Become a Member

Blog

One Big Ugly Bill Act Affects the Deficit and Social Security

From the Las Vegas Review Journal 

Trump has called the bill “the biggest tax cut in the history of our country … bigger than any Ronald Reagan tax cut”. The centrepiece of the bill will extend Trump’s 2017 cuts, which include a reduction in the marginal rate of income tax. These were the signature achievements of Trump’s first term and were due to expire at the end of the year. Retaining them will cost about $4.5 trillion.

They also include Trump’s promise from the election campaign to abolish taxes on tips and overtime. The abolition is due to last until 2028. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, tax-free tips would reduce federal revenue by $31 billion between the 2026 and 2029 fiscal years, while tax-free overtime would reduce federal revenue by $90 billion during the same period. 

Federal Taxes on Social Security

A portion of the federal taxes that you pay on your Social Security goes back into the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance. This policy was enacted with the 1983 Amendments to the Social Security Act as a way to strengthen the financial solvency of social security.

The “enhanced deduction” for taxpayers 65 and older eliminates federal income taxes for most beneficiaries.” It is implied that two provisions of the budget bill reduce taxes for seniors, when in fact there’s only one. The deduction applies to all income, not just Social Security. Like so much else in the budget bill, the tax break as it might apply to Social Security benefits goes mostly to wealthier taxpayers. That’s because of the way Social Security benefits are taxed.

Moreover, as labor economist Teresa Ghilarducci observed at Forbes, “The bill doesn’t do anything directly to Social Security.” A provision that would have specifically exempted Social Security benefits from taxes was dropped from the bill when it came under consideration by the Senate.

The claim that beneficiaries will “no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits” is also inaccurate: The enhanced deduction — $6,000 for single filers, $12,000 for couples — will expire in 2028, unless it’s extended by Congress. It’s also limited by income: The full deduction is available only to singles up to $75,000 in income, $150,000 for couples. The deduction phases out above those levels, zeroing out for singles with $175,000 in income or higher, $250,000 for couples.

The reduction of taxes on benefits will weaken, not protect, Social Security (and Medicare too). The reason is that about 60% of the revenues generated by those taxes is credited to the Social Security trust funds. The rest goes to Medicare.

In 2025, that sum is expected to come to about $60 billion for Social Security, or more than 4% of the program’s overall income, and $40.7 billion for Medicare, or nearly 9% of the funding for Medicare Part A, which covers hospital services. The budget bill has no provision for replacing that money.

Subtitle C–Increase in Debt Limit (HR 1 Sect C of The Big Ugly Bill)

SEC. 72001. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.

The limitation under section 3101(b) of title 31, United States 

Code, as most recently increased by section 401(b) of Public Law 118-5

(31 U.S.C. 3101 note), is increased by $5,000,000,000,000.

What it Means per Gemini (AI)

1. Affect on the Deficit:

  • Increased Deficits: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that HR1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” will increase deficits by approximately $2.8 trillion over the 2025-2034 period, and potentially up to $3.4 trillion or more when factoring in additional debt service costs and various provisions. This is largely driven by a reduction in revenues ($3.7 trillion) despite some reductions in outlays ($1.3 trillion) over the same period.
  • New Spending and Tax Cuts: The bill includes various tax cuts and new spending initiatives. While it also incorporates some offsets, the net effect is a significant increase in the primary deficit.
  • Debt Service Costs: A substantial portion of the increased deficit will come from higher debt-service costs, estimated to be hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, as the government needs to borrow more and potentially at higher interest rates.

2. Affect on the National Debt:

  • Higher National Debt: The $5 trillion increase in the debt limit directly allows the federal government to borrow this additional amount. This means the national debt will increase by at least the amount of the increased deficits, pushing it further upward.
  • Debt-to-GDP Ratio: The CBO projects that enacting HR1 would increase debt held by the public at the end of 2034 to 123.8% or 124% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), up from their January 2025 baseline projection of 117.1% of GDP. This indicates a growing burden of debt relative to the size of the economy.
  • No New Spending Authority (but enables existing obligations): It’s crucial to understand that raising the debt limit doesn’t authorize new spending. Instead, it allows the government to pay for existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents have already made. However, HR1 itself contains significant new spending and tax cut provisions that will lead to higher borrowing.

