"The hardest to do." The post “Gibberish”: Eric Clapton picks the hardest blues song to cover first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

You’ve almost certainly noticed that a new narrative has begun emanating from the usual sources in the past few days. We’re now in a “crisis,” or a “constitutional crisis.” New psyop just dropped pic.twitter.com/Ywo9skJTFR — Mark Mitchell, Rasmussen Reports (@Mark_R_Mitchell) February 11, 2025 You’re hearing this everywhere in the legacy corporate propaganda press, and it’s being reported as emanating from the “unelected” Elon Musk and his DOGE prodigies applying a Big Data screen to federal spending and illuminating the amazing levels of waste and fraud built into the governmental fisc. And of course, the judiciary, or those parts of its lower levels that are captured by partisan Democrat hacks in service to the rot the Deep State is built on, are attempting to block the execution of President Trump’s duties based on this new dynamic. You’ll be pleased to know, if you haven’t heard, that Rep. Eli Crane (R-Arizona) filed articles of impeachment against federal judge Paul A. Engelmayer, the New York City hack who issued an idiotic ruling seeking to prevent the secretary of the Treasury from auditing his department’s books. Engelmayer subsequently rescinded his temporary restraining order in part, allowing Secretary Scott Bessent to look at the ledger but stating nobody else who came into government service after Jan. 20 could. That was even more absurd than the initial ruling. Crane took up the challenge of inflicting an impeachment proceeding against Engelmayer: Republican Rep. Eli Crane said he has drafted articles of impeachment against Judge Paul A. Engelmayer after the judge blocked Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury Department payment systems.https://t.co/MOImtN3sRT — Badlands Media (@BadlandsMedia_) February 11, 2025 He probably won’t be removed, as it would take 67 votes in the Senate to produce such a result, and that won’t happen. But the process is the punishment where impeachment is concerned, and that makes this worth doing. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Georgia) got in on this game as well: I’m drafting articles of impeachment for U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. He’s a partisan activist weaponizing our judicial system to stop President Trump’s funding freeze on woke and wasteful government spending. We must end this abusive overreach. Stay tuned. https://t.co/ARp7KBjK9u — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) February 12, 2025 McConnell is the judge in Rhode Island who made an utterly absurd order demanding that the Trump administration unfreeze funds for grants and other programs held up by the administration pending a review of their compliance with presidential executive orders. It turns out that his daughter has a position at the U.S. Department of Education that may or may not fall victim to DOGE’s review of that department, which creates a conflict of interest that a non-corrupt judge would recuse himself over; such ethical considerations apparently never enter the minds of these “esteemed jurists” appointed by Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden. Meanwhile, Trump said Tuesday that he always abides by the orders of the judiciary and then complained that the multiple lawsuits resulting in injunctions against him doing the job of auditing the government’s books and killing the waste, fraud, and abuse he’s finding will only slow things down. The Left doesn’t seem to believe him. They might be right. One could hardly fault Trump if he chooses the path of malicious compliance with these illegitimate judicial orders while publicly proclaiming his obeisance to them. Nevertheless, it’s instructive enough that the propaganda press is screeching about a constitutional crisis that nobody else thinks exists. Seven out of 10 Americans see the current “crisis” as Trump fulfilling campaign promises he was elected to fulfill. Even the other 30 percent probably recognize it’s not really a valid complaint that attempting to find waste in government is some sort of threat to the republic. For example, there’s this guy — whose advocacy leaves something to be desired in its persuasiveness: Schumer, “everyone knows there’s waste in government that should be cut… but DOGE is using a meat axe.” Democrats now openly want to keep wasting taxpayer money… because they’re obviously in on it and getting kickbacks. pic.twitter.com/pU260YihAZ — Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) February 12, 2025 Boy, if that doesn’t give the game away. It gets worse for the Democrats, though. Because if the argument is that “nobody elected Elon Musk” and what’s happening is a “hostile takeover” of the federal government, and this is the product of a “shadow government” that is now seizing power, well … let’s just say this train is rolling well down the tracks from the platform they’re standing on. Because this happened Wednesday” Speaker Mike Johnson said he met with Elon Musk & more BOMBSHELL findings are coming. “What Elon and the DOGE effort is