Here’s an economics lesson that belongs in the text books.
Student loan debt soared to more than $1.5 trillion during the Biden presidency and the response by Washington was to “forgive” hundreds of billions of these unpaid loans by deadbeat borrowers and let the taxpayers pick up the tab. It was never clear why the universities who charge exorbitant tuitions that have reached more than $75,000 a year at many elite schools shouldn’t bear the cost of the program – but that’s another story.
Those of us who watched these events upfold predicted that one result of this policy would be that many college graduates would stop paying back their loans. And guess what?
Just like clockwork, this headline from Bloomberg recently told the whole story:
“Student loans drive U.S. delinquency rate to highest since 2020”
Gee, who – except a bunch of head-in-the-sand- politicians in Washington – would have ever thought that forgiving as many people from paying their student loans as possible would increase future non-payments?
Well, the Biden administration for one. Now that the Department of Education is honestly reporting the data, we find that serious delinquency rates are over more than 10 times what the Biden Department of Education said they were.
There is an old saying in physics and economics: every action in the universe has a reaction. How many students in the future will pay back unpaid student loans when the next forgiveness program is right around the corner? So people who did the right thing and paid back their debts now have to pay more for the people who refused to pay back the money they owed.
In Washington, we love to reward vice and punish virtue.
As we said many times last year: expect student loan defaults to remain sky high for many years, as deadbeat borrowers wait for the next student loan amnesty program.
Fortunately, in the House of Representatives “Big Beautiful tax bill,” there are new caps of $50,000 on student loans for undergraduate students and $100,000 for grad students. This cap should help slow the stampede of higher tuition prices, which have grown two to three times the rate of overall inflation over the last thirty years. The availability of cheap student loans only fueled this stampede of tuition prices. The Wall Street Journal calls this move “The End of The College Free Lunch.”
The bad news is that we should anticipate bigger stashes of student loans to pile up at taxpayers’ doors in the years to come. The good news is that this scam has reminded us that in life incentives matter. This episode brought to light the financial foolishness of debt forgiveness programs and so hopefully we will never do this again.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a cofounder of Unleash Prosperity, and a former senior economic adviser to Donald Trump. His most recent book is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”
Secrecy, control, and parents without a voice. These factors apparently comprise the current motto of Superintendent Tom Horne and John Ward, head of the ESA department. As a six-year veteran parent in the ESA program, I know what I am talking about. Over the past two years, the changes I have seen have been nothing short of appalling, frustrating, and alarming. Instead of empowering parents with trust and the ability to make free choices in educating their students, the current Superintendent has done all he can to rob parents of the freedom granted in the lawmakers’ legislative intent in the historic bill that was passed in 2020.
I could spend hours sharing all the abuses that parents have experienced at the hands of Tom Horne. To save us all a bunch of heartache, I’ll leave it at one major concern: the ongoing development of the most recent edition of the parent handbook. As a longtime shareholder, I can tell you the current protocol of closed-door meetings and a handpicked handbook committee led by a non-ESA parent has never been the norm of this program. Even under former Superintendent Kathy Hoffman, a clear opponent to the program, parents were offered townhalls to make their voices heard.
This year, despite the State Board of Education’s President demanding that Superintendent Tom Horne offer a townhall, Superintendent Horne has remained silent for months. Instead, prior to the last State Board of Education meeting, Mr. Horne sent an email to parents, demanding they sit down and shut up.
I quote, “This email is particularly directed to ESA users who have been in disagreement with the proposed handbook: We received some concern from state legislators. We therefore agreed to postpone the vote on the handbook until the June meeting to give us a chance to sit down with the legislators and hopefully reach mutually acceptable agreements. We therefore respectfully request that those who have signed up to speak on this issue wait until the June meeting and not come to the meeting next Monday. The handbook will not be on the agenda, and once agreement is reached with legislators, any objections you have might be solved. It is best to come to the meeting when you know what the final proposal will be in June.”
Clearly Superintendent Horne has no interest in listening to the concerns of the parents.
Now, let us explore some major issues in the handbook itself. A large portion of the parental outcry has primarily been against the mandated caps in different spending categories. While the caps seem to be contrary to the law, I firmly believe they are merely a diversion from the real agenda of the ESA department. Take a moment to examine two critical footnotes.
