The 4th Way: No to DNC/UBI, GOP omnibus bills, or Musk's BTC party. Yes to pro-America tariffs & building a self-reliant economy.
  • Healthcare Provisions Within the “Big Beautiful Bill”: Exacerbating Failed Policies

    The comprehensive legislation, dubbed by some the “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB), includes a substantial set of provisions pertaining to healthcare. These proposals aim to reform Medicaid, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and other health-related sectors. However, rather than offering genuine solutions, these healthcare sections largely entrench and expand failed federal programs. Market-based and state-level solutions are the appropriate path forward; continuing with the current trajectory will only worsen our $37 trillion national debt and further degrade our healthcare system.

    Medicaid and CHIP: Entrenching a Failed System

    A significant portion of the bill addresses Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), programs that have demonstrably failed to deliver efficient, fiscally responsible healthcare.

    • Enrollment and Eligibility: Provisions imposing moratoriums on recent rules for Medicaid/CHIP enrollment (Sec. 44101, 44102), while citing concerns over states’ ability to remove ineligible enrollees, tinker at the edges of a fundamentally broken system. Robust income verification, streamlined through tax data, is essential, but this addresses symptoms, not the core disease of these programs. The argument that the delayed rules could weaken verification standards only underscores the inherent vulnerability to fraud and improper payments within these federal structures.
    • The mandate for states to improve enrollee address information and participate in a federal system to prevent multi-state enrollment by 2029 (Sec. 44103) is a minor, albeit logical, measure within a system that requires wholesale replacement.
    • Quarterly screenings against the Death Master File (Sec. 44104) and enhanced provider screening (Sec. 44105, 44106) are basic anti-fraud measures that should have been rigorously implemented decades ago, and their inclusion now highlights past failures.
    • Increasing eligibility redeterminations to every six months (Sec. 44108) will inevitably create more bureaucracy, not genuine integrity, within these failed expansion programs. Stringent initial enrollment criteria are necessary, but the programs themselves are the problem.
    • Proposed revisions to home equity limits for Medicaid long-term care (Sec. 44109) are an egregious component of a system that forces asset depletion. The link between Medicaid and long-term care services must be severed entirely.
    • Prohibiting Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for individuals without verified immigration status (Sec. 44110) is a necessary, though insufficient, step toward fiscal discipline.
    • Conversely, efforts to “streamline” enrollment for out-of-state providers (Sec. 44302) are a pathway to inefficient contracting and cronyism, typical of bloated federal programs.
    • Spending and Program Integrity:
    • The removal of the good faith waiver for certain erroneous excess Medicaid payments (Sec. 44107) is an admission of the rampant improper payments that plague the system, reinforcing the argument that Medicaid must be abolished.
    • Modifying retroactive Medicaid/CHIP coverage (Sec. 44122) is a trivial adjustment.
    • Federal intervention in pharmacy payments (Sec. 44123, 44124) is an unacceptable overreach. Free markets, not government dictates, ensure fair pharmacy pricing.
    • The prohibition of federal Medicaid/CHIP funding for gender transition procedures (Sec. 44125, Sec. 112030) is correct; such funding has no place at the federal level and should be entirely a private matter, with no exceptions for federal dollars.
    • Prohibiting federal payments to “prohibited entities” in family planning (Sec. 44126) is a sound policy; such funding decisions should be eliminated from public coffers altogether.
    • Sunsetting increased FMAP for new Medicaid expansion states (Sec. 44131) and imposing a moratorium on new provider taxes (Sec. 44132) are welcome, as no new taxes should support these failing programs.
    • Revising payments for state-directed Medicaid based on Medicare rates (Sec. 44133) perpetuates federal price-fixing. Medicaid must be dismantled, replaced by a system focused on transparently priced emergency and preventative services, potentially leveraging innovations like robotic-assisted procedures to reduce costs and liability.
    • Mandating Medicaid community engagement requirements (Sec. 44141) is a gross federal intrusion into matters that are exclusively state or local concerns.
    • Modifying cost-sharing for Medicaid expansion individuals (Sec. 44142) is merely propping up a failed expansion of a failed program using flawed metrics like the federal poverty line. The entire edifice needs to be replaced with free-market solutions.
    (more…)
  • Big Beautiful Bill: Critiquing Expenditures & Rescissions with a New Federalism Vision

    This article will dissect key components of the bill, reinforcing a fiscally conservative perspective focused on efficiency, market-based solutions, and a reduction in federal overreach.

