The federal government owns multiple trillions of dollars of federal assets — from land, to buildings, to patent rights, to mineral rights, to immigrant visas, to oil fields to trucks and trains and unused office furniture equipment.
The government could earn well more than $1 trillion and perhaps as much as $10 trillion by selling off these assets that are simply hoarded (figuratively) in the dark and dusty basement of government buildings. These assets could then generate added annual tax receipts once they are utilized for productive purposes.
I’m not talking about selling the Washington Monument or Yellowstone National Park. The sales could and in most cases should be limited to American citizens and American businesses.
I’m referring to NON-environmentally sensitive properties that could be put to use growing our economy and using the money to retire some of our $35 trillion national debt. The sales could and should in most cases be limited to American citizens or businesses.
It’s a win-win for taxpayers, our children (who will be handed a lower debt obligation) and the U.S. economy.
One of the most valuable assets that should be put on the auction block immediately is tracts along the electro-magnetic spectrum. The spectrum contains the invisible airwaves that power mobile phones, Wi-Fi and other wireless technologies such as 5g communications.
In the past, auctioning spectrum rights to telecommunication firms and tech companies has raised more than $100 billion for the U.S. Treasury.
Congress could raise at least another $100 billion in another round of spectrum auctions. This would sell or lease space that the military doesn’t need and that other agencies of government (such as local police and fire departments) are fine without.
This strategy would help stimulate the economy in two ways. First, as in the past, the revenues raised can offset any real or imagined revenue loss from the imperative of making the Trump tax cuts permanent.
A new report by the economic consulting firm NERA, finds that auctioning 100 megahertz of mid-band spectrum that’s licensed for 5G will boost U.S. GDP by more than $260 billion, and create 1.5 million new jobs
On at least four previous occasions, Congress has used dollars raised from spectrum auctions to offset tax cuts in reconciliation packages. That’s exactly what they should do again.
“Effectively allocating spectrum to meet the ever-growing need is critical to promoting American innovation and protecting our national security,” Chairman Richard Hudson said yesterday at the first House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing of the new Congress.
He points out correctly that the U.S. government has been conducting spectrum auctions for the past 30 years, and they have a track record of success. They are much fairer than giving bureaucrats the power to decide who gets spectrum, which can lead to allocations that are politically or ideologically motivated, with the result that spectrum would be used inefficiently (or not at all) by beneficiaries.
Auctions are open and transparent, minimizing the risk of shady backroom deals. They ensure that the spectrum goes to those who value it most and can use it most effectively.
Anyone who is concerned about ensuring the uninterrupted connectivity of our electric grid system and our daily Internet connection should be all for these auctions — especially as the world goes wireless and communicates less through cables and more through satellite beams.
This is also critical to maintaining our technology lead against the Chinese communist government. One Chinese news agency reported last July that, “China’s 5G network now covers every city and town in the country, as well as more than 90 percent of its villages.”
We are dangerously lagging behind and without timely spectrum auctions the gap will grow wider.
Auctions of the spectrum and other federal assets will drive progress and prosperity — and raise revenue to pay for tax cuts or retire our debt that is soon to eclipse $40 trillion. What’s not to like about that?
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity. His latest book is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act or H.R. 21 passed the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives last week in a party line vote. The Republican delegation of Arizona voted unanimously in favor of the bill.
Two of the three Arizona Democrats in Congress voted against it, with Rep. Raúl Grijalva not voting.
The passage of the bill was hailed by both Congressional Arizona Republicans and the Trump administration. Congressman Andy Biggs, who recently announced his intent to run for Governor of Arizona, wrote in a post to X, “204 Democrats refuse to protect babies who survive an attempted murder. Republicans are pro-life, pro-woman, and pro-family.”
204 Democrats refuse to protect babies who survive an attempted murder.
Congressman Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ-08) issued a statement via X saying, “The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is a bill that supports basic human rights and the opposition of such is the support of murder. If a child survives an abortion and is denied life-saving care, they are being denied the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby is afforded. As several of my colleagues noted today, this bill is not about abortion. This bill is about living breathing babies. Today, I voted to pass this common sense legislation to correct this egregious humanitarian crisis.”
