Henlo?
Colorado wasted $7.3 million in Medicaid payments on dead people
Not only do dead people vote Democrat, now we’re learning they continue to be the benefactor of taxpayer services from a bloated federal government defended by Democrat elected officials.
It turns out that Colorado has been paying for thousands of our dearly deceased to stay on the Medicaid rolls to the tune of $7.3 million just during the years of 2018 to 2020.
That’s according to DOGE a federal inspector general report, which found the waste buried in the monthly fixed payments that Colorado makes to medical care organizations (MCO) based on the number of their Medicaid enrollees.
From the IG report:
We also identified almost 39,000 unallowable (payments) that Colorado made on behalf of deceased enrollees even though their dates of death were accurately recorded in the State’s eligibility system.
Colorado Republican U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans responded to the findings in a Denver Gazette article:
“We know that there is fraud, waste, and abuse in the system that we have to be able to find so that we can actually save Medicaid for the vulnerable populations who need it most,” Evans said.
Polis administration officials blamed the wasteful spending on outdated reporting systems and claim the problems have been corrected, although there’s been no new investigation proving such.
And, they claim the system is now more “efficient” because $2.3 million has been recouped, so nothing to see here. Except for the nearly $5 million still missing from taxpayer coffers that could certainly be used to take care of sick people and addicts.
Evans has called on the state to clean up its act.
Meanwhile, the Gov. Polis is ignoring the wasteful spending report altogether and instead scaremongering the state’s 1.3 million residents on Medicare that Republicans are trying to kick 400,000 of them off that welfare roll.
Not true.
That’s been part of the Democrat’s playbook to DOGE’s digging into wasteful government spending and finding billions in fraud and waste that needs to be eliminated, not the people using the service.
But instead of stopping the abuse and cleaning up government, Democrats are crying “Hands off!” their government waste while steering their so-called treasured government programs straight into bankruptcy.
https://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2025/04/14/colorado-wasted-7-3-million-in-medicaid-payments-on-dead-people/
Btw it's pronounced N-vid-ia, not Nuh-vidya.
Collin Rugg
@CollinRugg
JUST IN: Karmelo Anthony walks free after his bond was reduced from $1M to $250k.
Anthony is accused of stabbing 17-year-old Austin Metcalf in the heart for simply "grabbing" him.
Blood was seen gushing from Metcalf's chest before he passed away in his brother's arms.
Anthony will be on house arrest with an ankle monitor until his trial.
His GiveSendGo has raked in $415,000 from fans.
Video: @FOX4
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1911900074051047812
Bukele scoffs at a leftist reporter that is confused why a terrorist gang member should be in jail
The Trump administration ratcheted up its confrontation with a U.S. district judge on Monday, as President Trump met El Salvador President Nayib Bukele at the White House.
The key upshot is stark. Neither Trump nor Bukele appears willing to return the man at the center of a controversial deportation case — despite the fact that the judge has ordered the White House to “facilitate” his release.
Bukele said it was “preposterous” to suggest that he would return the man to the United States.
Stephen Miller, a key Trump aide, alleged that the judge in the case was in effect suggesting the U.S. government should “kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and fly him back here.”
Supporters of the man in question, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, see it completely differently, of course.
They say that Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador, the country of his birth, in defiance of an earlier court order protecting him from removal. They see the deportation as flagrantly illegal — and they worry that if the Trump administration gets away with it, it will have broken the law without consequence and may do so again.
Here is where things stand right now.
Trump and Bukele have been allies for some time. But that alliance has grown even closer in recent weeks after the Trump administration struck a $6 million deal with El Salvador to house deportees from the U.S. in Salvadoran jails.
When Abrego Garcia’s case came up, Trump himself said little, handing the question off to his Attorney General Pam Bondi; Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff; and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Bondi rested her defense of the deportation of Abrego Garcia on the fact that “he was illegally in our country” and that two separate immigration judges had been persuaded that he was a member of the gang MS-13.
Miller, for his part, argued, “It’s very arrogant for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens.”
Moments later, Rubio argued that there should be no “confusion” because, in Rubio’s view, Abrego Garcia “was illegally in the United States and was returned to his country.”
In the middle of all this, a reporter asked Bukele if he would return Abrego Garcia.
“Of course I’m not going to do it,” he responded. “The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States?”