doing right now is what Congress has been unable to do in recent years because the agencies have hidden some of this from us.” “They’re uncovering things that… pic.twitter.com/Y32P4aWi8m — George (@BehizyTweets) February 11, 2025 It’s important to understand fully what House Speaker Mike Johnson just laid in front of the American people in that statement, because it was very, very substantial. First, obviously it’s an endorsement of DOGE. You picked that up, I know. But in doing so, Johnson has demolished the “nobody elected Elon Musk” narrative by noting that this isn’t a question of Musk somehow dictating America’s future to Trump but rather fulfilling the wishes of those representatives closest to the people in the entire federal government. Now Congress is on the DOGE train as well. And Johnson just offered a very polite, but nonetheless solid-steel rebuke to the Democrat hack judges attempting to stop this audit. He said that if Congress had the power to do an audit like DOGE is doing, they would have already done so but they’ve been stymied by the agencies. That’s a big statement. What it tells you is two big things. First, that scrubbing the federal budget isn’t just some fetish of Trump’s — but rather it represents the policy preference of the entirety of both elective branches of government (assuming Sen. John Thune doesn’t disagree with Johnson, which is a safe assumption given that the Senate majority leader is not an idiot). So these rulings and injunctions aren’t a block of some authoritarian action of Trump but rather represent a judicial attack on the other two branches of government. Second, that what DOGE is doing is what Congress would like to do. Meaning that Congress is soon to acquire the investigative assets and technologies and skill sets that Musk is lending to the Trump administration. Which is a signal that this train cannot be stopped no matter how much caterwauling, public vulgarity, or kangaroo-court lawfare the Democrats might attempt to throw on its tracks. Johnson said something else important, too. He said that DOGE’s findings are playing into the deliberations and negotiations over the budget reconciliation process. You can interpret that as an admonition to these judges that they aren’t just impeding Trump but rather the production of the federal government’s budget for the next fiscal year. And that the federal budget is very likely to shrink by a drastic amount as a result of the good scrubbing DOGE now makes possible. Yes, this is a very severe crisis the Left — which operates on the basis of having created a veritable power grid of public corruption out of the massive pile of filthy lucre raked out of these agencies, programs, and grants DOGE has now illuminated — is facing. It’s not a surprise their talking heads and ink-stained wretches are panicking over these developments. For the rest of us, however, this is something entirely different. For us, the crisis has been ongoing for many years, and we’re at a point of existential threat. How severe has our crisis become? Here you go: Congratulations America: in the past 12 months you paid a record $1.167 trillion in interest on the federal debt; this is more than all US spending on Defense, Health and Income Security, and only Social Security spending is bigger (for 3 years at which interest will surpass it) pic.twitter.com/mHyZmwAyZ4 — zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 12, 2025 How severe is the waste, fraud, and abuse of the federal government? When you attempt to calculate the number, you’ve got to not only add up all the bogus programs, deadhead jobs, worthless contracts, and other things, which Musk puts at easily a trillion dollars a year. You’ve got to trace that bad spending all the way back through the decades, because the deficits it creates necessitate borrowing and the compound interest paid on the subsequent debt. We’re probably $20 trillion in the hole, and paying more than $600 billion a year in interest, just from the federal government’s past waste of our money. And that tab grows every single year. What Musk is offering is a light at the end of this pitch-black tunnel. To paraphrase what he said in that rather significant press avail with Trump on Tuesday, the more waste identified and scrubbed from the federal fisc, the closer we can get to a balanced budget without having to make any major policy choices. And if those policy choices can be made in a way that allows for a robust, growing economy, it starts to become possible to get the federal budget into the black and begin paying down the debt. Our frequent readers will no doubt have noted my oft-repeated refrain that we have entered a brand new era of American political history. This is the most definitive proof so far available of that notion. What’s on offer is a reality in which rampant corruption and waste in government can be targeted and identified by crowd-sourcing citizen investigators using open-source AI tools and published virally via social media, with politicians laying in wait to exploit it and score points with their constituents. This makes a lot of the infrastructure of current American politics utterly obsolete. Almost all of that infrastructure is specifically built to benefit and support the Left in this country. So yeah. It’s a crisis. They’ve got a real problem, and it’s only getting larger all the time. READ MORE by Scott McKay: This Stuff Isn’t All That Hard, You Know The Democrats Are Hogging the Wilderness The post The Left’s Crisis Might Be Getting Started. Ours Is Actually Ending. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