    A recurring theme will be the devolution of certain programs and responsibilities to the states. It is important to note that many of the responsibilities envisioned for state management are relatively minor in scope, aiming to return local control over local matters. However, even in these areas, and certainly in any more significant transfers, fiscal prudence is paramount. This necessary shift away from federal overreach cannot be a license for states to engage in fiscal malfeasance, particularly when such actions have broader national implications, such as contributing to inflationary pressures through unfunded liabilities or chronic deficit spending.

    To ensure accountability without fostering inter-state conflict, any transfer of responsibilities must be accompanied by a carefully designed mechanism for mutual accountability. This system would involve regular reviews, based on clear, objective, and pre-agreed metrics, of state performance in managing these devolved areas. Should a state demonstrably and significantly mismanage its obligations, leading to measurable negative externalities for other states โ€“ for example, by directly exacerbating national inflation through irresponsible fiscal policies directly tied to these devolved functions โ€“ a transparent and impartially administered penalty system could be considered. Such penalties, if ever deemed necessary, should be narrowly targeted and proportionate, based on an automatic formula and/or pardons, to avoid politicization and ensure they serve as a corrective measure rather than a tool for “financial war.” The primary goal is to incentivize sound governance, not to create adversarial relationships between states.

    (more…)
  • Part III: Analyzing the “Big Beautiful Bill”: A Look at New Taxes, Fees, and Revenue Raisers

    The proposed “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB) introduces a sweeping range of new taxes, fees, and revenue-generating measures that demand close scrutiny. This article examines key provisions, aligning with a vision that prioritizes American interests and fiscal responsibility.

    Measures to Potentially Bolster American Interests:

    Several proposed measures in the BBB could be seen as aligning with an “America First” approach:

    • Excise Tax on Remittance Transfers (Sec. 112104): This provision introduces a new tax on money sent abroad. Such a measure could be viewed as a way to retain capital within the country and generate revenue from outflows.
    • New Immigration-Related Fees (Title VII, Part 1): The bill imposes new fees for various immigration processes, including asylum applications, employment authorizations for certain non-citizens, and for sponsors of unaccompanied children who fail to meet court appearance requirements. These fees ensure that the immigration system is not an undue burden on the taxpayer and that those who use the system contribute to its costs.
    • Fee on Natural Gas Exports and Imports to Non-FTA Countries (Sec. 41002): This establishes a fee on natural gas trade with countries not part of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the U.S. This is a strategic move to favor trade with FTA partners and generate revenue from other international gas transactions.
    • Modification of Vessel Tonnage Duties (Sec. 100002): Changes to vessel tonnage duties (taxes on ships entering U.S. ports based on their cargo capacity) updates these fees to better reflect modern shipping practices and ensure fair contribution from international maritime commerce.
    • Termination or Restriction of Clean Energy Tax Credits (Title XI, Subtitle C, Part 1): The bill calls for ending or limiting various clean energy tax credits, such as those for electric vehicles, alternative fuel refueling property, and energy-efficient home improvements. This aligns with the perspective that such credits may represent market distortions or handouts and that their removal levels the playing field.
    • Increased Excise Tax on Private Foundation Investment Income (Sec. 112022): An increase in the excise tax on the net investment income of certain private foundations, based on asset size, is proposed. This is a way to ensure that large, tax-exempt foundations contribute more to public revenue, particularly if there are concerns about how these funds are being utilized or if they are perceived as benefiting from arrangements that do not primarily serve domestic charitable purposes.
    (more…)
  • Business Tax Devolutions: A Critical Dissection of Title XI, Subtitle B, Parts 1 & 2

    The recently proposed business tax measures under Title XI, Subtitle B, Parts 1 & 2, are presented as beneficial reforms. However, a closer examination reveals a series of provisions that range from questionably effective to deeply detrimental to American interests and fiscal responsibility.

