Shortly before his death in 2006, I had the privilege of interviewing Milton Friedman over dinner in San Francisco. The last question I asked him was: What are the three things we had to do to make America more prosperous?
His answer I have never forgotten: “First, allow universal school choice; second, expand free trade; third and most importantly, cut government spending.” That was long before Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden came along.
There are not too many problems in America that cannot be traced back to the growth of big and incompetent government.
It is notable that the two big bursts of inflation during modern times both occurred when government spending exploded. The first was the gigantic expansion of the LBJ “war on poverty” welfare state in the 1970s with prices nearly doubling, and then the post-COVID era spending blitz in the last year of Trump and then the Biden $6 trillion spending spree with the CPI sprinting from 1.5% to 9.1%.
Coincidence? Maybe. But I doubt it.
The connection between government flab and the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar is obvious. In both cases the Washington spending blitz was funded by Federal Reserve money printing. The helicopter money caused prices to surge. (I still find it laughable that 11 Nobel prize-winning economists wrote in the New York Times in 2021: Don’t worry, the Biden multi-trillion-dollar spending spree won’t cause inflation.)
The avalanche of federal spending hasn’t stopped even though COVID ended more than three years ago. We are three months into the 2025 fiscal year and on pace to spend an all-time high $7 trillion and borrow $2 trillion. If we stay on this course, the federal budget could reach $10 trillion over the next decade.
This road to financial perdition cannot stand. It risks blowing up the Trump presidency.
Upon entering office, Trump should on day one call for a package of up to $500 billion of rescissions — money that the last Congress appropriated but has not been spent yet. Cancelling the green energy subsidies alone could save nearly $100 billion. Why are we still spending money on COVID?
We could save tens of billions by ending corporate welfare programs — such as the wheel barrels full of tax dollars thrown at companies like Intel in the CHIPS Act. The Elon Musk Department of Government Efficiency is already identifying low hanging fruit that needs to be cut from the tree.
Along with extending the Trump tax cut of 2017, this erasure of bloated federal spending is critical for economic revival and for reversing the income losses to the middle class under Biden.
This is especially urgent because the curse of inflation is NOT over. Since the Fed started cutting interest rates in October, commodity prices are up nearly 5% and the mortgage rates have again hit 7% — in part because the combination of cheap money and government expansion is a toxic economic brew — as history teaches us.
Nothing could suck the oxygen and excitement out of the new Trump presidency more than a resumption of inflation at the grocery store and the gas pump. Trump’s record-high approval rating will sink overnight if the cost of everything starts rising again.
Cutting spending won’t be easy. The resistance won’t just come from Bernie Sanders Democrats. Trump will have to convince lawmakers in his own party — many of whom are already defending green-new-deal pork projects in their districts.
This is why Trump should make the case in his inaugural address that downsizing government is the moral equivalent of war. Borrow a line from Nancy Reagan: just say no — to runaway government spending. Say yes to what Friedman titled his famous book: “Capitalism and Freedom.”
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. His new book, coauthored with Arthur Laffer, is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”
President-elect Donald Trump has a big job ahead of him in restoring common sense and sanity to federal energy policy when he takes office on January 20. The last four years in this realm can more accurately be characterized as a series of ill-considered, irrational scams than as any sort of coherent, productive set of policies. It has been four years of bad policies — largely based on crass crony capitalism principles — that has done severe damage to America’s level of energy security.
There is no doubt that cleaning up this mess left behind by President Joe Biden and his appointees will take the full four years of Trump’s second term. But the new president will be able to take some fast actions to jump-start the process as part of his first 100 days agenda.
With respect, here is a list of 10 quick common-sense actions Trump can take to begin to restore America’s energy security:
1 — Rescind Biden’s ridiculous permitting “pause” on LNG export infrastructure. Of all the Biden energy policy scams, this was perhaps the most heinous and unjustified of all. Terminate it immediately and get this American growth industry back on track.
