New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is already having success in redistributing wealth, right out of his city. It seems the socialist mayor’s creepy video celebrating Tax Day and directly calling out billionaire CEO Ken Griffin as a target for a new pied-à-terre tax may have backfired. While the slickly produced video—where he gleefully spoke about taxing the “rich”—may have been good short-term politics, it could ultimately create a financial doom cascade for a New York City already facing a “historic” budget crisis. According to a report in the New York Post, Griffin and other “billionaire bigwigs” are earnestly considering leaving the city, or at the very least looking to make future investments elsewhere. “The splashy one-two punch of Citadel CEO Ken Griffin and Apollo Global Management honcho Marc Rowan pledging to expand outside New York City has been coupled with a silent wave of businesses ‘quiet quitting’ the city over its hostile environment,” according to the Post. Unsurprisingly, Griffin and other business leaders are looking to places like Florida and Texas for future investment opportunities. “Now what the mayor of New York has made clear to my partners, and principally my New York partners, is that we need to double down on our bet in Miami because we want to be in a state that embraces business, embraces education, embraces personal freedom and liberty,” Griffin said at the 2026 Milken Institute Conference on Tuesday. The New York Post reported that some business leaders are desperately trying to get others to stay in the city, but it’s not working. It’s hard to blame Griffin and company for looking for trying to escape New York. As he noted in a recent interview, this isn’t just about money. “What really upset me about [Mamdani’s] video was the fact that he put me in harm’s way,” Griffin recently said on CNBC. “You know, he seems to have forgotten that the CEO of another American company was assassinated just blocks from where I live in New York. And to put any citizen in harm’s way is just inappropriate for one of our political leaders.” Griffin was referring to UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, who was shot dead in the street. His killer has been glamorized by the bloodthirsty Left. It’s important to note that it isn’t just the super-rich who are pulling up stakes from Mamdaniville. New York is experiencing a significant and accelerating exodus of residents. As a Citizens Budget Commission study noted, many of those departing had a higher income per capita than the people moving to the city. But these residents aren’t just billionaires, far from it. They are middle-class people who ultimately must bear the burden of government funding that simply can’t be fully covered by exploiting the 1%. That mass departure means lower tax revenues. And lower tax revenues mean that Mamdani’s lengthening list of government programs can’t get funded without further draconian wealth extraction policies. Hence the doom cycle. Mamdani insists that he can find the money, but there’s no doubt that if businesses and residents continue to flee the city he’s going to eventually run into hard financial reality. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul already sort of learned this lesson as she once celebrated her opponents leaving the state and is now begging former New Yorkers to come back from Florida to pay for government programs. What a great sales pitch, right? What’s happening in New York, Seattle, and these other blue cities dabbling with socialism is only too predictable. If your whole political pitch is that you can just give away free this and free that by taxing the rich, then you kind of need the rich, right? Gleefully celebrating how you are going to squeeze them dry or giggling at the idea that they may decamp for greener pastures is a fine way to accelerate the looming economic catastrophe. Socialist countries often get around this problem for a while by simply making it difficult for people to leave, by stepping up the authoritarianism. I have no doubt many blue cities and states will try to do that in the coming years. But they’re already running into the problem that their red state neighbors promise something better. They offer lower taxes, reduced cost of living, more law and order, and better government services to boot. “Red states are racing each other to compete for growth—cutting taxes, slashing regulations, enacting government-union reforms,” Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel wrote on Thursday. “By contrast, progressives are doubling down on taxes and redistribution. At least eight states now have a ‘millionaire’s tax’—several created in just the past year—while at least a dozen more sprint to adopt similar taxes. Blue states are promising even bigger handouts, more ‘crackdowns’ on business, greater union power, fewer cops. Yep. The Democrat “affordability” pitch has been nothing but a farce. New York City voters will pay the price for not figuring that out sooner.