President Donald Trump’s dramatic assault on heretofore seemingly impregnable citadels of federal power has understandably energized the conservative movement. President Ronald Reagan eloquently set forth the case for returning to a constitutional republic dedicated to the protection of individual liberty. The Trump administration appears determined to put that philosophy into practice. However, the administration is running into predictable resistance, focused on the courts. And the response has been disturbing, if understandable. Elon Musk angrily complained:  “A corrupt judge protecting corruption. He needs to be impeached NOW.” Vice President JD Vance was more measured in tone but more extreme in practice: “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” The president’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, sounded like just another leftist when he trashed one judicial decision as “an assault on the very idea of democracy itself.” There’s little doubt that many MAGA supporters would like the president to ignore adverse legal rulings. As President Andrew Jackson declared a couple centuries ago, announcing: Supreme Court Chief Justice “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Yet only a couple months ago, Republican senators were battling against lame-duck approval of the last Biden judicial appointments because responsible jurists are necessary to uphold the rule of law. (Biden actually ended up winning approval of two more federal judicial appointments than Trump, but the latter triumphed in the Supreme Court category 3-1.) And just a few months ago, back when Democrats still claimed that Joe Biden was energetically carrying out his presidential duties, his administration, under pressure from the Left, released a blueprint for judicial reform. Surprisingly, given his general surrender of domestic policy to progressives, the proposal was modest and left the judiciary intact. This did not satisfy lefties who were angry that judges were upholding the law — for instance, blocking the president’s attempt to buy votes by turning student debt over to the taxpayers. Progressives determined to use the courts to make, rather than enforce, law were apoplectic when the Supreme Court returned to reading, rather than rewriting, the Constitution, as when it overturned Roe v. Wade. Those who believed courts are to act as continuing constitutional conventions with the duty to steadily expand state power proposed a range of radical “disempowering reforms,” and, most importantly, court packing, simply adding judges and turning the courts into unelected legislative bodies. Conservatives led the fight against such measures, as they did nearly a century ago when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed such a scheme, which failed to pass but appeared to trigger a Supreme Court retreat, the infamous “switch in time that saved nine.” Although conservatives today are frustrated by judicial barriers to radical change, the Founders intended that Congress reign supreme. They were adamant that the newly liberated colonies were not going to replicate the British monarchy with a permanent and powerful president. And political experience around the world, including in the U.S., has demonstrated the danger of overweening executive power, vindicating the Constitution’s framers. Particularly important in recent years, the courts have become a vital redoubt for free speech and especially religious liberty. Democrats once stood with Republicans in defense of faith. For instance, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. Indeed, the legislation was sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer. However, it turned out that the Left’s backing for freedom of religious conscience only extended to quaint faiths, such as the Amish and Native Americans. When others, most notably orthodox Christians, opposed the Left’s planned social revolution, many Democrats decided that the state should crush opposition and force the recalcitrant into line. For instance, if even one photographer refused to cover or baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, it apparently was seen as the end of the progressive dream. Into the breach stepped the courts. Not always consistently and often reluctantly, they generally blocked left-wing attempts to privatize faith, allowing people to believe what they wanted, but unable to act on those beliefs in any meaningful way. This goes back well before Trump systematically sought to fill the judiciary with appointees who believed in the rule of, not by, law. One of the most important decision was Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2012, an unanimous high court