Now liberals are equating UFC with porn and lynching. God, they ruin everything. They’ve gone completely off the rails. These people hate men. They hate women who like men. They hate patriotism, marriage, babies, traditional entertainment, and anything that looks like unapologetic joy. Except Joy Reid’s version of it, maybe. And did I mention they loathe men? This is where the Democratic Party stands in 2026: proving every single day that there’s no crawling back to sanity. They’re not moderating. They’re not reflecting. They’re doubling down on the sneering, joyless, elitist nonsense that already cost them working-class voters by the truckload. Take the recent White House UFC event on the South Lawn. Conservative writer Marc Thiessen praised it as Trump opening the doors to regular Americans — the kind who enjoy motocross rallies and monster truck shows. New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg responded by sneering that if you’re okay with that, you’re an elitist snob in reverse. Then she went nuclear: “Like Ultimate Fighting, porn is extremely popular, but I somehow doubt Thiessen would defend a Democratic president who invited a bunch of OnlyFans creators to the Oval Office while he was losing a war.” Wild comparison. Is she on Hunter Biden’s crack? But somehow it got worse. On Jim Acosta’s show, historian Heather Cox Richardson — the same one who treats every Republican breath as a constitutional crisis — actually said this with a straight face: “It’s not really a stretch to say that the same impulse that created the UFC fight on the White House lawn is the impulse that really pushed lynching in the late 19th century.” Lynching! And Perma-victim-Acosta just hmmed in agreement, like she’d dropped profound historical wisdom instead of a brain-melting false equivalence. UFC fights equal lynching. UFC fights equal porn. Motocross rallies equal baskets of deplorables. Got it. By this logic, anything popular with normal Americans is automatically suspect or sinister. They despise us. Not in the polite “we disagree on policy” way. The Left genuinely believes all Republicans are flannel-wearing hillbillies who enjoy combat sports, big trucks, and rowdy crowds, and that we’re the moral and cultural scum of the earth. They would rather die than be caught enjoying the same things the rest of the country finds entertaining. Motocross rallies are awesome. So are monster trucks. UFC is about as American as it gets — a nation born from fighters, revolutionaries, risk-takers, now celebrating disciplined, high-level athletic competition in a ring. Neither has a damn thing to do with lynching or porn. One is a consensual sport between trained professionals. The other was a racist mob murder. (Smells like the abortion movement in America if you ask me.) Goldberg should sit this one out. The party lecturing America about sexual liberation has produced exactly what you’d expect. Gallup data shows Republicans are dramatically more likely to be married than Democrats, especially in prime family-forming years. The gap has widened over decades as Democrats have embraced lifestyles that de-emphasize marriage and family formation. Institute for Family Studies research consistently finds that conservatives and Republicans have higher fertility rates and are far more likely to have children. Liberal women, by contrast, show markedly lower completed fertility and higher rates of childlessness. This isn’t random. It tracks with broader attitudes. Liberals have long led the charge on “sex-positive” culture that celebrates casual sex, delayed or rejected marriage, and the normalization of platforms like OnlyFans. Democrats poll more favorably toward expansive views on sexual liberation and non-traditional arrangements. The party that claims to champion “joy” and “inclusion” has produced a demographic reality of more single adults, lower marriage rates, and fewer babies — while sneering at the people who still value the opposite. That’s why Democrats keep bleeding support. They’re hemorrhaging non-college voters, men, and anyone who doesn’t want to be lectured about their entertainment choices or family decisions. The party that once claimed the lunch-bucket crowd now looks down its nose at them from coastal enclaves. When Trump leaves office after his third term, they’ll have nothing left but the same tired hatred of the next guy. No positive vision. Just more pearl-clutching at monster trucks and cage fights and happiness. Meanwhile, UFC is thriving. It’s one of the fastest-growing sports globally, with massive viewership, huge revenue, and broad appeal — especially among young men who need exactly the discipline, fitness, and male camaraderie it provides. Training in martial arts builds confidence, respect, and resilience. Plenty of guys who were drifting have found purpose in the gym and the cage. It’s popular across every demographic the Left pretends to speak for. Of course they would hate it. If liberals could drop the snobby nonsense for five minutes, they might notice that millions of normal Americans — including plenty who aren’t hardcore conservatives — enjoy UFC precisely because it’s raw, competitive, and unfiltered. It celebrates toughness and skill instead of fragility and grievance. But they can’t. They’re too far gone. They represent an increasingly angry, single, low-fertility, joy-allergic class that thinks the height of sophistication is comparing a sporting event to historical atrocities. New York Times. Heather Cox Richardson. Jim Acosta. You suck at this. You don’t understand the country you claim to analyze. You don’t even like it. And every time you open your mouths to equate cage fighting with lynching or porn, you just remind the rest of us why normal people tuned you out years ago. America was built by fighters

