The USPS underwent a $10 billion fleet modernization program, and part of the horribly named “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” $3 billion was allocated (from American taxpayers, not from postage sold) for the USPS to receive electric vehicles and associated charging stations. As a result, the agency gave a contract to Oshkosh Defense to build the “next-generation delivery vehicle.” When pictures of this next-generation vehicle came out, it looked horrendous. After all, Oshkosh Defense is a military equipment manufacturer, not a commercial delivery van company.

As part of the 2023 contract, the USPS agreed to pay Oshkosh $77,692 for each electric delivery truck. For comparison purposes, FedEx purchases the electric Mercedes-Benz eSprinter delivery vans for under $62,000, and one can buy a commercial Ford e-Transit van for just under $55,000. Talk about government spending gone wild!

• Electric NGDV (Oshkosh, 2023 contract term): $77,692

• Gasoline NGDV: $54,584

• Earlier mixed-fleet average on the first 50,000-unit order: about $59,600

• Ford E-Transit (USPS order of 9,250): fleet price not disclosed; retail starting prices are in the $48,000–$53,000 range depending on configuration

The September 2025 OIG report that found 6,000-plus vans parked for up to 14 months is about the Ford E-Transit commercial vans (left-hand-drive, 9,250 ordered). By June 2025, USPS had taken 7,465 E-Transits but stored most of them because charging sites and left-hand-drive routes were not ready. The Oshkosh electric trucks were a separate, much smaller delivery stream at that time (612 in service by November 2025). By early 2026, Oshkosh had produced more than 5,000 NGDVs of both powertrains; USPS later stated tens of thousands of new vehicles of all types were on the street. Infrastructure (chargers, electrical upgrades) was funded separately from the $1.71 billion IRA slice and is not included in the per-truck sticker.

It is said that we so often see government programs reward political intentions and rhetoric over actual results, as we see in this case. When the state separates the buyer from the funding source, efficiency goes out the window without the threat of bankruptcy or other consequences private industry faces. While private companies are forced to innovate, deliver their products and services on time, and be efficient with their capital, government just spends and spends with little regard to the latter.

I see a practical and hopeful path forward. As part of the DOGE caucus, Senator Joni Ernst and Representative Michael Cloud introduced the Return to Sender Act in 2025 to reclaim the unspent $3 billion, at least to recover some of the waste and instill a portion of fiscal accountability. Free enterprise already produces affordable and reliable electric vehicles; there is no need to lean on a defense contractor with zero experience in the field. Embracing liberty and private market solutions removes the state from logistics management. A free market provides the best tools to modernize infrastructure and protect every individual’s wealth.

While the DSA’s top nine items in their program sound fantastic to many, there is no way to pay for them outside of borrowing and printing money. The popular mantra of these people is “we’re going to tax the billionaires.” But that is insane, as even if you seize their entire wealth, it would be a drop in the bucket to pay for universal healthcare / Medicare-for-All style, reparations, a federal jobs guarantee, infrastructure and transit, green-energy investment, larger retirement benefits, housing for all, paid family leave, and no-cost tuition for college. Their healthcare alone would cost $40-75 trillion over ten years. The federal government is already projected to collect about $70 trillion in taxes over the same decade and to run a $24 trillion CBO deficit. Paying the DSA add-on would require roughly doubling revenue at the low end and quadrupling it at the high end, on top of that deficit.

So where is all this “free” stuff going to come from? They tell you the billionaires are going to pay, but confiscating all $6.6 trillion from the Forbes 400 list would cover only about 9 percent of the low end of what DSA people want and only three percent of the upper range. So then, they would have to go after the $50 million or more crowd, which would get them to about $23 trillion, which doesn’t even cover the ten percent of these new program costs they expect the government, a/k/a taxpayers, to pay.

If you confiscated all the wealth of Americans worth over $50 million and took all the corporate profits, you would end up needing another $29 trillion to $169 trillion, which would land on a much broader base of taxpayers than just the rich. You wouldn’t just be “eating the rich,” you’d be eating the poor too. The bottom line is that their promise to only tax “the richest individuals and corporations” cannot survive the reality of math.

I almost feel not one of these DSA supporters has put together a realistic plan and instead has relied on some weird Utopia where economics do not come into play. What I fear is that these fantastical plans spouted off by candidates seeking public office may dupe the general public into voting for them and actually get them into positions of power where they can implement these destructive schemes. DSA-style candidates have already won in a few spots in the nation, and that should frighten Americans who have a brain and have spent five minutes giving any of these issues an ounce of thought. What bodes for the November general election is unimaginable if DSA-style candidates get into office.

And I blame President Trump partially for the growth of this socialist movement. The Iran war, high cost of living, and embracing uncontrolled spending have given Democrats an average of six points ahead of the Republicans. Republicans have shot themselves in the foot. Trump’s approval rating is in the toilet in the high 30s, and almost no one feels we are on the “right track.” These numbers are the opposite of when he regained the White House and Congress.

After all, housing, health care, and higher education have outpaced wage growth for years, and that is mostly due to overspending by our government and the government involving itself so much in the highest areas of inflation. What happened to getting government out of the way? The government has gotten more involved, and DSA candidates want to expand on that. The more the government involves itself in an industry, the higher the cost; when it takes a step back and allows a freer market, pricing comes down. It’s not rocket science; it’s just plain reality.

The cost to buy a house has once again become unattainable for many Americans. When people cannot see a path to a house, a doctor, or a degree without new debt, “free” becomes a stronger word than “growth.” So, yes, I am worried about what the November general election looks like. A voter can want cheaper housing and still reject a program that requires a tax base far larger than the people it names as payers.