For the second time in the last two years, we see a footnote that an acceptable expense category is as follows: “Any fees that may be levied by the Department to cover the costs of managing of the Empowerment Scholarship Account program” (pg 15, footnote 10). This means that the ESA department really wants to pull fees out of students’ accounts to cover administrative fees. Students already only receive 90% of the funding they would in public schools – and now the department wants to steal money from the kids to cover their own expenses?
Even more concerning is footnote 22 on page 52, which says: “The Department may ask for repayment of any items approved in error, if items are improper or unallowable under your ESA contract, state law, administrative rule, program policies, or this ESA parental handbook.”
For the first time in my experience as an ESA parent, Superintendent Horne and John Ward have approved auto approvals of expenses in the ESA program. Before this, every single purchase had to be approved, thus protecting tax dollars from being used improperly. However, because the current ESA department cannot be run efficiently or effectively (despite the program being handed over to Mr. Ward with turnaround times being 24-48 hours for every single order), they now want the buck to stop with the parents, not themselves as the lawful administrators of the program. This leaves parents in a position that if rules change or future ESA parent handbooks remove categories, the state can demand repayment. This has nothing to do with improper spending, but everything to do with bureaucratic inefficiency.
It is clear that Tom Horne is no advocate for school choice and no advocate for making the voices of parents heard. We parents have had enough. We will scream until our voices are hoarse, because we are the primary educators for our children and we should have a say in the proposed ESA parent handbook.
Rosemary McAtee is a home-educating parent of 7 students and a 6-year veteran of the ESA program.
In the past decade, environmentalists and central planners have linked arms with woke evangelists to radicalize transportation policy across the country. This was super-charged under Biden’s administration that pushed propaganda about roads being racist, rewrote rules and policies to force the Green New Deal, and made billions in grants to states and localities contingent on them adopting this woke agenda.
No one wants to see expectant mothers suffer, physically or mentally—no one but the Big Abortion industry that is. Yet pro-abortion activists in Arizona repeatedly insist that abortion behemoth Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have women’s best interests in mind, when evidence reveals that nothing is further from the truth.
Activists at Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL) recently launched political ads against Rep. Juan Ciscomani (AZ-06), misinforming viewers that if Republicans cast a vote to defund Planned Parenthood, they will inflict harm on women and deny them essential health care. Reasonable constituents of Ciscomani’s district, myself included, know full well that these ads are nothing but a fearmongering attempt and an effort to keep Planned Parenthood open for business as usual – to the detriment of women and their vulnerable children in the womb.
It’s a well-documented fact that Planned Parenthood does little to meaningfully move the needle on women’s healthcare in America, and worse, causes mothers unnecessary pain and turmoil during their most vulnerable moments in life. Even the abortion-promoting New York Times recently admitted there is a problem with care received at these abortion facilities when it published a February 2025 report covering horrific examples of low-quality patient treatments. One child, the report said, was stillborn after a Planned Parenthood improperly implanted an IUD in the mother’s uterus. In Missouri, a Planned Parenthood was shut down in 2024 for using moldy abortion equipment on women. Likewise, in Colorado, an 18-year-old girl recently died from an abortion Planned Parenthood conducted at 22 weeks. Yet despite these tragedies, Reproductive Freedom for All continues to sing Planned Parenthood’s praises.
While Planned Parenthood’s competency in performing safe abortions decreases, the services they offer women beyond abortion – such as breast exams and cancer screenings – are also on the decline. Contrary to what the recent ads against Ciscomani claim, Planned Parenthood’s cancer screenings, breast exams, and pap smears have dropped by more than 70 percent in the time that taxpayer funding for the abortion giant has increased by 43 percent. Even contraception services are down nearly 40 percent and mammograms aren’t offered at all, clearly indicating that Planned Parenthood isn’t a health care provider, but a soulless abortion business that cares little if anything about the women who walk through the doors of its 600 facilities across the nation.
Planned Parenthood’s own reporting reveals that they are overwhelmingly preoccupied with destroying life instead of helping mothers and their children thrive. Prenatal services account for only 1.6 percent of services offered at their facilities, miscarriage care accounts for 0.9 percent, and adoption referrals 0.4 percent. They perform 228 abortions for every one adoption referral, and more than 97 percent of pregnant women who walk through their doors end up getting abortions.
From a political point of view, it’s no surprise that Reproductive Freedom for All – an organization hell bent on using millions of dollars to put progressive policies into law – would back Planned Parenthood, itself known for engaging heavily in political spending to help pro-abortion Democrats win elections. These activists’ political leanings, however, are stopping them from advancing real medical progress for women’s health.