2 — Terminate U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Agreement and in any future annual COP conferences sponsored by the United Nations. Halt the spending of federal dollars related to any and all goals and commitments related to either of these wasteful processes.
3 — Terminate the office of Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy, aka “the Climate Envoy,” currently occupied by John Podesta and eliminate its budget.
4 — Turnabout being fair play, Trump should invoke a “pause” of his own related to permits and subsidies going to Biden’s pet offshore wind boondoggle. The pause would be justified by the need to conduct a truly thorough study on the potential impacts of those massive developments on marine mammals, seabirds, and the commercial fishing industry. Invoke the “precautionary principle” that has been ignored by Biden regulators related to these costly and possibly deadly projects.
5 — Order the Interior Department to immediately and aggressively restart the moribund oil-and-gas leasing program on federal lands and waters. Direct the Interior Department Inspector General to investigate the Biden-era manipulations of these programs for potential criminal violations.
6 — Form an interagency task force to recommend ways the executive branch of government can act to streamline permitting processes for energy projects that do not require congressional action. Congress has proven several times now that it is incapable of passing legislation in this arena.
7 — Place an immediate hold on all green energy subsidies pending a full compliance review. This should include any and all subsidy programs that were part of the IRA or the 2021 Infrastructure law. This review should also include suggested reforms to qualification requirements for these subsidy programs in light of the high percentage of bankruptcy filings by unsustainable companies that have benefited from these subsidies.
8 — In light of the Supreme Court’s recent recission of the Chevron Deference, order the Environmental Protection Agency to review the rationale for regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide, aka “plant food,” as a pollutant under the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
9 — Order an interagency review of the U.S. power grid and transmission infrastructure as they relate to national security concerns. Include a special focus on the current, growing trend of major tech firms locking up power generation assets for their own specific needs (AI, data centers, etc.) which might deny generation capacity that would otherwise be dedicated to the public grid.
10 — In light of recent reports of Biden regulators steering billions of dollars of IRA and other green energy funds to NGOs to provide funding for anti-fossil fuel propaganda, lawfare, and other abuses of the legal system, order an immediate freeze on all such spending pending a formal review.
In reality, this list could consist of hundreds of high priority items for the new administration to undertake. Such is the level of damage that has been wrought on American energy security by the outgoing administration.
But executing these ten items in the early days of his second term would represent a good start and place the country on a path to recovery. We wish Trump and his appointees the best of luck in restoring U.S. energy security.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Arizona’s 2023 Abortion Report, released late last month, uncovers a dark truth: abortion in our state disproportionately targets minority communities. The data reveals that Hispanic and Black women are overrepresented in the number of abortions performed, far exceeding their share of Arizona’s population.
According to the report, Hispanic people accounted for 47% of all surgical abortions in 2023, while U.S. Census data shows they make up only 32% of the state’s population. Black people represented 11% of surgical abortions despite only being 6% of the population. Meanwhile, white people, who make up 53% of Arizona’s population, accounted for 30% of surgical abortions. These numbers reflect a decade-long trend: Hispanic and Black women consistently make up a higher percentage of abortions than their population percentages would suggest. This raises serious concerns about whether the abortion industry is disproportionately targeting minority communities.
The numbers aren’t just statistics. They tell a story of communities being disproportionately affected by abortion. Historically, the abortion industry has faced criticism for its roots in eugenics and its targeting of minority neighborhoods. Arizona law (ARS 13-3603.02) prohibits abortions based on race or sex, but these statistics make it clear that the impact of abortion on minorities remains profoundly unequal. This is not freedom of choice—it’s exploitation.
The sheer volume of abortions performed is heartbreaking. In 2023, Arizona celebrated 77,881 live births. At the same time, 12,705 babies were surgically aborted, not including chemical abortions. This means 14% of the babies who should have been part of our communities last year never had the chance to live. That’s not just a statistic; it’s a profound loss of human potential and a tragic reminder of the lives slaughtered by abortion.