The cost to service this $40 trillion debt goes higher as fewer entities want to buy our debt, simply the law of Supply and Demand. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent doubled long-bond buybacks from $2 billion to $4 billion. Yields dipped, then climbed back. His old mentor, Stanley Druckenmiller, told him in the Wall Street Journal to stop.

If this is all gobbledygook to you, I understand. Basically, the federal government has been spending more than it has been taking in for decades, so it either borrows money in what is called the Bond market, like you would with your credit card. The minimum payment due to service that debt now exceeds $1 trillion per year and continues to rise as our elected officials are unwilling to rein in the spending. It’s like you work at McDonald’s for $15 per hour and continually shop at Louis Vuitton at the mall because you have an unlimited credit card; but you still need to pay the interest on that card each month, which gets more and more challenging. Our federal government is spending $2 trillion per year more than it is taking in.

In Stanley Druckenmiller’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote, “This wasn’t liquidity management, it was price management.” “The long-term Treasury yield is the most important price in the world. It is the only fiscal disciplinarian the U.S. has left.” “If the 30-year must trade at 5.5% to clear, that isn’t a crisis. It is an invoice.” “Every basis point of artificial yield suppression is a subsidy to procrastination.” “Governments defending prices against fundamentals always lose.”

On average, the federal government is paying 3.4% on its $40 trillion of debt, and as interest rates rise, it has a major effect on our debt service payments, causing the government to either print more money or crowd out other spending—neither are good choices. Over the next year, the federal government needs to raise another $10 trillion as old debt is coming due, and this borrowing will likely be at our current higher interest rates, which very well could create a serious economic problem for America.

As our debt increases around 7 percent each year and our GDP only grows 2-4 percent creates a major problem. If spending had stayed at 2019 levels, the growth since then would have produced a surplus. Stimulus never got walked back. Entitlements sit off-limits. The bond market is the only adult left in the room, and the rating of our debt continues toward “junk debt” territory, yet politicians keep writing checks. Moody’s has it at Aa1, which is a notch below our former AAA/Aaa. rating. We have ourselves to blame as Americans continue to vote the same spending whores back into Congress and the White House.

Higher yields mean we will eventually see higher mortgage rates, car payments, and the hidden tax of inflation as Washington prints or inflates the difference. Personal responsibility starts with the people who vote for the spending. The alternative is a louder invoice later. Vote this November for candidates who want to get our fiscal house in order, regardless of political party.

Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, the same people cheering on these investments by Trump were the very same people highly critical of the government taking ownership stakes in General Motors during the Obama administration. We live in weird times.

Okay, so getting back to this oil deal with Venezuela. The United States now claims majority control of more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan proven reserves. It is a new joint venture that includes 17 oil fields, where the U.S. Government will receive 55 percent of effective output with a $100 billion private investment and 100-year concessions. Venezuela’s interim president says the projects will generate more than $209 billion in tax revenue for Caracas. President Trump says the deal comes at no cost to the American taxpayer.

This deal still turns the federal government into a partner with a foreign oil enterprise while creating a dominant energy force and potentially lower gas prices for Americans. The output will initially go to refill our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and supply our military. I see this as an overreach by our government; regardless of whether it has a net effect or not, a republic like ours is designed to protect the rights of its citizens and defend our country. It is not designed to hold equity in a foreign crude oil venture or pick winners and losers in our capital markets by taking equity stakes in publicly traded companies.

Venezuela holds about 303 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves, the largest in the world. Production collapsed after decades of nationalized oil industry mismanagement. The fields need massive rebuilds, and that is no free lunch.

It is sad that our government seems incapable of respecting the free market, and that it feels the need to involve itself so strongly in the markets, creating interruptions and complications that would not otherwise exist. Uncle Sam is not an oil company, nor is it an investment banker.

Government exists to secure our rights, property, and defense. It has no comparative advantage in drilling, lifting heavy crude, or running 100-year field concessions. When officials sit on both the treaty and the equity, political goals replace profit-and-loss discipline. This deal is just another path down our socialistic tendency dressed up as helping capitalism while defeating socialism. Trump will not call it for what it genuinely is, in that it is socializing foreign energy investment at taxpayer risk.

Venezuela’s industry was wrecked by expropriation, corruption, and state control. Private firms can walk away. Taxpayers cannot. Even if the first check is private capital, government equity, offtake rights, and “strategic” supply create the next bailout when prices fall, politics shift, or equipment is stolen. Sparse contract details raise the risk, not lower it.

As Washington pours its political capital into Venezuelan fields, acting as their savior, here at home oil producers are still fighting government-imposed leasing limits, pipeline delays, and permitting. We have plenty of oil here at home, yet ironically, our government continues to keep putting up roadblocks at the same time going into foreign countries to play oil baron. It’s a bit nuts, but nothing we haven’t seen before with our benevolent overlords in D.C.

Perhaps there are some better alternatives for President Trump and future presidents to consider. We should not have any federal equity in foreign oil reserves. Let private companies invest their own capital and bear 100% of the loss. The risk and reward should be on the private markets, not the American taxpayer. Second, our federal government, all the way down to local municipalities, should get out of the way to unleash domestic production, end federal land bans, and speed up private infrastructure permits, allowing supply to increase here at home.

Lastly, American government on all levels should respect the free market, as central planning is ineffective and an affront to our republic’s founding. Prices and open trade are far better at allocating energy resources. A free-market energy policy does not require Oval Office control of someone else’s fields. True privatization means private title and private risk, not a state-backed joint venture wearing a private label.

In his latest AI article (not his first), makes the obvious notion that artificial intelligence will either become humanity’s greatest equalizer or its worst source of injustice. As you could suspect, he’s calling for global governmental interventions to manage the deployment of AI and to control job disruption. As he and his World Economic Forum (WEF) buddies often do, he puts out another plea for centralized control from governments whose past predictions consistently failed to foresee real human incentives.