In summary:

The $5 trillion increase in the debt limit within HR1, signed on July 4, 2025, has a clear and substantial impact:

  • It will significantly increase the federal deficit over the next decade due to a combination of tax cuts and new spending.
  • This will directly lead to a higher national debt, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP.

Critics argue that this bill represents a “striking display of fiscal hypocrisy” as it increases the debt ceiling while simultaneously creating new deficits, potentially delaying a much-needed debate over unsustainable government spending. Supporters, however, may view it as necessary to avoid a potentially catastrophic default and to implement desired policy changes.

Congress.gov

www.congress.gov

Tax Provisions in H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act: House-Passed Version | Congress.gov

No Tax on Tips. Section 110101 of the bill. New Section 224 of the IRC. This provision would create a new income tax deduction for qualified tip income

PwC

www.pwc.com

President Trump signs H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” – PwC

The bill also includes a provision to increase the federal government’s current $36.1 trillion statutory debt limit by $5 trillion. The Joint Committee on …

U.S. Department of the Treasury (.gov)

home.treasury.gov

Debt Limit | U.S. Department of the Treasury

The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Social …

AInvest

www.ainvest.com

H.R. 1 Passes: A Mixed Bag for Federal Employees and the Economy – AInvest

This increase in public debt could lead to higher borrowing costs for the government and potentially for private sector entities as well, as investors demand …

Congressional Budget Office (.gov)

www.cbo.gov

Effects on Deficits and the Debt of Enacting H.R. 1 and of Making Certain Tax Policies in H.R. 1 Permanent | Congressional Budget Office

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 and making 16 tax provisions within H.R. 1 permanent would raise debt-service costs by $687 billion over the 2025–2034 …

Click Here

Impacts of the Big Ugly Bill on Medicaid

Many analyses have been published to parse the effects of the Big Ugly Bill on Medicaid. A number of them differ due to the fact that they are all projections and are based on various assumptions. Also because they were prepared at different times and the text in HR1 kept changing to the very end. In this blog, we have attempted to assemble the most recent and authoritative sources.

BACKGROUND OF MEDICAID

What is Medicaid and who are the recipients? (1)

State & Federal taxpayer-funded health insurance

Covers a core set of benefits for recipients at no cost

Covers about 1 in 4 Nevadans; nearly half are children

Payer of last resort, making up about a quarter of Nevada’s insurance market

Largest source of federal funds for health care in the State (60/40)

800,000 Average number of people in Nevada covered

22% growth pre-COVID

54% Percentage of births covered by Nevada Medicaid; 1 in 2 births

75% Recipients served by Medicaid Managed Care Plans

40% Recipients who are children or youth (0-18)

11% Dually eligible for Medicare & Medicaid (85,897 individuals)

78% Recipients who live in Clark County

66% Percentage of adults enrolled in Medicaid who are employed

71% Nevadans enrolled in Medicaid who are people of color

57% Number of nursing facility residents covered by Medicaid

(1) Sources – State Legislature

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/83rd2025/Exhibits/Assembly/HHS/AHHS70C.pdf

https://dhcfp.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dhcfpnvgov/content/LegislativeSessions/2026-2027%20Budget%20Overview%20DHCFP_02272025.pdf

HR1 EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUALS

How many people will lose Medicaid coverage nationally? In Nevada? In Congressional District 4? (2) and (3)

Nationally

8,689,000

That translates into one in 10 people currently enrolled in the Medicaid program nationwide losing their coverage.

Nevada

116,000

Out of 787,384 statewide which is approximately15.6%

Clark County alone currently has 623,739 Medicaid recipients

Congressional District 4

30,000

Also about 15.6% (of approximately 192,000 recipients, calculated)

(2) Source – Nevada Office of Analytics

https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiZThjMWU5Y2YtZDE4NC00MDM2LWJkMDctZTgzYjliZGIyMjE3IiwidCI6ImU0YTM0MGU2LWI4OWUtNGU2OC04ZWFhLTE1NDRkMjcwMzk4MCJ9

(3) Source – Manatt Health


https://shvs.org/resource/senate-passed-h-r-1-updated-estimates-on-impact-to-state-medicaid-coverage-and-expenditures-hospital-expenditures-including-impacts-by-congressional-district/


