Dems loved IRS audits for you — and now fear accountability for themselves



As promised during the election, Elon Musk was appointed head of the Department of Government Efficiency to combat government waste and fraud. In typical Washington fashion, such an initiative would normally produce a polished report after 18 months, with little real action. But Musk and his team have taken a different approach, actively dismantling the worst areas of taxpayer abuse in a matter of weeks.

Predictably, those who oppose real reform — including Musk’s critics, Trump’s enemies, and those losing access to their slush funds — are in full meltdown mode.

That’s the real crisis hurting working Americans; the middle and working class are the ones paying the price.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has spent years in government overseeing this waste, took to Musk’s own platform, X, to express her outrage:

Elon Musk and Donald Trump are trying to drive a wrecking ball through our government. The people who will pay a real price are the hard-working families who are just trying to make it to the end of the month. We must use every tool to fight back.

That’s rich coming from Warren. Under the senator’s watch, the government’s debt has soared past 120% of GDP, nearing $36.5 trillion and climbing. In recent years, Congress has run wartime deficits of nearly 7% of GDP, fueling reckless spending. These policies helped drive historic inflation, crushing the finances and balance sheets of working Americans.

Warren knows all about wrecking balls — because that’s exactly what government policies have done to the nation’s finances while she has been in office.

That’s the real crisis hurting working Americans; the middle and working class are the ones paying the price.

So what exactly is Warren “fighting back” against? The same business-as-usual policies that are driving Americans and the government toward a fiscal cliff? Calls for responsibility and transparency? Efforts to root out fraud and waste?

If you love America, there’s nothing to fight against. Dismantling Congress’ “legal” money-laundering schemes is exactly what voters demanded. Americans want the wrecking ball aimed at government corruption — not at them, as has been the case throughout Warren’s time in office.

Democrats like Warren have pushed for more IRS agents and audits on $600 Venmo transactions. So why the panic when the government, which controls trillions of dollars, is finally put under a microscope?

Because Warren and company feel threatened that their power — and shenanigans — will be exposed.

Being “under new management,” as one of my X followers has called it, is a wrecking ball for the old regime, for corruption, for waste, and for fraud.

And it’s exactly what Americans want.

Leftists cry as Trump obliterates their patronage network



After securing a decisive electoral mandate and launching his second presidential term with a flurry of executive orders, Donald Trump has overwhelmed his liberal opposition. Progressives have struggled to find a compelling narrative against the real estate billionaire but have now focused their attacks on foreign aid spending cuts.

One of Trump’s executive orders placed a 90-day hold on foreign aid. In response, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency identified the U.S. Agency for International Development as a prime candidate for elimination. Democrats and their media allies attempted to frame the cuts as an act of cruelty by wealthy elites indifferent to poor Africans being denied AIDS medication. But that strategy has backfired. As more Americans learn about USAID, they are discovering how much of their tax money has been siphoned into questionable projects abroad.

USAID’s funding is not merely wasted on political favors — it is actively used to support some of the most heinous projects imaginable.

Most Americans value generosity but recognize the importance of attending to domestic needs first. Foreign aid is easier to justify in times of prosperity, but when infrastructure is crumbling, housing is unaffordable for young people, and food prices are soaring, spending tax dollars overseas becomes a lower priority.

Democrats have warned that millions of lives could be lost if USAID is cut, but their alarmist rhetoric has triggered the Streisand effect. As scrutiny of USAID increases, Americans are beginning to see the agency not as a lifeline for the poor but as a massive slush fund for progressive ideological projects.

While progressives are committed to their ideology, they understand that politics ultimately revolves around rewarding friends and punishing enemies. Patronage is the lifeblood of politics, and progressives integrate it into every institution they build and every action they take. One can either accept or reject this reality, but it remains a fundamental aspect of American politics. The fact that progressives embrace patronage while conservatives often recoil from it helps explain the left’s political dominance in the United States. USAID is no exception.