What political activists and their television ads don’t want you to know is that if Planned Parenthood is defunded, all women – especially Medicaid recipients – will be left with safer, higher quality care at federally funded community health centers which offer a full range of women’s health services, including OB/GYN care, well-woman care, and family planning. They also outnumber Planned Parenthoods 15 to one. If Americans are no longer forced to subsidize the Big Abortion industry, pregnant women will receive true, comprehensive health care, even in rural areas.
Far from cutting benefits to women, defunding Planned Parenthood would save them from extreme anguish at the hands of abortionists everywhere. It’s with great concern for the women of Arizona and all expectant mothers that I urge my fellow residents to challenge the political talking points presented on screen and stand behind Rep. Ciscomani and against the Big Abortion lobby.
Laura Pedersen RN, MSN is a Tucson, Arizona, resident and pro-life advocate.
Last Tuesday night, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held what could only be described as a marathon meeting, lasting six and a half hours, including the executive session. The agenda was packed with items, but one issue drew the most attention: the proposed adoption of a new Social Science curriculum.
Eighteen individuals participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. All but one focused on the curriculum. A significant majority urged the Board not to adopt it, citing deep concerns. Opponents argued that the curriculum was saturated with DEI narratives, anti-law enforcement bias, gender ideology, climate activism, misleading COVID-19 claims, and advocacy for student activism over academic learning. Their primary concern: the curriculum fosters political indoctrination, not education.
Despite their differences, both supporters and critics of the curriculum appeared to agree on two points: students need to be taught the truth about current events, and they must learn to think critically. The debate centers on what constitutes the truth and how critical thinking should be developed.
Those supporting the curriculum’s adoption argued that it presents an honest, if uncomfortable, portrayal of America, especially regarding race and law enforcement. The curriculum cites examples like the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It emphasizes that Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot six times and killed by a white police officer, and points to the incident as emblematic of systemic racism.
The curriculum also discusses the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its evolution from protesting police brutality to addressing broader systemic issues like housing, healthcare, and employment disparities for Black Americans.
Additional content includes explanations about gender identity, stating individuals can identify as male, female, both, or neither. The curriculum also addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the FDA approved two highly effective vaccines and suggesting that lockdowns saved lives. It frames the environmental benefits of lockdowns as evidence of climate change and the need for continued action.
One speaker supporting the curriculum even admitted that for those questioning these narratives, “I don’t know what to say.”
Critics, however, challenged these representations as incomplete or misleading. Regarding the Michael Brown case, there is no mention that the Department of Justice’s investigation found Brown was attacking the officer and trying to take his weapon—his DNA was found on the gun—and that the claim he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot” was debunked in court. By omitting these critical facts, the curriculum pushes a one-sided narrative that paints law enforcement as inherently racist.
If the goal were truly critical thinking, the curriculum would also include studies like that of a Harvard professor, who, despite his preconceived belief that there is racial bias in policing, found no racial bias in police shootings after analyzing hundreds of cases. An honest and open discussion would allow students to examine why Black Americans commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population, not just claim they are victims of systemic racism. Perhaps the high rate of crimes being committed by young Blacks might explain their high rate of involvement with the police. But with this curriculum, it is doubtful the students will ever have such a discussion.
Law enforcement professionals also voiced concerns. The President of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Officers Association, a former Scottsdale police officer, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office both criticized the curriculum’s anti-police tone. They warned that such content erodes trust between youth and law enforcement—trust, they say, is essential for community safety.
Rather than comparing the BLM movement to the civil rights movement and implying BLM has done great things for Blacks in America, why not tell the truth that the leaders of BLM stole money and bought houses for themselves? Or that several of the local chapters said nothing has been done by BLM to help Blacks in their communities.
Critics also took issue with how the curriculum handles topics like climate change and COVID-19. The omission of data showing that Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, information that contradicts climate change alarmism, is concerning. While skeptics of the climate narratives are called “science deniers,” the curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender is fluid is a fact, when it’s really a denial of biological science.
On COVID-19, the curriculum claims the vaccines were effective at preventing infection but fails to acknowledge how the scientific narrative evolved. Initial claims about vaccine efficacy were later revised, with experts clarifying that while vaccines may not prevent infection, they can reduce the severity of symptoms. The curriculum also omits discussion of the high survival rate of COVID-19, 99%, particularly in children, and the long-term educational harm caused by prolonged school closures. There is no mention of the fact that the government actively blocked any negative discussion about the vaccine, including reporting on the severe negative side effects many people experienced.