However, there are other estimates that differ such as this one cited in the Washington Post on July 10 although the CBO letter dates from a month before the signing of the bill:

“Trump displays magical thinking. How can he enact the biggest spending cut in history and no one feel it? And, contrary to his claim that ‘Medicaid is left alone,’ the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that new work requirements and other changes in the health care program for the poor will cause 7.8 million people to lose their coverage. CBO added that changes in the Affordable Care Act and a cutoff of aid to undocumented immigrants will mean a total of 11.8 million people will lose their health coverage under the law.” (4)

(4) Sources

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/10/trump-democrats-tax-spending-bill-fact-checker

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-06/Wyden-Pallone-Neal_Letter_6-4-25.pdf

HR1 EFFECTS ON FINANCING

How much money is being taken away from Medicaid nationally? In Nevada? In CD4? (3)

Nationally

-$1,248,773,000,000 ($1.2 trillion)

Nevada

-$12,328,000 ($12.3 million)

CD4

The cited analysis does not include the specific amounts of the overall financing effects by Congressional District. However a prorated calculation based the changes in the number of recipients implies a reduction of about $3 million.

HR1 IMPACTS ON HOSPITALS

What are the impacts on hospitals’ Medicaid funding nationally? In Nevada? In CD4? (3)

These impacts will affect many of the rural hospitals like Mesa View.

Nationally

-$664,954,000 ($665 million)

Nevada

-$6,881,000 ($6.9 million)

CD4

-$2,874,000 ($2.9 million)

FURTHER INFORMATION

There is also a very detailed breakdown of the Medicaid cuts in this article from the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/30/upshot/senate-republican-megabill.html

The Big Ugly Bill

Last week, Congress betrayed the American people by passing one of the worst pieces of legislation in history which hurts the most vulnerable to the benefit of the wealthiest.

It was signed into law on July 4 — an ironic date chosen to send a message.

We will be covering details and how the various provisions will affect you, your friends, family and neighbors. Follow us.

Read about The Big Ugly Bill. Tell everyone you know how this bill is affecting them. This is how we fight back — with facts. This is how we change minds — one at a time. This is how we encourage civic engagement like voting. This is how we will win the next election.

Here is an 8 minute description by Steve Schmidt.

SCOTUS Strips Executive Oversight Power from the Judiciary

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that severely hobbled the Judicial branch’s checks and balances over the Executive branch. The ruling bars district court judges from blocking government actions across the nation even when they are patently illegal or unconstitutional. Judges below the Supreme Court level no longer have the authority to grant a universal injunction against Executive branch actions regardless of how unconstitutional they are.

Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. So the Trump administration may start enforcing its birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits.

This ruling effectively limits any judicial restraints on Trump’s actions. As expected, he will continue to enforce his efforts to undo birthright citizenship in violation of the 14th Amendment. He undoubtedly will also continue with the extralegal capture and deportation of undocumented aliens, knowing that his administration won’t be held accountable in any reasonable length of time.

News analyst Charlie Savage, writing in the New York Times said, “Mr. Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall.”

He added, “The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders.

“And Congress, under the control of Mr. Trump’s fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated.”

On the other side of the issue however, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued in his concurrence that the fundamental role of the courts has not really changed. He wrote that he wished “simply to underscore that this case focuses on only one discrete aspect of the preliminary litigation relating to major new federal statutes and executive actions—namely, what district courts may do with respect to those new statutes and executive actions in what might be called ‘the interim before the interim.’ Although district courts have received much of the attention (and criticism) in debates over the universal-injunction issue, those courts generally do not have the last word when they grant or deny preliminary injunctions. The courts of appeals and this Court can (and regularly do) expeditiously review district court decisions awarding or denying preliminary injunctive relief. The losing party in the district court—the defendant against whom an injunction is granted, or the plaintiff who is denied an injunction—will often go to the court of appeals to seek a temporary stay or injunction. And then the losing party in the court of appeals may promptly come to this Court with an application for a stay or injunction. This Court has therefore often acted as the ultimate decider of the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions.

“After today’s decision, that order of operations will not change. In justiciable cases, this Court, not the district courts or courts of appeals, will often still be the ultimate decision maker as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions—that is, the interim legal status for the several-year period before a final decision on the merits.”