blocked the Obama administration from forbidding religious schools from making faith a requirement for employment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court opinion in which the justices declared: The EEOC and Perich contend that religious organizations can defend against employment discrimination claims by invoking their First Amendment right to freedom of association. They thus see no need — and no basis — for a special rule for ministers grounded in the Religion Clauses themselves. Their position, however, is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. The Court cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers. Not all religious decisions are unanimous, expansive, or definitive. But the Constitution, and the willingness of jurists, including traditional liberals, to enforce the First Amendment, has protected people of faith from America’s founding through today. What if Vice President and later President Biden had announced that those administrations were not going to allow unelected judges to undermine democracy by thwarting legitimate and democratic policy choices made by the nation’s top elected leaders? And they had ignored courts that halted Democratic abuses? It would be particularly ironic for conservatives to join the Left in seeking to diminish the courts at a time when a Republican president and Senate are poised to continue conservative efforts to return judges to the job of judging, not legislating. Especially with the support of what appears to be a solid moderate-conservative Supreme Court majority. An unhappy Adam Serwer from the Atlantic acknowledged: “The current makeup of the Roberts Court is itself the outcome of a partisan battle that has spanned decades, one in which the conservative legal movement has won a tremendous victory that is certain to shape American life for generations to come.” Republicans today might dream of following four years of President Trump with eight years of President Vance, but they could be forced to rely on the courts to stop Democratic initiatives sooner than they expect. After all, on Jan. 20, 2017, Democrats were expecting to be in charge for a long time, and even most Republicans believed that Trump was finished. Today it is the Democrats who are in disarray. No one knows the next radical and unexpected turn in American politics. Rather than attacking the courts, conservatives should develop their own reform agenda. A code of conduct would help protect the judiciary’s reputation. Fixed terms and term limits would broaden representation on the courts. And easing the constitutional amendment process would reduce pressure on judges to act like politicians. It’s understandable why many conservatives are cheering the administration in its efforts to dismantle the deep state gone wild. And they should fight in court against judges who overstep proper legal authority. After all, that is one advantage of now having a Supreme Court that better respects the rule of law. However, when Lord Acton warned us that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” he didn’t exempt the good guys. Warns Ilya Somin of George Mason University Law School: “The new Trump administration may be heading in the direction of disobeying court orders that go against it. If they do so and get away with it, there are likely to be dire consequences for our constitutional system. An administration not bound by court orders is ultimately not bound by the Constitution and the laws, either.” And that would be bad for all of us. The judiciary has an essential role to play in sustaining the American republic. Ironically, it was the same Andrew Jackson who insisted that “All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary.” That was true two centuries ago. It remains the case today. Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a graduate of Stanford Law School and a member of the California and D.C. bars. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington. The post The Rule of Law Serves the American People, Especially Conservatives appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Pope Francis on Tuesday slammed President Donald J. Trump’s policy of arresting and deporting illegal aliens en masse, starting with criminals and terrorists who threaten domestic and national security. In just their first 18 days back in office, Trump, border czar Tom Homan, and other federal authorities have swept some 11,000 illegals from America’s communities — typically Democrat-run fugitive cities. “I exhort all the faithful of the Catholic Church, and all men and women of goodwill, not to give in to narratives that discriminate against and cause unnecessary suffering to our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters,” the Pope wrote in an open letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Invoking a Latin phrase that Vice President JD Vance cited to justify Trump’s widespread deportations, Pope Francis argued: “The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan,’ that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.” Without exception? So, America must keep all the illegal-alien armed