“Don’t be fooled: The debt explosion is not driven by waste, fraud, or foreign aid. Nor is it the result of a lack of revenue. It’s the direct result of reckless promises to retirees, the cost of health care, and an unwillingness to pay the bills honestly. For most of American history, debt fell when wars ended and peace returned. Since 1980, we’ve managed the opposite: peace without prudence and prosperity without restraint.”
Some leaders and elected representatives of the Tea Party really believed in their supposed motivations about government spending, debt, and pork. But for the most part, the Tea Party was a big, damn lie. If all those Tea Partiers really cared about such things, they would be protesting and organizing just as hard against Trump right now.
“President Donald Trump returned to the White House with a promise to slash spending by trillions of dollars and balance the federal budget.
But, as the first fiscal year of his second term came to a close, progress had not been made on either of those goals.
Despite the high-profile efforts of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the 2025 federal fiscal year ended with the federal government having spent more money than it did in the previous fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported
…
The CBO’s end-of-year report helpfully spells out which parts of the federal budget saw the biggest year-over-year spending increases. Overwhelmingly, and unsurprisingly, the biggest increases were for the so-called entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. For those three programs, spending increased by a combined $245 billion.
Other big spending increases were recorded by the Pentagon ($38 billion) and the Department of Veterans Affairs ($41 billion), where the increase was driven by the rising cost of health care facilities. Interest payments on the national debt rose by $80 billion compared to the previous fiscal year’s totals.
…
the CBO’s report serves to underline the same fiscal reality that plagued the DOGE project: Cutting silly government contracts and foreign aid might be a worthwhile effort, but that won’t make a dent in the budget deficit. Any serious effort at fiscal reform has to focus on the areas of the budget that are growing year over year—which, realistically, means looking at entitlement programs.
…
There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical that anything will change in the next three years. For one, Trump’s track record after nearly five years as president does not suggest he cares very much about actually cutting spending. The coming years will also bring greater headwinds to any attempts at reducing the deficit. That’s due in part to the expected increases in entitlement spending, as well as the fiscal effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which extended and expanded the 2017 tax cuts in ways that will likely add to the deficit.”
The Navy said they didn’t want any more littoral combat ships because they sucked, but Congress spent a bunch more money building more of them due to district politics.
“Natcast signed on 200 members — notably, Nvidia, Intel, Apple, Samsung, Google and AMD — to pursue breakthroughs in the foundational technology that powers virtually every modern asset from AI to defense systems. The group spent its year-and-a-half existence trying to set up and eventually run a national hub where that R&D would happen, along with programs to ease the semiconductor industry’s severe talent crunch.
Lutnick’s clawback produced deep uncertainty while companies, researchers and lawmakers scrambled to understand where it leaves over a dozen awardees, plus the remaining billions. Nearly $2 billion was promised to infrastructure, research and workforce projects in states like Arizona, New York, California and Texas.
…
The Commerce head has focused its dealmaking heavily on chipmakers. His new “investment accelerator” was handed supervision of tens of billions of dollars in CHIPS subsidies and ordered to negotiate “much better deals than those of the previous administration.” The undermining of Natcast followed an agreement to grant the U.S. a 10 percent stake in Intel, when Lutnick redid the terms of its CHIPS award.
Seven people, including from three Capitol Hill offices, raised concerns with the possibility that renegotiations for this $7.4 billion may involve similar government equity stakes. People also questioned whether requirements to share revenue from research patents could be under consideration. Lutnick spoke about subjecting universities to the idea the day after he voided the Natcast contract.
…
When the agency started soliciting proposals for R&D funding last week, it told applicants, as a condition of an award, they “may be required to issue to the Department equity, warrants, licenses to intellectual property, royalties or revenue sharing, or other such instruments to ensure a return on investment.” The guidelines do not mention the national hub, yet cite the law that established it.
LC: If we need these companies to produce important technology, then we don’t need special deals to help them. We should help them because it is good for the country. The technology will produce a better economy and therefore more normal tax revenue. If we want these companies to pay us back directly, just make sure they are paying their normal taxes.