A curriculum audit for an Arizona school district last year identified a resource that urged teachers to direct students to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map” and avoid the websites of “hate groups” or their sympathizers. Critics have faulted the SPLC for putting mainstream conservative and Christian groups, such as Moms for Liberty, Turning Point USA, PragerU, Focus on the Family, Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, and others, on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. The Lake Havasu Unified School District told The Daily Signal that no teacher ever used the resource, which the district said had been created by Savvas Learning Company. The Lesson Citing SPLC The curriculum audit, prepared by J.C. Adams Consulting, cites Savvas’ high school materials for U.S. history, named “Creating Inclusive Classrooms.” “Teachers are told to ‘Direct students to the websites of organizations that track and monitor hate groups, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League and ensure that they avoid visiting the websites of these hate groups or their sympathizers,'” the audit notes. “Students are thus directed to organizations accused of far-left advocacy and who attack critics of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” The audit lists a few organizations on the “hate map,” including Turning Point USA, PragerU, the Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, Defending Education, Moms for America, and Eagle Forum. “Students are to learn that the following organizations are ‘hate groups’ (akin to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis) [and] teachers are to prohibit students from visiting their websites,” the audit notes. The SPLC does not name all of these groups as “hate groups.” Some, such as Defending Education, appear on the “hate map” as “antigovernment extremist groups,” but they still appear on the map alongside Klan chapters. The SPLC has stated that the map shows the “infrastructure upholding white supremacy.” Lake Havasu School District Responds Jason Usry, the school district’s communications coordinator, confirmed the report’s authenticity to The Daily Signal. Adams, the consultant who wrote the report, received “access to teacher-accessible online materials,” but did not visit classrooms or meet with individual teachers to learn how they used the materials, Usry explained. The Savvas lesson in question “was ultimately found within supplemental materials that teachers do not use,” the district spokesman said. When reviewing the lesson, the district “determined that staff were not using the referenced material for instruction and were not familiar with where it was located.” “During classroom instruction, teachers use lesson PowerPoints and instructional materials that do not reference the SPLC or other activist organizations,” Usry added. School board President David Rose said no teacher used the material, to his knowledge. “To the best of my knowledge, the specific Savvas lesson being referenced was never available to our teachers for classroom instruction, and I am not aware of any teacher within our district ever using or presenting that material in a classroom setting,” he told The Daily Signal. “Our schools exist to educate students in core academics, not to push political ideology or direct students toward activist organizations,” he added. “Parents should be able to trust that their children are receiving a quality education in an environment focused on learning, achievement, and student success.” He noted that the board ordered the comprehensive curriculum audit and “took immediate action on anything that raised concerns.” The district acted “to ensure any inappropriate, politically driven, or activist based content was removed from curriculum access,” and one of its departments “went even further to verify that this type of material would not be accessible to teachers or students.” Savvas did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time. SPLC’s Legal Troubles Last month, a federal grand jury indicted the SPLC on fraud charges for allegedly paying Klan members while fundraising on combatting the Klan. The SPLC pleaded not guilty in court Thursday. While the center has claimed that it only paid Klan members as part of an “informant program,” the indictment alleges that the SPLC directed the activities of “field sources” in a manner that would promote white supremacy. Following the indictment, major financial institutions such as Fidelity have prevented donor-advised funds from going to the SPLC. The indictment has also drawn renewed attention to the SPLC’s influence in schools. Its education program, Learning for Justice, publishes materials for teachers. Some school districts have adopted Learning for Justice’s “Social Justice Standards.” A Moms for Liberty leader spoke in protest against this policy at a Maryland school board meeting Thursday. SPLC IN SCHOOLSA huge thank you to @Moms4Liberty leader @rosalindhanson for calling out MCPS's support for SPLC at the school board meeting today!She called out an MCPS leader demonizing Moms for Liberty and held up my book, "Making Hate Pay"https://t.co/kYpCa1yTyl pic.twitter.com/92G42jsfNA— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 7, 2026