robbers, child molesters, rapists, MS-13 killers, Tren de Aragua murderers, and ISIS-connected terrorists who break into the USA, “without exception?” Really? “Concentrate on the Catholic Church,” Homan told Newsmax. “You have enough to fix in your own home. Leave the border stuff to us. We know what we’re doing.” Homan made similar remarks to journalists yesterday and observed, “I’m saying this as a lifelong Catholic.” Homan might not have his current job, absent Trump’s burying Kamala Harris in an avalanche of Catholic votes last November. According to Edison Research’s signature exit poll, Trump smothered Harris 59 percent to 39 percnt. The Catholic vote was more competitive in 2020: Trump took 47 percent to 52 percent for Joe Biden, himself a Catholic. Given Trump’s stone wall of Catholic support, Pope Francis should sit down on a hard chair and meditate on the New King James version of the Holy Bible. Matthew 7:3 asks: “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?” How many illegal aliens does Pope Francis house in the Vatican? The 131-bedroom Domus Sanctae Marthae was built in 1996 to accommodate cardinals during papal-selection rituals, as dramatized in the Academy Award–nominated film Conclave, now in theaters. These premises would have to be vacated if the College of Cardinals had to pick a new pope. Until then, Pope Francis could send the facility’s overnight guests and longer-term residents to local hotels and yield the entire building to his blessed illegal aliens. Also, how many illegal aliens does Pope Francis shelter at Castel Gondolfo, his 135-acre retreat — complete with 75 acres of farmland, the Apostolic and Papal Palace, soothing views, and abundant sunshine? Just 40 minutes from Rome, that luxurious venue would offer a stunning change of scenery for people who make the Pope weep, namely those who, as he put it, “have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution, or serious deterioration of the environment.” The pope also said Mass at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2016. He declared that anyone who builds walls to bar foreigners is “not a Christian.” As luck would have it, Pope Francis lives in the Vatican behind a 39-foot-high wall. Pope Leo IV erected it in 846 AD — 1,179 years ago — to block marauding Saracens who invaded Rome from the Middle East. The “impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful, southern border wall” that Trump installed in his first term, and is extending in his second, rises a mere 30 feet. The pope’s whining about Trump would be easier to swallow if the pontiff welcomed some of the aforementioned illegal alien criminals as his new neighbors. As for the Vatican’s 9th-century relic: Your Holiness, tear down that wall! Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor. The post On Trump and the Border, the Pope’s Hypocrisy Is Showing appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As I’ve written for years here at The American Spectator, California has incinerated its insurance market by imposing price controls on insurers. Instead of risking their capital reserves by selling home policies that are inadequate to cover potential claims, the state’s largest insurers have been pulling out of the market. Insurance companies are in the business to write insurance, so it’s an indictment of our regulatory system that they don’t want to do business here. As property owners struggle to find insurance policies, they’ve increasingly had to rely on the FAIR Plan (Fair Access to Insurance Requirements). The state created this industry-funded system in 1968 after the Watts Riots when insurers became reluctant to write policies in high-risk areas. It’s now the system of last resort for homeowners in areas at risk of wildfires. It offers high-priced, barebones coverage that is better than nothing, although just barely. The whole situation reminds me of a humorous postcard I saw when I first moved to Southern California. It depicted LA’s four seasons: fires, mudslides, earthquakes, and riots. I didn’t realize that it was actually a clever depiction of the constant challenges faced here by insurance companies. Other states have insurance struggles, too, but our state’s ongoing crisis is directly related to the Proposition 103 system voters enacted in 1988. At the time, insurance rates were soaring, but it wasn’t the result of market failure. The California Supreme Court’s Royal Globe decision in 1979 “gave an accident victim the right to bring a claim for punitive damages against another person’s liability insurer if the victim felt that the insurer had engaged in unfair claims settlement practices,” according to a 2001 RAND report. As a result, payouts, litigation, and premiums soared by 26 percent. California voters, who are often tasked with sorting through mind-numbingly complex issues at the ballot box, faced a suite of insurance-related initiatives on that year’s ballot. Frustrated by rising prices caused by that court decision rather than insurer “greed,” they approved the worst of the batch. Prop. 103 created a prior-approval rate system that gave the insurance commissioner — now an elected