I previously read about Southwest's decision, saw the $ made for charging for bags will be less than the projected $ loss from customers shopping elsewhere... We plan a trip in June so I'll be booking my flights before the May 28th cutoff... of course, now they're probably filling up 😏.
Delta, Alaska... have been strong competitors, & will now be even more so.
This is just another step in Elliot's plan, per their record, of gutting Southwest of cash, raising the cost of business and then bailing out before bankruptcy of the airline. SWA has been forced to selll the airplanes they own and lease them back. Elliot gets to pocket the cash from the sales while the leases drive up the cost of business. And now they just junked the value proposition for SWA, which had a higher fare base that always included 2 bags. Now they will have to reduce the base fare, and thus profits, to match the basic economy fares of all the other airlines. I feel bad for all of the SWA employees
Tesla’s stock has been plunging, so much so that Jimmy Kimmel thinks Elon Musk “…may have to fire himself.”
But Musk got a boost from President Trump, who promised to buy a Tesla and had some brought to the White House on Tuesday during a 30 minute infomercial.
“The guy has spent the entire campaign screaming about how awful electric cars are, is now buying an electric car. Of course, there’s no chance he will actually pay for this electric car. But why should he, when he did a big commercial for them today, absolutely free?”
Hmmm. There were sure a lot of comments a few days ago by Tesla owners who previously were SO proud that they owned a Tesla and now want to divest themselves of the car as if it had a communicable disease. I guess people, including presidents, can change their minds...
Bill, how about some links to the vandalism of Tesla dealerships? Not just graffiti, Molotov cocktails have been thrown.
Still happy with my purchase from 2019, but I don't buy cars or anything else based on the personality of the CEO. I wager most people don't for anything else.
Politics, SMH
Keep driving those toxic fart machines around.
I hope everyone's at least planning to buy a hybrid.
Good for you. Of course, you make assumptions I don’t drive an EV but you see what you want to see.
As Monty Python said in The Holy Grail: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now pucker up…
Good for me, indeed! Look, I'm all for a good debate, but name-calling and weird attempts at bullying aren’t really my thing. Also, I’ll pass on whatever 'pucker up' is supposed to mean—I’m just not that into you. If you ever want to have a civil conversation, I’m here for it. Otherwise, take care.
You can do an internet search yourself to satisfy your itch. There’s plenty of news out there about that subject just waiting for you. I’ll save Bill the trouble.
You miss the point. Folks who probably don't see the reports on their preferred news source would learn about them if Bill would add a link in the 7 Other Things section.
“Let’s get one thing straight: we are not the same. You’ve carved out a niche as the resident provocateur, hurling cheap shots and marinating in manufactured outrage.”
You would know about the audience for empty bluster since you work so hard for that audience.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that Tesla car show run afoul of federal regulations due to the implied endorsement? Notably, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR § 2635), which include:
- 5 CFR § 2635.702 - This section prohibits the use of public office for private gain. It specifically states that an employee shall not use their public office for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise.
- 5 CFR § 2635.702(c) - This subsection specifically addresses endorsements, stating that an employee shall not use or permit the use of their government position or title or any authority associated with their public office to endorse any product, service, or enterprise.
He is an employee of the Exec branch...He's not King, right?
I believe the ethics rules never technically applied to the president, as he is not an employee. Regardless, under Trump v. United States (2024) (which I had completely forgotten that was the name of the case, but it was), Chief Justice Roberts gave Trump immunity from almost all prosecutions from acts while in office, the CFR isn't even a criminal law — so the only legal remedy would be impeachment. Up until now it was a "political norms" or "the public would never stand for that" kind of issue. Clearly no longer the case!
Ever feel like most Americans can’t recall what happened beyond their last Netflix binge? The media sure doesn’t mind—short memories keep the narrative tidy. Take this: Biden slipped Rivian a cool $6 billion as his January parting gift. Yet back in 2021, he was busy praising GM’s Mary Barra for supposedly kickstarting the EV revolution. Meanwhile, the left poked the Elon Musk bear, and now they’re shocked—shocked!—he’s fighting back. You wanted this showdown. Quit whining and let the green future roll.
Unfortunately, we took “advantage” of Costco’s SW $500 gift card discounts last year and now hold several unused ones, along with credits for cancellations. Most SW flights require connections from the Cat X airport I fly out of, so convenience is even less so with the baggage fee change. That, on top of SW’s not particularly bargain fares, leaves me thinking the SW gift cards need to be gifted!
I find the Tesla car show at the White House quite distasteful
I would like to find out how often Bill posts, or used to post, links that connect to controversial topics on the left, or liberal side. Such as during Easter Sunday of Biden's time when it happened to fall at the same time that Biden declared March 31st as “transgender day of visibility” for March 31, which this year falls on Easter Sunday.
Did Bill post links to the fact that Biden stole (he was not the President when he took/stole) classified documents & stored them in his house by his corvettes.
Did Bill post links to the testimony by the person who interviewed Biden but declared he was too feeble to testify in court about the above stolen documents? He was too feeble to testify in court but not too feeble to be the POTUS.
Or did Bill ever bring up links that pointed to the true fact that Biden never recognized the fact that he had a granddaughter, Navy Roberts, until it was so out in the public that he could no longer ignore it?
I could go on. Yes, Trump does a lot of stupid, perhaps awful stuff & Bill posts those links.
But does Bill post positive links for Trump? Such as (well, no link, but here's the article):
By Michael Wilson | March 11, 2025
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 646 illegal aliens in the Houston area, including dangerous criminals and gang members, in one of the region’s largest enforcement actions in recent years.
ICE announced that from February 23 to March 2, 646 individuals were arrested for immigration violations.
“In recent years, some of the world’s most dangerous fugitives, transnational gang members, and criminal aliens have taken advantage of the crisis at our nation’s southern border to illegally enter the U.S.,” stated ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Houston Field Office Director Bret Bradford. “After illegally entering the country, many of these criminal aliens have gone on to commit violent crime and reign terror on law-abiding residents.”
The arrests were the result of a collaborative effort involving several agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Diplomatic Security Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, and multiple state and local law enforcement agencies.
Out of those arrested, 543 were criminal aliens, and an additional seven were documented gang members.
The operation also involved executing 71 criminal arrest warrants, which led to the following arrests:
140 criminal aliens charged with or convicted of aggravated felonies or other violent offenses, such as homicide, aggravated assault, and family violence.
34 criminal aliens charged with or convicted of sex offenses, including aggravated sexual assault of a minor, possession of child pornography, or rape.
93 criminal aliens charged with or convicted of driving while intoxicated.
52 criminal aliens charged with or convicted of illicit narcotics offenses, including drug trafficking or possession of a controlled substance.
51 criminal aliens charged with or convicted of property crimes, such as burglary and theft.
38 criminal aliens convicted of firearm offenses, including unlawful carrying of a firearm, being an alien in possession of a firearm, and aggravated assault with a firearm.
Chad Plantz, special agent in charge of ICE Homeland Security Investigations Houston, celebrated the results.
In just one week working alongside our counterparts from federal, state, and local law enforcement, ICE HSI special agents successfully executed 71 criminal arrest warrants and made 554 administrative arrests that included illegally present human smugglers, gang members, human traffickers, child sex offenders, drug traffickers, and weapons traffickers.
In addition to the arrests made during this operation, ICE announced last week that it had arrested nine criminal aliens in the Houston area and detained 20 others at a Spring manufacturing plant for immigration violations found during a work identification audit. Furthermore, in a separate operation on February 25, ICE conducted a significant raid in the Colony Ridge development, resulting in an additional 118 arrests.
I would have to go back and look at everything I have linked to of course ...
By memory I don't think I covered the Trump/classified docs thing until the FBI executed a search warrant in Florida for sure, but this was a huge story at the time.
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the Biden documents case, of course no charges were filed there.
But I have to point out that the article you included here is literally a press release from ICE. I don't mean that it "reads" like a press release. I mean that it literally is a press release, on the ice .gov website:
Not sure who "Michael Wilson" that is listed as the author is, might be a local news reporter or a made-up AI name. I can't find a link to anything with him.
Bill…don’t waste your time. No one want’s to have you dissect your prior posts. There is an archive so they can invest their own time to research for themselves.
Keep writing wonderful newsletters and sharing 7 Other Things.
Biden, Biden, Biden; is there anything else? Biden is history and he clearly did not sell ads for donors in front of the White House.
The present is what is now in front of us along with along with the potential fallout from the present. Perhaps it is time to live in the Now as Eckhart Tolle says.
