Tag: legislation

  • Performative Wreckage

    Performative Wreckage
    noun

    A political strategy involving the deliberate sabotage of constitutional order and governmental stability for the purpose of personal notoriety. Its practitioners abandon the duty of legislation in favor of headline-grabbing stunts that usurp executive functions, showing a reckless disregard for the nation’s welfare—akin to imposing ruinous economic policies merely to revel in the ensuing chaos.

    See also: The “Chaos Caucus” (Nancy Mace, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, Anna Paulina Luna, Tim Burchett).

  • Crypto for Conflict: A Proposal to Restrict Digital Assets to Wartime Use

    Crypto for Conflict: A Proposal to Restrict Digital Assets to Wartime Use

    Many have spoken about the need for American leadership in technology and the potential of digital assets. Vice President Vance has a point about paying attention to what global competitors like China are doing in the crypto space. However, the current conversation around cryptocurrency for everyday infrastructure and investment is a distraction from its most strategic and vital use case: national security.

    Instead of trying to fit this technology into a peacetime financial system, we should be harnessing its power for when we need it most. I propose we treat the infrastructure of cryptocurrency like a strategic military asset, to be deployed only in times of war, much like war bonds. This isn’t about the coins themselves, but about the underlying technology and ASICs – a decentralized, resilient network that can be activated by the military upon a formal declaration of war.

    This approach addresses the national security risks of unregulated crypto, while giving the U.S. a powerful economic and strategic tool in a time of conflict. It’s not about stifling innovation; it’s about focusing that innovation where it can have the most decisive impact for our nation.

    Proposed Legislation: The Wartime Digital Asset Act

    A BILL

    To restrict the use of cryptocurrencies and stablecoins to times of declared war, and for other purposes.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the “Wartime Digital Asset Act”.

    (more…)
  • While Politicians Play Games, Cryptocurrency Threatens Our Financial Future

    While Politicians Play Games, Cryptocurrency Threatens Our Financial Future

    Our nation faces a profound and immediate threat from a predatory, globalist financial scheme. This is the real crisis. I am talking about cryptocurrency. My opposition is not rooted in partisan politics, but in a firm belief that we must protect the United States from this clear and present danger.

    These digital tokens, propped up by nothing more than speculation and hype, are a cancer on our financial system. They are the preferred tool for illicit activity, riddled with fraud, and often mined in countries hostile to American interests. The chaos unleashed by figures like Sam Bankman-Fried, whose FTX exchange imploded in a storm of corruption and foreign entanglements, is not an outlier—it is the inevitable outcome of a system with no intrinsic value. So-called “stablecoins” are a ticking time bomb, and the entire ecosystem is a playground for market manipulation that puts the savings of everyday Americans at risk.

    This is the fire that needs to be extinguished. Yet, what is the response from Washington? Political theater.

    Case in point: H.R. 3573, cynically titled the “Stop TRUMP in Crypto Act.” This bill is a perfect illustration of a political establishment that is unable and unwilling to grasp the scale of the threat. It is a weak, performative gesture that tinkers around the edges of ethics for the political elite while completely ignoring the fundamental dangers that cryptocurrencies pose to the financial stability of our country.

    (more…)
  • The Autopen Republic: An Exposé on Legislative Negligence

    The Autopen Republic: An Exposé on Legislative Negligence

    The assertion that “no one has ever read an entire bill before voting on it” rings with a cynical truth that many Americans feel deep in their bones. It’s a damning indictment of a broken system. This isn’t about lofty ideals or the complexities of modern governance; it’s about a fundamental failure of duty. We demand proof of review, a guarantee that our laws are not passed by autopilot. The era of excuses is over.

    By the Numbers: A Crisis of Volume and Verbiage

    The sheer scale of legislation has become a convenient shield for lawmakers. But a look at the data reveals a problem that has spiraled out of control.

    • The Longest Bill: The record for the longest bill ever passed goes to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. At an obscene 5,593 pages, it was a behemoth spending bill combining COVID-19 relief with a $1.4 trillion omnibus package. To expect any single human to read, comprehend, and critically analyze this mountain of text before voting is a physical and cognitive impossibility. It was signed into law by President Trump on December 27, 2020, after passing both houses of Congress with large bipartisan majorities just days earlier.
    • The Shortest Bill: In stark contrast, some legislation can be very brief. In 2017, a bill was introduced in the House with a single sentence: “The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.” While this bill did not pass, it demonstrates that brevity can be a tool for radical change.
    • The “Average” Bill – A Rising Tide of Text: The very concept of an “average” bill is misleading, but the trend is undeniable. In the 1947-48 session, the average law was just 2.5 pages. Today, that average has ballooned to nearly 18 pages. More complex legislation often exceeds 1,000 pages. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, for example, clocked in at over 2,500 pages.
    (more…)
  • 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 – for example, by directly exacerbating national inflation through irresponsible fiscal policies directly tied to these devolved functions – 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…)