS funding bill is included."

Minnesota U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar echoed Schumer and signaled opposition to the so-called "ICE funding bill" as well — and numerous other anti-ICE Democrats followed suit.

RELATED: 'Going to get someone killed': Democratic AG shocks with talk about shooting ICE agents in 'stand your ground' Arizona

Photographer: Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Democrat U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, for example, vowed to "do everything" he can to prevent the deployment of federal law enforcement in American cities, noting "that starts with voting no on DHS's budget this week."

Ruben Gallego, another Democratic U.S. senator from Arizona, put it bluntly: "I won't vote to fund murder in the name of law enforcement."

Democrat U.S. Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey said, "I’m not voting to fund this lawless violence. Trump’s abuse of power is tearing us apart."

"The Senate should not vote to keep funding this rampage," wrote U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Ct.). "We are not powerless."

The House of Representatives passed a three-bill minibus appropriations package in a 341-88 vote Thursday, which would fund the Departments of War, Labor, Transportation, Health and Human services, Education, and related agencies. In a separate vote of 220-207, the House reportedly also passed a funding bill for the DHS, which would allocate $64.4 billion to the department, including $10 billion for ICE.

'The shutdown cost us a lot, and I think they'll probably do it again.'

The four spending bills were combined with a pair of measures previously passed in the House then sent to the Senate for approval ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline.

A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated that the DHS funding measure would not be decoupled from the others, reported NBC News.

While the Senate was expected to vote on the funding package Monday evening, Thune spokesperson Ryan Wrasse indicated the vote would be postponed until Tuesday "due to the impending weather event that is expected to impact a significant portion of the country."

In order to avoid a filibuster and pass the spending package, Republicans need 60 votes in the Senate where they have only 53 members — including U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has a habit of voting against spending bills.

As of Sunday, the likelihood of another U.S. government shutdown by Jan. 31 was 76%, according to Polymarket.

Just days before Pretti's fatal shooting by a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officer, President Donald Trump told Fox Business, "I think we have a problem because I think we’re going to probably end up in another Democrat shutdown."

"The shutdown cost us a lot, and I think they'll probably do it again. That's my feeling," continued the president. "We'll see what happens."

The most recent government shutdown was the longest in the nation's history, lasting from Oct. 1 to Nov. 12, 2025 — a total of 43 days.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

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.

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.

Defusing the debt bomb: 'We're almost out of time,' warns watchdog



“The entire world's economy is on the top of a soup bubble. There has never in history been a failure of this kind of magnitude. All of the money in the world is gone. Where did it go? Who knows, but it's gone.”

It’s been almost a decade and a half since conservative commentator Bill Whittle — railing against the Obama administration’s orgy of federal spending — offered this dire prognosis on national debt.

'A default is an economic breakdown. It's for real. We may never reclaim America’s position in the world.'

And those were the good old days — when America was a paltry $15 trillion in the red. By the time President Barack Obama left office in January 2017, the number had climbed to just shy of $20 trillion — $8.6 trillion more than when he took office in 2009.

Since then, we’ve experienced three administrations and the chaos of the COVID pandemic. The virus alone cost $4.7 trillion in total budgetary resources for the federal government.

As of October 21, the national debt now sits at an astounding $38 trillion, and all indications are that it will only continue to grow, with current projections suggesting it will hit $39 trillion by March 30.

A post-default world

Mark Minnella is the co-founder of the National Association of Christian Financial Consultants and the host of the faith-based radio show "Financial Issues." He tells Alignthat America may be getting closer to a “point of no return” and warns that the path to a debt default will be painful and destructive.

“If the treasury of the country fails to pay creditors and obligations, or if interest payment goes unpaid, what you see is that trust immediately goes away in the currency. Markets panic. Interest rates rise," says Minnella. And that's when the real trouble begins:

When the world stops trusting our currency, the dollar loses its position in global trade as the global reserve. Then other nations will step into that vacuum, like the Chinese and Russians. That will erode American influence and leadership. Internally, we would see inflation as the dollar loses its trust. We’ll see the government having to print money to stay ahead. We’ll see a surge in the cost of mortgages and business loans, a decline in spending, housing, and companies failing. We’ll have serious economic pain. It’ll self-correct over time, but we’d lose our position as world leaders.