Ah, but there is a third dimension of time. What is happening right now is the only thing that is real. One day, grasshopper, you may reach that level of understanding and enlightenment.
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.
- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
Look not mournfully into the past. It comes not back again. Wisely improve the present. It is thine. Go forth to meet the shadowy future, without fear.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Never look back unless you are planning to go that way.
This is the delightful riddle of existence: there is no 'right now' to cling to. What we call the present is but a razor-thin edge, slipping instantly into the fleeting past or dissolving into the ethereal future. Time toys with us—each moment we try to grasp evaporates, leaving only echoes behind or whispers of what might be. To chase a solid 'now' is to chase a phantom. Life, then, is a dance between what was and what could be, and therein lies its strange, fleeting joy.
Look, I’m really not into butt stuff. At first, I thought this was a genuine philosophical discussion, but now I see it’s just fluff designed to stir up drama.
Oh, come on now, you still haven’t caught on? I’m just messing with you, because we both know you HAVE to have the last word. I called you ‘sweetie’ because, let’s be real, you’ve asked for mansplaining before. I’m just giving you what you love—those little triggers that keep that old heart of yours racing. Now, before you go on about how I don’t know anything about you and how you could be a kid in your mom’s basement, take a second and think about how much you've already shared in these rants.
Oh, and a quick shoutout to anyone who expanded this thread, expecting some wisdom or entertainment—sorry about that! I’ve just been killing time while waiting for the wife to get home.
My first thought was "who needs two bags?". I have flown with just a Carry on for years. After many years of packing things just in case, now i only bring what I know I will need, and the clothes are all.quick drying. Saves me a lot of time and anxiety it is sad that a. Bully shareholder just in it for the money can force this kind of thing. In Canada, they are starting to charge for carryon now. Needless to say, we don't fly much any more.
And is anyone really surprised by Trump any more? Be has become a side show act and has lost aot of respect among other world leaders. I kind of feel sorry for the States and what is going to happen to the country over the next four years, it they voted him on
So sad about the changes at SWA. It will backfire. Why fly SWA when it is more like the other airlines? I will still fly them, but with not as big a smile on my face, and I bet the workers won't be smiling as much, either.
Rep. Jim McGovern speaking in the house (unedited):
The gentle lady was talking about what was said in the rules committee meeting last night. I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about how people voted in the rules committee last night. We gave republicans a chance last night.
The committee said if they really don’t believe that this budget cuts funding for school meals, if they really believe what they’re saying, then they can vote to assure the American people that they’re not going steal school meals from kids in order to give tax breaks for millionaires. Every Republican voted no, every single one of them.
Then Democrats offered to protect Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid as you know covers 41% of all births in the United States, nearly half of children with special healthcare needs and 5 in 8 nursing home residents. We asked them not to cut Medicaid in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Every Republican vote voted no.
Then Democrats offered an amendment to extend the tax cuts for people making under $400,000 while ensuring that corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. We asked Republicans to continue tax cuts for only those who needed the most because those are the tax cuts they let expire while their tax cards for greedy corporations were made permanent. We asked them to prioritize working families over greedy corporations. Every Republican voted no.
Then, Democrats offered an amendment preventing tax giveaways for people earning over $1 million a year. Every republican voted no. We wanted to see if there was anyone so rich that Republicans don’t think they deserve a tax giveaway, so we asked them to vote against tax rates for earning over $100 million per year. We asked them to side with factory workers and firefighters over hedge fund managers and billionaire bankers. Every republican voted no.
We even offered an amendment preventing tax cuts for people with a net worth of over - getting this - $1 billion. Every Republican voted no. They betrayed their constituents. They voted to steal from the American people in order to protect tax breaks for billionaires. Again, this is about whose side you are on. Republican showed us last night with their votes whose side they are on, and it’s not the working people this country.
Rep. Jim McGovern’s speech casts Republicans as villains robbing kids’ lunches to fund billionaire tax breaks.
It’s a great story, but the facts don’t line up.
School meal funding? The USDA’s budget for child nutrition rose from $23.2 billion in 2020 to over $28 billion in 2024. No cuts there—just a budget debate over spending growth. Medicaid and Medicare?
GOP plans slow their rise (up 30% since 2019) via reforms, not slashes for tax handouts. Tax cuts? The 2017 law boosted GDP and jobs, per the Tax Foundation; individual breaks expire in 2025, corporate ones don’t—policy, not greed.
McGovern’s amendments were theater—symbolic votes, not fixes. The top 1% already pay 46% of income taxes (IRS, 2022). This isn’t about stealing from workers; it’s a fight over growth versus guarantees. Hyperbole’s fun, but it’s not the truth.
Why the politics!!?!?!?! Why, why, why?
Lets talk about the problems underlying this noise.
That’s just a scrapbook for political fan fiction—doesn’t make it gospel. You’re clinging to it like a life raft, but I don’t need to disprove your vibes; you’ve got to bring more than sass and a hunch.
Trump’s theater? Sure, but it’s sold-out shows while your crew’s playing to empty seats. And ‘Chainsaw Muskie’? Cute nickname, but he’s building rockets, not robbing peasants. Reverse Robin Hood? Nah, they’re just not spoon-feeding the entitled—sorry if that stings.
Pucker up all you want, but that ‘kiss of truth’ you felt? Probably just the breeze from reality passing you by.
You mean that Musk’s engineers, at great taxpayer expense, are building rockets that blow up and endanger air traffic. The only waste, fraud and abuse to be found is in all of his government contracts. At trump’s direction, Chainsaw Charlie has ripped the foundations out from under our government. We are all now caught up in Donald’s own reality show. From your response, I can only assume that you are pleased with the result.
Shakespeare was right when he said, “Hell is empty. All the devils are here”.
I appreciate your perspective and the passion behind it, but I’d like to address some of the points raised with the data at hand, as it tells a different story about SpaceX’s contributions and costs.
First, the claim that SpaceX’s rockets are built “at great taxpayer expense” doesn’t fully align with the numbers. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launches cost around $67 million each, a fraction of the $2–4 billion per launch for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), which Boeing develops under traditional government contracts. Even in crewed missions, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon comes in at $209 million per mission for NASA, compared to $345 million for Boeing’s Starliner. These savings stem from SpaceX’s reusable rocket technology and streamlined operations, reducing the burden on taxpayers compared to older models of government-funded spaceflight. NASA’s own audits and reports—like the 2021 Inspector General findings—highlight how SLS costs ballooned, while SpaceX delivers results under fixed-price contracts, shifting much of the financial risk to the company itself rather than the public.
As for rockets “blowing up,” SpaceX has had failures—most notably early Falcon 1 attempts and a few high-profile Falcon 9 incidents, like the 2015 CRS-7 explosion or the 2016 AMOS-6 loss. But their success rate has soared: in 2024 alone, SpaceX completed 132 launches with no failures reported, a reliability that rivals or exceeds legacy providers. The data shows they’ve transformed launch cadence—global launches have doubled or tripled since the 1990s, with SpaceX driving over half of 2024’s 223 orbital missions. This isn’t waste; it’s efficiency that’s opened space to more players, from science missions to commercial satellites.
On endangering air traffic, SpaceX coordinates launches with the FAA, which imposes strict airspace closures. Incidents are rare—FAA data shows no major air traffic disruptions tied to SpaceX beyond temporary delays, unlike the broader risks of unregulated airspace. Fraud or abuse in contracts? NASA’s oversight and GAO reviews have flagged cost overruns in Boeing’s SLS program (e.g., $1.8 billion over budget by 2021), while SpaceX’s fixed-price deals have stayed within bounds, delivering six crewed ISS missions on time.
Your reference “Chainsaw Charlie” seems to tie this to broader governance critiques, which I won’t presume to unpack fully. But the space program’s shift predates recent administrations—SpaceX’s rise began under Obama with the Commercial Crew Program, not Trump. As for a “reality show,” the results are tangible: U.S. launches jumped from 20–30 annually in the 1990s to 150+ in 2024, largely thanks to SpaceX. That’s not chaos—it’s capability.
I’m not here to cheerlead or lament, just to clarify what the numbers show. SpaceX’s approach has cut costs, boosted access to space, and delivered results, not devils. Shakespeare’s line is vivid, but the data suggests a different scene: not hell, but a new frontier being built, imperfectly but effectively.
Oh, sweetie? I had no idea you felt that way. Blush…
Muskie is crashing rockets we are paying him to crash and hawking cars on the WH lawn, suckering people like you. I was wondering why it took you so long to comment today but just realized the factory first shift doesn’t let out until 3:30 or so.