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** If you’re like me — not a dad — your inbox is maxing out with last-minute ideas for Father’s Day. But if TheraGuns, bougie bath robes, and Jean Paul Gaultier Le Male fragrance sets don’t spark joy (or sound at all like the Dad you know), don’t worry. Dad doesn’t really want any of that.  He just wants to be left alone to do … dad stuff. Whatever that is.  For Le Dude who has everything, needs nothing, or can easily pop into Home Depot to get the exact thing he needs without a gift receipt, a few hours of “nothing” is the Father’s Day flex. As a woman, I can only assume this solitary ritual involves tinkering in silence until a brilliantly dorky joke pops into his head, which he then mentally tucks into his toolbox before getting back to building a canoe with his bare hands. Or something with a mower? Clearing out the attic using barbecue tongs and karate?  Well, no time like the present to mangle a quote from Winston Churchill. Most Dads are “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,” and impossible to shop for. This is why my dad has been gifted car shammies and white crew socks his whole life. He’s literally never requested a single material thing and — classic Dad — he found the utility of these items timeless.  I was originally hoping to assemble the ultimate list of Father’s Day gift ideas from Daily Wire dads, but after talking to the third devoted father in a row who sheepishly confessed the same concept, I realized that the best Father’s Day gift for dads is a break from the people who made them fathers. Zing. This is almost universally dad-verified. On r/daddit, one courageous soul started the conversation by conveying how deeply he loves his wife and two sons. He said he’d gladly spend the day with his 4-year-old, but also craved “a little bit of that freedom I had before kids. To go somewhere I enjoy and lead my own actions throughout the day instead of catering to others. Relax and not have to pick anyone up.” Even though his wife was on board, he felt guilty about it. Another Dad put it like this: “My two favorite things are spending time with my kids and spending time without my kids.” The sentiment got hundreds of thumbs up.  Maybe you relate. But if you aren’t nodding your head and toasting a cold one to these men, imagine Mom requesting a few hours away for a Mother’s Day mani-pedi. No one would begrudge her sanity-saving blush pink soap nails. Every Dad I talked to was hesitant to “speak his truth,” as the kids say. These guys clearly love their families with everything they’ve got. (Let’s go, dads!) But not every hero wears a cape 24/7 without a minute of rest. Maybe nurturing a father’s warrior spirit is a gift to the whole family. Still, absent-dad vibes on Father’s Day might not fly with young kids who just burned through a whole box of Crayons on homemade cards. If you don’t want anyone wondering where Dad went on the one holiday he has, take Dad-time on a different day when no one will notice that he took his bike out to “stop at a food cart, get some tacos, and drink a beer” before returning home, fully refurbed.   I think I can safely say that every man has a clear preference when it comes to his preferred activity for a kid-free day. But just in case, I rounded up a few ideas from very reliable sources. A round of golf, or an afternoon spent fishing, hunting, or hiking likely satisfies the assignment for adventure Dads. Sports guys might like a ballgame with their best bros, a few brews at a sports bar, or a pickup basketball game on the nearest court. Dads raising babies and toddlers are probably dreaming of something simple like a nice, long, uninterrupted nap. Tackling a forgotten project, fine tuning a car, or tending to the home brew in the garage probably sounds like a good time for a dad who thinks (fun) work is play. Of course, a small gift also lets him know how much he’s loved. Dress dad up with a slick new wallet or a smartwatch that tracks his relaxation. Deck him out with a good book, a fresh Leatherman multitool, custom Yeti gear, or a gift card or subscription for his favorite spot. And steak. Don’t forget steak. I have yet to meet the man who would say no to a tender ribeye. I’m also working off the theory that Dad’s me-time requirement might directly relate to the age of his kids. With almost 50 years of parenting under his belt, my dad says his ideal Father’s Day involves a fun hang with me, my sister, and our families. That is, if he can’t have lunch with sports icon Roger Federer, which I just discovered is my tennis-playing dad’s dream Father’s Day scenario. I’m 100% confident that decades of gym socks were equally thrilling. As any parent knows, it all goes by too fast. One Reddit dad wrote, “There will come a day where you wish your kids could spend Father’s Day with you, but will be busy with their own kids.” Judging by how quickly Harry Chapin’s “Cat’s In The Cradle” lyrics were jokingly worked into the replies, it seems we can all agree that time spent together is never wasted.  Just in case, the chorus goes like this: And the cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon, Little boy blue and the man in the moon, “When you coming home, Dad?”, “I don’t know when, but we’ll get together then, You know we’ll have a good time then.” Here’s to the owner of the only legitimate World’s Greatest Dad mug. You’re one in a million. Happy Father’s Day.