Progressives have transformed the agency into a vehicle for rewarding their domestic allies and cultivating a network of ideologically aligned organizations abroad. While the U.S. foreign aid budget may assist some in need, its primary function is to fund a global progressive agenda while treating American taxpayers as little more than a revenue source.

Diverting tax dollars from American families to fund political allies would be troubling enough, but the reality is even worse. Democrats, the media, and the foreign policy establishment portray USAID as a critical tool of diplomacy. In practice, however, the agency’s funding is not merely wasted on political favors — it is actively used to support some of the most heinous projects imaginable.

Politico, which presents itself as an independent media outlet in the United States, has received more than $8 million from USAID and other federal agencies. BBC Media Action, the charitable arm of British state media, lists USAID as its second-largest contributor. The American government’s funding of both domestic and foreign media presents an obvious conflict of interest, yet this is only the beginning.

USAID has integrated LGBTQI+ ideology into all its development programs, particularly in children's education. The agency has allocated $45 million in scholarships to influence the governing elite in Burma. It has also spent $500,000 to promote atheism in Nepal, $32,000 to distribute transgender children's books in Peru, $70,000 to fund a DEI musical in Ireland, and another $70,000 to support a transgender opera in Colombia. In 2016, USAID directed $300,000 toward LGBTQ+ education initiatives in Macedonia, a predominantly Christian nation. Additionally, U.S. tax dollars have funded DEI seminars in Serbia, leftist publications in Poland, and transgender advocacy groups in Bangladesh — part of a broader effort costing tens of billions of dollars.

Progressives are not merely subsidizing allies abroad; they are using American tax dollars to pressure foreign governments and organizations into adopting their ideological agenda. The American public is gradually realizing that a well-funded global influence campaign has been carried out in their name. The worldwide spread of progressive politics was neither organic nor inevitable — it was a deliberate, taxpayer-funded initiative orchestrated by the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Democrats have framed Elon Musk’s proposal to eliminate USAID as the cruel overreach of an unelected billionaire and his technocratic allies. That argument rings hollow, given that the Democratic Party relies heavily on funding from billionaires like George Soros and elevates figures like Anthony Fauci to near-reverential status. Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign gained significant support from Musk, in part due to the SpaceX founder’s commitment to identifying and cutting wasteful or politically motivated government programs like USAID.

As Trump takes decisive executive action, some conservatives urge caution. They warn against moving too quickly, dismantling too many institutions, and disrupting the established order. This is misguided advice. Progressives are struggling to counter Trump’s ability to control the narrative, and their attempts to push back have only drawn attention to the corruption within the Washington bureaucracy. The president has the electoral mandate, moral justification, and executive authority to enact lasting change. He should continue to press on while momentum is on his side.

Niccolò Machiavelli advised that when harming an enemy, one must do so decisively to prevent reprisals. If the goal is to restore governance that serves the American people, the transformation must be complete. Trump is not just dismantling the global leftist patronage network because of its abuses — he is eliminating its ability to target conservatives. The agencies of the U.S. government must either be restructured to serve the nation or dismantled entirely. Leaving them weakened but capable of retaliating would be the greatest strategic blunder imaginable.

‘It’s Gonna Be Taxes’: Kamala Struggled To Explain Funding For $3 Trillion Giveaway In Off-Camera CBS Footage

Then-Democrat Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris appeared stumped when asked to explain how she would pay for her economic policies aside from taxes in a portion of the unedited CBS News interview that occurred only after the cameras stopped rolling. During the interview that aired to the public, Whitaker noted how the Nonpartisan Committee for Responsible […]

Massachusetts Gov. Healey's tax-heavy budget targets candy, tobacco, and charitable deductions



Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey (D) unveiled her $62 billion fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, which contains numerous tax increases, including on candy and tobacco.

Healey's proposed budget, introduced in January, amounts to a 7.4% increase in the state's overall spending compared to the previous year.

'Governor Healey's priorities are clear: higher taxes and higher spending.'

A new tax on candy is expected to generate $25 million for the state.