Let’s talk about facts rather than deal in emotional control from central planners (governments). Now, obviously AI is going to bring both havoc and amazing advancements for humans and the planet alike; one does not have to be too smart to come to that conclusion. But his solutions are all wrong, as per his past failed solutions. In his 6,000-word essay, Gates proposes three direct state interventions. First, he proposes a payroll-style tax on artificial intelligence and robots to penalize companies that automate labor. Second, he proposes legal mandates that reserve specific job categories for humans only. Third, he advocates for global government coordination to slow down artificial intelligence development.

As we see so often, government interventions cause more problems than they propose to solve, often having the opposite effect of their stated goals -- so government intervention is a terrible idea to solve problems that have not yet happened. After all, adding a tax on automation will negate the increased profits the automation will bring. His “solutions” will bring higher consumer prices; they would protect inefficient monopolies while reducing productivity. Negating the whole point of AI.

Additionally, legal job quotas would do nothing more than cause shortages, raise costs, and expand government regulatory bureaucracies. Lastly, having a government-induced pause on AI development will do nothing more than help bad actors continue their development of AI, which would be a worldwide disaster. You think you have little privacy now; wait until the black market has a monopoly on AI, as the good actors abide by a government-mandated pause.

The bottom line is that government and elite planners are not able to manage the complexity of millions of daily individual choices without creating unintended destruction.

I have more faith in human agency than Gates and his WEF friends, and I believe true progress comes from decentralizing problem-solving while respecting property rights. Top-down mandates from people like Bill Gates rarely work. When individuals can retain their freedoms, technology becomes a tool for prosperity rather than managed risk.

With over 120,000 AI-powered Flock cameras around the nation, they do add safety to a community, but at what cost? As Benjamin Franklin famously and astutely said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Yes, even if it is one of your family members that a Flock camera could potentially save, the other side of the coin is that, due to serious mishaps in the technology and the reliability of poor police investigations, dozens of Americans have landed in jail, some for months, who were completely innocent. This is a failure of lazy police work relying far too heavily on AI technology while Americans pay the price.

And we need verification of what Flock Safety is claiming: that their cameras have solved 10,000 missing person cases and aided over one million police investigations. I have not been able to independently verify these claims that Flock continually makes.

There was a recent exchange between Senator Rand Paul and Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley to appeal to both the ambition for true community security and the violations of unchecked government overreach. Langley’s position is that mass camera tracking balances safety with privacy. But Paul is absolutely correct in that his insistence that probable cause and judicial warrants remain the only lawful standard for tracking citizens. Outsourcing mass surveillance to a private contractor creates a loophole that bypasses traditional constitutional limits.

This year, 136 communities have rejected or banned the technology, and citizens are outraged, as evidenced by over two dozen states taking direct action against 193 camera installations. Mass surveillance fails the practical test because it treats every law-abiding neighbor as a perpetual suspect while government expands the network with automated police drones. Genuine public safety depends on focused, accountable law enforcement rather than dragnet data collection.

We can hope we can get the police to do proper investigations before pulling over or jailing innocent Americans- costing city and county taxpayers through lawsuits and loss of confidence in their police departments. City councils and county commissions must require strict warrants before police can access the automotive travel data provided by Flock, Axon, among others. Protecting our streets does not require surrendering our privacy, and we must reject warrantless surveillance so communities can rely on their government to respect their personal freedoms.

It appears the executive branch seeks to use the USPS, a government-protected federal monopoly, to circumvent judicial rulings and override constitutional federalism. The new USPS rule gives states 60 days before the November general election to notify USPS if they intend to submit a list of eligible voters based on citizenship data. Only then will USPS send mail-in or absentee ballots to the states’ respective residents.

It is clear President Trump and his administration have zero respect for the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a lawsuit from a California-led coalition of states, and without a ruling in their favor, the USPS cannot enact these new rules for the November midterm elections. Using the USPS to implement the same restrictions through a regulatory backdoor undermines the separation of powers as well as the rule of law. For all the rhetoric about abiding by the law and his love of the Constitution, he is doing the equivalent of wiping his ass with it. It’s disgusting, and this new rule should be thrown in the trash. The Biden administration didn’t care about the Constitution, and now Trump is acting no differently.

The issue, for me, in this situation is not so much about verification of voters’ ballots, although that is a serious concern; my issue is the Trump administration’s about-face of the U.S. Constitution. There is a reason the federal government is not in charge of how elections are administered, and that is to create fairness across the board, among the 50 states. The Founders wisely and deliberately decentralized election administration to prevent a sitting chief executive from controlling elections, and this new USPS is an affront to our Founders’ intent and will likely be found unconstitutional, as was Trump’s attempt to control the elections from the White House; now he hopes to use the USPS to side-step the constitutional restriction.

Constitutional Federalism (Article I, Section 4): The U.S. Constitution explicitly delegates the power to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” to state legislatures. The executive branch has no constitutional authority to invent national rules or use federal agencies to dictate how state ballots are handled.

When a federal agency like the USPS has exclusive control over the physical delivery of our voting ballots for who we want to represent us, that power will undoubtedly be politicized by whichever administration is in the White House.

As a start, we must end government-run monopolies like the USPS in favor of decentralization and competition. It is vital that we, as a people, protect the integrity of our Constitution and decentralize power away from Washington, D.C., as much as possible. We should abolish the legal restrictions on private letter delivery, allowing private carriers like FedEx, UPS, and other delivery services to deliver the mail and completely remove the government’s ability to act as a communication bottleneck.

In this case, we need to honor the Tenth Amendment and allow states and local county boards to maintain complete authority over election mechanics and ensure no executive directive from D.C. disrupts the national voting process. Federal administrative agencies must not be permitted to enforce policies that have been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts.