A pair of bills sits on Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s desk that, if enacted, would expand public sector union power at the expense of taxpayers. Late last month, the Virginia House and Senate sent HB1263 and SB378 to the governor for her signature. Both bills would remove longstanding prohibitions on collective bargaining for public sector employees, paving the way for widespread unionization. The legislation would also create the Public Employee Relations Board, a five-member body tasked with certifying union representation, defining bargaining units, and adjudicating labor disputes. Although localities have been permitted to authorize collective bargaining since 2020, the proposed legislation would make the new board the mandatory arbiter in all disputes involving government workers. That change would shift authority away from local governments and centralize it in Richmond. Indeed, this transfer of power from community to capital has caused consternation between Spanberger and local mayors. The mayors of Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach urged the governor to reject the bills, claiming “We believe these challenges are not minor technical fixes, but rather fundamental concerns that warrant a more deliberate and collaborative approach.” The bills previously reached former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who vetoed them, arguing that mandatory collective bargaining for government employees would increase costs for taxpayers and degrade public services. And those costs are truly astronomical. One need only look at the disastrous impact teachers unions have had on public education to extrapolate why allowing a cartel of public sector employees to dictate policy is a bad idea. In 2018, the United Teachers of Los Angeles demanded a retroactive 6% pay increase, an amount that would have drained the Los Angeles Unified School District’s $1.7 billion reserve in a single swipe. They eventually achieved a 3% retroactive pay raise with a 3% total pay raise by holding the city’s students and taxpayers hostage via strike. All for a school system that hemorrhages nearly 14,000 students a year and passes just 40% of them on to college. What a trade-off! As further proof of the exorbitant nature of public union demands, the Texas Public Policy Foundation estimated that unfunded state and local pension liability negotiated by public unions is around $1.5 trillion, an eye-watering amount guaranteed by incestuous negotiations between unions and the politicians they elect. Past simply gouging taxpayers, public sector unions can negatively impact public safety. In a 2007 paper, Heritage Foundation analysts James Carafano and James Sherk argued that collective bargaining at the Department of Homeland Security could hinder operational flexibility. “Collective bargaining would force the government to trade off between greater security and union demands,” they wrote, noting that many public-sector unions prioritize seniority-based systems over merit-based advancement. But perhaps Spanberger needs someone from her own side of the aisle to prove public sector unions are a disaster. She need look no further than arch-progressive Franklin Roosevelt. “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” Roosevelt said. “Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied.” Spanberger now has the opportunity to follow her predecessor’s lead and veto the legislation. There is some indication she might, as she has already proposed amendments, though the legislature rejected them. The real test comes at the end of the 30-day review period, when she must either sign the bills, veto them, or quietly allow them to become law without her signature. A veto appears unlikely. Her objections thus far have focused on implementation timelines rather than on opposition to public sector unions themselves. Spanberger pushed “allowing for state employees to go first in the process of going through creating their bargaining units if they choose to collectively bargain and really ensuring that we have a process that works. She added, “And then 18 months later would be the point in time when local public sector employees could begin their own process.” We’ve seen this play out before. Public sector unions serve no one but themselves, making life worse for the average American while filling their own pockets. Gov. Spanberger would be right to veto this legislation and save Virginia’s taxpayers both headaches and their hard-earned cash. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

The abortion issue won’t go away, as so many politicians wish it would. It persists because the discussion and debate are about our very existence. What is life? The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade, which has defined the abortion landscape in the United States since 1973. That landscape defined a right to abortion protected by the U.S. Constitution. Dobbs reversed this, concluding that the Constitution contains no such right, directing that the issue be “returned back to the people and their elected representatives.” In the wake of this, each state has taken initiative to define its own abortion regime. But can that really work? It didn’t work in the first great issue that tore apart our nation: slavery. Are all men equal in the eyes of God? If yes, then aren’t all equal in the eyes of our government? Slavery accepted the inferiority of some. We ultimately fought and rejected the premise that equality of all in the eyes of our Creator could be different from state to state. And so is the case with abortion. Our Declaration of Independence states that we give the government responsibility to protect our God-given right to life. How can this understanding be different from state to state? Understanding of life and its nature and sanctity defines the core fabric of our country. It is a national value. We’re now dealing with this issue in an abortion-inducing drug called mifepristone. When the drug first became available there was a requirement that it only be dispensed in a personal visit to a physician. This was relaxed temporarily in 2021 under COVID-19 and then made permanent in 2023 during the Biden administration. But can we really allow anyone to go online and order a drug that destroys an unborn child, no different than going online to order a book or a pair of shoes? We need a doctor to prescribe something as basic as an antibiotic. Given the current reality in the country in which some states ban abortion and some states permit it, how do we deal with those living in a state in which abortion is illegal ordering mifepristone online from a provider in a state where abortion is legal? Stories now abound regarding women’s integrity being undermined by those wanting her to abort against her wishes, e.g., a boyfriend wanting his girlfriend to abort against her wishes who furtively slips her the drug. There are also wide-ranging opinions about how safe the