Healey claimed that it "isn't about a new tax," arguing that "the purchase of candy does not align with our public health goals, especially for our youth."

"What this is doing is simply saying, when you go to the grocery store, instead of having candy treated like a purchase of bread and eggs and milk, you know, essential groceries, that candy is now going to be treated in the same way as when you go to the bakery, the back of the grocery store, and pick up cupcakes for your kids," the governor stated. "We think that makes sense."

Healey is also seeking to raise tobacco taxes and expand them to include synthetic nicotine products such as Zyn pouches.

Additionally, Healey's proposed budget includes a limit on charitable donation deductions: a cap of $10,000 for joint filers and $5,000 for individual filers. The state estimates that the new limits could generate another $164 million.

On Friday, Healey filed legislation allowing cities and towns to raise local taxes from 6% to 7% on hotel stays in "most communities" and .75% to 1% on meals. Municipalities could also implement a 5% surcharge on motor vehicle excise bills.

Healey claimed that her Municipal Empowerment Act would allow elected officials to "avoid raising property taxes" on Massachusetts residents "who are already struggling with the high cost of housing."

"Importantly, the ideas in this bill come directly from engagement with local officials across the state. They asked for improved fiscal stability, operational efficiency, and flexibility," the governor wrote.

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) approved of Healey's local tax increase options.

"Cities and towns depend on support from the commonwealth to diversify our revenues, build schools, and cut the red tape on buying goods and services from local businesses. Thank you to Gov. Healey and Lt. Gov. Driscoll for your ongoing partnership with the City of Boston and all our municipal governments," Wu stated.

Paul Craney with the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance told Blaze News that Healey is "relying on new taxes to fund her dramatic increase in state spending."

"Essentially, the governor has a slew of tax hikes that will act like Healey tariffs for the taxpayers," Craney stated. "Among her targets are candy, charities, and local taxes."

"Right before Valentine's Day, Healey wants to impose a 6.25% sales tax on all candies, which will cost Massachusetts taxpayers $25 million dollars every year," he continued. "The governor also wants to add a backdoor tax hike by capping deductions taxpayers can take when they give to Massachusetts charities. This backdoor tax hike will cost the taxpayers $164 million dollars a year. The governor's appetite for higher taxes doesn't stop there. She is also proposing allowing local towns and cities the ability to raise taxes on hotels and take-out food and a 5% increase on the annual vehicle tax."

"Governor Healey's priorities are clear: higher taxes and higher spending," Craney declared.

Anything else?

On Monday, Healey torched a memo from President Donald Trump's U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy that directed the agency to prioritize programs in communities that have marriage and birth rates that exceed the national average.

Healey stated, "I got to be honest, I've really tried here, but I do not see a connection."

"We're a state that's very serious about ensuring that our residents and our businesses have access to the highest-quality public transit in the entire country," she added.

"It's concerning to governors around the country because people rely on transportation just like they rely on child care and infrastructure," Healey continued. "I'm focused on fixing roads and bridges and building out the kind of transit system that we need, and we need a federal partner who's rowing in that direction."

According to 2022 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Massachusetts had a fertility rate of 48.7 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. Only five states had a lower fertility rate. The national average was 54.4 births per 1,000 women.

From 2019 to 2022, Massachusetts had a marriage rate of 5.1 per 1,000 residents, matching New Jersey and Delaware. Only four other states reported lower marriage rates, while the national average was 6.2 marriages per 1,000 population.

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

'America is Back and Open for Business': Trump Promises Low Taxes, Threatens Tariffs in WEF Address

President Donald Trump addressed the World Economic Forum on Thursday, announcing that "America is back and open for business" in a speech that promised low taxes for foreign companies but also vowed to slap tariffs on those that manufacture their products outside the United States.

The post 'America is Back and Open for Business': Trump Promises Low Taxes, Threatens Tariffs in WEF Address appeared first on .

Trump’s Critics Only Oppose His Tariffs Because They Oppose Him

It is time to set the record straight on Trump and tariffs.