Adding to this tragedy, Governor Katie Hobbs has called for an end to the Arizona Abortion Report, calling it “an attack on our freedom” and claiming it should not exist. But this report is not about attacking freedom—it’s about transparency and accountability. Eliminating it would obscure the truth, making it harder to see how abortion disproportionately impacts minority communities in our state.
The abortion industry’s targeting of Hispanic and Black women is not an accident—it’s a calculated strategy rooted in exploitation and profit. The 2023 Abortion Report doesn’t just expose chilling statistics; it exposes a system that sacrifices the most vulnerable—both mothers and their unborn children—for financial gain. This isn’t freedom, and it isn’t healthcare. It’s a disturbing reminder that the abortion industry thrives by exploiting the very communities it claims to serve. How much longer will we allow this silent genocide to continue before we confront the racism at its core?
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
Conservatives and commonsense residents in the Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) have a majority on the governing board! Shout out and thanks to Jeff Tobey and Janelle Bowles for stepping up to lead the community.
Since Peoria finally elected a slate (the RINOs got Rebecca Proudfit; conservatives got Tobey and Bowles), you’d think the powers that be would stop trying to manipulate and control the district. Nope. Before the election results were finalized—and it appeared Proudfit and former leftist board member David Sandoval were no longer in power—I heard rumblings of local leaders attempting to undermine the majority vote.
I initially exposed these shenanigans on my Substack entitled “Beware of Tainted Golden Tickets.” The post details how LD27 Chair Carol Ayotte and former LD28 Chair Lori Bango—along with their proxy minions—led their PCs to endorse a liberal (Proudfit). It’s come to my attention that certain community leaders are involved in another shadow campaign to appoint a board president who will work in opposition to current board member Heather Rooks.
No one on the PUSD school board has worked harder than Rooks to support students, families, and teachers. Rooks has not compromised her position on transparency, parental involvement, and quality education. She has also taken the most hits for boldly exercising her First Amendment rights. Understandably, this is a threat and an offense to those who don’t believe in God or the U.S. Constitution.
So, it appears her fatal flaw—from a Democrat and fake Republican perspective—is that she cannot be controlled.
What exactly is going through the minds of “Republicans” who want to silence one of Arizona’s strongest school board candidates? Why do they want true conservatives to care about Democrats/liberals feelings? When did it become our responsibility to “be nice” and avoid offending those who call us “racist” and “transphobic”? This whole scenario reminds me of a cinematic idiom that asks:
“Why worry about snakes in the garden when you’ve got spiders in your bed?”
That may sound like a rhetorical question. But the main issue plaguing true conservatives today is not leftists/Democrats—it’s all the morally compromised, bad actors with an “R” behind their name looking to capitalize on personal gains and party interests. As for me, I will remain a Rooks supporter. I offer no apologies for standing with her and with legitimate conservative values.
If the truth is offensive, then I say: let the truth offend. Truth has the power to set people free.
When Rooks was elected to the PUSD school board in 2022, her bid for the presidency was voted down in favor of her taking the clerk position. Surprisingly, it was leftist Peoria Education Association President Trina Berg who said:
“Having been a president of an organization before—having to have some type of background knowledge, how things work, that in depth knowledge—it’s really difficult to be elected and then immediately go right into a leadership position like that…I actually fully support Rooks [for the clerk position]. I think you should be in a leadership position.”
Nevertheless, when Proudfit was newly appointed by the corrupt former Maricopa County Superintendent Steve Watson, she was immediately nominated for board president by Sandoval. This hypocrisy led PUSD further in the wrong direction for an entire year. Thus, Berg’s words ring true.
If you go back and listen to public comments during the January 12, 2023, and January 11, 2024, school board meetings, you will hear the majority of PUSD community members speaking in favor of Rooks for president. You will witness the same on January 9, 2025, with the exception of those who want her and the district to fail. Only those with an ulterior motive are working to undermine the last two years of Rooks’ community service.