Abrego Garcia and his supporters insist he is neither a terrorist nor gang member.
Monday’s remarks at the White House ramp up the confrontation between Trump and U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis.
In an order earlier this month, Xinis had blasted the administration, saying that Abrego Garcia had been apprehended in a “wholly lawless” act and deported “without legal basis.”
She also ordered the government to “facilitate and effectuate” his return to the United States.
The initial deadline she set for such an action — April 7 — has long passed. And the administration has made very clear that it does not believe it has the power to force Abrego Garcia’s return.
The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which weighed in on April 10 with a nuanced decision.
In Abrego Garcia’s favor, the justices emphasized that the U.S. government “acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.”
It also said that Xinis had “properly [required] the Government to ‘facilitate’” his release.
But, in Trump’s favor, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the use of the term “effectuate.”
The justices worried this was an overreach of the district court’s authority and that it therefore had to be clarified “with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign.
Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador, says he entered the United States in 2012.
In 2019, he was detained by immigration authorities, apparently among a group of men gathered near a Home Depot. Under risk of removal, he applied to be released on bond, saying that he was not a flight risk.
He denied he was a member of MS-13 while the Department of Homeland Security alleged that he was.
A judge at a bond hearing ruled that “the determination that [he] is a gang member appears to be trustworthy.”
Abrego Garcia has always denied this and says the evidence against him — including his wearing of Chicago Bulls apparel — was weak.
But the judge said that although he was “reluctant to give evidentiary weight” to the clothing issue, he did not feel the same hesitancy about an apparently reliable confidential informant who “verified the Respondent’s gang membership, rank, and gang name.”
Abrego Garcia’s supporters contest this, noting that this confidential informant reportedly said he was an MS-13 member active in the state of New York, where he says he has never lived.
Confusing the picture further, an immigration review hearing, also in 2019, found his claims that his life had been in danger in El Salvador “credible.”
This centers on Abrego Garcia’s claim that he and his siblings had their lives threatened by members of the Barrio 18 gang who were extorting his family over the small business they owned.
As if all that was not complicated enough, the immigration judge’s order granted Abrego Garcia protection against removal, but referred a number of times to “Guatemala” rather than El Salvador for reasons that are unclear.
Tomorrow brings another key development: a new hearing before Xinis where she wants the government to explain how far it has gotten in its efforts to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States.
Monday’s events at the White House seem to make it obvious that very few such steps will have been taken.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers want the judge to push the Trump administration for an explanation as to why it should not be held in contempt of court.
But perhaps a more likely final destination is back to the Supreme Court, to decide the matter of whether the government can be compelled to return Abrego Garcia.
Trump created a new stir on a related matter at Monday’s meeting.
The president doubled down on the idea of deporting U.S. citizens — not just migrants — convicted of violent crimes.
It’s far from clear how such an action could be legal, and Trump himself says his administration is examining the law around such a move.
“If it’s a homegrown criminal, I have no problem” with deportation, Trump said Monday. “Now, we’re studying the laws right now. Pam [Bondi] is studying. If we can do that, that’s good.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5248734-trump-bukele-deportation-case/amp/
Harvard just lost $2 billion in federal funding
Harvard will not comply with the Trump administration’s demands to dismantle its diversity programming and limit student protests in exchange for its federal funding, University President Alan M. Garber ’76 announced in a message to affiliates Monday afternoon.
The Trump administration paused $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts to Harvard over its decision earlier today to reject the White House’s demands — a dramatic escalation in its crusade against the University.
The move came just hours after Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 issued a resounding rebuke of the Trump administration’s demands, calling them coercive and beyond federal authority.
The federal antisemitism task force wrote that Garber’s decision was a clear sign that Harvard was refusing to “commit to meaningful change” to address antisemitism on campus.
“Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws,” the task force wrote in a statement.
The cut is only a fraction of the $9 billion the Trump administration put under review just two weeks before.
Unlike the initial review — which targeted federal funding awarded to “Harvard and its affiliates” — the Monday announcement only stated that the cut would affect Harvard, with no mention of its affiliate institutions. The Department of Education, the White House, and the General Services Administration all did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether the cut would include Harvard’s hospital system.