Georgia’s Democrat senator Jon Ossoff has made healthcare one of the central themes of his 2026 re-election campaign. In speeches, social media posts, and interviews, the first-term lawmaker particularly speaks about protecting mothers, preserving labor and delivery services, and ensuring that women have access to quality maternity care. But those arguments have increasingly collided with another part of his record. Last year, Ossoff blasted Republicans over closure of labor and delivery services at St. Mary’s Sacred Heart Hospital in Lavonia, warning that women in northeast Georgia would be forced to travel farther to give birth safely. The message was straightforward: women need access to maternity care, and policymakers should protect it. Yet when the debate shifts from hospital access to questions of biological sex and gender identity, Ossoff has taken a markedly different position. Among the votes drawing renewed scrutiny is his opposition to a Senate motion that sought to define pregnancy-related programs around the biological reality of pregnancy itself. The proposal would have clarified that federal pregnancy programs are intended for those capable of becoming pregnant. Ossoff voted against it, along with all other Democrats. That vote may seem obscure compared to a hospital closure or a Medicaid debate, but it raises a larger question: if pregnancy and maternity care are issues specifically affecting women, why oppose efforts to define them as such? Healthcare has become one of the senator’s preferred political battlegrounds ahead of the midterms. Ossoff routinely frames debates through the language of mothers, pregnant women, and families. His criticism of the St. Mary’s decision was built around the image of women going into labor and needing care close to home. At the same time, his voting record reflects support for a broader Left-wing framework that increasingly avoids sex-based definitions in favor of language based on so-called gender identity. Ossoff posted his criticism of the GOP over St. Mary’s labor and delivery services closure as the Republican-controlled Congress and the Trump administration scaled back some health spending. The hospital, however, said the decision followed roughly 18 months of review and was driven by a combination of factors, according to reporting by the Daily Caller. Among the reasons for the decision were physician recruitment challenges, demographic changes, and declining utilization rates. Financial records also showed the facility had struggled for years before the announcement, yet Ossoff reduced the issue to a partisan attack. Now, the debate is no longer simply about healthcare. It is about whether voters see Ossoff as a principled advocate or a politician whose definitions change depending on which argument is most useful at the moment. For a candidate asking Georgians to trust him on healthcare, that distinction could matter even more in the coming months.  In Tuesday’s runoff election for the GOP primary, Georgia Republicans elected U.S. Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) to face off against Ossoff in November. Collins entered Tuesday’s election after an endorsement from President Trump. November’s general election is expected to be one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country. Ossoff did not respond to a request for comment.

Hey y’all, welcome back to Unfit to Print.  Today we’re covering a member of Parliament’s scathing report on migrant rape gangs.  THE TRUTH THEY BURIED For years, British officials told the public the migrant rape gang scandal was exaggerated — if it existed at all. They had every incentive to lie. Telling the truth meant […]

It's like “hitting a tiny bull’s eye with a bazooka,” one expert wrote.