Note that even Justice Kavanaugh recognizes that the period before a final decision on the merits is made can be several years long. In the interim though, if SCOTUS does not issue an immediate universal injunction, the Trump administration is free to enforce its will in districts where it has not been sued. And even if the Supreme Courts ultimately rules against executive actions, it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to unwind the effects.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent strongly disagreed with the opinion, which she called a “travesty of law” and warned it would “cause chaos for the families of all affected children.” The high court’s conservative majority, she said, had ignored the unlawfulness of Trump’s citizenship ban and instead declared the president “generally free to enforce unquestionably unconstitutional policies against everyone except those who file suit.”

The justices kept Trump’s ban on hold for at least 30 days and sent a set of cases back to the lower courts to determine the practical implications of their ruling. So it remains to be seen what the overall effect of this ruling will be. But given the conservative justices’ deference in the past to Trump’s goal of an imperial executive, I don’t hold out much hope.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/us/supreme-court-trump-executive-branch-power.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884diff_8nka.pdf

Final Legislative Report 2025 Session

Source is Nevada State Legislature website.

After the session ended on June 2, Governor Lombardo had 10 days to either sign, veto or let the bill become law without his signature. 

At the last deadline there were 34 bills still moving through the process, eight of them passed.

AB 73 relating to Artificial Intelligence, requiring certain communications relating to elections, to disclose if it contains synthetic media.  Effective 1/1/2026.

AB92 requires that rooms or spaces in public buildings be provided to certain political parties without charge. Effective 7/1/2025.

AB148 relating to election deadlines for a county or city clerk to distribute sample ballots. Effective 10/1/2025.

AB176 relating to health care that prohibits a government entity from substantially burdening certain activity relating to reproductive health care under certain circumstances. Effective 1/1/2026.

AB197 relating to governmental administration with certain exceptions to keep personal information regarding donors, members, or volunteers of nonprofit organizations private. Effective 7/1/20/27.

AB235 relating to health care providers who practice reproductive health and employees or volunteer for the facility, and providers for gender affirming care, spouse, domestic partner or minor child that request that certain personal information in the possession of a county recorder, county assessor or elections official be kept in a confidential manner. Effective 7/1/2025.

AB343 relating to health care requiring hospitals to publish certain information relating to the pricing of goods and services. Effective 1/1/2026.

SB443 relating to elections revising provisions to voter registration during certain periods preceding an election. Effective 10/1/2025.

Governor Lombardo broke his 2023 record by vetoing 87 bills, some of which were really good bills. I have listed some.

Source is the Las Vegas Review Journal:

SB217 which would have established a statutory right to in vitro fertilization and expanded it to Medicaid for coverage for infertility diagnosis and treatment. Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro “Even Donald Trump has backed efforts to expand IVF, but Lombardo is picking out-of-state extremists over protecting Nevada doctors and patients,” Cannizzaro, D-Las Vegas, said in a statement. “By vetoing this bipartisan bill, Lombardo has turned his back on ordinary Nevada families who need a little help to overcome the hardships of infertility in order to experience the joy of parenthood.” (quoted from press release).

SB428 would require incumbents to live in the district they represent during their entire term. This passed on a party-line vote in favor of Democrats in the Senate and unanimously in the Assembly. But Lombardo said in his veto message he believed the bill did not protect candidates’ privacy because residential addresses could be considered part of the public record.

AB499 which would have expanded access to ballot drop boxes and implemented voter ID requirements. The bill was the result of a compromise between Yeager and the governor, who has long supported voter ID. Yeager sought to match the language in the ballot question to implement voter ID, which passed in 2024 but needs to be approved by voters in 2026.

In his veto message, the governor said that he wholeheartedly supports voter ID, but he said the bill is not entirely consistent with the language in the ballot question. He said it fails to resolve inconsistencies in how voter ID is reviewed, does little to improve signature verification and leaves too much ambiguity for future interpretation. He also expressed concerns about increased access to ballot drop boxes.

He specifically took issue with the proposed mail ballot ID verification and argued it would apply voter ID requirements unequally between in-person and mail ballot voters, saying that mail ballots would continue to be accepted solely on the basis of a signature match. Their identifying information written on the return envelope is only checked if the signature needs to be verified, while in-person voters must show ID every time.