Why do you hide behind an avatar name? That breeze on my tuchus had the smell of butter so it must have been you.
Darrell—your 'Muskie crashing rockets' spiel is slipping off the plate like bad grease. I’m tickled you think I’m on a 3:30 factory clock, but this Butter's too busy spreading common sense and locking down the net to care. No need to hide behind my avatar—it’s just me, serving up reason while you’re out there sniffing buttery breezes. Speaking of, who’s greasing your tuchus, champ? Not me—I’m not into your backdoor buffet, so keep that mess off my table.
not wanting to cut Medicaid but wanting to save $ by fixing the loophole, which Biden even saw:The Legal Loophole That Costs Medicaid Billions
How states inflate the cost of Medicaid to get more money from the federal treasury.
March 12, 2025
Medicaid is a broadly popular program that provides medical coverage to low-income Americans through a combination of state and federal funding. More than 60 percent of Americans either know someone who has benefited from Medicaid or have been enrolled themselves, according to health policy think tank FFF. So any talk of altering the program usually meets strong opposition.
Yet few seem to know how the system works, what it costs, or the level of unnecessary spending hidden within its $880 billion annual budget.
One example is a little-known quirk in the Medicaid system that allows states to artificially inflate their Medicaid costs to recoup more federal dollars. The arrangement allows some states to pocket a share of the money paid to them for providing treatment to Medicaid patients.
Here’s how it works.
Medicaid Enrollment and Providers Taxed
57,72012,199,634
Enrollment as of October 2024.
Source: Congressional Research Service and Medicaid.govCreated with Datawrapper
The Loophole
When a Medicaid patient receives a treatment or service, the state pays the doctor, hospital, nursing home, or other provider. The federal government reimburses each state for a portion of its Medicaid expenses. The reimbursement ranges from 50 percent to 76.9 percent depending on the median income level in the state and other factors.
An exception to this exists for people who enrolled through the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. For them, the reimbursement rate is 90 percent.
So if a state had a 60 percent reimbursement rate and spent $10 billion on Medicaid services, the federal government would reimburse the state $6 billion.
That’s how the system was designed to work back in 1965, generally speaking.
By the mid-1980s, some states had found a way to increase payments to providers and reimbursement of their own Medicaid costs at the expense of the federal government.
First, medical providers would either voluntarily donate money to a state or pay a tax. The states would then return the amount of the donation or tax, and possibly even more, to the providers through increased reimbursement. Finally, the states would bill the federal government for the apparent increased cost.
In some cases, the providers themselves initiated these arrangements, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Premium Pick
For example, a hospital might agree to pay the state $10 million in taxes. The state might then increase Medicaid payments to that hospital to $20 million. If the state’s reimbursement rate was 60 percent, it would receive $12 million in federal Medicaid funding.
Together with the tax income, the state would receive $22 million and pay $20 million, netting $2 million for additional Medicaid costs or other purposes.
The arrangement benefits providers by increasing their reimbursement, and the states benefit by reducing their costs or even gaining revenue. The federal government bears the cost of those increases.
Congress debated the issue in 1991.
Lawmakers who favored keeping the arrangement in some form argued that it had become a vital part of state Medicaid funding.
Rep. Raymond McGrath (R-N.Y.) said at the time that doing away with the system would cost his state $500 million in federal matching funds. He predicted “chaos” in the Medicaid system if provider taxes were abolished.
The administration of President George H.W. Bush strongly opposed the taxes in a position statement, saying, “State donation and provider-specific tax programs, if unchecked, will undermine a basic premise of the Medicaid program—that States have a stake in the costs of the program.”
In the end, Congress chose to impose limits on provider taxes and donations.
First, provider donations to the state are strictly limited to prevent abuse. Second, state taxes must meet certain conditions or the state will lose federal funding.
Taxes must apply to all providers in a certain class, such as nursing homes, not just those who serve Medicaid patients. Also, states can’t provide any direct or implied guarantee that they will reimburse providers for the amount of the tax. The limit on provider taxes is 6 percent.
Here’s how the provider tax works today.
Increasing Tax, Dependence
In 2004, 35 states had taxes on medical care providers. Now every state but Alaska taxes some providers, as does the District of Columbia.
And states depend more on tax revenue to fund Medicaid—and other things—according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
From 2008 to 2018, the share of states’ Medicaid spending covered by provider taxes grew from 7 percent to 17 percent according to the GAO.
In 2018, states received $63 billion in provider taxes and local government funds, according to GAO estimates. Of that amount, $16 billion (25 percent) was not used to pay providers.
That shifted 5 percent of the cost of Medicaid from the states to the federal government, the GAO estimates. The practice also resulted in lower overall reimbursement to some providers when accounting for their tax payments.
When measured as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product, a common measure of the country’s total wealth, the burden of providing Medicaid remained the same for states from 2008 to 2023. While overall spending went up, the economy was growing, too, so state Medicaid spending was essentially flat according to the think tank Paragon Health Institute.
Yet the overall cost of the program increased dramatically, meaning that the federal government paid the entire increase in the cost of the program over that 15-year period, according to Paragon.
Over that same period, the federal government’s share of the total cost of Medicaid grew from 60 percent to 72 percent.
Possible Changes
Republicans, searching for ways to reduce the federal budget deficit, have tasked the House Committee on Energy and Commerce with finding $880 billion in savings over the next 10 years.
Medicaid accounts for 92 percent of the spending that the committee manages, so changes to the program have been discussed.
Lawmakers have floated ideas such as limiting how much the federal government reimburses the states or reducing the percentage of the reimbursement.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he won’t do either of those things. “We’re talking about finding efficiencies in every program, not cutting benefits for people who rightly deserve them,” Johnson said in a Feb. 26 interview on CNN.
That has caused some lawmakers to eye the provider taxes.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which provides nonpartisan financial assessments to Congress, estimated the impact of altering the provider tax restrictions.
The CBO discovered that eliminating the tax would reduce the federal deficit by $612 billion over 10 years. Reducing the tax to 2.5 percent would reduce the deficit by $241 billion, and lowering it to 5 percent would bring a $48 billion reduction.
Democrats are firmly united in opposing any Medicaid reductions.
“Republicans are trying to enact the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, and we need to keep the pressure on them legislatively and in communities all across the country,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a video call with Democratic leaders on March 5.
All 47 Democrat and Independent senators signed a letter to Republican leaders in February, arguing that there’s not enough fraud and waste in the program to offset proposed budget cuts.
Unknown Impact
The use of state taxes to boost Medicaid reimbursement has had critics on both sides of the aisle. Former President Joe Biden referred to state taxes on health care providers as a “scam” according to Bob Woodward in his book “The Price of Politics.”
Others have defended the device as a way for cash-strapped states to keep Medicaid going. As the CRS notes, the provider tax helps states increase reimbursement to certain types of providers, such as hospitals and nursing homes.
Use of the tax has tended to increase during and after recessions. “Medicaid provider tax revenue can provide a way for states to continue funding the Medicaid program during times of state budget constraints,” according to CRS.
Yet it’s unclear how much limiting state taxes on health care providers would affect Medicaid.
California has more than 12 million Medicaid enrollees and derives more than 60 percent of its Medicaid funding from the federal government. The state reported that its spending on Medicaid from its general fund decreased by 5.8 percent in 2024. Federal Medicaid payments to California increased 1.9 percent that year.
Eliminating all taxes on health care providers would reduce federal Medicaid payments by about 8 percent over 10 years, according to the CBO. Reducing the tax rate would produce reductions of 0.6 to 3 percent.
“I just don’t think that’s enough money at stake for states to want to cut their [Medicaid] expansion population in light of the total cost of Medicaid expansion,” Niklas Kleinworth of Paragon Health Institute has said.
Kleinworth theorized that states would be more likely to cut funding for what are called social determinants of health. Those can include home modifications, non-medical transportation, and education according to a CMS directive.
“You'll probably see states making their Medicaid programs more efficient,” Kleinworth said.
The true impact is difficult to predict because the total amount of provider tax revenues states use on Medicaid expenditures is not fully known, according to CRS.
Noting that fact, the GAO recommended five years ago that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services collect complete and consistent information on all sources of funding used by states to finance Medicaid, including provider taxes.
As of February, the recommendation has not been implemented.
Once again you prove your impeccable intuition as I absolutely did not read your cut & paste comment. It’s more fun to provide you with what I believe is a witty comeback as what I think when it comes to your comments is all that matters to me.