As is often the case, those clinging to the bottom rung of the economic ladder will get hit hardest, warns Minnella. “Especially for those people who are the weakest and most vulnerable, our most impoverished people will be hurt the worst. It hurts them more than anybody else because they don’t have a little more to spend.”

More than political theater

The recently ended government shutdown has given many Americans a painful preview of what happens when the money spigot turns off. Hundreds of thousands of employees have gone unpaid, government services have been limited, and SNAP benefits have been threatened. Even for those not directly affected, financial insecurity looms and the future looks uncertain.

But to Minnella, a debt default would make the last 40-something days look like a vacation.

“I don’t think [default] looks like a government shutdown. That looks like inconvenience and political theater," he tells Align.

"A default is an economic breakdown. It's for real. We may never reclaim America’s position in the world. The shutdown wasn’t really a danger. The danger is a Congress that refuses to stop spending.”

Minnella is far from alone in his fears. Just last week, noted economist Kent Smetters predicted that the U.S. could hit a breaking point with interest payments as soon as 2045 and offered this grim observation: “Almost every empire has been taken down by debt." Even JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has raised alarms, warning in September, “Like most problems, it's better to deal with it than let it happen.”

Bipartisan boondoggle

While President Trump has made some noise in addressing the debt through DOGE cuts and tariff dividends, it hasn’t curbed federal spending enough to make a difference. He did declare on Monday that tariff income would be used to “SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT,” but this year’s tariff revenue is just $195 billion, and the majority of that money is set to go to $2,000 taxpayer dividends. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act also cost $3.4 trillion in spending.

According to Minnella, the skyrocketing national debt is a shared disgrace for both major political parties, neither of whom have the will to explain federal belt-tightening to their constituents.

“It’s not Republican or Democrat,” he says. “It's Washington in general. And as much as it's a problem, it's also part of the solution."

RELATED: The right needs bigger ideas than tax cuts

Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Spines wanted

Unfortunately, those in power — whether the MAGA right or the socialist left — seem unlikely to rise to the occasion.

"We don’t have adults in Congress anymore who care about our nation," says Minnella. "We have politicians who care about their careers. They don’t want to cut any spending that might cause somebody to vote against them. They want to encourage as much spending as possible."

Which means fiscal responsibility is ultimately up to voters.

"We need to start electing people with a spine who aren’t there for themselves. We need to vote them out and hold them accountable," says Minnella.

“We need to speak the truth ... that we’re almost out of time," he continues. "American citizens need to take back their power and force out people who will not listen.”

Democrats Want Republicans To Bail Them Out Of Their Bad Political Gamble

By punting the issue into 2025, Democrats hoped they could secure a permanent extension of Obamacare subsidies. That plan backfired.

Fearmongering over Medicare hides the real fix seniors need



Democrats are casting the shutdown showdown as a battle over health care costs, tapping into widespread anxiety over the cost of health care, especially among those enrolled in Medicare. For them, it’s politics. But for millions of American seniors, the worry is real — not just a convenient talking point.

Recent polling shows 58% of Medicare recipients 65 and over are concerned about future health care costs, and half are worried a major health situation could result in either debt or bankruptcy.

If left unchanged, Medicare will be unable to pay full benefits by 2036.

While medical debt is a growing concern among Medicare recipients, the staggering size of the federal debt — largely driven by Medicare spending — is a ticking time bomb Congress can no longer ignore. As one of the largest federal spending programs, Medicare consisted of a jarring $874 billion out of the $6.75 trillion federal budget (about 13 cents of every dollar spent in FY2024).

While Medicare receives some funding from premiums paid by enrollees, the single largest source of revenue comes from the federal government's general fund. If left unchanged, Medicare will be unable to pay full benefits by 2036.