While RINOs are catering to their morally inept counterparts, PUSD’s current policies, curriculum, and predators on the payroll are corrupting the next generation. There’s serious business that needs to be taken care of in this district. Parents and taxpayers don’t have time for hidden agendas and backstabbing community leaders. So, I’ll state it more matter-of-factly:
We the People of Peoria Unified School District challenged authority, investigated, and asked questions. We rejected that gaslighting proposition from LD27 and LD28 executive members. And we will do it again in 2026. Duly elected officials are not beholden to sleazy factions that infiltrate the true grassroots movement. Political activists attempting to thwart the will of Peoria voters should reconsider their position before they’re exposed (again).
Listen as Rooks explains why she’s the right person to lead PUSD’s governing board:
“I’ve been pretty clear that I’m all in for the parents and their children in the Peoria Unified School District. I have built relationships…with teachers, with different staff members, [and] they have entrusted me with the daily concerns that they see. My focus for Peoria Unified is on the students’ academic needs…advocating for their safety, communicating with our parents…and being a voice for the community. “I have never wavered from who I am and what my values are and what I ran on. And I’m not going to step away from those values because that’s what I ran on when people elected me into this seat.”
—PUSD Board Member Heather Rooks
Let’s all look forward to throwing our full support behind Heather Rooks for PUSD board president on January 9, 2025.
What accounts for the differences in academic achievement between inner-city poverty area schools and high-income public schools? We‘ve all heard of the dreadful schools in cities like Chicago and Baltimore with no children in the entire school able to achieve even baseline levels of competence in math or verbal skills and many other schools with a third at most achieving at grade level.
Many would assume funding is the major determinant, but the facts don’t back that up. American public schools have traditionally been funded by local property taxes, which provide a clear advantage to the wealthy. But that was then. Today, education funding is complex, with federal funding for special programs, equalization formulas, and other inputs making it difficult for even experts to determine the bottom line.
A recent study from the Urban Institute confirmed other research showing that “when considering federal, state and local funding,” all states but three “allocate more per student funding to poor kids than to non-poor kids.” Moreover, researchers from Harvard and Stanford found that each extra $1,000 per pupil spending is associated with an annual gain in achievement of 1/10 of one percent of a standard deviation. In other words, more spending and more learning are essentially unrelated.
If more spending did produce more achievement, we would be morally obligated to provide it. As it is, we must look for other reasons to explain the achievement gap, examining how well the allocated funds are used. Education researcher Jay Greene observes that “wasteful schools tend to hire more non-instructional staff while raising the pay and benefits for all staff regardless of their contribution to student outcomes.”
Effective schools, whenever possible, prioritize the learning interests of students, eschewing the fads and misconceptions that plague the public school establishment. When a Stanford education professor helpfully developed an “equity-based” curriculum proposal, gullible California educators issued guidance against students taking algebra courses before high school.
After decades of the promotion of “context-based” reading instruction, it became obvious that the old-fashioned phonics instruction produced better readers. The Columbia University center that pushed context-based instruction was finally closed in 2023.
The devastating COVID closures demanded by the teachers’ unions disproportionately affected low-income public school students. The closures lasted longer and caused more learning loss for poor students than for those in private schools and more upscale districts.
The different, more “lenient” treatment afforded to low-income kids is evident also in the cellphone bans proliferating in the schools. Educators are suddenly realizing, after 20 years or so, that daily staring at a small screen bearing social media messages is not healthy for the developing brain.
According to advisories from the Surgeon General, UNESCO, and others, adolescent cell phone usage impairs academic achievement by distracting students’ attention from classroom instruction. Chronic cell phone overuse is also isolating and interferes with normal social development. Widespread cell phone use is associated with higher rates of teenage depression and suicide.
Eight states and many school districts have imposed cell phone bans, and others, including Arizona, are considering legislation. But there are objections. Parents feel the need to “keep in touch” with their children. Phones are also needed to locate friends in the lunchroom (yes, really). More seriously, parents worry about not having contact in a school shooting, even though the chances of any student encountering even one during their entire school life is vanishingly small.
