Latest news with #PostOpinion
New York Post
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Lawmakers' victim apathy and more: Letters to the Editor — June 8, 2025
Focus on victims My heart goes out to Theresa Bliss, whose son was brutally murdered ('Stop Ignoring Victims,' PostOpinion, June 3). Ms. Bliss said it all so well, too: Lawmakers must stop ignoring the families whose children have been senselessly murdered. It is beyond belief that lawmakers go to extremes to support these despicable killers, while disregarding the agony of these devastated and heartbroken families, who will likely never get over their excruciating tragedy. Advertisement It's high time that public officials take a closer look at what they are doing on behalf of these terrible offenders and reach out to and support these families, rather than pander to these criminals. Enough is enough. And prayers to you, Ms. Bliss. I'm so very sorry for your loss. Jeannie McDermott-Weldin, Dumont, NJ Folly of Medicare Re: 'They're Not Cutting Enough' (Editorial, June 4), when I turned 65, I was happy with my private insurance, and had little desire to enroll in Medicare, which, like Medicaid, is financially teetering. Advertisement Yet, I was told that if I didn't enroll in Medicare when I was 65, I would be penalized if I later opted for such coverage. Thus, I reluctantly enrolled in Medicare and purchased a private 'supplemental' plan to cover the gaps in Medicare coverage. I have wondered why the government would coerce persons such as myself to enroll in a financially stressed system when I was more than happy to pay for my private insurance and thus not burden the government. The answer most often given to me is that it was part of a subtle attempt to destroy private health insurance and thus to bring about a 'universal' plan controlled by the government, which people such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez openly advocate for. That would be the same government that has gotten us into this precarious position regarding the long-term viability of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — plus an unsustainable national debt. Advertisement Edward Hochman, Manhattan ADL's irrelevance As an honorary lifetime member of the Anti-Defamation League's National Commission, I am in strong agreement with the premise of Kathryn Wolf's excellent critique of America's major Jewish organizations ('Mission drift,' PostScript, June 1). I believe that the ADL, for one, has not been fulfilling its original mission from 1913 of fighting antisemitism in the United States. Rather, it engages in costly, sophisticated statistical research, but does not focus enough on education. Advertisement Beyond that, it has concerned itself inappropriately with Israeli politics, thus diminishing its focus on US institutional and university-based antisemitism. The question is: How relevant have the major Jewish organizations been? M.A. Fermaglich, Tenafly, NJ Ernst's fake 'sorry' Sen. Joni Ernst seems to have dug her own grave with a bonkers graveyard 'apology' for her snarky and inappropriate 'we're all going to die' comment at her town hall the day before ('Senator in mock apology,' June 2). In her ersatz mea culpa, she dissed the Tooth Fairy (?) and told us to embrace her Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ Ernst has probably given her saner and wiser opponent, Nathan Sage, the inside track in Iowa's next senatorial election. Even the Tooth Fairy might agree with that. Bob Canning, Petaluma, Calif. Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
New York Post
3 days ago
- Health
- New York Post
Ignore the hysteria over GOP ‘cuts' to Medicaid — it would still GROW dangerously fast
Over the past five years, federal spending has exploded. In 2019, Washington spent $4.5 trillion (20.9% of GDP). Today, that figure is closer to $7 trillion (23.3% of GDP). That surge, driven by pandemic emergency spending and entitlement expansions, is projected to persist unless Congress takes action. Yet even the most modest restraint to just one of the major programs driving this deficit, Medicaid, is triggering hysteria on Capitol Hill. Advertisement Over the last decade, Medicaid growth has outpaced that of the other two largest federal entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare. Including state and federal funding, total Medicaid spending ($873 billion) will exceed national defense this year, and it will only continue to balloon over the coming decade. Medicaid's rapid growth can be traced, in part, to the program's imbalanced financing structure. The core problem: The federal government finances up to $9 for every $1 states spend. Advertisement That encourages states to expand the program recklessly while letting Washington foot the bill. The result: rampant fraud, spiraling costs and a system that rewards size over need. ObamaCare exacerbated the issue by amplifying this imbalance. States receive a far higher federal 'match rate' to cover newly eligible, able-bodied adults than they do for the traditional Medicaid population — those who are poor, disabled, pregnant, or elderly. That means federal dollars flow more generously to those least in need. Advertisement Medicaid has grown by 78% since 2016. Jack Forbes / NY Post Design Meanwhile, states use gimmicks like taxing providers (and then reimbursing them through higher state payments) to artificially inflate their reported spending and draw down even more federal funds without actually contributing more of their own money. These perverse incentives explain why Medicaid's size and cost have spiraled far beyond anything envisioned when the program was founded. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Advertisement When Congress launched Medicaid in 1966, the financing burden was roughly equal, with states covering half of the budgetary costs of the program. Today, states generally cover only a quarter (or less) of the costs of running the program. When Washington picks up the tab, states lose incentives to spend wisely. Any serious reform effort must fix the incentives generated by the matching scheme at the heart of the Medicaid program. Despite attacks on Republicans, they're not planning to attempt real Medicaid reform anytime soon. As Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) noted: 'Just had a great talk with President [Donald] Trump about the Big, Beautiful Bill. He said again, NO MEDICAID BENEFIT CUTS.' So much for being the party of fiscal responsibility. Even under the Republicans' optimistic savings targets (and they are very optimistic), Medicaid spending would still rise by hundreds of billions over the next decade. The One Big Beautiful Bill aims to trim the rapid growth of federal Medicaid outlays from about 4.5% per year to roughly 3%. Advertisement Let's be clear: That is not a spending cut. And it's not austerity either. It's barely the fiscal equivalent of easing off the accelerator as we hurtle toward a debt cliff. As for those draconian 'cuts' cited in headlines — like the CBO's estimate that 10.3 million people could lose coverage? They assume states will drop beneficiaries en masse rather than adjust budgets, improve eligibility oversight or game the system via creative financing gimmicks. If states care about coverage, nothing in the House bill stops them from funding it themselves. Advertisement Republicans should not be cowed by apocalyptic rhetoric. Course corrections today could prevent a much deeper fiscal reckoning tomorrow. Instead of debating whether Medicaid should grow 4.5% or 3% per year, legislators should be asking: Why is this program growing faster than the economy? Why has it become untouchable? And how can we put this program on a sustainable path? Until that conversation takes place in good faith, expect Washington to keep racking up debt like there's no tomorrow. Advertisement Americans deserve a sustainable safety net — not one built on borrowed money and political cowardice. Dominik Lett is a budget-policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
New York Post
5 days ago
- Business
- New York Post
Voters must fight Dems' new war on small-town America
Democrats are waging war to crush a lifestyle they seem to abhor. Call it small-town America: single family neighborhoods, quiet streets, town centers stamped with their own historic character and almost no signs of the vagrancy and homeless encampments that plague cities. Democrats would have you keep none of this. If you've worked for years to save up for a home in one of these havens, forget about it. The Democratic Party is using brute legal force to remake towns using a cookie-cutter formula that forces each to have the same proportion of houses and apartments, the same mix of low, middle- and upper-income residents and the same reliance on public transit, all controlled by state politicians, not towns and their residents. Any town that resists gets shamed as 'segregated' — though this isn't about race — and 'snobby.' Just look at the drive here in the tri-state area. Start with Connecticut, whose legislature on Saturday passed a bill, HB 5002, that should be rightfully called the Destroy Connecticut Towns Act. It's headed to Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont's desk for signature. The law dictates how many low- and moderate-income apartments each Connecticut town must provide and mandates that towns foot the bill for the schools, parks, public transportation and other services low-income residents will need. Local taxes will soar. The bill explicitly says its purpose is to ensure 'economic diversity' in each town. This is about social engineering, not remedying housing shortages. Democrat Bob Duff, the state Senate majority leader, says, 'We don't want to segregate people based on a ZIP code.' Everyone, regardless of income, should have the opportunity to choose to live in any town. The bill mandates that the wealthiest towns, mostly in lower Fairfield County, provide most of the new housing, even though that raises the cost. Yet land costs less in other towns, and lower-income people this bill