Another example of PE firms trying to squeeze companies and consumers for short term gains and having no accountability for the long term growth of companies that they work with. Might be a great article/book on all of the examples of how unregulated PE is destroying companies for their short term gains - and doing nothing to create value for consumers or the community as a whole. So many examples of them destroying value - this is just the latest example of them destroying a brand that took decades to build. I can see the business book "The Death of an Iconic Southwest Airline" in about 10 years. Sucks to watch happen in real time.
I'm with you. I will no longer first look at Southwest for flights. Southwest has broken its vows and is no longer loyal and faithful to me, I won't be loyal to them.
Somehow I USED to feel invested in the company and it's success.
That feeling is gone. I feel like I have been betrayed by a family member. So weird and surprising to realize I HAD that kind of brand loyalty.
Elliot's greed is astonishing. Heck, America's greed is astonishing. SWA used to be my go to airline, but no longer. Dang, I will be forced to shop for "best" flights now!
Egg prices, however, a closely watched symbol of price increases, soared 58.8% in February compared to a year ago, accelerating from the previous month.
The Justice Department opened an investigation into egg producers to learn if market practices have contributed to the price hikes, a source familiar with the matter told ABC News.
“I will lower egg prices from day one.” Huh???
It’s the latest salvo in Trump’s multifaceted tariff plan aimed at correcting perceived trade imbalances and reigniting domestic industry. But it risks igniting a global trade war. The European Union, hit for the first time by higher US tariffs since Trump returned to the White House, retaliated within hours with countermeasures on US goods exports. And later Wednesday, Canada announced over $20 billion in retaliatory measures as well.
Trump on Wednesday in the Oval Office said the United States would up the ante after the European and Canadian retaliation, but he did not spell out how or when the United States would respond.
“Of course I will respond, Trump said.
What do US citizens get out of this besides higher prices on everything? Where will it end???
Inflation cooled in Feb. Here’s the headline: CPI increased 2.8% year-over-year in February, below most economists’ 3% expectations but still a healthy tick above the Fed’s preferred 2% threshold. Month-over-month, the gauge increased 0.2%, a healthy tick down from January’s 0.5% hike. Prices excluding volatile food and energy costs, meanwhile, rose just 3.1% year-over-year — the lowest such reading since 2021. Leading the disinflationary charge: gasoline prices, down 3.1% year-over-year; new cars, down 0.3% year-over-year; and seasonally adjusted airfares, down 4% month-over-month. Shelter costs also saw their slowest year-over-year increase in prices since December 2021.
but of course, Darrell, you want to blame the bird flu on Trump. Of course.
Southwest Airlines is yet another case of a great company getting hollowed out by public markets. Start with a customer-focused business, make it a great place to work, build a culture of excited employees helping people—profit follows. But how do you grow? You sell shares. And once shareholders step in, they demand an ever-increasing return. More money, every year. That’s capitalism. But that same inefficiency creates opportunities—someone else will step in to deliver the value Southwest once did.
Most people, especially the media, misread the current administration. They fixate on the autistic techno-nerds while ignoring the real power: Venture Capitalists. Those nerds are only here because the last administration played politics, parading GM’s CEO on EV Day while sidelining Tesla.
That wasn’t about saving the planet—it was optics.
Meanwhile, VCs are engineering a new slipstream for IPOs, turning public value into private windfalls. That’s not a Trump agenda. It’s not about shrinking government, paying down debt, or fighting inflation. It’s a different current entirely.
So ask yourself: What are you actually fighting for? If you’re sitting on a paid-off house, a cushy IRA, maybe a pension and Social Security, the world looks stable—your slice of the pie is safe. But if you’re a millennial, locked out of homeownership and praying your 401K doesn’t tank, or a Gen X straddling the fault line, frustration is the air you breathe.
Fortune’s article—stuffed with salary stats and coastal gloss—misses the real story. It’s not just data; it’s a symptom. A case study in how the glittering edges of America keep draining the heartland dry, while the VCs and shareholders cash out.
Same as it ever was.
But hope springs eternal. In 2028, Pritzker and Newsom will ride in on a white horse, and suddenly, no one will be worried about billionaires running the country.
I am sitting on a home with no mortgage and was enjoying a cushy IRA and a now jeopardized $72k/year SS payment. Thanks to trump the last two are either crumbling or in serious danger of same.
You are the “same as you ever was.” And before you send me some snarky response remember: I do not care what you think of what I have to say, so pucker up and give my ass that big air kiss as you type.
Your house is still yours, mortgage-free, and that $72K Social Security check? Trump’s promised not to cut a penny, pushing tax breaks on benefits instead. Your IRA’s fate hinges on markets, not his tweets.
Same as it ever was—chaos in the noise, stability in the numbers. Deal with it. drops mic
Still doubt that the press and big tech shape narratives? Try this: Google "Car and Driver 25 Bestselling Cars 2024." Does Tesla show up in the AI-generated summary? I don’t see it. Yet, the actual article ranks the Tesla Model Y at #4 with over 400,000 sold.
I went to google just as you suggested. You must not have read the full headline because the complete headline states: “The 25 Bestselling Cars, Trucks, and SUVs of 2024“
Must be a musk AI doing the summary.
You cherry picked even the headline. That makes anything you state here questionable unless we check your work.
Here is the full article I googled - in chrome - and linked - in chrome:
Darrell, I appreciate you digging into this, but let’s set the record straight. I didn’t cherry-pick anything—my point was about the AI-generated search summary, not the article itself. I said Google 'Car and Driver 25 Bestselling Cars 2024,' and the summary that pops up doesn’t mention Tesla, despite the Model Y ranking #4 with over 400,000 sold in the full piece—which, yes, I’ve read, headline and all: 'The 25 Bestselling Cars, Trucks, and SUVs of 2024.' The exercise was to show how AI can skew what you see upfront, not to misquote titles. I even re-ran it today—same deal, no Tesla in the summary, though the display varies. Point is, AI generates fresh results each time, and it’s consistently skipping Tesla there. You’re fixating on the article when I’m talking about the search result shaping the narrative. No Musk AI conspiracy needed—just Google’s algorithm doing its thing. Check the summary yourself before doubting my take!
Here's the one I just pulled.
According to Car and Driver's list of the 25 Bestselling Cars of 2024, the top vehicles include the Ford F-Series, Chevrolet Silverado, and Toyota RAV4.
The list also features the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, and Nissan Sentra, among others.
Notably, the Subaru Forester saw a 15 percent increase in sales throughout 2024, while the Crosstrek became the bestselling Subaru, surpassing the Forester and Outback.
Additionally, the redesigned 2025 Forester has been introduced, enhancing off-road capability with the Wilderness variant.
What sick kick are you getting from this constant attack on my character?
I didn’t dig into anything, just did a quick google for the article.
Then blame AI and not media. You gave musky’s AI a pass by parsing but turn into an attack dog here. Boo hoo about your precious Tesla being ignored by something artificial.
What do I get out of this? Your priceless responses - as if I know diddly squat or even care about your character. Toughen up dude, it’s a hard world out there.
I previously read about Southwest's decision, saw the $ made for charging for bags will be less than the projected $ loss from customers shopping elsewhere... We plan a trip in June so I'll be booking my flights before the May 28th cutoff... of course, now they're probably filling up 😏.
Delta, Alaska... have been strong competitors, & will now be even more so.
This is just another step in Elliot's plan, per their record, of gutting Southwest of cash, raising the cost of business and then bailing out before bankruptcy of the airline. SWA has been forced to selll the airplanes they own and lease them back. Elliot gets to pocket the cash from the sales while the leases drive up the cost of business. And now they just junked the value proposition for SWA, which had a higher fare base that always included 2 bags. Now they will have to reduce the base fare, and thus profits, to match the basic economy fares of all the other airlines. I feel bad for all of the SWA employees
The companion pass will be next.
Re 7 Other Things:
Tesla’s stock has been plunging, so much so that Jimmy Kimmel thinks Elon Musk “…may have to fire himself.”
But Musk got a boost from President Trump, who promised to buy a Tesla and had some brought to the White House on Tuesday during a 30 minute infomercial.
“The guy has spent the entire campaign screaming about how awful electric cars are, is now buying an electric car. Of course, there’s no chance he will actually pay for this electric car. But why should he, when he did a big commercial for them today, absolutely free?”
— JIMMY KIMMEL
Hmmm. There were sure a lot of comments a few days ago by Tesla owners who previously were SO proud that they owned a Tesla and now want to divest themselves of the car as if it had a communicable disease. I guess people, including presidents, can change their minds...