Medicare Advantage toes the line

Fortunately, policy solutions exist that can help both seniors and taxpayers.

Medicare Advantage merges public financing with private delivery under accountability. The government pays a fixed amount per enrollee to private plans, calibrated by benchmarks and quality measures. Plans that achieve higher star ratings — which were just released for 2026 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services earlier this month — receive bonus payments. Meanwhile, poor performers lose ground.

This structure introduces incentives for efficiency and quality that are lacking in traditional Medicare. Yet, successive years of cuts to how Medicare Advantage plans are reimbursed have forced several major insurers to announce they’re withdrawing from certain Medicare Advantage markets next year.

Companies like UnitedHealth, Humana, Aetna, as well as regional plans such as UCare (serving Minnesota and parts of Wisconsin) and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, are withdrawing from select Medicare Advantage counties across the country, citing rising costs. Seniors are using more medical services than expected, driving up claims, while federal reimbursement rates are being cut. Added regulatory and administrative burdens (such as expanded reporting requirements and prior authorization rules) further limit insurers. Together, these pressures make participation unsustainable in some markets.

If unchanged, more insurers will leave Medicare Advantage, and options for seniors will continue to shrink. Meanwhile, Medicare costs are growing much faster than private health care spending.

In 2023, traditional Medicare spent $15,689 per enrollee, more than double the private sector amount. This is a result of the traditional fee-for-service model, which pays providers per treatment instead of per patient, rewarding volume over outcomes, encouraging unnecessary care, and driving up costs.

Conversely, Medicare Advantage’s structure encourages prevention and coordination. To attract enrollees, Medicare Advantage offers supplemental benefits such as vision, dental, hearing, wellness programs, transportation, and over‑the‑counter benefits. Many Medicare Advantage plans now include these extras at little or no additional cost. That flexibility helps tailor benefits to beneficiary needs.

Better treatment, lower costs

When allowed to work, Medicare Advantage delivers higher satisfaction, lower costs, and greater access to coverage than traditional Medicare. One Harvard study found that seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage had better health outcomes than seniors on traditional Medicare. A National Institutes of Health review of hundreds of studies found that Medicare Advantage provided significantly better quality of care and health outcomes than traditional Medicare by a factor of four to one. Another NIH study found that across 48 studies, Medicare Advantage enrollees received more preventative care and had fewer hospitalizations and emergency visits, shorter stays, and lower total spending.

The financial and quality advantages are clear. One study comparing expected out‑of‑pocket costs in Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare found that from 2014 to 2019, projected costs were 18% to 24% lower under Medicare Advantage. For seniors on fixed incomes — that is significant.

RELATED: Democrats deny shutdown is about health care for illegal aliens — then one admits the truth

Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

Seniors get it. This year, the majority of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Over the last two decades, enrollment in Medicare Advantage has skyrocketed. Unsurprisingly, polling shows 93% of Medicare Advantage enrollees were satisfied or very satisfied with their coverage, and 94% would recommend it to their family and friends. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that by 2034, Medicare Advantage could account for nearly two-thirds of all Medicare beneficiaries.

The model for the future

Medicare Advantage provides the model for quality, affordable health care for seniors that aligns with what they prefer. Reducing regulatory burdens and barriers within the insurance market will provide Medicare Advantage plans greater flexibility and even entice those insurers leaving the Medicare Advantage market to reconsider.

Medicare cannot continue as purely fee‑for‑service without reform — neither for the medical and financial health of Americans, nor for the sake of the federal budget. The current fiscal challenges plaguing the federal budget demand models that can bend the cost curve while improving quality. Medicare Advantage is not a cure-all, but it is among the most promising tools in the toolbox.

2025 Budget Review Shows We Can’t Afford To Extend ‘Temporary’ Obamacare Subsidies

CBO's review of the 2025 fiscal year shows Republicans have every reason to reject Democrats’ demands to end the 'Schumer Shutdown.'