In his message Monday afternoon, Garber argued that the Trump administration’s revised demands on Thursday exceeded the legal scope of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and were in violation of the First Amendment, but stopped short of threatening litigation against the administration.
But top Harvard administrators have told affiliates in private — before the funding review was announced — that they would not be opposed to leading a battle against the White House in certain cases. A Harvard spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether the University was considering filing a lawsuit.
The funding cut to Harvard is the largest among the six cuts to Ivy League institutions that the Trump administration has announced so far.
Harvard received $686 million in federal funding during the 2024 fiscal year.
In his message earlier Monday, Garber condemned the Trump administration’s targeting of research funding, which he characterized as essential to “life-changing” scientific advances.
“For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation,” he wrote.
He described the conditions on Harvard’s funding as “assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate.”
“We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity — and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world,” he wrote.
https://www.thecrimson.com/thread/2025/4/15/harvard-will-fight-demands-live/
Trump to ask congress to claw back $1 billion in funding for PBS, NPR
The Trump administration plans to ask Congress to rescind $1.1 billion in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some funding for public media in the United States.
The White House is planning to ask Congress to claw back more than $1 billion slated for public broadcasting in the United States, according to two people briefed on the plan, a move that could ultimately eliminate almost all federal support for NPR and PBS.
The plan is to request that Congress rescind $1.1 billion in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the taxpayer-backed company that funds public media organizations across the United States, one of the people said. If Congress agrees, that will amount to about two years of the organization’s funding, nearly all of which goes to public broadcasters including NPR, PBS and their local member stations. The Trump administration isn’t planning to ask Congress to claw back about $100 million allocated for emergency communications.
Government money accounts for a small part of the budgets at NPR and PBS, which also generate revenue through sponsorships and donations. Most of the government funding goes to local stations, which rely on it to finance their newsrooms and pay for programming.
The proposal would be part of a broader rescission package, a formal request to Congress to rescind previously approved funds, that would also eliminate billions allocated to foreign aid, the two people said. The process is established under law, which gives the House and Senate 45 days to vote to approve the request after it is submitted. The White House plans to submit this rescission request in the coming weeks, the people said. If Congress does not approve the rescission request, the money must be spent as originally intended.
The Trump administration’s proposal to defund public broadcasting comes amid sustained pressure on NPR and PBS from Republicans in Congress, who have intensified long-running attacks on the broadcasters. The chief executives of both organizations testified before Congress last month in a fiery hearing that played out along mostly partisan lines: Republicans assailed the executives for what they saw as liberal bias, and Democrats argued that the proceeding was a waste of time.
The ask would also be the latest move by the Trump administration to exert pressure on media organizations. The administration is waging a legal battle with The Associated Press over its decision to exclude the wire service from the presidential press pool, breaking decades of precedent. Mr. Trump is also personally suing CBS News and The Des Moines Register, and the Federal Communications Commission has launched investigations into Comcast, PBS and NPR.
Spokespeople for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS and NPR declined to comment.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is “forward-funded” two years to insulate it from political maneuvering, and a sizable chunk of the money for 2025 has already been paid out to public broadcasters in the United States, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Public media executives have been planning for the possibility of having public funding clawed back for months. According to a document prepared by station directors this past fall, the immediate elimination of funding, while unlikely, would be “akin to an asteroid striking without warning.”
“It is the highest risk scenario especially in a time in which the media ecosystem is rapidly changing,” the document said.
Public media defenders say rural audiences would be hit the hardest if funding was cut from NPR and PBS stations. In very remote areas without broadband access, public radio and TV are among the few sources of news and entertainment.
But those in favor of defunding say advances in technology have made those services obsolete. In an interview last month, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, said residents in rural parts of her district had enough access to cellphone and internet services to keep them informed.
“The bottom line here: NPR and PBS only have themselves to blame,” said Mike Gonzalez, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has argued publicly for defunding public media. “For the last 50 years, every Republican president has tried to defund them or reform them.”
In 2011, NPR executives produced a secret report that explored what would happen if government funding was eliminated. According to the report, up to 18 percent of roughly 1,000 member stations across the United States would close, and $240 million would vanish from public radio. Stations in the Midwest, the South and the West would be most affected, and roughly 30 percent of listeners would lose access to NPR programming.