Schwarzenegger-Mamdani 2028! Don't laugh! After all, on today's Morning Joe, an oh-so-inclusive Arnold declared: "To me, it makes no difference if you're a Communist." That Constitutional thingy about presidents having to be native-born Americans? Stuff for small minds. The Austrian-born Arnold and the Ugandan native Mamdani are a match made in . . .  Scarborough and Brzezinski had Schwarzenegger on the show to talk about the so-called "Austrian World Summit" that he is hosting. The goal is to battle climate change, or, as Schwarzenegger suggested, the real focus should be pollution, since it kills seven million yearly vs. only 25,000 by climate change. "I use my movie lines, 'Hasta La Vista, Pollution,'" said Arnold. A top guest at the "summit" is Kamala Harris, who was seen offering the brilliant insight, based on her experience as California's Attorney General, that there have to be "consequences" for law-breaking. Who knew?  There was no pushback to Schwarzenegger from Joe or Mika. To the contrary, Scarborough unctuously called his spiel, "such an important message." Then came the signature pivot. Joe teed up Arnold to criticize Trump and Republicans at large about threats to democracy, referencing election skepticism in California and investigations of the Newsoms.  'Inclusive' Arnold: 'Makes No Difference If You're a Communist!' pic.twitter.com/haU5SbDs28 — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) June 16, 2026 Schwarzenegger dodged with a rambling ode to "inclusion." "The most important thing is that we are inclusive . . . Going in the direction of kind of like inclusion has always been something that I was taught by people here in Austria, and then when I came to America, I saw inclusion really in the highest level . . . I want everyone [to] be included . . . When we work on inclusion, I think that we will go and protect our democracy much more." Arnold even managed to work in a humblebrag that, learning from his experience as an immigrant, he donates 1,000 Thanksgiving turkeys every year in East LA "to feed the people that have less money." Mika played off that to end the segment with a closing shot at Trump world:  "Very different things happening with immigrants today, here in America, that is for sure." The guy who ran and won as Governor of California as the rough, tough, Terminator has fully morphed into a Hollywood open-borders, climate alarmist pussycat. As for MS NOW, it was just another day of liberal-celebrity lectures — zero pushback, maximum virtue signaling. Here's the transcript. MS NOW Morning Joe 6/16/26 6:23 am EDT KAMALA HARRIS: On the issue of what we will do to, to terminate pollution, and to save our planet, the policy must include, and, and my experience as attorney general reinforced that for me, the policies must include accountability and consequences for bad behaviors. JOE SCARBOROUGH: That was former Vice President Kamala Harris this morning, alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger at the Austrian World Summit taking place right now in Vienna. The summit is celebrating its tenth anniversary this year, with climate leaders from several countries taking the stage to discuss and offer solutions now to fight climate change by bringing together governments, businesses, and individuals. And this year's theme is, 'We Are Unstoppable.'  And Arnold Schwarzenegger joins us now from Vienna. He is, of course, the host of the summit. Governor, thank you so much for being with us. We greatly appreciate it. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, thank you very much for having me, and, you know, I just want to, right off the top, correct you, because you said it's climate change. I want you to talk about fighting pollution. Because we have to terminate pollution, and that's what I always say, I use my movie lines, "Hasta La Vista, Pollution."  So this is the kind of things we have to talk about. Climate change, most people don't understand it, and they don't care about any of that stuff. I think they care about pollution, because pollution is the thing that actually kills seven million people a year. You know, climate change, you know, and with all the, the, the bad weather and the storms and the floods and all of this stuff, that kills maybe twenty-five thousand people, which is of course twenty-five thousand people too many, but pollution kills seven million. So this is why I always stress pollution rather than climate change. SCARBOROUGH: And what are some of the ideas right now that you're hearing this year, that you're getting excited about in some ways to fight pollution?" SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, you know, the theme of the conference is, that we are unstoppable. And the reason why it is, is because, as you know, in, America, we have an administration that doesn't really believe in pollution being a threat to our health and, that it kills all of these people.  So we want to encourage people here to just say, stop whining about the White House and about them not believing in that. I said, what is it that we can do?, I said. Because it doesn't really matter in the end who is in the White House. What really matters is what we're doing on the state and local level.  I said, we have to rely on ourselves. That's where the action is. And so when you think about, you know, what California has accomplished and what Texas is accomplishing right now, and what Massachusetts is accomplishing and Minnesota and all of those states, it's really remarkable because they just say, Okay we're gonna go and take the bull by the horn create the changes, and we're gonna set goals of updating our renewable energy, lowering our greenhouse gases, and all those kind of things. Let's not wait for the federal government to take the lead, let us take the lead.  