is supposed to serve are more likely to find bus transportation and affordable stores in these other towns. Connecticut lawmakers are going even further in nixing local rule. Ordinances that protect the appearance of a town will be overruled. Multi-family buildings of up to 24 units will no longer have to provide off-street parking. Envision cars lining every residential street. Forget property rights. Each town must set up a 'fair rent commission' with final say over whether a property owner is charging a fair rent. It's town-by-town rent control, of the kind that so distorted New York City's housing market. Towns will be forced to welcome vagrants who want to sleep in parks and public lots. The bill outlaws 'hostile architecture,' meaning park benches with arm rests and divided seating or stone walls with spikes on top that deter sleeping in the rough. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Instead, the bill launches a program of mobile showers and mobile laundry services on trucks to serve the homeless wherever they choose. Picture the mobile showers pulling up to Greenwich Common Park on the town's main street or Waveny Park in New Canaan. How can kids walk around town with their pals, if there are homeless encampments? Judge Glock, director of research at the Manhattan Institute, points out that the homeless amount to 1% of the population in Los Angeles but 25% of the homicides. Inviting the homeless means inviting crime and drugs. Californicating the small towns of Connecticut by encouraging public camping and vagrancy 'is frightening,' says Glock. New York Democrats are also taking aim at small-town living: A bill sponsored by Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal would bar towns from setting minimum lot sizes over one eighth of an acre near the town center and a half acre everywhere else. Postage-stamp sizes. Riverhead Town Supervisor Tim Hubbard is vowing to sue. 'We're trying to keep our town as rural as possible,' adding: 'We don't think the state should be zoning our town.' Hoylman-Sigal chooses to live on the West Side of Manhattan; who is he to impose a population-dense lifestyle on small-town New Yorkers? Similarly, in New Jersey, Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy is pushing lawmakers to override local ordinances and impose the same kinds 'reforms' as in the Connecticut bill. In all these states and across the country, small-town Americans need to fight back. There is no constitutional right to live in a wealthy town with single-family homes and leafy, quiet streets. It's something you earn. Once you've purchased a home, you have a right to protect its value. It's time to put blue-state politicians on notice that their battle to destroy our suburbs and small towns will be fiercely resisted at the voting booth and in court. Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and co-founder of the Committee to Save Our City.
New York Post
01-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Courts' power over President Trump: Letters to the Editor — June 2, 2025
The Issue: Federal lower-court judges repeatedly blocking President Trump's policies. Everyone should take a step back and take a deep breath ('Court KO's Don tariffs,' May 29). The president was elected to change the dangerous direction in which we were headed; secure the border, create energy independence, preserve the tax cuts and deport those who are here illegally. In addition, he has tackled the unfair trade imbalance that most Americans did not know even existed. Advertisement Opposition to this, plus a panicked reaction from within, only serves to embolden our trade partners to resist and delay the deals which ultimately will occur. Jerry Chiappetta Monticello Advertisement You would think that at some point in time, Donald Trump would get the message that the judiciary is going to hold fast in interpreting the law. By blocking the president's attempts to enact these tariffs, the US Court of International Trade essentially advised Trump that he is required to act as the president and within the boundaries of that office. Even those of us who are critical of Trump could live with his policies if he made a cursory attempt to comply with the law when trying to attain them. Lou Maione Advertisement Manhattan The voters did not give Executive Branch powers to the Judicial Branch on Nov. 5, 2024, nor did the Electoral College. Congress must put a stop to the judicial overreach affecting the Executive Branch's ability to perform its duties and responsibilities. Robert Neglia Advertisement The Bronx The lower courts seem to be dictating the law at the moment, ripping up everything Trump introduces. The district court judges need to prioritize the interest of justice, not politics. Hans Sander Gordon, Australia How can a judge undermine the president? Judges make their decisions based on what party appointed them. Tariffs are going to help our country, not set it back. Voters chose Trump; let him do his job as he sees it. Stop tying his hands with ridiculous injunctions, suing him and stopping orders. Advertisement If it weren't for Trump, we'd have another four years of clowns running our government. Brenda Hodgkiss Atlantic Highlands, NJ Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Advertisement The Issue: Democratic Party leaders' $20 million study to address their lack of young male voters. If the Democratic Party feels it needs an expensive third party to tell them how to convey their message and speak to men, they may want to consider two points from the start ('Dems miss the forgotten man,' May 28). 