One especially controversial element of the curriculum encourages students to take political action, such as organizing protests or social media campaigns, in support of transgender rights, or creating NGOs, leading critics to argue that it turns students into political activists.
Questions were also raised about how the curriculum was reviewed and recommended. Supporters of the adoption process claimed the committee’s work was “thorough and inclusive,” but the review committee was composed mostly of teachers, with only one community member, who happened to be the spouse of a former Board member, and no parents on the committee. One supporter of the curriculum told the Board members it was their responsibility to approve the committee’s recommendation, apparently without considering the curriculum themselves and just rubber-stamping the committee’s work. I don’t think so.
There are financial implications, too. Because the curriculum includes DEI and gender identity material, the SUSD risks losing funding—not just from government sources but also due to declining enrollment—as some families opt out of SUSD altogether. This ongoing trend of declining enrollment tracks with Dr. Menzel’s leadership of SUSD. Not only are students leaving, but critical, experienced staff and teachers are leaving. At this time, only about 50% of the eligible students attend SUSD—a dismal number, but reflective of just how well SUSD is perceived in the community.
On May 13th, board members Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis voted to defy Superintendent Menzel's "NO DEI" pledge and committed YOUR tax dollars for the purchase of DEI-filled curriculum.
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) May 16, 2025
Keep in mind that indoctrination aims to instill a specific set of beliefs or ideas without allowing for critical thinking or questioning, whereas education encourages exploration, curiosity, and independent thought, fostering a deeper understanding through evidence and critical analysis.
After doing your research, ask yourself: Is this curriculum indoctrination or education? Which do you want for your child?
The current Board makeup makes any substantial changes in SUSD unlikely. Dr. Menzel’s apparent security in his position of “leadership” means we can expect him to continue his destruction of SUSD. I expect to see more 3–2 votes going forward and remain skeptical about the Board’s willingness or ability to restore trust and balance in SUSD and the classroom.
As this school year comes to an end, talk to your kids about what has gone on in their classrooms. What have they learned? Go to the SUSD website and look at the materials they will be using next year. If the information you are seeking is not available, use the Let’s Talk feature to question the staff and Dr. Menzel. If you find something objectionable, exercise your rights under Arizona law and opt your kid out of lessons.
Go to the Arizona Department of Education website and check the academic performance of your child’s school, or the new one they will be attending next year. Don’t fall for the SUSD hype of having so many A+ schools; rather, compare that rating to the academic performance of your schools. Does it meet your definition of A+? You just might be surprised at what you find.
Not every parent can take their child out of SUSD. Many will return next year, but despite the challenges, we must continue to strive for change in SUSD. Get involved. Go to Board meetings. Email the Board with your thoughts and concerns. Talk to the teachers. I know everyone is busy, but you can’t sit idly by and expect others to do the work by themselves. The number of people involved matters.
It’s your kid’s future we are talking about.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Since becoming Governor of Arizona in 2023, Katie Hobbs’ name has been synonymous with corruption. Now, one of her latest vetoes shows the lengths she is willing to go to protect her own schemes.
Buried on the afternoon of Friday, May 2, Hobbs vetoed SB 1612, along with 21 other bills. Sponsored by Arizona State Senator TJ Shope, SB 1612 would have required anyone applying for grants to various state agencies to disclose gifts, donations, or other support provided to the sitting governor. That sort of transparency should be something that every Arizonan can get behind—Republicans, Democrats, Independents, you name it—unless, of course, your agenda doesn’t involve the best interests of Arizona citizens, right Katie Hobbs?
This whole story starts at the very beginning of Hobbs’ tenure as governor. If you’ll recall, at the time, Hobbs set up a shady slush fund to provide donors with a conduit to buy political favor from her administration. While setting up and managing the fund, Hobbs illegally used public resources—like the state’s website—to solicit money for her inauguration. And she also tried to stop the disclosure of the names of those who donated to her inaugural fund.
But after immense political pressure and public records requests filed by groups like the Arizona Freedom Foundation (who operates AZ Free News), Hobbs finally released the names of the donors. One of the names of the groups on the list was Sunshine Residential Homes Inc., a for-profit company that contracts with the State of Arizona to provide some child welfare services. At the time, Sunshine Residential Homes made a donation of $100,000. But in June 2024, an eye-opening report revealed a deeper level of corruption—an alleged pay-to-play scheme between Hobbs and the group home…