What do you think, should Federal Agencies Have Any Role in State Elections? How can we best protect constitutional federalism from administrative overreach?

When the state punishes journalists for critical reporting, it replaces transparent oversight with executive-controlled propaganda.

Government power should never be used to override military journalists. For decades, Congress protected Stars & Stripes with statutory First Amendment editorial independence to provide service members with unbiased news. However, relying on taxpayer funding always leaves newsrooms vulnerable to executive interference and political purges.

The whole notion of punishing the press by firing staff is a big no-no. All they were doing was exposing waste, mismanagement, and strategic blunders within the military establishment should be protected, not punished. After all, the same people who enthusiastically celebrated exposing fraud and abuse via Elon Musk’s DOGE are infuriated when the same scrutiny came down on them.

The Department of Defense, a/k/a Department of War, now has a budget of $1.5 trillion, with hundreds of billions going to wage war; military watchdogs via Stars and Stripes have an important role to make sure taxpayer money is protected. Firing those watchdogs because you do not like what they are reporting is disgusting.

A free society requires independent scrutiny and transparency, especially when it comes to how taxpayer dollars are being used. We need First Amendment protections for the whistleblowers in the media, and government officials should never be allowed to weaponize administrative firings to silence journalists or dictate favorable coverage.

Journalistic independence should never rely on government appropriations to safeguard against censorship, and the media should owe nothing to politicians, nor should they ever be strong-armed/bullied by the government.

The military apparatus must always be accountable to the public. Shielding defense leaders from investigative journalism undermines the constitutional separation of powers and endangers civilian liberty.

Gillespie’s central political argument for voting for him is to be an opposition to the two-party system. He invokes George Washington's warning about political factions and says he would provide Floridians with an "independent voice" in Washington.

Let’s look at what each candidate brings to the table in vying for your vote. Moody was appointed in 2025 to fill Marco Rubio’s seat and used to be Florida’s attorney general. She is a conservative and a favorite of President Trump.

Nixon is far-left, joining the DSA this year. She is strong on heavy government intervention in Floridians’ lives as well as businesses. Her economic message emphasizes wages, housing costs, health care, and working-class voters.

Gillespie describes himself as a “working-class capitalist” and is fed up with the political duopoly. His capitalist, anti-socialist rhetoric could attract voters otherwise inclined toward Moody, while his attacks on established institutions and the two-party system could appeal to voters dissatisfied with either party.

While Moody is the current favorite, anything can happen between now and November 3, 2026. There are 3.3 million No Party Affiliation (NPA) voters in Florida, while there are 5.6 million registered Republicans and just over 4 million registered Democrats. Those numbers do not include all the other voters who are registered with minor parties like the Libertarian Party of Florida. So, it should be interesting how things will shake out over the coming month. The question is not simply about voting Republican or Democrat; the question is: Which of the three candidates seeking to be Florida’s next U.S. Senator will actually limit government and work to get our fiscal house in order?

With our precarious economic situation, it is almost humorous that our government is putting out these bizarre, sweeping warnings to our allies and trading partners around the globe if they trade with Iran. Promising an “Economic D-Day,” President Trump has promised severe financial penalties for those who dare to trade with Iran. When will our government wake up to the fact that the sanctions we put on these countries simply do not work and are highly immoral? We’ve had various economic sanctions on Iran for over 40 years, with nothing to show for it.

I mean, let’s get our own economic house in order before sending out these dictates to other countries. The latest Treasury auction was a s*itshow, showing how difficult it was to find buyers of our debt. Our federal government may want to use the global financial networks as some seemingly unlimited political weapon; they are ignoring the economic reality back here at home: using the U.S. dollar as an instrument of global coercion destroys trust in our currency and accelerates the de-dollarization of the world economy.

Let’s face reality: economic sanctions and financial blockades may make some Americans feel good that something is being done to those evil people over there, but the reality is we’re shooting ourselves in the foot. The fact is that this latest threat of secondary sanctions makes the claim that America has universal jurisdiction over private contracts and commerce between foreign entities. Forcing foreign businesses to comply with U.S. executive decrees violates our nation’s sovereignty and undermines international rule of law.

In the process of all this, forty years of economic embargoes have proven that economic sanctions have done nothing to remove leaders from power while they also hurt private commerce, inflate local living costs, and deprive citizens of those countries of basic medical supplies and food.

And over here in the U.S., we deal with the blowback, causing our dollar to decline, creating enemies that were unnecessary, and causing the sanctioned countries to trade in alternative currencies. No one is hurt but ourselves.

Might I suggest that true national security and global stability cannot be coerced through Treasury decrees, and to get our U.S. Dollar back on firm footing, we must go back to open trade and liquidity. Mutual economic dependency via voluntary trade reduces international conflicts far more effectively than strong arming coersive blockades of money or goods. When we trade freely, nations have a vested economic interest in peace. America should get back to its original foreign policy, focusing on defending Americans’ constitutional liberties here at home rather than policing the voluntary transactions of businesses and individuals across the globe.

And yet, American voters continue to vote for the same people who put us here. And unless something changes soon, we are in for a world of trouble. The federal government is accelerating its borrowing, causing an unforgiving inflation tax on the American people and eroding the value of the U.S. Dollar.

Taxpayers are now sending hundreds of billions of dollars to our bondholders simply to service past political waste. Mathematically, Washington cannot pay off $40 trillion through taxation without completely crashing the economy. The political establishment’s unspoken strategy is currency debasement: printing more dollars to pay back debt with devalued currency, silently stealing savers' wealth.

And both older political parties recently passed a spending package for our nation’s defense that is the largest in history. For all the rhetoric you hear on the news, Democrats and Republicans agree to spend more on subsidies, foreign aid, and expanded entitlement programs, all financed through endless deficits.