Bill, how about some links to the vandalism of Tesla dealerships? Not just graffiti, Molotov cocktails have been thrown.
It does. And the disease has a musky odor.
Still happy with my purchase from 2019, but I don't buy cars or anything else based on the personality of the CEO. I wager most people don't for anything else.
Politics, SMH
Keep driving those toxic fart machines around.
I hope everyone's at least planning to buy a hybrid.
Good for you. Of course, you make assumptions I don’t drive an EV but you see what you want to see.
As Monty Python said in The Holy Grail: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now pucker up…
Good for me, indeed! Look, I'm all for a good debate, but name-calling and weird attempts at bullying aren’t really my thing. Also, I’ll pass on whatever 'pucker up' is supposed to mean—I’m just not that into you. If you ever want to have a civil conversation, I’m here for it. Otherwise, take care.
Sounds good to me. You must not have read my “diatribe “ from yesterday. I’m happy to repost for your edification. Other, purse those lips!
You can do an internet search yourself to satisfy your itch. There’s plenty of news out there about that subject just waiting for you. I’ll save Bill the trouble.
https://ground.news/article/local-tesla-dealership-hit-with-vandalism?utm_source=mobile-app&utm_medium=newsroom-share
You miss the point. Folks who probably don't see the reports on their preferred news source would learn about them if Bill would add a link in the 7 Other Things section.
You apparently did.
This describes you to a t:
“Let’s get one thing straight: we are not the same. You’ve carved out a niche as the resident provocateur, hurling cheap shots and marinating in manufactured outrage.”
You would know about the audience for empty bluster since you work so hard for that audience.
Pucker…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that Tesla car show run afoul of federal regulations due to the implied endorsement? Notably, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR § 2635), which include:
- 5 CFR § 2635.702 - This section prohibits the use of public office for private gain. It specifically states that an employee shall not use their public office for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise.
- 5 CFR § 2635.702(c) - This subsection specifically addresses endorsements, stating that an employee shall not use or permit the use of their government position or title or any authority associated with their public office to endorse any product, service, or enterprise.
He is an employee of the Exec branch...He's not King, right?
“Rules? Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules.”
You are 100% correct.
I believe the ethics rules never technically applied to the president, as he is not an employee. Regardless, under Trump v. United States (2024) (which I had completely forgotten that was the name of the case, but it was), Chief Justice Roberts gave Trump immunity from almost all prosecutions from acts while in office, the CFR isn't even a criminal law — so the only legal remedy would be impeachment. Up until now it was a "political norms" or "the public would never stand for that" kind of issue. Clearly no longer the case!
Ever feel like most Americans can’t recall what happened beyond their last Netflix binge? The media sure doesn’t mind—short memories keep the narrative tidy. Take this: Biden slipped Rivian a cool $6 billion as his January parting gift. Yet back in 2021, he was busy praising GM’s Mary Barra for supposedly kickstarting the EV revolution. Meanwhile, the left poked the Elon Musk bear, and now they’re shocked—shocked!—he’s fighting back. You wanted this showdown. Quit whining and let the green future roll.
Unfortunately, we took “advantage” of Costco’s SW $500 gift card discounts last year and now hold several unused ones, along with credits for cancellations. Most SW flights require connections from the Cat X airport I fly out of, so convenience is even less so with the baggage fee change. That, on top of SW’s not particularly bargain fares, leaves me thinking the SW gift cards need to be gifted!
My advice would be to use them before 5/28 to book flights, as the new policy starts for tickets bought on/after that date.
I find the Tesla car show at the White House quite distasteful
I would like to find out how often Bill posts, or used to post, links that connect to controversial topics on the left, or liberal side. Such as during Easter Sunday of Biden's time when it happened to fall at the same time that Biden declared March 31st as “transgender day of visibility” for March 31, which this year falls on Easter Sunday.
Did Bill post links to the fact that Biden stole (he was not the President when he took/stole) classified documents & stored them in his house by his corvettes.
Did Bill post links to the testimony by the person who interviewed Biden but declared he was too feeble to testify in court about the above stolen documents? He was too feeble to testify in court but not too feeble to be the POTUS.
Or did Bill ever bring up links that pointed to the true fact that Biden never recognized the fact that he had a granddaughter, Navy Roberts, until it was so out in the public that he could no longer ignore it?
I could go on. Yes, Trump does a lot of stupid, perhaps awful stuff & Bill posts those links.
But does Bill post positive links for Trump? Such as (well, no link, but here's the article):
By Michael Wilson | March 11, 2025
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 646 illegal aliens in the Houston area, including dangerous criminals and gang members, in one of the region’s largest enforcement actions in recent years.
ICE announced that from February 23 to March 2, 646 individuals were arrested for immigration violations.
“In recent years, some of the world’s most dangerous fugitives, transnational gang members, and criminal aliens have taken advantage of the crisis at our nation’s southern border to illegally enter the U.S.,” stated ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Houston Field Office Director Bret Bradford. “After illegally entering the country, many of these criminal aliens have gone on to commit violent crime and reign terror on law-abiding residents.”
The arrests were the result of a collaborative effort involving several agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Diplomatic Security Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, and multiple state and local law enforcement agencies.
Out of those arrested, 543 were criminal aliens, and an additional seven were documented gang members.
The operation also involved executing 71 criminal arrest warrants, which led to the following arrests:
140 criminal aliens charged with or convicted of aggravated felonies or other violent offenses, such as homicide, aggravated assault, and family violence.
34 criminal aliens charged with or convicted of sex offenses, including aggravated sexual assault of a minor, possession of child pornography, or rape.
93 criminal aliens charged with or convicted of driving while intoxicated.
52 criminal aliens charged with or convicted of illicit narcotics offenses, including drug trafficking or possession of a controlled substance.
51 criminal aliens charged with or convicted of property crimes, such as burglary and theft.
38 criminal aliens convicted of firearm offenses, including unlawful carrying of a firearm, being an alien in possession of a firearm, and aggravated assault with a firearm.
Chad Plantz, special agent in charge of ICE Homeland Security Investigations Houston, celebrated the results.
In just one week working alongside our counterparts from federal, state, and local law enforcement, ICE HSI special agents successfully executed 71 criminal arrest warrants and made 554 administrative arrests that included illegally present human smugglers, gang members, human traffickers, child sex offenders, drug traffickers, and weapons traffickers.
In addition to the arrests made during this operation, ICE announced last week that it had arrested nine criminal aliens in the Houston area and detained 20 others at a Spring manufacturing plant for immigration violations found during a work identification audit. Furthermore, in a separate operation on February 25, ICE conducted a significant raid in the Colony Ridge development, resulting in an additional 118 arrests.
I would have to go back and look at everything I have linked to of course ...
By memory I don't think I covered the Trump/classified docs thing until the FBI executed a search warrant in Florida for sure, but this was a huge story at the time.
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the Biden documents case, of course no charges were filed there.
But I have to point out that the article you included here is literally a press release from ICE. I don't mean that it "reads" like a press release. I mean that it literally is a press release, on the ice .gov website:
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-arrests-543-criminal-aliens-7-gang-members-houston-area-during-week-long-multi
Not sure who "Michael Wilson" that is listed as the author is, might be a local news reporter or a made-up AI name. I can't find a link to anything with him.
Bill…don’t waste your time. No one want’s to have you dissect your prior posts. There is an archive so they can invest their own time to research for themselves.
Keep writing wonderful newsletters and sharing 7 Other Things.
I'll help on the EV narrative.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-floors-electric-ford-truck-test-drive-pushes/story?id=77764009
Oops, that last one was a bit biased—I own a small stake in Ford. Just keeping it transparent! Now, here’s one for GM (which I don’t own, by the way).
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/23/gm-bidens-test-drive-of-electric-hummer-helped-increase-reservations.html
Maybe we should keep politics out of the newsletter and focus on what is real.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DG_B3Dpu9h2/?igsh=MWZ1ZGFwOG4zdXlwNA==
Biden, Biden, Biden; is there anything else? Biden is history and he clearly did not sell ads for donors in front of the White House.
The present is what is now in front of us along with along with the potential fallout from the present. Perhaps it is time to live in the Now as Eckhart Tolle says.
The past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities." — Stephen Hawking
What is more real? What has happened or what could?
Ah, but there is a third dimension of time. What is happening right now is the only thing that is real. One day, grasshopper, you may reach that level of understanding and enlightenment.
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.
- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
Look not mournfully into the past. It comes not back again. Wisely improve the present. It is thine. Go forth to meet the shadowy future, without fear.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Never look back unless you are planning to go that way.