Biden’s fiscal failures loom over treasury nominee’s path



Thursday’s confirmation hearing for treasury secretary nominee Scott Bessent carries immense importance, given the fragile state of America’s fiscal foundation. You would expect senators to focus on treasury-related questions. However, instead of addressing the consequences of Janet Yellen financing U.S. debt at the short end of the yield curve or the challenge of refinancing nearly $7 trillion in the coming months, senators chose to grandstand and indulge in self-serving rhetoric.

Bessent opened his statement by highlighting his “only in America” story of achieving the American dream and his determination to preserve it for future generations. He also emphasized the need to secure supply chains, shift from wasteful government spending to productive investments that grow the economy, and maintain tax cuts to prevent massive tax hikes on Americans.

Responding to one senator’s question, Bessent said he often relies on the principle 'no data, no opinion.'

One of the most encouraging aspects of the hearing was Bessent’s repeated focus on Main Street and small businesses. He acknowledged Wall Street’s strong performance in recent years and emphasized the need for a Main Street and small business-led recovery to drive growth and economic strength.

Bessent also recognized the excessive concentration in the U.S. banking system. He noted that regulations implemented after the Great Recession have burdened smaller community banks, hindering their formation and operations. These policies have also increased systemic risk by consolidating assets among larger financial institutions. His acknowledgment of the need for policies that prioritize Main Street over Wall Street is both refreshing and essential.

In response to a question from Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) about central bank digital currencies — a digital version of the U.S. dollar that could be controlled and programmed by the Federal Reserve and the government — Bessent expressed opposition. He sees no need for the United States to adopt a CBDC, a stance that likely reassures many Americans concerned about potential threats to individual freedoms.

Oddly, much of the discussion, particularly from the Democratic senators, was centered around tax policy versus spending, with the senators refusing to acknowledge their starring role in the overspending, that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased government revenue, or that collections are not a deficit driver — spending is.

We have a tough road ahead. The Biden administration has left the United States with a debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 120% and a deficit at 6%-7% of GDP — levels typically seen during wartime, not in a period of “economic expansion.” Combined with a strong dollar, substantial foreign asset holdings, and other factors, returning to a sustainable and prosperous economic path will require careful execution.

Bessent brings extensive experience across Wall Street, central bank advisory roles, and other economic arenas, equipping him with the qualifications and temperament needed to navigate this uncertain terrain. Responding to one senator’s question, Bessent said he often relies on the principle “no data, no opinion.”

Bessent’s confirmation should proceed smoothly, but the real test lies ahead as he takes on the daunting task of stabilizing America’s financial foundation.

Republican Buddy Carter introduces bill to eliminate IRS and income tax — but replace it with 23% national sales tax



Rep. Earl "Buddy" Carter (R-Ga.) introduced the FairTax Act of 2025, aimed at abolishing the Internal Revenue Service.

Not only would the new act eliminate the IRS if passed, but it would also repeal the federal income tax.

A fact sheet from Carter's office sent to the Washington Examiner stated that the legislation would capture "the underground economy, tourism dollars, and purchases made by illegal immigrants."

This would allegedly be accomplished by implementing a 23% national sales tax, with some exceptions.

'As long as they’re here, they should be taxed.'

"The FairTax will have widespread benefits throughout our economy, not the least of which is forcing illegal immigrants to pay their fair share in taxes," Carter told the Examiner. "This will eliminate instances of illegal immigrants using taxpayer-funded resources without paying into the system while also empowering Americans to choose their tax rate."

It is unclear what the congressman meant by Americans choosing their tax rate.

The Georgia representative reinforced that he still supports the remigration of illegal aliens at the same time.

"I'm all for the repatriation of illegal immigrants, but as long as they’re here, they should be taxed," Carter added.

Taxing illegal immigrants is not specifically mentioned in the act, however, as it would be seemingly impossible to implement on an individual basis.

Under the FairTax Act of 2025, there would some exceptions for the new sales tax. Exceptions included the sale of used and "intangible property" and property purchased for business, government, export, or investment purposes.