A nation drowning in $40 trillion of debt cannot remain free. Preventing a catastrophic economic collapse requires radical structural reform. We cannot rely on our current politicians to address the issue, as they continue to kick the issue down the road, which has put us in this position. What we must do is stop voting for those who put us here and vote for candidates sincere in reducing the federal spending.

On top of that, we must mandate that Congress pass single-issue appropriations bills bounded by strict spending limits tied to real economic production, not baseline budget growth. Next, we must abolish all unauthorized federal departments and programs, which are costing taxpayers billions each year. Lastly, and most important, effective action is to do the hard work of stripping the Federal Reserve of its authority to monetize federal deficit spending and eliminate capital gains taxes on gold, silver, and decentralized digital currencies to restore sound money.

A mid-term election is happening this November; are you going to vote for more deficit spending, or are you going to get serious and vote these irrational spenders out of office?

Some may be shocked by the allegation since he always campaigned promoting a public image of a family man, coach, and community figure; not unlike failed Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gullum, who has fallen dramatically from politics and, like Caruso, also campaigned on a nice family image. Important to note, the two men are in no way related, politically or with criminal charges. While some are shocked, there have been investigations of Caruso in the past, which should have offered politicos a pause when helping him move forward with his political career.

Born in the Washington, D.C. area in 1958, Caruso moved to Florida in 1986 as a CPA/forensic accountant, running Caruso & Caruso in Delray Beach. Community roles tied to Delray Beach / Palm Beach County: Delray Beach Police Advisory Board member, 30+ years Little League coach, Boy Scouts/Cub Scouts leader, other local boards.

In 2018, he was elected to the Florida House (District 89) and served until August 2025 (District 87) and was a close ally to Governor DeSantis, most notably on immigration. He left his post in Tallahassee on August 18, 2025, when DeSantis appointed him to be Palm Beach County Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, ironically one year before the arrest. He was appointed to replace Joe Abruzzo and ran for election to the remainder of the term in November 2026 (unopposed in the GOP primary).

Getting back to Caruso’s arrest yesterday morning by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE); he was booked into the Palm Beach County jail via a warrant/affidavit from Orange County and is being held without bond, at least until he is transferred to the Orange County jail, where he will appear for his first appearance hearing.

The investigation is ongoing, and more charges are possible. He will be prosecuted by the Office of Statewide Prosecution (Special Counsel Rita Peters, Senior Assistant Lauryn Day). The five felonies include: – Kidnapping – Lewd or lascivious molestation – Lewd or lascivious exhibition – Luring or enticing a child – Child abuse (mental injury). The alleged male child is under 12 years old (some reporting under 5) and lives in Orange County, Florida, with his parents and a younger sibling.

The allegations include incidents from the Fall of 2024 through August 2025; they include being together fishing at a pond where alleged genital touching/tickling. Thanksgiving 2024: At family residence during outdoor play; more alleged fondling, exposure, touching of buttocks/crotch. – August 2025: Seven-day Royal Caribbean cruise (Icon of the Seas) purchased by Caruso for family; alleged isolation of the child, showering together, and oral sex act (child’s description to father). Another time was in October 2025 — Caruso’s son observed sexualized behavior by Caruso’s grandson with a younger sibling; the child disclosed cruise incidents and other abuse.

In December 2025, family members confronted Caruso; he allegedly acknowledged some isolation/fishing but denies sexual contact; warns that reporting would lead to his arrest (“I will get arrested… I will just go away”); his wife, Tracy, described the situation as a “life in jail kinda thing.” Caruso reportedly suggested ex-wife fabricated claims to turn the child against him. These are statements reported in the affidavit, not independently verified facts.

Take Note: All details are allegations from the affidavit and reporting; investigation ongoing; Caruso has not publicly responded in detail as of the latest reports.

This is not the first time Caruso has been under investigation for physical abuse of the young. In 2001, Delray Beach Police and the DCF investigated allegations of physical abuse of one of his children; his wife and child denied the abuse; case unfounded / exceptionally cleared.

And again in 2012-2013, there was an anonymous report of child sexual abuse by Delray Beach Police and DCF, where Caruso was interviewed and given his Miranda rights; the child and witnesses denied abuse, and the report was deemed unfounded. The allegations were referenced in divorce proceedings with first wife Beverly; Caruso called it a “false” case. It should be noted that the allegations were never proven and his divorce with Beverly was finalized in 2014.

Caruso was to be on the ballot in the general election in November for the Clerk job, and it is unclear if a Republican will somehow appear on the ballot against Democrat Yvette Drucker. Chief of Staff Shannon Ramsey-Chessman has already been sworn in as the interim Clerk and Comptroller to maintain continuous operations.

The case is clearly in the early stages, and Caruso is presumed to be innocent of the charges; as the case develops, I will be writing about much, though not all, of it.

Okay, so let’s discuss. Online, the masses are upset and commenting on how these multi-millionaires and billionaires receive all these unneeded perks while we have nearly 800,000 homeless in the United States. I get it; it seems unjust— another example of the wealth disparity and favoritism that goes on, not just here in the United States but globally.

But what people are ignoring is the marketing these perks bring to the companies. They actually increase business when fans learn one of their favorite celebrities ate at a certain restaurant, even wanting to know what they ordered and where they sat. They will patronize a business more likely if a favored celebrity ate where they ate, bringing in more dollars for that business. This is a common voluntary promotion done to increase business, not a stolen resource from the poor.

If these malcontents want something better to complain about, they need only go to their local city and county government meetings. There, they can directly address causes for their low-income situation (local zoning barriers, housing mandates/ regulations), and they can write, call, or visit their federal representatives and complain about the federal monetary expansion that continues to erode their purchasing power as the U.S. Dollar’s value continues its descent.