- Henry David Thoreau
This is the delightful riddle of existence: there is no 'right now' to cling to. What we call the present is but a razor-thin edge, slipping instantly into the fleeting past or dissolving into the ethereal future. Time toys with us—each moment we try to grasp evaporates, leaving only echoes behind or whispers of what might be. To chase a solid 'now' is to chase a phantom. Life, then, is a dance between what was and what could be, and therein lies its strange, fleeting joy.
Ah grasshopper, how you love to spin. Just run your finger over a razor and tell me about now.
Pucker up!
Look, I’m really not into butt stuff. At first, I thought this was a genuine philosophical discussion, but now I see it’s just fluff designed to stir up drama.
You,re the one that called me sweetie. No one can be philosophical with you unless they agree with everything you spout.
You mentioned my brand: I loathe every about our current president and the 2025 conspirators. That is my brand.
Please, you’re wasting everyone’s time.
No soup for you!
Oh, come on now, you still haven’t caught on? I’m just messing with you, because we both know you HAVE to have the last word. I called you ‘sweetie’ because, let’s be real, you’ve asked for mansplaining before. I’m just giving you what you love—those little triggers that keep that old heart of yours racing. Now, before you go on about how I don’t know anything about you and how you could be a kid in your mom’s basement, take a second and think about how much you've already shared in these rants.
Oh, and a quick shoutout to anyone who expanded this thread, expecting some wisdom or entertainment—sorry about that! I’ve just been killing time while waiting for the wife to get home.
Worried about what other people think of you, hun? Oh, you know about me and I know I make your little heart race.
My first thought was "who needs two bags?". I have flown with just a Carry on for years. After many years of packing things just in case, now i only bring what I know I will need, and the clothes are all.quick drying. Saves me a lot of time and anxiety it is sad that a. Bully shareholder just in it for the money can force this kind of thing. In Canada, they are starting to charge for carryon now. Needless to say, we don't fly much any more.
And is anyone really surprised by Trump any more? Be has become a side show act and has lost aot of respect among other world leaders. I kind of feel sorry for the States and what is going to happen to the country over the next four years, it they voted him on
So sad about the changes at SWA. It will backfire. Why fly SWA when it is more like the other airlines? I will still fly them, but with not as big a smile on my face, and I bet the workers won't be smiling as much, either.
Rep. Jim McGovern speaking in the house (unedited):
The gentle lady was talking about what was said in the rules committee meeting last night. I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about how people voted in the rules committee last night. We gave republicans a chance last night.
The committee said if they really don’t believe that this budget cuts funding for school meals, if they really believe what they’re saying, then they can vote to assure the American people that they’re not going steal school meals from kids in order to give tax breaks for millionaires. Every Republican voted no, every single one of them.
Then Democrats offered to protect Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid as you know covers 41% of all births in the United States, nearly half of children with special healthcare needs and 5 in 8 nursing home residents. We asked them not to cut Medicaid in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Every Republican vote voted no.
Then Democrats offered an amendment to extend the tax cuts for people making under $400,000 while ensuring that corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. We asked Republicans to continue tax cuts for only those who needed the most because those are the tax cuts they let expire while their tax cards for greedy corporations were made permanent. We asked them to prioritize working families over greedy corporations. Every Republican voted no.
Then, Democrats offered an amendment preventing tax giveaways for people earning over $1 million a year. Every republican voted no. We wanted to see if there was anyone so rich that Republicans don’t think they deserve a tax giveaway, so we asked them to vote against tax rates for earning over $100 million per year. We asked them to side with factory workers and firefighters over hedge fund managers and billionaire bankers. Every republican voted no.
We even offered an amendment preventing tax cuts for people with a net worth of over - getting this - $1 billion. Every Republican voted no. They betrayed their constituents. They voted to steal from the American people in order to protect tax breaks for billionaires. Again, this is about whose side you are on. Republican showed us last night with their votes whose side they are on, and it’s not the working people this country.
I reserve my time.
Rep. Jim McGovern’s speech casts Republicans as villains robbing kids’ lunches to fund billionaire tax breaks.
It’s a great story, but the facts don’t line up.
School meal funding? The USDA’s budget for child nutrition rose from $23.2 billion in 2020 to over $28 billion in 2024. No cuts there—just a budget debate over spending growth. Medicaid and Medicare?
GOP plans slow their rise (up 30% since 2019) via reforms, not slashes for tax handouts. Tax cuts? The 2017 law boosted GDP and jobs, per the Tax Foundation; individual breaks expire in 2025, corporate ones don’t—policy, not greed.
McGovern’s amendments were theater—symbolic votes, not fixes. The top 1% already pay 46% of income taxes (IRS, 2022). This isn’t about stealing from workers; it’s a fight over growth versus guarantees. Hyperbole’s fun, but it’s not the truth.
Why the politics!!?!?!?! Why, why, why?
Lets talk about the problems underlying this noise.
Dude, it’s now in the congressional record, just like all the GOP lies. I believe this unless you actually prove it incorrect.
Trump is nothing but theater along with chainsaw Muskie. They sell out the WH, gift and do an upside down Robin Hood impersonation.
Now pucker up…I actually felt the first one.
Oh, sweetie, the congressional record?
That’s just a scrapbook for political fan fiction—doesn’t make it gospel. You’re clinging to it like a life raft, but I don’t need to disprove your vibes; you’ve got to bring more than sass and a hunch.
Trump’s theater? Sure, but it’s sold-out shows while your crew’s playing to empty seats. And ‘Chainsaw Muskie’? Cute nickname, but he’s building rockets, not robbing peasants. Reverse Robin Hood? Nah, they’re just not spoon-feeding the entitled—sorry if that stings.
Pucker up all you want, but that ‘kiss of truth’ you felt? Probably just the breeze from reality passing you by.
You mean that Musk’s engineers, at great taxpayer expense, are building rockets that blow up and endanger air traffic. The only waste, fraud and abuse to be found is in all of his government contracts. At trump’s direction, Chainsaw Charlie has ripped the foundations out from under our government. We are all now caught up in Donald’s own reality show. From your response, I can only assume that you are pleased with the result.
Shakespeare was right when he said, “Hell is empty. All the devils are here”.
I appreciate your perspective and the passion behind it, but I’d like to address some of the points raised with the data at hand, as it tells a different story about SpaceX’s contributions and costs.
First, the claim that SpaceX’s rockets are built “at great taxpayer expense” doesn’t fully align with the numbers. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launches cost around $67 million each, a fraction of the $2–4 billion per launch for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), which Boeing develops under traditional government contracts. Even in crewed missions, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon comes in at $209 million per mission for NASA, compared to $345 million for Boeing’s Starliner. These savings stem from SpaceX’s reusable rocket technology and streamlined operations, reducing the burden on taxpayers compared to older models of government-funded spaceflight. NASA’s own audits and reports—like the 2021 Inspector General findings—highlight how SLS costs ballooned, while SpaceX delivers results under fixed-price contracts, shifting much of the financial risk to the company itself rather than the public.
As for rockets “blowing up,” SpaceX has had failures—most notably early Falcon 1 attempts and a few high-profile Falcon 9 incidents, like the 2015 CRS-7 explosion or the 2016 AMOS-6 loss. But their success rate has soared: in 2024 alone, SpaceX completed 132 launches with no failures reported, a reliability that rivals or exceeds legacy providers. The data shows they’ve transformed launch cadence—global launches have doubled or tripled since the 1990s, with SpaceX driving over half of 2024’s 223 orbital missions. This isn’t waste; it’s efficiency that’s opened space to more players, from science missions to commercial satellites.
On endangering air traffic, SpaceX coordinates launches with the FAA, which imposes strict airspace closures. Incidents are rare—FAA data shows no major air traffic disruptions tied to SpaceX beyond temporary delays, unlike the broader risks of unregulated airspace. Fraud or abuse in contracts? NASA’s oversight and GAO reviews have flagged cost overruns in Boeing’s SLS program (e.g., $1.8 billion over budget by 2021), while SpaceX’s fixed-price deals have stayed within bounds, delivering six crewed ISS missions on time.
Your reference “Chainsaw Charlie” seems to tie this to broader governance critiques, which I won’t presume to unpack fully. But the space program’s shift predates recent administrations—SpaceX’s rise began under Obama with the Commercial Crew Program, not Trump. As for a “reality show,” the results are tangible: U.S. launches jumped from 20–30 annually in the 1990s to 150+ in 2024, largely thanks to SpaceX. That’s not chaos—it’s capability.