The law would also carve out the opportunity for "lawful U.S. residents" to receive a monthly sales tax rebate based on a specific set of criteria related to income and family size.

The bill was originally introduced in 2023 but did not move.

The summary of that bill stated that the tax rate (starting at 23%) would be adjusted "in subsequent years."

At the same time, the bill "terminates the national sales tax if the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (authorizing an income tax) is not repealed within seven years after the enactment of this bill."

This would mean that the 23% tax is effectively a seven-year tax that theoretically results in no sales tax at all after that period.

The bill's original text made several claims that the federal income tax stymies economic growth and "has reduced the standard of living of the American public."

Blaze News contacted the Trump administration transition team for comment on the legislation; this article will be updated with any applicable responses.

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

Sen. Hawley pushes Vance's child tax credit boost, again orienting GOP in more pro-natalist direction



Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) appears eager for the GOP to adopt more pro-natalist policies, making family generation less daunting and child-rearing more affordable amid an apparent population collapse.

Hawley's proposed Parent Tax Credit Act, which would have made parents of children under the age of 13 eligible for an individual tax credit of $6,000 or a joint credit of $12,000, died in the 117th Congress. In the wake of President-elect Donald Trump's landslide victory and the approaching Republican trifecta in Washington, D.C., Hawley appears keen to try once again to give those families raising the next generation of Americans a break.

"President Trump won with the support of working people with kids," Hawley wrote on X Monday. "Next year's tax bill should provide them a big tax cut."

'Make it easier to choose life in the first place.'

Axios reported that the Missouri senator is calling for the child tax credit to be raised from a maximum of $2,000 to $5,000 per kid. Following the birth of a child, parents would be able to claim a credit for the tax year of the pregnancy.

Under the proposal, which would have the credit applied to payroll taxes, families could opt to receive the tax credits in installments throughout the year rather than as a lump sum. While conditional on the parents' having jobs and paying taxes, families would not need to clear the $2,500 income minimum to begin accessing the credit.

Hawley told Axios that the proposed boost conforms with what Vice President-elect JD Vance recommended earlier this year.

Vance told CBS News' Margaret Brennan in August, "What President Trump and I want to do on family policy is make it easier for families to start in the first place. We want to bring down housing costs so that if you have a baby, there's actually a place to raise that baby."

"We want to increase and expand the child tax credit. We want to make it easier for moms and dads to not be shocked by these surprise medical bills when they go to an out-of-network provider," continued Vance. "We're working on all this stuff, and I think that's ultimately how we turn down the temperature a little bit, is to make it easier to choose life in the first place."

When pressed for the particulars of the child tax credit, Vance told Brennan that he would "love to see a child tax credit that's $5,000 per child."

Bloomberg reported that an increase of the tax credit to $5,000 could cost over $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 and made it available to more middle-income families.

The child tax credit was temporarily expanded during the pandemic to $3,000 or $3,600, depending on the age of the child. Families who failed to file income taxes were similarly enabled to access the credit.

Following the demise of the pandemic boost, in a 357-70 January vote, the House passed legislation aimed at enhancing child tax credit eligibility for poor families.

The legislation was, however, killed by Republicans in the Senate, some of whom regarded the vote on the legislation as a "show vote" and others who suspected the bill would have transformed the CTC into a handout for families not paying much or any tax. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) indicated that the bill "isn't tax relief — it's a subsidy."

Hawley was among the three Republicans who voted in support of the tax package.

House Republicans have recently sounded the alarm that with the 2017 Trump tax cuts set to expire next year, the child tax credit could be slashed in half.

"Raising a family can be challenging enough without Washington pulling the rug out from under parents. But that’s exactly what will happen if the 2017 Trump tax cuts are allowed to expire next year. Forty million families will see their Child Tax Credit — a pro-family policy that was created, and later doubled, by Republicans to provide families relief and support — slashed in half," Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) stated last week. "Congress must act as soon as possible to eliminate this threat of a higher tax burden and give families peace of mind."

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