So what we are doing is with this conference here is, really encouraging people to go and to just continue working themselves and thinking about what can I do versus what can they do. SCARBOROUGH: That's such an important message. I, I wanted to ask you, you've, you've said some very inspiring things about American democracy. And I always found that immigrants, have, have a better perspective sometimes than those of us who were born in America and were raised here, cause we just assume that democracy's always gonna be with us. We always assume that everything will always be the way it is.  You've given some very moving warnings in the past about your own family members that have been swept, that were swept up during—World War II, in, in Nazism, and, and, and you've warned Americans against this.  I'm wondering as you look at what's happening with Gavin Newsom and his wife, if you, as you look at what's happening where people are trying to say that California's elections are being rigged. You're the last Republican governor elected in California, and it took 30 days, that's the law.  How are we doing as a democracy right now? What are your concerns as somebody who has a perspective that maybe those of us who were born here don't have? SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, you know, it doesn't really matter where you live. The most important thing is that we are inclusive, and that we don't hate anybody because they feel differently than we do, or they belong to a different religion than we do, or they're belonging to a different party than we do. And this is the theme also of our conference here.  I tell, to me, it makes no difference if you're a communist, if you're a socialist, if you're Democrat or Republican, or if you come from a dictatorship, it makes no difference.  It's, come here to Vienna, and let's work together to solve this problem and to create a good environment. I think that if we work together, we are much more powerful rather than fighting each other and always alienating half of the people.  So to me, I think going in the direction of kind of like inclusion has always been something that I was taught by people here in Austria, and then when I came to America, I saw inclusion really in the highest level. You know, where people were kind of like really helpful to me as an immigrant that just arrived in America, they gave me pillowcases and pillows and, blankets and dishes and silverware and the black and white TV and all of this kind of things. I was shocked when I came to America and I got this much help. And I learned how to be generous, and, I do exactly the same thing now. I want to make sure that when it is Thanksgiving, that I go to East LA, and to feed the—people that have less money, and then I donate a thousand turkeys to them on Thanksgiving. I do exactly the things that was done to me when I came to America, and I want to continue the tradition, you know.  And since, and all the other stuff. I'm just in the, if it's bodybuilding, if it's fitness, I deal with the world, so I never ask when I promote bodybuilding or when I promote fitness, are you a Democrat? Are you an Arab? Are you, Israeli? Are you Australian? Are you from Africa? I don't care. I don't care.  I want everyone to be fit, I want everyone to enjoy the motivation when I say, 'Go and train and do something every day.' It doesn't matter what party you're coming from, if you believe in the things that I believe in, I want every, everyone be included. And so this is, I think, when we work on inclusion, I think that we will go and protect our democracy much more. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Very different things happening with immigrants today, here in America, that is for sure. 

Anyone could have predicted that the elitist snobs would lose their minds over the White House hosting a UFC event on President Trump’s birthday, led by Lawrence O’Donnell wailing about the “despicable vulgarity” of the whole thing. But the Hollywood Left attempted despicably vulgar counter-programming in Manhattan, a “star-studded event” titled “Rise Up, Sing Out: A Concert for the First Amendment.” It was hosted by Jane Fonda’s Committee for the First Amendment." That’s right – the woman who pretended to shoot at American airplanes with Vietnamese communists is now lecturing us on our freedoms. “Right now, the government and its cronies [are] routinely violating its First Amendment to silence artists,” Fonda claimed onstage. “Shuttering institutions like the Kennedy Center, defunding museums and the National Endowment of the Arts, and banning books, canceling TV hosts who speak out. It’s really bad.” No one “fact checks” celebrities when they lecture like Blutarsky in National Lampoon’s Animal House about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor. The NEA hasn’t been “defunded,” but there have been grant cancellations. The Kennedy Center hasn’t been “shuttered,” but it’s closed for repairs. The government didn’t “cancel TV hosts” like Stephen Colbert. But they pretend that’s what happened when President Trump cheered it on.   But the most fraudulent argument here is that Fonda & Co. did anything for free speech as Team Biden geared up to censor and spike all the “disinformation” coming from conservatives. Fonda only started her “committee” up again to perform against Trump. They are the cynics that think free speech is only for them, and we have “democracy” only when the Democrats win. Like clockwork, Robert De Niro came out for the latest in his “tuck Frump” lectures. He claimed “I hate to say it, but loving our country is starting to sound like an abused spouse saying they love their abuser. I can’t love a country that starts stupid and inhumane wars, killing thousands of innocents and indirectly causing the deaths and suffering of millions more. I can’t love a country that takes healthcare away from millions of people and uses that money to enrich their pals in the Trump-Epstein class. I can’t love a country that sends out masked militias to shoot citizens in the streets, torture our neighbors, and separate families.” “I can’t love the country that’s led by Donald Trump.” More hateful rhetoric from Robert De Niro at Rise Up, Sing Out: A Concert for the First Amendment: “I can’t love a country that sends out masked militias to shoot citizens in the streets, torture our neighbors and separate… pic.twitter.com/UURrG5duPh — Brent Baker

