Dems at a loss to stop Trump, ending states' Medicaid scams and other commentary
Democrats today are 'engaged in bitter infighting and struggling to come up with a unified strategy to oppose Trump,' observes The Washington Times' Byron York. Meanwhile, Trump is 'setting the agenda' and 'putting together one of the most consequential presidencies in years.' Lacking the Russia-collusion narrative 'to use as a cudgel against the Trump administration,' Democrats are relying instead on 'lawfare' to thwart him and using '1960s-style civil disobedience' tactics as symbols of 'resistance.' Yet 'Democrats are still on the wrong side of a number of issues, like immigration, wokeism, and national security.' Indeed, Democratic Socialist NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani 'is a walking nightmare for Democrats who hope to win back voter support nationally.'
Budget hawk: Ending States' Medicaid Scams
Advertisement
'The House version of the 'one big beautiful bill' started to clean up a financing scheme that lets states abuse the Medicaid program for extra money,' cheers Red Jahncke at The Wall Street Journal. And 'the Senate version is poised to finish the job.' The scheme entails states taxing providers (mainly hospitals) and then returning the tax via a 'supplemental payment' that triggers federal matching funds. Both the House and Senate set a moratorium on new and higher provider taxes, but the Senate would lower them, producing 'major savings' and a 'sorely needed' trim in Medicaid enrollment. 'Government programs should be straightforward, transparent and cost-effective. The provider tax scheme is the opposite.' Senate reforms would both 'save money' and 'move states in the direction of good government.'
Conservative: Social Security Is Already Broke
Advertisement
The Social Security trustees 'warn that by 2033' the program 'won't have the money to pay retirees' full benefits,' but, in fact, it 'already doesn't have the money,' argues Merrill Matthews at The Hill. The program's 'trust fund boasts some $2.5 trillion in assets,' but it must tap into that cash to pay out benefits, since it doles out more than it brings in. Plus, 'that $2.5 trillion isn't invested in stocks or bonds or loaned out to interest-paying banks or companies. The federal government has borrowed that money and spent it, writing itself interest-bearing IOUs.' Meaning, in order to pay out benefits, the government is 'creating new debt to pay old debt.' The trust fund 'is already essentially, if not technically, depleted.'
Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here!
Foreign desk: Pooh-Poohing the Strikes on Iran
'There's a debate raging right now about the effectiveness of the strikes that Israel and the U.S. inflicted on Iran,' stemming from a CNN article that claimed they failed to destroy Tehran's nuclear sites, notes PJ Media's Chris Queen. 'It's all an effort to discredit President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pet Hegseth.' The piece, for starters, was based on 'unnamed sources.' And Israeli intelligence, 'which is much closer to the situation,' says even if the US strike didn't totally obliterate Iran's nuclear program, it set the Islamic Republic back 'several years.' Note, too, adds Queen, that one of the reporters on the CNN piece was Natasha Bertrand, who pushed the false 'claim that the New York Post report about Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation.'
Advertisement
Culture beat: Population Growth Is Ending
'People are having fewer children — much fewer,' reports Bill King at RealClear Politics. And so, while many have long assumed the global population will keep growing, the United Nations just 'lowered its global population projections' — the 'demographic math has changed.' And remember that population projections matter greatly, because they shape 'everything from how we plan cities to how we fund pensions'; if they're 'off by a billion people,' that's not just a rounding error. It's a seismic shift in the underlying math of the future.' Still, 'the data clearly indicate' that the era of continuing growth 'is rapidly coming to a close. 'What follows, and how we react to it, is one of the most critical and least understood stories of our time.'
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Says Decision on Marijuana Classification Coming in Weeks
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump said Monday he is considering whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug and would decide in 'the next few weeks.' Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Three Deaths Reported as NYC Legionnaires' Outbreak Spreads Chicago Schools' Bond Penalty Widens as $734 Million Gap Looms To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Trump told reporters that he had discussed the issue with many people and found deep divisions, with some proponents of changing the drug's status stressing its medical benefits while opponents said the move posed a risk to children. 'I've heard great things having to do with medical, and I've had bad things having to do with just about everything else but medical,' Trump said. 'And, you know, for pain and various things, I've heard some pretty good things, but for other things, I've heard some pretty bad things.' Trump told attendees at a fundraiser in New Jersey earlier this month that he was considering the change, the Wall Street Journal reported. The federal government currently classifies marijuana under Schedule I, which is for drugs with no medical use and a high potential for abuse. Reclassifying the drug could make it easier to buy and sell cannabis. Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist The Game Starts at 8. The Robbery Starts at 8:01 Klarna Cashed In on 'Buy Now, Pay Later.' Now It Wants to Be a Bank The Pizza Oven Startup With a Plan to Own Every Piece of the Pie It's Only a Matter of Time Until Americans Pay for Trump's Tariffs ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
UPI
21 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Bloomberg
21 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
The Territory at the Heart of Russia's War in Ukraine
Russia's war in Ukraine is well into its fourth year, despite US President Donald Trump's promise to end the conflict within 24 hours of his return to office. As his efforts to secure a peace deal continue, Trump will have to bridge the stark differences between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskiy arising from the Russian president's claims on Ukrainian territory.