They should be insisting that their government representatives lower regulations and respect free-market abundance. Lifting regulatory restrictions on housing construction and encouraging voluntary private charity creates real relief faster than government redistribution or worrying about any freebies Kevin Hart may be receiving.

At the end of the day, when we protect private property and voluntary exchange of goods and services, society generates more wealth, opportunity, and affordable resources for everyone, not just the chosen few. Respecting free-market capitalism (not crony capitalism) helps reduce homelessness and the American divide.

Nearly 9 million Americans are already in default on their student loans, roughly 1 in 5. This is especially relevant this week as millions of student loan borrowers are facing severe payment shocks as older income-driven repayment options get phased out. The result is monthly student loan payments that are quadrupling. Not a good situation for the borrowers or our economy, which will be affected. 67% of surveyed borrowers state that they are no longer able to afford these new monthly payment obligations, which will put them in default.

Meanwhile, many of our elected officials in Washington insist on taxpayers bailing out these students’ loan debt, on top of the existing programs already in place. Conservatives and liberals are ignoring the fundamental economic reality that the student loan crisis is due to the government getting more involved in higher education. Yet, both camps still feel the need for the federal government to continue meddling in the education market.

We can simply look at a historical timeline to see how this student debt bubble was created by yet another “unintended government involvement consequence.” When the federal government began guaranteeing and directly issuing student loans to teenagers with zero credit history or underwriting, it detached higher education from normal market forces.

In turn, universities saw that since students had access to a seemingly unlimited tap of federal credit subsidies, the universities had little to no incentive to keep their costs in line with normal market forces since the federal government money tap was wide open. So universities raised tuition at more than twice the rate of inflation while dramatically expanding administration and campus amenities.

And here we are again, talking about more bailouts for student loan debt when prior programs failed to solve the core problem, putting American taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars of avoidable risk. When will we learn that government is horrible at solving problems that it, in fact, created?

Perhaps a better idea is to go back to the way things were by getting the government out of the education lending business so the private markets can assess risk via creditworthiness and the real earning potential for those seeking varying degrees. We must remove government intervention from higher education.

An additional idea to improve the situation would be to require colleges and universities to co-sign or hold a direct financial stake in student debt. If graduates cannot secure employment to repay their education, the university should absorb part of the loss; this would give universities a vested interest in seeing their students become productive and responsible members of society.

Lastly, I think we should abolish the federal higher-education accreditation cartels and open the door for private trade schools, apprenticeships, micro-credentials, and self-paced digital education to compete freely with legacy universities.

More tariff fun with our neighbors to the north coming up this week. Trump’s dumb Canadian tariffs drop this coming Wednesday, imposing a punitive 50% tax on Canadian imports to the United States. This includes steel, aluminum, lumber, cement, and various consumer goods. Emergency talks are underway, and hopefully, before you read this, the situation will have been resolved, but not likely.

And the gaslighting of the American people continues under Trump, trying to make it sound like Americans are not paying extra for goods caught in the tariff net, but the bottom line is. The Trump administration attempts to sell tariffs as some kind of bizarre patriotic weapon to punish foreign governments for taking advantage of us financially, but the only ones penalized are American businesses and consumers.

Slapping a 50% import tax on our largest trading partner is not strength; it is a massive, unilateral tax hike levied directly on the American public.

Here is the bottom line on tariffs:

1. Tariffs are nothing more than an additional tax on American consumers and businesses. While the check may be written by the American importer (not the country of origin), that extra cost is immediately passed down, in this case, to homebuilders, contractors, and retail shoppers. This is an undeniable fact no matter how the Trump administration attempts to spin it.

2. Tariffs create chaos in our supply chains, as tariffs have reduced capital investment and production due to Trump’s unpredictability, often driving up production costs.

3. These types of protectionist measures rarely, if ever, have the outcome promised. Often we are told it is to bring manufacturing back here to the States or to protect American workers. It rarely has either outcome, no matter who is president at the time (we do this nonsense regularly).

4. Retaliation is another negative outcome from putting on punitive tariffs, negatively affecting our American exporters. Countries receiving the short end of the stick will respond in-kind, causing a reduction in our industrial and agricultural exports, unless those industries are included in the negotiations.

5. Punitive tariffs create a situation of executive overreach, which the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in and refused Trump’s first round of tariffs as being unconstitutional. This power belongs with Congress, yet Trump wants to go around Congress and act as if they are not there, diminishing our three branches of government and making a mockery of our U.S. Constitution.

Why do the American people supporting President Trump defend him on his unconstitutional actions? For someone who literally embraces the American flag, he seems to be admonishing its meaning.

And, may I suggest, all this tariff nonsense could be avoided if we simply respected the free market model and stopped trying to manage markets. If Trump were truly interested in respecting our Constitution and living up to his “free trade” moniker, her would encourage Congress to reclaim its constitutional power over foreign commerce and repeal statutes that allow unilateral executive tariff decrees.

Trump should also embrace unilateral free trade rather than install more barriers to trade with his crony, politically connected friends in business. Lowering trade barriers reduces inflation, encourages competition, and expands consumer choice. When goods and services cross borders freely, mutual economic dependency fosters peaceful international relations far better than trade wars and economic coercion.

Of course, the White House has claimed credit for these dramatic results, but the fact is, violent crime has been on the decline for a while now. Central governments take credit for results they did not produce, while local individuals do the actual work of securing their homes and communities.

Safer communities and neighborhoods come more from individuals taking responsibility for their homes, helping out neighbors, voluntary community action, and constitutional carry laws and lawful private gun ownership, which are proven deterrents against violent crime. As we respect Americans with more firearms and stronger adherence to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, it helps prove that safety happens from the bottom up, not from top-down draconian central planning. We need fewer “gun-free zones” and more areas respectful of Americans carrying firearms to protect those without. We saw this most recently when a good guy with a gun curbed a mass shooting at an In-N-Out Burger joint in Twin Falls, Idaho.