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may have just signaled the beginning of the end for one of California’s most aggressive Medicaid financing schemes.In late May, CMS proposed a rule that would limit many Medicaid payment arrangements to Medicare-equivalent reimbursement levels while targeting the financing mechanisms that shift excessive costs onto federal taxpayers.The more states spend, the more federal money they receive.The proposal specifically highlights intergovernmental transfers and similar arrangements that have allowed states to inflate federal reimbursement claims.This rule comes as California health officials are asking CMS to approve a set of pending state plan amendments that would further expand reimbursement arrangements built around intergovernmental transfers — the very type of financing mechanism now facing increased scrutiny from federal regulators.For years, states have exploited these loopholes in Medicaid’s financing rules to draw down more money from Washington. CMS now appears ready to put some limits on that practice.Vice President JD Vance and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz deserve credit for cracking down on these kinds of abuses. Vance said the administration is withholding $1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursements from California because the state does “not take Medicaid fraud very seriously.”Oz warned that states have exploited “the cracks and crevices” between state and federal systems — describing California as a member of the “varsity team” of fraud alongside Massachusetts and New York.The proposed rule makes the fate of California’s pending SPAs clear: They cannot survive. Approving them would directly contradict a rule CMS has already put forward, expanding the exact reimbursement scheme the agency has identified as a threat to Medicaid program integrity.The only question now is whether CMS will formalize what its own rulemaking has already decided.At the center of the IGT problem is Medicaid’s open-ended reimbursement structure. States spend money, and the federal government reimburses a percentage of those expenditures. Public entities recycle funds through multiple agencies to trigger larger federal Medicaid matching payments.The more states spend, the more federal money they receive.These arrangements may technically comply with federal rules, but they function as financial engineering schemes rather than legitimate health care financing. Medicaid was designed to fund health care for vulnerable Americans, not maximize revenue for governments and health care bureaucracies.California’s ambulance reimbursement system provides a textbook example of the kind of payment arrangement CMS now appears determined to rein in.RELATED: Trump’s next bill needs tax relief with teeth Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesUnder current rules, a public fire district can hold an emergency medical services franchise while subcontracting the actual ambulance operations to a private company.Even though the private contractor performs the transport itself, the public entity can still bill Medi-Cal at the elevated IGT reimbursement rate — around $1,168 per transport in 2024, with a proposed increase to nearly $1,600.If that same private ambulance provider billed Medi-Cal directly, that $1,600 would become roughly $339 under the standard fee schedule.Federal taxpayers are therefore paying nearly five times the normal reimbursement rate for operationally identical services, simply because the billing structure has been routed through a government intermediary eligible for enhanced federal matching funds. For ACA expansion enrollees, a large share of Medi-Cal, Washington covers 90% of that already inflated cost.The fire district keeps the difference between the inflated Medi-Cal reimbursement and the private contractor’s actual operating payment. Taxpayers finance the excess.Unlike these existing payment arrangements that may eventually be required to conform to the new federal standards, California’s pending ambulance SPAs have not yet been approved. Federal regulators should not authorize an expansion of a reimbursement model they have already identified as inconsistent with Medicaid’s future direction.CMS has now made clear that payment arrangements built around inflated reimbursement rates, intergovernmental transfers, and excessive federal matching dollars are no longer business as usual. States have been put on notice.California’s pending ambulance SPAs should be among the first tests of whether the agency intends to enforce the principles it has now announced. If CMS truly believes Medicaid exists to fund patient care rather than reimbursement gamesmanship, these proposals should not survive review.

We have been afforded a remarkable inheritance. Our first task is simply not to screw it up.

By imposing stringent environmental restrictions, liberal political leaders are making it harder to build new homes.