I’m not here to cheerlead or lament, just to clarify what the numbers show. SpaceX’s approach has cut costs, boosted access to space, and delivered results, not devils. Shakespeare’s line is vivid, but the data suggests a different scene: not hell, but a new frontier being built, imperfectly but effectively.
Oh, sweetie? I had no idea you felt that way. Blush…
Muskie is crashing rockets we are paying him to crash and hawking cars on the WH lawn, suckering people like you. I was wondering why it took you so long to comment today but just realized the factory first shift doesn’t let out until 3:30 or so.
Why do you hide behind an avatar name? That breeze on my tuchus had the smell of butter so it must have been you.
Darrell—your 'Muskie crashing rockets' spiel is slipping off the plate like bad grease. I’m tickled you think I’m on a 3:30 factory clock, but this Butter's too busy spreading common sense and locking down the net to care. No need to hide behind my avatar—it’s just me, serving up reason while you’re out there sniffing buttery breezes. Speaking of, who’s greasing your tuchus, champ? Not me—I’m not into your backdoor buffet, so keep that mess off my table.
Pucker baby, pucker…
not wanting to cut Medicaid but wanting to save $ by fixing the loophole, which Biden even saw:The Legal Loophole That Costs Medicaid Billions
How states inflate the cost of Medicaid to get more money from the federal treasury.
March 12, 2025
Medicaid is a broadly popular program that provides medical coverage to low-income Americans through a combination of state and federal funding. More than 60 percent of Americans either know someone who has benefited from Medicaid or have been enrolled themselves, according to health policy think tank FFF. So any talk of altering the program usually meets strong opposition.
Yet few seem to know how the system works, what it costs, or the level of unnecessary spending hidden within its $880 billion annual budget.
One example is a little-known quirk in the Medicaid system that allows states to artificially inflate their Medicaid costs to recoup more federal dollars. The arrangement allows some states to pocket a share of the money paid to them for providing treatment to Medicaid patients.
Here’s how it works.
Medicaid Enrollment and Providers Taxed
57,72012,199,634
Enrollment as of October 2024.
Source: Congressional Research Service and Medicaid.govCreated with Datawrapper
The Loophole
When a Medicaid patient receives a treatment or service, the state pays the doctor, hospital, nursing home, or other provider. The federal government reimburses each state for a portion of its Medicaid expenses. The reimbursement ranges from 50 percent to 76.9 percent depending on the median income level in the state and other factors.
An exception to this exists for people who enrolled through the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. For them, the reimbursement rate is 90 percent.
So if a state had a 60 percent reimbursement rate and spent $10 billion on Medicaid services, the federal government would reimburse the state $6 billion.
That’s how the system was designed to work back in 1965, generally speaking.
By the mid-1980s, some states had found a way to increase payments to providers and reimbursement of their own Medicaid costs at the expense of the federal government.
First, medical providers would either voluntarily donate money to a state or pay a tax. The states would then return the amount of the donation or tax, and possibly even more, to the providers through increased reimbursement. Finally, the states would bill the federal government for the apparent increased cost.
In some cases, the providers themselves initiated these arrangements, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Premium Pick
For example, a hospital might agree to pay the state $10 million in taxes. The state might then increase Medicaid payments to that hospital to $20 million. If the state’s reimbursement rate was 60 percent, it would receive $12 million in federal Medicaid funding.
Together with the tax income, the state would receive $22 million and pay $20 million, netting $2 million for additional Medicaid costs or other purposes.
The arrangement benefits providers by increasing their reimbursement, and the states benefit by reducing their costs or even gaining revenue. The federal government bears the cost of those increases.
Congress debated the issue in 1991.
Lawmakers who favored keeping the arrangement in some form argued that it had become a vital part of state Medicaid funding.
Rep. Raymond McGrath (R-N.Y.) said at the time that doing away with the system would cost his state $500 million in federal matching funds. He predicted “chaos” in the Medicaid system if provider taxes were abolished.
The administration of President George H.W. Bush strongly opposed the taxes in a position statement, saying, “State donation and provider-specific tax programs, if unchecked, will undermine a basic premise of the Medicaid program—that States have a stake in the costs of the program.”
In the end, Congress chose to impose limits on provider taxes and donations.
First, provider donations to the state are strictly limited to prevent abuse. Second, state taxes must meet certain conditions or the state will lose federal funding.
Taxes must apply to all providers in a certain class, such as nursing homes, not just those who serve Medicaid patients. Also, states can’t provide any direct or implied guarantee that they will reimburse providers for the amount of the tax. The limit on provider taxes is 6 percent.
Here’s how the provider tax works today.
Increasing Tax, Dependence
In 2004, 35 states had taxes on medical care providers. Now every state but Alaska taxes some providers, as does the District of Columbia.
And states depend more on tax revenue to fund Medicaid—and other things—according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
From 2008 to 2018, the share of states’ Medicaid spending covered by provider taxes grew from 7 percent to 17 percent according to the GAO.
In 2018, states received $63 billion in provider taxes and local government funds, according to GAO estimates. Of that amount, $16 billion (25 percent) was not used to pay providers.
That shifted 5 percent of the cost of Medicaid from the states to the federal government, the GAO estimates. The practice also resulted in lower overall reimbursement to some providers when accounting for their tax payments.
When measured as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product, a common measure of the country’s total wealth, the burden of providing Medicaid remained the same for states from 2008 to 2023. While overall spending went up, the economy was growing, too, so state Medicaid spending was essentially flat according to the think tank Paragon Health Institute.
Yet the overall cost of the program increased dramatically, meaning that the federal government paid the entire increase in the cost of the program over that 15-year period, according to Paragon.
Over that same period, the federal government’s share of the total cost of Medicaid grew from 60 percent to 72 percent.
Possible Changes
Republicans, searching for ways to reduce the federal budget deficit, have tasked the House Committee on Energy and Commerce with finding $880 billion in savings over the next 10 years.
Medicaid accounts for 92 percent of the spending that the committee manages, so changes to the program have been discussed.
Lawmakers have floated ideas such as limiting how much the federal government reimburses the states or reducing the percentage of the reimbursement.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he won’t do either of those things. “We’re talking about finding efficiencies in every program, not cutting benefits for people who rightly deserve them,” Johnson said in a Feb. 26 interview on CNN.
That has caused some lawmakers to eye the provider taxes.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which provides nonpartisan financial assessments to Congress, estimated the impact of altering the provider tax restrictions.
The CBO discovered that eliminating the tax would reduce the federal deficit by $612 billion over 10 years. Reducing the tax to 2.5 percent would reduce the deficit by $241 billion, and lowering it to 5 percent would bring a $48 billion reduction.
Democrats are firmly united in opposing any Medicaid reductions.
“Republicans are trying to enact the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, and we need to keep the pressure on them legislatively and in communities all across the country,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a video call with Democratic leaders on March 5.
All 47 Democrat and Independent senators signed a letter to Republican leaders in February, arguing that there’s not enough fraud and waste in the program to offset proposed budget cuts.
Unknown Impact
The use of state taxes to boost Medicaid reimbursement has had critics on both sides of the aisle. Former President Joe Biden referred to state taxes on health care providers as a “scam” according to Bob Woodward in his book “The Price of Politics.”
Others have defended the device as a way for cash-strapped states to keep Medicaid going. As the CRS notes, the provider tax helps states increase reimbursement to certain types of providers, such as hospitals and nursing homes.
Use of the tax has tended to increase during and after recessions. “Medicaid provider tax revenue can provide a way for states to continue funding the Medicaid program during times of state budget constraints,” according to CRS.
Yet it’s unclear how much limiting state taxes on health care providers would affect Medicaid.
California has more than 12 million Medicaid enrollees and derives more than 60 percent of its Medicaid funding from the federal government. The state reported that its spending on Medicaid from its general fund decreased by 5.8 percent in 2024. Federal Medicaid payments to California increased 1.9 percent that year.
Eliminating all taxes on health care providers would reduce federal Medicaid payments by about 8 percent over 10 years, according to the CBO. Reducing the tax rate would produce reductions of 0.6 to 3 percent.
adding 'cause that was 'too long'....
“I just don’t think that’s enough money at stake for states to want to cut their [Medicaid] expansion population in light of the total cost of Medicaid expansion,” Niklas Kleinworth of Paragon Health Institute has said.
Kleinworth theorized that states would be more likely to cut funding for what are called social determinants of health. Those can include home modifications, non-medical transportation, and education according to a CMS directive.
“You'll probably see states making their Medicaid programs more efficient,” Kleinworth said.