And let us not forget the courts have helped remove unconstitutional laws passed by both Republicans and Democrats, which have helped more Americans to acquire and carry their firearms in more places.

When crime falls through local resilience and personal responsibility, communities thrive without the cost of expanding government programs. True security grows when individuals and voluntary associations run their communities, giving people control over their neighborhoods and their futures.

The entitlement program is rapidly speeding towards its inevitable end, as the birthrate has dropped dramatically since the program’s inception and will quickly be in a situation of owing tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. It is rarely a good business model to rely on new payments to pay out older promises; it is the definition of a Ponzi scheme. We are going to have to make some dramatic changes to the program for it to survive, as we simply do not have the money to keep it going for another 91 years in its current form.

Politicians have been kicking this program’s insolvency down the road so long that it has become a crisis for those who have paid in and expect to be paid the benefits they are entitled to, after their hard-earned dollars were forced from their paychecks.

So, what has caused this problem? Politicians persuaded the American public that there is a “lockbox” securing your retirement savings, but the fact is, there is no pot of gold containing your retirement savings. The taxes you paid over the years were immediately spent to pay current retirees, and during times when there was excess, the “lockbox” was raided by Congress to pay for current government spending.

Another major flaw in the program is that, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that American workers have no contractual or property rights to their Social Security benefits. Politicians can cut, delay, or redefine benefits at will with zero legal recourse for the citizens who paid into it.

And the third major issue is that when Social Security began, over 40 workers were supporting every retiree. Today, that ratio has collapsed to fewer than 3 workers per retiree, heading toward 2 to 1. An arrangement that requires an ever-growing pool of new payers to cover existing obligations fits the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Every paycheck, American workers lose 12.4% of their earnings (combined employee and employer share) to FICA taxes. This 12.4% is taken by force, with only the promise that the federal government will pay the promised benefits back to the workers. Completely missing the fact that had that money gone into the private market, rather than spent immediately by our federal government, it would have provided generational wealth for American workers. That money invested in the stock market becomes a major asset over a 40-year career, compounding into millions; an asset that can be left to those workers’ children or their favorite charities. But with the Social Security program, there are no assets, nothing to be bequeathed to one’s children or to charity.

Instead of inheriting accumulated wealth, younger generations are forced to pay Social Security taxes to prop up the failed federal program, losing financial autonomy for federal government mismanagement. This is morally unfair. If you’re going to force money out of every paycheck of every American worker, at least give them ownership over it.

A free society requires personal ownership, voluntary investment, and genuine property rights:

• Create Personal Retirement Accounts: Allow workers the right to opt out of the federal system and redirect their payroll taxes into privately owned, inheritable investment accounts.

• Honor Existing Commitments: Transition the program transparently by using non-defense discretionary cuts and federal asset sales to protect existing retirees who were made dependent on the system.

• Restore Financial Autonomy: Retirement security belongs to individuals, families, and free markets—not the empty promises of federal central planners.

  

While yes, others are competing in the Democratic and Republican Party primaries, it is clear Byron Donalds will be Florida’s next governor. Sadly, he and most of his competitors represent expansion of government power rather than expanding individual freedoms for Floridians and tourists visiting our state. This leaves principled voters looking for a genuine alternative—good luck. So, unless the insider trading and other allegations bear fruit, Donalds is the frontrunner to be Florida’s next governor, though I’d prefer to see a more freedom-based Floridian in the governor’s mansion.

Donalds is no free market capitalist, regardless of his rhetoric. He wants and promotes government intervention at nearly every turn. Fortunately, we have Byron Donald’s voting record, which is a long list of increasing federal spending while increasing regulatory intervention, instead of reducing the footprint of the federal government.

Talk about a hoodwink of conservative policy; based on his voting record, he consistently votes for federal dictates on how private businesses manage their operations. Donalds voted to expand government databases to monitor citizens; he consistently uses the force of law to intervene in the private sector.

More than once has voted for the reauthorization of FISA Section 702, the warrantless surveillance collecting Americans’ communications. In April 2026, he voted yes on a proposed 5-year FISA Section 702 extension. He was not among the 12 Republicans who voted no. And he voted YES on S.1318 (3-year FISA Section 702 reauthorization, 119th Congress).

In 2023, he voted to pass the National Defense Authorization Act. And just last month, he again voted to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027, which effectively merged Israeli defense forces with U.S. Defense, which puts our sovereignty at risk. These bills authorize nearly a trillion dollars in taxpayer money to fund a military bureaucracy.

Earlier this year, Donalds voted in favor of H.R. 8469, FY2027 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations. The bill provides $157 billion in discretionary funding, nearly $4 billion, or 3 percent, above FY2026, plus $323.9 billion in mandatory spending, for $469.49 billion total. This is a direct vote for a year-over-year increase in federal spending.

In 2024, Donalds voted for the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. This added $26.38 billion in emergency federal appropriations, including $4 billion for Iron Dome and David's Sling, $3.5 billion through Foreign Military Financing, $4.4 billion to replenish defense articles and $2.4 billion for U.S. military operations in the region. These were supplemental appropriations, meaning additional spending beyond the regular budget process.