#BREAKING: The House just passed H.R. 21, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
The White House released a statement following the bill’s passage, noting its concurrence with President Trump’s Executive Order of September 25, 2020, which stated that the policy of the United States is “to recognize the human dignity and inherent worth of every newborn or other infant child, regardless of prematurity or disability, and to ensure for each child due protection under the law.”
The White House concluded “A baby that survives an abortion and is born alive into this world should be treated just like any other baby born alive. H.R. 21 would properly amend current law to ensure that the life of one baby is not treated as being more or less valuable than another. If H.R. 21 were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend he sign it into law.” Despite the advancement of the House measure, the Senate Version of the bill was stalled when a key motion to invoke cloture, ending debate, failed. Although the GOP controls the Senate as well with 53 votes, a majority of 60 is needed to invoke cloture, requiring bipartisan support.
The push to pass the bill through both Houses of Congress was timed to coincide with the March for Life on Friday in Washington, D.C., and the 52nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling.
The State of Arizona is fast-tracking a tax reduction policy through the legislature that became a staple of President Donald J. Trump’s campaign platform over the past year.
This week, the Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means passed HB 2081, which would exempt taxation on tipped wages from the state’s individual income tax.
State Representative Gail Griffin, a Republican who was the sponsor of this legislation, said, “I worked in the service industry years ago and understand the challenges tipped employees face. Tips are an expression of appreciation from customers for services provided. Tips are gifts and, in my opinion, should not be taxed. HB 2081 ensures that Arizonans who rely on tips to support themselves and their families can keep more of their hard-earned money. I’m grateful to Chairman Olson for making this the committee’s first bill for the session.”
Another Republican lawmaker, State Representative Neal Carter, added, “A key feature of a good taxation system is voluntary compliance and simplicity of administration. Tips are often paid in real time and in strange amounts. Taxing tips simply punishes the honest because strict compliance is difficult to achieve.”
As a candidate for President, Trump announced his plan for no federal taxes on tips back in June in the State of Nevada. Shortly after Trump’s announcement last summer, his Democrat opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, mirrored his proposal in an attempt to woo voters on the campaign stump. On Inauguration Day this week, the newly minted Commander in Chief riffed that he thought his campaign may have secured the State of Nevada’s electoral votes in the November General Election because of that promise.
A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research earlier this month showed that 54% of respondents would strongly or somewhat favor eliminating taxes on earnings from tips.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are 2,277,900 waiters and waitresses across the country.
The bill passed the Arizona House committee along a party-line vote – 5-3, with one Democrat member absent.
According to the Arizona Legislature’s Request to Speak system, representatives from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona, Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, and Fraternal Order of Police AZ State Lodge, signed in to support the bill. Representatives from Living United for Change in Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, and Rural Arizona Action opposed the legislation.
HB 2081 will soon make its way to the floor of the Arizona House of Representatives for a vote from the full chamber.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Shares of big Danish offshore wind developer Orsted dropped by 17% Monday, the same day President Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 47th president of the United States. The two events are not merely coincidental with one another.
To be sure, Orsted’s loss of market cap was caused by several factors, including both the general slowing of the offshore wind business, and Orsted’s own announcement that it will incur a $1.69 billion impairment charge related to its Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York. Company CEO Mads Nipper attributed the charge to delays and cost increases and said the project completion date is now delayed to the second half of 2027.
But there can be little doubt that the raft of energy-related executive orders signed by Trump also contributed to the drop in Orsted’s stock price. As part of a Day 1 agenda consisting of a reported 196 executive orders, the new president took dead aim at reversing the Biden Green New Deal agenda in general, with a special focus on wind power projects on federal lands and waters.