The true impact is difficult to predict because the total amount of provider tax revenues states use on Medicaid expenditures is not fully known, according to CRS.
Noting that fact, the GAO recommended five years ago that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services collect complete and consistent information on all sources of funding used by states to finance Medicaid, including provider taxes.
As of February, the recommendation has not been implemented.
We feel so blessed to have you to mansplain the MAGA - the current president - and how the 2025 plan works - world to us. Bless your heart.
you didn't read - you do what you always do, reply w/ what you think is a witty comeback.
Once again you prove your impeccable intuition as I absolutely did not read your cut & paste comment. It’s more fun to provide you with what I believe is a witty comeback as what I think when it comes to your comments is all that matters to me.
Bless your heart. 💜
You're proving you're a kid in your mom's basement inept at using AI to come up w/ witty comments
Another example of PE firms trying to squeeze companies and consumers for short term gains and having no accountability for the long term growth of companies that they work with. Might be a great article/book on all of the examples of how unregulated PE is destroying companies for their short term gains - and doing nothing to create value for consumers or the community as a whole. So many examples of them destroying value - this is just the latest example of them destroying a brand that took decades to build. I can see the business book "The Death of an Iconic Southwest Airline" in about 10 years. Sucks to watch happen in real time.
I'm with you. I will no longer first look at Southwest for flights. Southwest has broken its vows and is no longer loyal and faithful to me, I won't be loyal to them.
Somehow I USED to feel invested in the company and it's success.
That feeling is gone. I feel like I have been betrayed by a family member. So weird and surprising to realize I HAD that kind of brand loyalty.
Bye, Bye, Bye
Elliot's greed is astonishing. Heck, America's greed is astonishing. SWA used to be my go to airline, but no longer. Dang, I will be forced to shop for "best" flights now!
Egg prices, however, a closely watched symbol of price increases, soared 58.8% in February compared to a year ago, accelerating from the previous month.
The Justice Department opened an investigation into egg producers to learn if market practices have contributed to the price hikes, a source familiar with the matter told ABC News.
“I will lower egg prices from day one.” Huh???
It’s the latest salvo in Trump’s multifaceted tariff plan aimed at correcting perceived trade imbalances and reigniting domestic industry. But it risks igniting a global trade war. The European Union, hit for the first time by higher US tariffs since Trump returned to the White House, retaliated within hours with countermeasures on US goods exports. And later Wednesday, Canada announced over $20 billion in retaliatory measures as well.
Trump on Wednesday in the Oval Office said the United States would up the ante after the European and Canadian retaliation, but he did not spell out how or when the United States would respond.
“Of course I will respond, Trump said.
What do US citizens get out of this besides higher prices on everything? Where will it end???
Inflation cooled in Feb. Here’s the headline: CPI increased 2.8% year-over-year in February, below most economists’ 3% expectations but still a healthy tick above the Fed’s preferred 2% threshold. Month-over-month, the gauge increased 0.2%, a healthy tick down from January’s 0.5% hike. Prices excluding volatile food and energy costs, meanwhile, rose just 3.1% year-over-year — the lowest such reading since 2021. Leading the disinflationary charge: gasoline prices, down 3.1% year-over-year; new cars, down 0.3% year-over-year; and seasonally adjusted airfares, down 4% month-over-month. Shelter costs also saw their slowest year-over-year increase in prices since December 2021.
but of course, Darrell, you want to blame the bird flu on Trump. Of course.
Trump campaigned on lowering egg prices day one even though he knew the real cause of prices. His words. He certainly has a way with flu mitigation.
Bless your heart.
Same as it ever was...
Southwest Airlines is yet another case of a great company getting hollowed out by public markets. Start with a customer-focused business, make it a great place to work, build a culture of excited employees helping people—profit follows. But how do you grow? You sell shares. And once shareholders step in, they demand an ever-increasing return. More money, every year. That’s capitalism. But that same inefficiency creates opportunities—someone else will step in to deliver the value Southwest once did.
Most people, especially the media, misread the current administration. They fixate on the autistic techno-nerds while ignoring the real power: Venture Capitalists. Those nerds are only here because the last administration played politics, parading GM’s CEO on EV Day while sidelining Tesla.
That wasn’t about saving the planet—it was optics.
Meanwhile, VCs are engineering a new slipstream for IPOs, turning public value into private windfalls. That’s not a Trump agenda. It’s not about shrinking government, paying down debt, or fighting inflation. It’s a different current entirely.
So ask yourself: What are you actually fighting for? If you’re sitting on a paid-off house, a cushy IRA, maybe a pension and Social Security, the world looks stable—your slice of the pie is safe. But if you’re a millennial, locked out of homeownership and praying your 401K doesn’t tank, or a Gen X straddling the fault line, frustration is the air you breathe.
Fortune’s article—stuffed with salary stats and coastal gloss—misses the real story. It’s not just data; it’s a symptom. A case study in how the glittering edges of America keep draining the heartland dry, while the VCs and shareholders cash out.
Same as it ever was.
But hope springs eternal. In 2028, Pritzker and Newsom will ride in on a white horse, and suddenly, no one will be worried about billionaires running the country.
I am sitting on a home with no mortgage and was enjoying a cushy IRA and a now jeopardized $72k/year SS payment. Thanks to trump the last two are either crumbling or in serious danger of same.
You are the “same as you ever was.” And before you send me some snarky response remember: I do not care what you think of what I have to say, so pucker up and give my ass that big air kiss as you type.
Your house is still yours, mortgage-free, and that $72K Social Security check? Trump’s promised not to cut a penny, pushing tax breaks on benefits instead. Your IRA’s fate hinges on markets, not his tweets.
Same as it ever was—chaos in the noise, stability in the numbers. Deal with it. drops mic
Promises, promises. Steps on your Mike.
Still doubt that the press and big tech shape narratives? Try this: Google "Car and Driver 25 Bestselling Cars 2024." Does Tesla show up in the AI-generated summary? I don’t see it. Yet, the actual article ranks the Tesla Model Y at #4 with over 400,000 sold.
I went to google just as you suggested. You must not have read the full headline because the complete headline states: “The 25 Bestselling Cars, Trucks, and SUVs of 2024“
Must be a musk AI doing the summary.
You cherry picked even the headline. That makes anything you state here questionable unless we check your work.
Here is the full article I googled - in chrome - and linked - in chrome:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g60385784/bestselling-cars-2024/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=dda_ga_rt_md_bm_prog_org_us_g60385784&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAACfH9Wh6_NoBSgtlK031FqSTFUkwP&gclid=Cj0KCQjwhMq-BhCFARIsAGvo0KfoBdcF0D71ynWJtLUEgMpPFkZz7-yZ9mmQj3KnvFRg8qSTqvMYz7saAtgiEALw_wcB
You try so hard. Bless your heart.
Darrell, I appreciate you digging into this, but let’s set the record straight. I didn’t cherry-pick anything—my point was about the AI-generated search summary, not the article itself. I said Google 'Car and Driver 25 Bestselling Cars 2024,' and the summary that pops up doesn’t mention Tesla, despite the Model Y ranking #4 with over 400,000 sold in the full piece—which, yes, I’ve read, headline and all: 'The 25 Bestselling Cars, Trucks, and SUVs of 2024.' The exercise was to show how AI can skew what you see upfront, not to misquote titles. I even re-ran it today—same deal, no Tesla in the summary, though the display varies. Point is, AI generates fresh results each time, and it’s consistently skipping Tesla there. You’re fixating on the article when I’m talking about the search result shaping the narrative. No Musk AI conspiracy needed—just Google’s algorithm doing its thing. Check the summary yourself before doubting my take!
Here's the one I just pulled.
According to Car and Driver's list of the 25 Bestselling Cars of 2024, the top vehicles include the Ford F-Series, Chevrolet Silverado, and Toyota RAV4.
The list also features the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, and Nissan Sentra, among others.
Notably, the Subaru Forester saw a 15 percent increase in sales throughout 2024, while the Crosstrek became the bestselling Subaru, surpassing the Forester and Outback.
Additionally, the redesigned 2025 Forester has been introduced, enhancing off-road capability with the Wilderness variant.
What sick kick are you getting from this constant attack on my character?
I didn’t dig into anything, just did a quick google for the article.
Then blame AI and not media. You gave musky’s AI a pass by parsing but turn into an attack dog here. Boo hoo about your precious Tesla being ignored by something artificial.
What do I get out of this? Your priceless responses - as if I know diddly squat or even care about your character. Toughen up dude, it’s a hard world out there.