position — the right to approve or even roll back rates. The court eventually overturned Royal Globe, but the damage was set in stone. Lawmakers have known for years that the system was headed for disaster and that the FAIR Plan wouldn’t be able to handle major wildfire events. Only recently have officials — in the midst of the spiraling crisis — finally approved some decent reforms that, say, let insurers include rising reinsurance costs in rate decisions, speed up the rate-review process, and allow insurers to use forward-looking catastrophe models to set prices. Then Los Angeles turned into a fireball, well before we had a chance to see if these changes would work. Insurance expert (and my R Street Institute colleague) Jerry Theodorou explained in a Feb. 3 column that the number of FAIR Plan policy holders increased 41 percent from September 2023 to September 2024, yet the plan only “has approximately $200 million of surplus, and $700 million cash on hand. This may not be enough to pay all its claims. The plan is skating on thin ice financially, as it must pay $900 million in losses before receiving up to $2.63 billion in support from reinsurance…. This means that the FAIR Plan would have to find more money.” Sure enough, the Washington Post reported the following this week: “California’s home insurance plan of last resort has run out of money to pay the wave of claims stemming from the Los Angeles fires and will receive a bailout of $1 billion.” The money will come out of the hide of the FAIR Plan’s membership, which means it comes from the insurance companies that are already trying to exit our struggling market. Again, this shouldn’t have come as a surprise to state officials, despite any blather about “perfect storms.” The 100 miles-per-hour Santa Ana winds combined with unusually dry tinder — largely the result of California’s inadequate brush-clearing and water policies — were a perfect storm of sorts. But it’s a storm that anyone could see coming for years. As I noted in my testimony before a U.S. House subcommittee last week that looked at regulations that exacerbated the wildfires: “Because of the regulation-driven contraction of our insurance market, many homeowners in the L.A. area didn’t have coverage or were reliant on … the FAIR Plan. There’s much talk of that barebones system facing possible insolvency. Rather than addressing the insurance emergency, the governor and lawmakers found time for a performative special legislative session about so-called oil-industry price gouging.” In recent months, we’ve read many news reports about the situation. “The FAIR Plan continues to grow in size as consumers find themselves without coverage. As a result, we have doubled in size in the last three years. As those numbers climb, our financial stability comes more into question,” said the FAIR Plan president in March 2024. That led to hearings and some reforms that address some aspects of the plan’s financing, but it was only a matter of time before yet another wildfire season would press it to the breaking point. It’s about priorities. Our state officials give short shrift to basics such as insurance, water, brush clearance, building regulations, and whatnot and use climate change as a handy excuse for their inaction. There’s probably no other option but the above-mentioned bailout, but it would be nice if California’s leadership was proactive for a change. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. READ MORE: Trump: Look at the Slow-Moving FDA California Incinerated Its Insurance Market The post After the Wildfires, a Predictable Bailout appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

America’s debt crisis is no longer a distant concern; it’s an immediate threat with immediate consequences. Some politicians — perhaps realizing that it’s become more difficult to ignore the problem and avoid repercussions — are turning to executive action. This includes the Trump administration’s embrace of Elon Musk’s increasingly active Department of Government Efficiency. It’s an unorthodox approach that may make some important progress reducing fraud and improving efficiency. But it isn’t foolproof or without tremendous risks. Federal debt stands at approximately 100 percent of GDP, with annual deficits projected to exceed $1.8 trillion and heading to $2.5 trillion in 2035. Interest costs on the debt are higher than defense spending and growing. Left unchecked, the debt could be nearly double the size of the economy by mid-century. That’s also based on rosy assumptions like a growing economy and relatively lower inflation and interest rates. Facing this foreseeable challenge, most politicians’ responses have been inadequate. Some argue for raising taxes, but history shows that under this current tax code, it’s practically impossible to raise revenue as a share of GDP consistently above 20 percent. That’s in part because higher taxes slow growth and new revenues often trigger higher spending. Others propose cutting discretionary spending, but these programs account for only one-third of the federal budget, making even the most aggressive cuts politically unacceptable without making much dent in our debt. The primary problem is entitlement spending and interest payments on the debt. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid already make up most federal expenditures and drive nearly all projected future deficits. Without serious reform, these programs will become financially unsustainable, forcing abrupt benefit cuts, massive tax increases, or a mix of both. Into this environment steps DOGE. The idea is simple: Have the executive branch impose small, incremental spending cuts across various agencies, bypassing the need for congressional approval. Here are a few things to keep in mind. First, despite the usual alarmism by the usual people about how any spending cuts will have dramatic effect, many DOGE-style cuts are likely worthwhile. It’s just that the savings are modest compared to the scale of our problems. It’s crazy that until now, no one has made such an attempt to end improper payments, fraud, and redundant programs. But even if DOGE eliminates all improper payments and fraud — an estimated $236 billion and $500 billion per year respectively — we’ll be facing a debt explosion. Social Security and Medicare are projected to require us to borrow $124 trillion over 30 years — four times what we’ve borrowed in our entire history. It’s not a case against DOGE cuts, but there’s no substitute for structural reforms. Second, cuts made without congressional approval might not last. Leaving aside the legal challenges that will inevitably come from DOGE’s actions, executive orders by nature are temporary. Future administrations can easily reverse its reforms with the stroke of a pen. That makes DOGE an unreliable long-term fiscal strategy. Take the current push to reduce federal employment. Even if it holds up in court, if Congress doesn’t reduce the scope of federal activities, the government may have to employ contractors to do the same jobs, or the next administration may rehire everyone. Fiscally, we may not be better off and could even be worse off. Perhaps the biggest risk is that DOGE is letting Congress off the hook. By pretending that DOGE will solve our fiscal challenges, legislators would once again be failing to do their own jobs as stewards of our tax dollars. And if there’s too strong a backlash against DOGE and its particular brand of spending reductions, it could set the cause of genuine reform back for decades. This is not to question the executive branch’s role in fiscal reform. The president should use his position to lead the conversation on debt reduction, propose spending restraint and veto irresponsible budgets. But Congress still has the power of the purse, and the longer legislators avoid making tough choices, the worse the crisis will become. We need our legislators to circumvent more drastic and painful adjustments in the future. History proves this point. When Social Security faced insolvency in the 1980s, then-President Ronald Reagan and then-House Speaker Tip O’Neill worked together on a bipartisan deal. That compromise extended Social Security’s solvency for decades. We need similar presidential-congressional leadership today. No amount of discretionary cuts or anti-waste initiatives, no matter how worthy they are, will solve our long-term debt crisis. Ultimately, lasting reform must be legislated. President Donald Trump and Musk deserve credit for highlighting the debt crisis and taking action, but pretending that the job ends with them would be dangerous. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM READ MORE: Personnel Is Policy: Hassett Brings Fiscal Responsibility to the White House Ideas Collide as Trump Lays Out a Pro-Growth, Anti-Trade Vision Renewing Trump Tax Cuts Crucial to America’s Economic Strength The post The Upside, Risks, and Limits of DOGE appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) attempts to block RFK, however he passed Senate cloture vote 53-47.

Sturgis Motorcycle Museum Announces 2025 Hall of Fame Inductees STURGIS, SD – February 12, 2025 – The Sturgis Motorcycle Museum is thrilled to announce its 2025 Hall of Fame inductees, a distinguished group of nine individuals who have made significant contributions to the world of motorcycling and the Sturgis Rally. These honorees join hundreds of notable motorcyclists already enshrined in the Hall of Fame, recognized for their support of the motorcycle community, the Museum and the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. The Class of 2025 represents a diverse range of achievements, from advocating for riders’ rights, building legendary engines, promoting the motorcycle industry and capturing the spirit of motorcycling through art and photography. This year’s inductees will be officially honored at the Hall of Fame Breakfast during the annual Sturgis Rally on Wednesday, August 8, 2025. “The Sturgis Motorcycle Museum’s Hall of Fame is a testament to the rich history and vibrant culture of motorcycling,” said Paul “Fozzy” Fosdyck, Museum Board President. “The Class of 2025 embodies the spirit of innovation, passion, and community that makes motorcycling so special. We are honored to welcome these exceptional individuals into our Hall