drug is. The state of Louisiana sued the Food and Drug Administration last year, claiming legal availability of mifepristone through the mail undermined the abortion ban in their state. Last week, Louisiana achieved a ruling in its favor in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Now the manufacturers of the drug have petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging the circuit court decision, and Justice Samuel Alito has put a temporary hold on it while the court considers the request. The technical issues of why the ban on dispensing the drug online, without a doctor visit, should be upheld—undermining bans on abortion in various states, exposure of women to someone surreptitiously causing her to take the drug against her wishes, safety of the drug—are all relevant. But most relevant is the most core issue of what sanctity of life means to our nation. The social problems that abound in our nation today reflect the culture of Roe v. Wade, which put the choice of life on a plane with planning one’s next vacation. Sex without love. Relationships without commitment. Childbearing without marriage. Bringing children without responsibility for them. We now have an aging nation with marriage, family and children disappearing. In other words, as the sanctity of life has been comprised, our future has been compromised. Our present and our future are what is at stake. Nothing less. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, in the recent case that restricted the use of race in designing a Louisiana congressional district. Thomas wrote: “This Court should never have interpreted [Section)] 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups ‘an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.’ … By doing so, the Court led legislatures and courts to ‘systematically divid[e] the country into electoral districts along racial lines.’ … ‘Blacks (we)re drawn into ‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives’; Hispanics [we]re drawn into Hispanic districts and given ‘Hispanic representatives’; and so on. That interpretation rendered [Section] 2 ‘repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.’ … Today’s decision should largely put an end to this ‘disastrous misadventure’ in voting-rights jurisprudence.” Critics argue the ruling is not colorblind in effect because race-neutral districting can dilute minority voting power. But this assumes a) non-black and non-Hispanic voters would not vote for black or Hispanic candidates; and b) the interests of black and Hispanic voters can only be pursued by black and Hispanic members of Congress. For Democrats, the effect of this ruling could be politically catastrophic. A report from Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund said: “Combined with Republicans’ mid-decade gerrymandering, a ruling gutting Section 2 could help secure an additional 27 safe Republican U.S. House seats when compared to the 2024 House maps—at least 19 directly tied to the loss of Section 2.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said: “Instead of protecting the ability for American citizens to freely cast their ballot, Republican extremists have embraced voter suppression and racial gerrymandering to desperately cling to power. The corrupt conservative majority on the Supreme Court appointed by Donald Trump has taken a blowtorch to the Voting Rights Act. Why? The extremists need to cheat to win.” It is not clear how removing race as a criterion in constructing congressional districts amounts to “cheating.” Nor is it clear how this majority of justices, nominated by Republican presidents, renders the court “corrupt.” As for “Republican extremists embracing voter suppression,” Jeffries presumably means voter ID laws. But polls show a large majority of blacks support voter ID by percentages close to those of whites. Georgia, in 2021, enacted voter ID and voter-integrity laws called by President Joe Biden “worse than Jim Crow—it’s Jim Eagle.” But the percentage of blacks who voted exceeded the black voting percentages of most pre-2021 Georgia elections. Let’s turn to Jeffries’ accusation about Republicans’ supposed use of “racial gerrymandering.” In 2017, Politico wrote: “Former [Obama] Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday officially launched the National Democratic Redistricting Committee … as the center of Democratic rebuilding in the era of President-elect Donald Trump and as Democrats’ main hope to roll back Republican gains in state legislatures and prepare for redistricting in 2021. The end goal: House majorities in Congresses elected after 2020.” To that end, Eric Holder supported race-conscious redistricting efforts designed to increase black electoral influence. About a district in Alabama in 2024, for example, the Associated Press wrote: “The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which Holder chairs, supported the legal battle that led to the district being redrawn into a competitive seat where Black voters have the opportunity to influence the outcome.” Finally, about voters voting based on race, there are four black Republican members of the U.S. House, none of whom represent a majority-black district. Even Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., a harsh critic of the court ruling and a co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, represents a district that is only about 20% black. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., who is white, succeeded Rep. Harold Ford Jr., who is black, in representing a majority-black district. And a recent Gallup poll finds Trump’s approval rating among blacks at 16%, up from 12% in his first term. Contrary to what many Democrat politicians say and how they act, this is not their grandfather’s America. But many Democrat politicians do not want a colorblind society. They want a color-coordinated one—as long as they oversee the coordination. My advice to Democrats after this ruling is simple: calm down. The days of poll taxes, literacy tests and grandfather clauses are long over. As Thomas Sowell says, “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.