1) Change the message from ultra-progressive left back to the middle. 2) Answer this question: What is a man? And while we are at it, what is a woman? Until then, I do not see their current message getting through to me anymore than it is currently. Advertisement Sean Kelly Farmingdale The Democrats are going to spend $20 million to study why they are losing the younger male voters to the Republicans. Why should that demographic even matter, when they can count on those other 71 genders to make up that disparity? Advertisement Thomas De Julio Delray Beach, Fla. The Democratic Party is spending another $20 million to get back men. Why don't they understand that a man's mind can't be bought? The Democrats lost men because their policies were not advantageous to men's lives. They saw that Republican men were having a better time. They didn't want to be taxed to death, and they didn't relate to Tim Walz. Real men are conservative, not woke. J.R. Cummings Manhattan Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
New York Post
31-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
NYC's cyclist crime and more: Letters to the Editor — June 1, 2025
Stop cyclist crime The bikes are totally out of control in New York City today ('E-bike danger an e-emergency,' May 29). The bike lanes next to the curb are borderline unsafe. Bikers ride at extreme speeds using gasoline and electric motors, while being oblivious to pedestrians and any traffic laws whatsoever. How many times must one see them riding on the sidewalk? Or going the wrong way on a one-way street? Riding against traffic? Running full stop signs and red lights? Advertisement How many vehicular accidents have they caused and just kept going? How many pedestrians have they injured or killed with no consequences? They think they can do anything they want with zero consequences from the NYPD because elected officials protect them. Every type of bike should be licensed, registered and insured. Peter Janosik, Philadelphia, Pa. Trump's triumphs President Trump opened the Overton Window wide and let fresh air chase away the stale ideas of the left ('End of the Woke Road,' Rich Lowry, PostOpinion, May 28). Advertisement Democrats imposed pronouns, equity for 'oppressed' people regardless of personal effort, political favor based on skin color and — perhaps the foulest idea of all — intersectionality. The woke destroyed many schools, from elementary to universities, with mephitic ideas. They reduced heroes' statues to rubble, rewrote our history and tried to transform our country into Nazi Germany for Jews. No matter what others think of his presidency, Trump has engineered a great victory for America. Advertisement Paul Bloustein, Cincinnati, Ohio Not all migrants While I have no problem with sending violent criminal migrants back to Venezuela, I find it cold-hearted and foolish to now be sending back the exceptional ones ('Ire at ICE detain of migrant student,' May 28). Under a Biden-era entry program, this boy was legally here and on track to become a productive member of society. He was in high school, working part-time to help support his mother and siblings and showing up to his immigration hearings. The government changed the rules, and he is now locked up. The old bait-and-switch is for catching rats, and not all immigrants are rats. Advertisement Donathan Salkaln, Manhattan Democratic doom One of the great things about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez running against Sen. Chuck Schumer in a Democratic primary is that we can get rid of one of them ('Schu're in big trouble,' May 26). Schumer has become an increasingly pathetic political figure over the last few years. As a Jew, his silence over pro-Hamas activists threatening Jewish students at many levels is an embarrassing example of political cowardice. His 'we're moving forward' responses to questions about his role in covering up former President Joe Biden's mental capacity is insulting to the intelligence of Americans. If AOC wins, we're still stuck with an elitist phony whose concern for her constituents is a disgrace. Regardless, one is better than two. Robert DiNardo, Farmingdale Fugitive found You can run, but you can't hide (' 'Cop stomper,' busted,' May 28). The coward who beat up an NYPD officer was nabbed in Virginia. Will his mommy and family friend be charged with harboring a fugitive? The feds should give them a look. Advertisement Mike Lapinga, Staten Island Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