The bigger problem is that legislative cell phone bans are typically so loose and riddled with exceptions that they are practically useless. California, with great fanfare from Governor Gavin Newsom, passed a bill that only required schools to “adopt a policy limiting or prohibiting smart phones by July 2026.” Any school with even an insignificant modification in cell phone usage would be legally in compliance, and enforcement would be a snap. Helicopter parents would still be in business. Florida’s ban is limited to classroom time only.
Private schools and high-end public schools pushed ahead with their own rules, which typically are more comprehensive and tightly written. Strict, uniform restrictions are easier for both teachers and students to understand. Meanwhile, poor students once again are saddled with misdirected compassion and low expectations.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Among the many promises and commitments that he has made during his ongoing transition period, President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to pull U.S. support for the World Health Organization and cancel its commitments related to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. If a new report issued this week by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and incoming chairman Republican Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, is any guide, Trump perhaps should add U.S. support for the International Energy Agency to his growing list of cancellation opportunities.
“French President Macron’s observation that IEA has become the ‘armed wing for implementing the Paris Agreement’ is regrettably true,” said the report. “With the many serious energy security challenges facing the world, however, IEA should not be a partisan cheerleader. What the world needs from IEA—and what it is not receiving now—is sober and unbiased analyses and projections that educate and inform policymakers and investors. IEA needs to remember why it was established and return to its energy security mission.”
The IEA was established in 1974 in response to the first Arab Oil Embargo which resulted in dramatically higher prices for crude oil and gasoline at the pump. Originally supported by 31 member countries including the United States, the agency’s mission was to provide accurate information related to global oil supply and demand which subscribing countries could use to help form effective energy policies. That original mission held firm for decades, during which the IEA was widely considered a leading source of real, unbiased energy information.
But politics tends to corrupt everything it touches, and the IEA has unfortunately proved to be no exception to that rule. As the politics surrounding climate alarmism rose to new highs following the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement, the agency came under increasing pressure to radically alter its mission from that of a provider of real information worthy of trust to more of an activist posture.
In 2020, the report notes, this led to a shift in the IEA’s mission statement and to a new design to its modeling processes that form the basis for its annual World Energy Outlook. As its modeling base case, the agency abandoned its longstanding Current Policies Scenario, which Barrasso’s report describes as “essentially a ‘business as usual’ reference case,” in favor of a more aggressive Stated Policies Scenario.
Barrasso’s report describes this new scenario as “a hypothetical outlook based on unimplemented policies and grounded in unrealistically optimistic assumptions about the pace and scale of the transformation, especially concerning the adoption of electric vehicles by consumers.” It is an approach intentionally designed to introduce bias into the modeling process, and thus into the IEA policy recommendations for which the modeling process serves as the foundation.
This inevitable bias had an immediate and very noticeable effect. In a report published by the IEA in May 2021 Executive Director Fatih Birol laughably stated that “there will not be a need for new investments in oil and gas fields” and urged oil and gas producers to halt investments in exploration and development of new oil reserves. But that was before oil prices exploded as global demand exceeded supply during the recovery from the COVID pandemic, and by August Birol had completely reversed himself, joining President Joe Biden in a desperate call for more oil drilling to help resolve the situation.
Obviously, this sort of flip-floppery does severe damage to the agency’s already crumbling credibility as well as to the justification for governments to continue pouring millions of dollars into its operations each year. Barrasso’s report correctly notes that the IEA’s “reputation has lost its luster.”
Barrasso’s report is blunt about the kinds of reforms he would like to see at the IEA, urging Birol to abandon its advocacy posturing against investments in oil, natural gas, and coal, and to “once again produce for its World Energy Outlooka real unbiased, policy-neutral ‘business as usual’ reference case of the kind the Energy Information Administration produces.”
The Wyoming senator stops short of calling for the U.S. defunding of the IEA, but the agency’s currency is information. If that currency has lost its value, then perhaps Trump should consider a more aggressive approach.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