…
“They decided to burn two years of delay to try to create their own thing,” said a former Trump official, who, like several others for this report, was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. “While Natcast was not a Republican initiative and wasn’t how we wanted it go, I think it was better than burning down the whole system and starting over again.”
…
“The companies are scared,” said a person familiar with the industry dynamics. “Companies want CHIPS funding, and they’re very afraid that if they speak out, they’ll lose it. No one wants to come into the crosshairs of the administration.”
…
“There’s just a feeling of, for many of us, a year’s work going down the tubes, taxpayer dollars being flushed down the toilet,” said one person closely associated with Natcast.”
…
An industry lobbyist said, “those who stand to lose the most in this process will be start-ups and research centers that were at the cutting edge of innovation.””
“When Democrats pushed the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) through Congress in 2021—with hardly any bipartisan support—Donald Trump warned Republicans not to vote for it. “Patriots will never forget!” said Trump, who described the bill as “a loser for the USA, a terrible deal, and makes the Republicans look weak, foolish, and dumb.”
Patriots may never forget, but it appears that Trump—who is now taking credit for projects funded by the bill—has.”
“Aside from his norm-breaking appeal, Milei’s approach is far different than Trump’s. Milei vowed free-market reforms to overturn decades of populist Perónism—a statist ideology that infected Argentina’s politics since Juan Domingo Perón won the presidency in 1946. His authoritarian approach has dominated the country’s politics for 80 years, with Milei beating Perónist opponents.
By contrast, Trump is overturning America’s historical embrace of free markets and free trade. He sets himself up as an all-powerful charismatic leader, inserts the feds deeply into the economy, and expands the reach of police and military forces. Like Perón, he’s doing it in the name of the “working class.” The U.S. Department of State once described Perónism as a “vague concept of social justice in some ways more akin to a religion than a political movement,” which sounds eerily like MAGA.
Perónism is more avowedly leftist than Trumpism, but MAGA’s “right-wing” policies sometimes seem indistinguishable from left-wing ones. Argentina’s populist movement has been successful at one thing: turning one of the world’s wealthiest countries into an impoverished basket case. Americans think of Argentina as a benighted third-world nation. But as economist Dan Mitchell explains, it was the 10th wealthiest nation in the world when Perón took over. It was often viewed as a European nation that happened to be in Latin America.
…
On an unrelated note, Milei isn’t smitten by overseas authoritarians, unlike our president. Overall, Milei is using his power to loosen the government’s grip, whereas Trump—although he occasionally reduces regulations—is centralizing government power. The two men have bad hair and unpredictable temperaments, but beyond that the similarities dissipate quickly.”
“Flush with cash from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has spent millions of dollars on flashy custom SUVs and trucks the agency says are essential for public safety and recruitment efforts to meet President Donald Trump’s mass deportation goals.
Government contracts made public and reviewed by The Washington Post reveal that ICE has contracted more than $2.4 million for Chevrolet Tahoes, Ford Expeditions, and other vehicles, as well as custom graphic wraps. The gold-detailed wraps will include the words “DEFEND THE HOMELAND,” according to a social media post by the contractor, Maryland’s AP Tinting & Graphics, along with the words “INTEGRITY,” “COURAGE,” and “ENDURANCE.”
…
The cost of the new ICE vehicles is in addition to the over $700,000 the agency spent on a pair of trucks designed to mimic Trump’s private jet and used in a Department of Homeland Security social media post on August 14. The wrapped GMC Yukon SUV and Ford Raptor pickup truck were pictured stationed in front of national monuments and government buildings around D.C., with the caption “We will have our country back.” The trucks were also showcased in a recruitment ad posted on social media featuring music by the rapper DaBaby, with the lyrics “My heart so cold I think I’m done with ice (Uh, brr)” and “Better not pull up with no knife (Okay)/’Cause I bring guns to fights.”
…
The insistence that ICE must spend millions in taxpayer dollars on gaudy vehicles is ironic, considering the agency’s M.O. of using masked, plain-clothed agents in unmarked vehicles to target and arrest undocumented immigrants and violate Americans’ rights. But just as ICE’s immigration crackdown hasn’t really gotten dangerous people off the streets, neither will its marketing ploy protect public safety.”