of Fame.” The 2025 Hall of Fame inductees are: Michael Lichter – Lifetime Achievement Award – For over four decades, Michael Lichter has captured the essence of motorcycling through his photography. He made his name as the principal photographer for Easyriders Magazine, and now with over 1200 magazine features and eleven books, his work continues to tell the story of the people, machines and the spirit of motorcycle culture, including the Sturgis Rally, which he’s photographed since 1979. He continues to showcase his work to fans worldwide, expanding and preserving the legacy of the biker culture. Gary Gray: With nearly 30 years in motorcycling, Gary Gray’s contributions to Victory and Indian motorcycles have left a lasting impact on the industry. With a focus on engineering and product development, his skill and passion have allowed him to blend tradition with innovation to help revive and sustain these well-known brands. His leadership in racing and technology has reshaped the motorcycle landscape. Darren McKeag: Darren combines his love for motorcycles, painting, and tattooing to create stunning illustrations on tanks and helmets, and even large-scale paintings. Now a successful tattoo artist and studio owner, he’s also a humanitarian, frequently traveling worldwide to support the less fortunate. A longtime supporter of the Sturgis Motorcycle Museum, Darren generously donates his art to fundraising events and shares his talent with the community. Tom Motzko: Tom has been with Drag Specialties for 50 years, starting as a young motorcycle and car aficionado working in the warehouse in 1974. While working his way up in the company doing everything from picking parts to trade shows to catalogs, he became well known for his contributions in product development and vendor relations. A longtime supporter of the Sturgis Motorcycle Museum, Tom is deeply connected to the motorcycle community. Grady Pfeiffer: Driven by his love of custom motorcycles and inspired by his friend Arlen Ness, Grady bought his first Harley in 1982, and then, just a few years later, founded GH Marketing. His thriving company represents worldwide brands in the V-twin aftermarket, while Grady leverages his industry knowledge as a consultant and a member of the MIC’s Aftermarket Committee. Grady’s passion for custom bikes earned him membership and a board position in the respected Hamsters USA organization. Berry Wardlaw: Berry Wardlaw is a legend in the motorcycle world. As the first student enrolled in the Motorcycle Mechanics Institute’s Harley-Davidson curriculum, he went on to work at several Harley dealerships before starting Accurate Engineering. Known as “The Wild Pan Man,” Berry’s expertise in creating and tuning Knucklehead and Panhead engines has earned him a star-studded customer list and widespread admiration in the motorcycle industry. Charlie Gilmore – Freedom Fighter Award – Charlie’s passion for motorcycles ignited in the 1960s, leading to a lifetime of riding and advocacy. A Vietnam veteran and ordained minister, Charlie is the former national chaplain for the Sons of Silence and a founding member of ABATE of Iowa’s District 8. His “Price of Freedom” presentation is legendary within the rights movement. Charlie has created v-twin choppers showcased internationally and restored hundreds of motorcycles displayed in museums around the country, including the Sturgis Museum. Lillian Farrow – Kickstands Down Award – Lilly Farrow started A.D. Farrow Co. Harley-Davidson in Columbus, Ohio, with her husband Dale in 1912. After Dale’s death in the late 1920’s, Lilly, a mother of three young children, bravely took over the dealership, becoming the first woman to do so in America. As a dedicated rider and racer, she established The Buckeye Motorcycle Club, America’s first uniformed motorcycle club, and organized hill climbs and the flat track races. Her perseverance and passion for motorcycling make her an inspiration for all. Ray Tewksbury (Tampa Bay Ray/Rodeo Ray) – Kickstands Down Award – Rodeo Ray was a four-time Grand National Champion for the Easy Rider Rodeo. Known for his big heart and willingness to help others, Ray was a fixture at motorcycle events and charities, including the Love Ride and Rip’s Ride. His passion for motorcycling and his willingness to help the less fortunate are remembered by thousands in the riding community. The Sturgis Motorcycle Museum & Hall of Fame honors those who have dedicated their lives to the world of motorcycling, preserving their stories and contributions for future generations. The Freedom Fighter Award recognizes an individual who is making a significant contribution in fighting for the rights of motorcycle riders. The Kickstands Down Award honors individuals posthumously. The Museum’s Hall of Fame Breakfast takes place annually and is a highlight of the Sturgis Rally. The event celebrates the newest inductees to the Hall of Fame and recognizes those already enshrined. This year’s breakfast will take place at the Lodge at Deadwood on August 8, 2025. The post Sturgis Motorcycle Museum Announces 2025 Hall of Fame Inductees appeared first on Bikernet Blog - Online Biker Magazine.