One potential upside, according to the document: Cutting off federal funding would galvanize public radio supporters, leading to a sudden surge in donations to stations across the United States.
https://archive.is/IKIyD#selection-863.0-970.0
Trump War Room
@TrumpWarRoom
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: "We are still a global reserve currency. We have a strong dollar policy. The dollar can go up and down."
https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1911887853086298119
Use a VPN for now.
They lowered the water pressure so Americans can't properly wash their assholes properly by blasting the dangleberriess off. Invest in a bidet for long term great succeass.
U.S. slaps 21 percent tariff on tomatoes from Mexico
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, April 14, 2025
Contact: Office of Public Affairs
Email: publicaffairs@trade.gov
Phone: 202-482-3809
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced its intent to withdraw from the 2019 Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, with termination effective in 90 days. The current agreement has failed to protect U.S. tomato growers from unfairly priced Mexican imports, as Commerce has been flooded with comments from them urging its termination. This action will allow U.S. tomato growers to compete fairly in the marketplace.
With the termination of this agreement, Commerce will institute an antidumping duty order on July 14, 2025, resulting in duties of 20.91% on most imports of tomatoes from Mexico.
The strict enforcement of U.S. trade law is a primary focus of the Trump Administration. Commerce’s Enforcement and Compliance unit within the International Trade Administration is responsible for vigorously enforcing U.S. trade laws and does so based on factual evidence provided on the record. Commerce currently maintains 734 antidumping and countervailing duty orders which provide relief to American companies and industries impacted by unfair trade.
Antidumping and countervailing duty orders provide American businesses and workers with a mechanism to seek relief from the harmful effects of the unfair pricing of imports into the United States. Foreign companies that price their products in the U.S. market below the cost of production or below prices in their home markets are subject to antidumping duties.
###
About the International Trade Administration
The International Trade Administration (ITA) at the U.S. Department of Commerce is the premier U.S. Government resource for American companies competing in the global marketplace. Operating in more than 100 U.S. locations and 80 markets worldwide, ITA promotes trade and investment, assists U.S. businesses and workers to export and expand globally, and ensures fair trade and compliance by enforcing U.S. trade laws and agreements. For more information on ITA, visit www.trade.gov.
https://www.trade.gov/press-release/us-department-commerce-announces-intent-withdraw-2019-suspension-agreement-fresh
Trump Liberates America’s Shower Heads
‘Drip, drip, drip.” One of President Trump’s funniest rally lines is his riff about low-flow shower heads, which make it hard to cleanse his “beautiful hair.” On Wednesday he issued an executive order telling the Energy Department to reverse a water regulation imposed by Presidents Obama and Biden. With any luck, this means more vigorous bath fixtures will be coming soon to the hardware store.
The main culprit here is Congress, which passed a law in 1992 that limits shower heads to 2.5 gallons a minute. Mr. Trump can’t unscrew that by himself. But if a plumbing fixture features multiple nozzles, can each of them spray that amount? Or is 2.5 gallons the restriction for the whole thing? The answer to that question now gets reversed with each new Administration, as the President washes away his predecessor’s handiwork.
A White House fact sheet says Mr. Trump’s order this week will undo a regulatory action under Mr. Biden that took an astonishing 13,000 words of background and explanation to define the term “showerhead.” The idea now is to make it legal to produce shower fixtures with multiple fierce hydra heads. Supporters of the current restriction seem to think Big Fixture isn’t eager to retool, especially since the next President might crink the tap again in 2029. But there’s a market opportunity. Maybe Elon Musk could start a plumbing company.
The cleanest option would be for Congress to repeal the law and quit micromanaging what happens between Americans and their loofahs. This is a continental republic of 342 million souls living in widely varying circumstances. A follicularly challenged man in the desert might like an “efficient” shower experience that saves on utility bills. A father of daughters in a one-bath home might have other priorities.
States can do what they want, and some with water problems have even stricter standards, such as California’s rule of 1.8 gallons a minute. But the Founders created a limited federal government of enumerated powers, and imagine the first Congress trying to tell George Washington his bathtub is too big.
The same goes for federal overregulation of washing machines, dishwashers, and so forth. Mr. Trump has heard the public complaints that such appliances don’t work as well as they once did. Give him credit for ignoring the green nannies and taking steps to send these federal mandates down the drain.
https://archive.is/Nfspu#selection-2625.0-2645.299