One freedom-based issue that aligned Donalds with conservatives is his voting against marijuana. In April 2022, he voted against H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE). That is a vote against individual freedom. He could have voted to remove marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act, eliminate federal criminal penalties for marijuana, and provide mechanisms for expunging certain federal marijuana convictions. Donalds chose to vote against it, which Floridians are for. And on top of that, he voted against an amendment to prevent people from being denied security clearances over prior marijuana use. More so, on the marijuana issue, he has campaigned AGAINST voters choosing how to legalize marijuana, in favor of Tallahassee bureaucrats and himself. He seems interested in continuing the propaganda from Reefer Madness. Similarly, in 2025, he voted in favor of the HALT Fentanyl Act (H.R. 27), which has done nothing to halt fentanyl. Like most of his votes, they are great for posturing but do little to solve the stated “problem.”

In March 2024, Donalds voted for H.R. 7521, which required ByteDance to divest TikTok or have the application barred from distribution in the United States. Donalds voted for this government-forced divestiture of private property. And while I personally find TikTok a cancer on society as a whole, the Act did nothing to curb TikTok’s popularity or its corruption of our children’s minds, in my view, and in the process interrupted the free market in favor of heavy government intervention.

Donalds’ voting record shows repeated votes for billions in additional federal spending, including explicit 3 percent year-over-year increases in two VA and military-construction bills, plus emergency foreign and military appropriations. So, he’s a strong contender to be one of the best “military industrial complex” puppets in the legislature.

Floridians deserve a representative who actually cuts spending across the board. The government takes every dollar it spends from a productive citizen. Real freedom means I keep the money I earn. It means voluntary cooperation replaces government mandates. I urge Floridians seeking true freedom and true free trade to look past the partisan rhetoric. We must choose candidates who will genuinely dismantle the state apparatus instead of just redirecting its power.

True progress for Florida relies on voluntary cooperation rather than legislative mandates. We need more free trade and less managed trade. The next Florida legislative session and our next governor should shrink the size of our state government so individuals can retain their hard-earned money and personal choices.

Floridians have a choice this November, and while the August 18, 2026 primaries are still underway, I would suggest voters give serious consideration to voting for the most freedom-based candidates rather than who they think will win. It is only through this strategy of voting that things will actually change for the better in Florida and our nation.

Floridians can build a legacy of freedom by championing individual liberty and personal responsibility.

I am not saying it is right or wrong; I am just pointing out Abbott’s failure on the issue. Though I would suggest that government-managed energy monopolies and corporate tax subsidies always distort the free market, and he should just stand aside.

Government subsidies started this quagmire, especially in the Texas energy crunch over the years.

1. Subsidizing Artificial Demand: For years, state and local governments lured tech conglomerates with massive tax abatements and subsidized utility infrastructure. Luring energy-intensive industries with taxpayer dollars created an artificial surge in power demand that the grid was never designed to absorb organically.

2. Socializing the Cost: While tech firms received tax breaks, everyday homeowners faced rising electricity bills and threats of rolling blackouts. Taxpayers were effectively forced to subsidize the energy footprint of private tech corporations.

3. Regulatory Monopolies Choke Supply: Instead of allowing private energy suppliers to build new power plants quickly, state-regulated utility monopolies and complex permitting bureaucracies prevented new energy generation from coming online to meet demand.

The solution to the AI energy crunch is not government moratoriums or more regulation—it is free-market energy competition. This has been proven over and over again, most recently proven by the White House with its 90-day suspension of the Jones Act. Here is what state and local government should be doing for their constituents and for the betterment of the United States:

• Eliminate Corporate Welfare: End all state and local tax abatements for data centers. Tech companies should pay the true, unsubsidized market price for the electricity they consume.

• Deregulate Private Power Generation: Allow data center operators to build, own, and operate on-site power generation—such as small modular nuclear reactors, natural gas turbines, or microgrids—without bureaucratic hurdles or forced integration into state utility grids.

• Open Energy Markets to Competition: Remove government-protected utility monopolies, allowing private energy entrepreneurs to compete freely to generate and sell electricity.

Join the Discussion

• Who Should Pay for AI’s Energy Footprint? Should tech corporations be allowed to build their own off-grid power plants, or should government regulators control grid access?

• Take Action: Share your thoughts in the comments below, pass this post along to defenders of free enterprise, and subscribe for daily libertarian breakdowns of national news!

Now, the Trump administration has extended its 90-day waiver of the Jones Act, allowing foreign-flagged shipping vessels to transport fuel and energy commodities between U.S. ports (The Hindu). This 90-day waiver exposes the reality that the Jones Act helps to lower energy costs for Americans and helps to prevent economic bottlenecks, confirming my assertion to let the free market run.

In 1920, the Merchant Marine Act (the “Jones Act”) mandated that all commercial cargo moving between U.S. ports must travel strictly on ships built, flagged, owned, and crewed by U.S. citizens.

For over a century, this federal trade barrier has distorted domestic markets in three major ways:

1. Artificially Inflating Consumer Prices: By eliminating foreign competition in domestic shipping, the Jones Act drives up freight rates dramatically. Taxpayers pay higher prices for gasoline, building materials, agricultural goods, and everyday groceries.

2. Punishing Coastal States and Territories: Non-contiguous states and territories like Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico—along with coastal states like Florida and New England—bear the heaviest burden, paying exorbitant transport premiums to move domestic goods.

3. Decimating the Fleet It Claimed to Protect: Far from creating a booming domestic shipbuilding industry, protectionism has made U.S. ships so expensive to construct and operate that the domestic merchant fleet has shrunk to historical lows.

The free-market approach to trade requires ending central-planning trade bans:

• Permanent Repeal, Not Presidential Waivers: Managing economic bottlenecks through temporary executive exemptions grants Washington arbitrary discretion over who can trade. Congress must permanently repeal the Jones Act.

• Embrace Global Competition: Allowing competitive global shipping operators to transport goods between domestic ports lowers energy transport costs, stabilizes supply chains, and reduces prices for American households.

• End Crony Privileges: Free markets function best when government stops granting monopoly protection to favored industries at the expense of 330 million consumers.