    Sec. 111001: Extension of Special Depreciation Allowance (Bonus Depreciation) โ€“ A Recipe for Misallocation

    This section proposes extending 100% bonus depreciation for property acquired after January 19, 2025, and placed in service before January 1, 2030. This isn’t sound economic policy; it’s a blatant handout, likely to benefit well-connected insiders. Reports of companies already stockpiling assets suggest this will merely accelerate a pre-existing rush to capitalize on a temporary distortion. Such a policy actively encourages a misallocation of resources, incentivizing potentially unnecessary capital expenditure over more sustainable investments or debt reduction. It’s a short-sighted pump for certain sectors that will only exacerbate our national debt, not alleviate it.

    (more…)
  • Reforming Individual Income Taxes: A Focused Approach (Part I of a BBB Critique)

    The current discourse around individual income taxes is cluttered with temporary fixes, unpopular mandates, and provisions that miss the mark for many Americans. Instead of a sprawling bill, a more focused approach is needed, prioritizing permanent, common-sense changes while jettisoning controversial or ineffective measures. Hereโ€™s a look at what such a refined individual income tax bill should, and shouldn’t, include.

    Core Tax Provisions: Stability and Simplicity

    At the heart of a sensible tax reform should be the permanent extension of several key provisions initially from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This includes making permanent the modified individual income tax rates, the increased standard deduction, and the termination of personal exemptions. These measures offer a baseline of stability for taxpayers.

    However, the idea of a temporary enhancement to the standard deduction, proposed for taxable years 2025-2028, should be rejected. Such short-term measures are often gimmicks, creating fiscal uncertainty and providing future leverage for increased government spending without addressing the immediate need for significant fiscal discipline now.

    (more…)
  • Honey, JPM Shrunk the Collateral: Betting on Crypto ETFs Like It’s Not 2008 Anew

    Honey, JPM Shrunk the Collateral: Betting on Crypto ETFs Like It’s Not 2008 Anew

    JPMorgan Chase’s recent decision to allow trading and wealth management clients to use crypto Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) as collateral for loans is a concerning development that introduces multiple layers of risk. This move, starting with BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, integrates a volatile and complex asset class into traditional lending practices, which will have significant negative consequences.

    Custody and Ownership Concerns: “Not Your Keys, Not Your Crypto”

    A primary concern with crypto ETFs is the nature of ownership and custody.

    Lack of Direct Ownership: When investing in a crypto ETF, individuals do not own the underlying cryptocurrency directly (Investopedia). Instead, they own shares of a fund that holds the crypto. This means investors cannot take custody of their share of the crypto assets; they can only trade the ETF shares.

    Reliance on Custodians: Crypto ETFs depend on custodians to safeguard the underlying digital assets. This reliance introduces significant risks:

    Single Point of Failure: Crypto ETFs rely on custodians, such as Coinbase, which holds a significant percentage of Bitcoin for these ETFs. This concentration is concerning, as any major operational issue, security breach, or insolvency at the custodians will have disastrous consequences for the ETFs and their investors.

    (more…)
  • Federal Reserve Notes vs. United States Notes

    Federal Reserve Notes vs. United States Notes

    United States Notes differed from the later Federal Reserve Notes primarily in their issuing authority and initial backing.

    How United States Notes Initially Worked: United States Notes were first authorized by the First Legal Tender Act in 1862 during the Civil War. They were issued directly by the U.S. Treasury to pay for war expenses and other government obligations. This meant the government itself was putting this money into circulation, essentially as a “bill of credit,” without involving lending or borrowing from a central bank. Initially, these notes, popularly known as “greenbacks,” were a form of fiat currency, meaning their value was based on government decree rather than being backed by a specific commodity like gold or silver that could be redeemed on demand. However, later, some United States Notes were redeemable for precious metal after the specie resumption of 1879. The early notes carried an obligation stating they were legal tender for all debts, public and private, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

    A Silver Certificate
    (more…)

accountability AI aviation Bankruptcy Blockchain border security China congress COVID-19 crypto Cryptocurrency Donald Trump Economics First Amendment fiscal policy FOIA geopolitics Governance government spending Healthcare Reform Holy Land Five homeland security ICE Immigration Journalism legislation Lucira Health national debt National Security Politics Propaganda public health regulation Risk SEC Stablecoins surveillance Tariffs taxation tax reform TikTok Ban transparency TSA US Politics Zohran Mamdani