In addition to general orders declaring a national energy emergency and pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords (for a second time), Trump signed a separate order titled, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” That long-winded title (pardon the pun) is quite descriptive of what the order is designed to accomplish.
Section 1 of this order withdraws “from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331.” Somewhat ironically, this is the same OCSLA cited in early January by former President Joe Biden when he set 625 million acres of federal offshore waters off limits to oil and gas leasing and drilling into perpetuity.
As with Biden’s LNG permitting pause, the fourth paragraph of Section 1 in Trump’s order states that “Nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas.” However, the same paragraph goes on to subject those existing leases to review by the secretary of the Interior, who is charged with conducting “a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases, identifying any legal bases for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.”
Observant readers will know that the parameters of this order as it relates to offshore wind are essentially the same as a proposal I suggested in a previous piece here on Jan. 1. So, obviously, it receives the Blackmon Seal of Approval.
But we should also note that Trump goes even further, extending this freeze to onshore wind projects as well. While the rationale for the freeze in offshore leasing and permitting cites factors unique to the offshore like harm to marine mammals, ocean currents and the marine fishing industry, the rationale supporting the onshore freeze cites “environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills and deliver a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, with their findings and recommended authorities to require the removal of such windmills.”
This gets at concerns long held by me and many others that neither the federal government nor any state government has seen fit to require the proper, complete tear down and safe disposal of these massive wind turbines, blades, towers and foundations once they outlive their useful lives. In most jurisdictions, wind operators are free to just abandon the projects and leave the equipment to dilapidate and rot.
The dirty secret of the wind industry, whether onshore or offshore, is that it is not sustainable without consistent new injections of more and more subsidies, along with the tacit refusal by governments to properly regulate its operations. Trump and his team understand this reality and should be applauded for taking real action to address it.
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.
Attorney General Kris Mayes signed onto a lawsuit with other Democratic attorneys general against President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Mayes called the order “unconstitutional” in a press release published Tuesday.
“No executive order can supersede the United States Constitution and over 150 years of settled law,” said Mayes. “While President Trump may want to take this nation back to a time before all American citizens were treated equally under the law – we will not allow him to do so.”
Mayes defended the modern interpretation of birthright citizenship — which inspired popularity of the pejorative “anchor baby” — as an accurate reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mayes cited the 1898 Supreme Court landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
In its ruling, the court declared that the defendant, Wong Kim Ark, had obtained citizenship through his birth on U.S. soil to parents who were legally residing in the U.S. but not citizens, and that those subject to U.S. jurisdiction apply to all domiciled within the country. The ruling remains precedent.
“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization,” ruled the court.
Mayes’ lawsuit against the Trump administration estimated there were about 255,000 children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant mothers and about 153,000 children born to illegal immigrant parents in 2022. In Arizona that year, the lawsuit reported those numbers to be around 6,000 children born to illegal immigrant mothers and around 3,400 children born to illegal immigrant parents. Based on those latest totals, the lawsuit estimated that there are over 12,000 children born to illegal immigrants every month throughout the nation.
Additionally, Mayes’ lawsuit argued that the end to birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrant parents would harm Arizona and other states because they would lose federal funding.
Joining Arizona in this lawsuit against the Trump administration in the Washington Western District Court are Washington, Illinois, and Oregon.
The lawsuit is a separate one from another joint lawsuit filed earlier this week in the Massachusetts District Court by 18 states, along with Washington, D.C. and both the city and county of San Francisco: New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
In his executive order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” Trump asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment never interpreted the extension of citizenship universally to all born within the U.S., highlighting the provision excluding those “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Those that lack subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, the order says, include any individual whose mother was unlawfully present in the country and whose father wasn’t a citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth, or; any individual whose mother’s presence in the country at the time of their birth was lawful but temporary, and whose father wasn’t a citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth. For the latter case, “lawful but temporary” means those eligible to reside in the country under the Visa Waiver Program or those visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa.
The executive order is not retroactive. The order only applies to those born 30 days after the order’s issuance: February 19, 2025.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
