America’s fiscal fire will not put itself out



There is an old admonition, courtesy of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that no one has the right to falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater and cause a panic. The abused part of that line is obvious. The neglected part is just as important: When the danger is real, responsible people do not stay silent. They sound the alarm before the smoke fills the room and the flames become impossible to ignore.

That is where the United States is today.

The fire may not yet be visible to everyone, but it is already burning. Recognizing it is the first step. Acting on it is the next.

Our nation’s fiscal condition poses a real and growing threat, and pretending otherwise will only make the consequences more severe.

And I am shouting fire.

Washington’s overspending has produced a federal debt that is plainly unsustainable. Interest-bearing debt alone now exceeds $39 trillion and climbs higher each year by trillions of dollars. Add unfunded commitments for Social Security and Medicare, and the total burden rises to more than $136 trillion, a number so large that it barely registers. Spread across the population, the liability amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars for every American.

According to projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the debt will exceed $63 trillion within 10 years. In less than a decade, the trust funds supporting major entitlement programs are expected to be depleted, requiring by law major cuts in benefits. The federal government can continue on this path only by borrowing more, which compounds the problem, or by printing money, which courts hyperinflation. That cycle cannot continue indefinitely.

The government itself acknowledges this reality in plain language. Its own financial reports describe the current fiscal path as “unsustainable.” That word means the system, as currently constructed, will not endure. At some point, the burden becomes too great and the consequences grow severe. It will make the Great Depression seem mild. That is the future awaiting a nation that continues to spend far beyond its means.

This situation did not arise overnight, nor can it be blamed on one party or one generation. It is the product of years of decisions in which immediate political gain took precedence over long-term stability.

Voters were promised benefits, often framed as cost-free, while the real price was pushed into the future. Little by little, we have been mortgaging tomorrow until soon there may be nothing left to mortgage.

The good news is that the method of putting out this fire is no mystery. The principles required to restore stability are well understood and have repeatedly proven themselves in practice. Limited government, restrained spending, and less federal intrusion into our lives remain the foundation of long-term prosperity.

RELATED: Jerome Powell is out — for good reason. Here are 4 of his top blunders.

Samuel Corum/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Reform must begin with the biggest drivers of future debt. Entitlement programs must be strengthened for the long term, not ignored for short-term political convenience. That does not require cutting benefits for current recipients, but it does require thoughtful reforms to keep those programs viable for future generations.

At the same time, the scope of the federal government should be reconsidered with renewed respect for constitutional limits.

America’s founders envisioned a system of limited federal powers and reinforced that design in the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically granted to the national government to the states or the people. A more disciplined understanding of federal responsibility would not only reduce costs, but also strengthen accountability and preserve liberty.

Examples around the world show that nations can confront fiscal crisis and begin to recover through disciplined economic policy. Each country’s circumstances differ, but the lesson is consistent: When governments commit to sound principles and follow through, better outcomes follow.

The United States still possesses enormous strengths, including a dynamic economy, innovative capacity, and a resilient people. Those advantages give us a window to address this problem before it reaches the breaking point. But that window will not remain open forever.

Ultimately, the responsibility does not rest only with elected officials. It rests with the public that sends them to Washington. An informed electorate that understands the stakes and demands accountability can still change the country’s course. The challenge is serious, but it is not beyond our ability to meet.

The fire may not yet be visible to everyone, but it is already burning. Recognizing it is the first step. Acting on it is the next. The future will be shaped by whether we confront this danger now or keep looking away until the consequences can no longer be avoided.

Virginia’s Expensive DEI Office Brought Back To Life With ‘Pioneer’ Boss
play icon

Virginia’s Expensive DEI Office Brought Back To Life With ‘Pioneer’ Boss

'Address systemic inequities in state government'

Your Medicaid Taxes Paid For An Autism Therapy Exec’s $2.5M Beach Home

In too many cases, autism therapy is at best a joke designed to bilk money out of Medicaid and at worst a danger to the patients themselves.

The Newest Georgia ‘Republican’ Is A Scandal-Plagued Democrat Carpetbagger

If Tiffany Henyard was 'ousted' and left a trail of financial ruin in a small Illinois village, what will she do with the $1.4 billion budget of Fulton County, Georgia?

Democrats’ Fraud-Friendly Election Rules Destroy Public Trust

A framework for good policy requires integrity in elections and political service. And this demands honest elections and politicians.

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!

Lawmakers Can’t Be Bothered To Work One Extra Day As Unfinished Business Piles Up

A long list of unresolved issues remain on the table

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.