“This inconsistency undermines the principle of uniform voter verification,” he wrote. “Voter ID is essential for ensuring election integrity, and it should be applied consistently across all voting methods.

AB416 which would have prohibited school boards or other leadership from banning or removing material that they may find “objectionable” — “fundamentally flawed” in his veto message on Thursday. Community members seeking to have materials removed would need to petition a court to do so, according to the bill sponsored by Assemblymember Brittney Miller, D-Las Vegas.

“Decisions about what library materials are appropriate for students should be made locally — by educators and families who understand the unique needs of their communities — not by judges through a rigid, one-size-fits-all legal process,” he wrote.

SB156 sponsored by state Sen. Edgar Flores, would have required the attorney general to appoint a special counsel for the Prevention of Gun Violence, authorizing the counsel to administer a grant program for gun violence prevention initiatives, to collaborate with professors and researchers in developing data relating to gun violence, and to put together educational campaigns relating to firearm safety and suicide prevention.

The bill passed the Assembly 25-14 and the Senate 11-8.

AB223 sponsored by Assemblymember Venicia Considine and other Democrats, would have authorized a tenant to file a complaint for relief if their landlord fails to maintain a rental unit in habitable condition, such as if the unit lacks proper measures to control rodents and insects, or if it lacks doors and windows in good repair.

The bill passed down party lines in both houses.

Lombardo said the bill disrupts a “well-established balance” in Nevada law that provides adequate tenant protections while ensuring landlords maintain safe and quality housing. He criticized a provision of the bill that would require landlords to remedy issues within 48 hours after receiving notice, calling it an “onerous requirement.” He also said that a tenant’s own negligence may cause their apartment to become uninhabitable.

Nevada State Democratic Party spokesperson Tai Sims:

SB414  would have required elected officials to disclose their financial investments, including stocks, that could create conflicts of interests. After Lombardo vetoed a similar bill last session that passed with bipartisan support, he was asked if he would use dark money in order to win elections and he replied, “I’m going to use everything available to ensure success.” Once it was revealed that Lombardo registered his inaugural committee as a dark money group, Republicans in the Nevada State Senate unanimously voted against SB414 — after it received bipartisan support last session. 

SB89  prohibits individuals who have been convicted within the past 10 years of certain offenses, such as hate crimes or violent crimes motivated by characteristics like race, religion, or sexual orientation, from purchasing, owning, or possessing firearms. It also specifies that each firearm purchased by such a person is a separate violation. Additionally, the bill allows individuals convicted of these offenses before July 1, 2025, to retain firearms they legally owned prior to that date.

AB205 This bill changes the consent process for sexuality education in public schools from an opt-in to an opt-out system, requiring school districts to provide a form allowing parents or guardians to refuse their child’s participation. It also sets deadlines for providing the form and allows it to be posted on the district’s secure website, with a notice that parents may opt out at any time during the school year

Passed Bills

Source is Nevada Independent Veto Tracker

SB404 which passed both the Senate and Assembly unanimously.The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by state Sen. Melanie Scheible, a Las Vegas Democrat, crafted the proposal in response to a Review-Journal investigation which found that Nevada law placed few restrictions on who manages a probate case when an individual dies without a will. State law, in fact, allows anyone “legally qualified” to step up.

This created a lucrative market for third-party interests — real estate investors, private administrators and attorneys — to profit from the process while relatives received a pittance, if anything.

The investigation revealed that these agents “often started cases without family involvement and routinely obtained court authority to sell homes through a process that does not require a judge’s approval of the deal or a competitive bidding that could boost the price.” They also “frequently sold homes at steep discounts to estimated values, often to the same circle of repeat buyers who resold them within months” at prices well above the cost of the original purchase. “The probate cases,” the report revealed, “often ended with nothing for heirs.”

The law was intended to allow for the timely and orderly disposition of an estate when relatives didn’t exist, couldn’t be found or didn’t want the bother. But fairness dictates that every effort should be made to ensure family members have the opportunity to take part in the task if they so desire. This bill imposes safeguards to assure that third-party administrators don’t abuse the state’s liberal probate statutes. The reforms demand that those seeking to be deemed “legally qualified” now provide a court with evidence to that effect, along with affidavits indicating their efforts to locate any potential heirs. It also limits who can become an “independent administrator,” and thus able to sell the deceased’s home without a judge’s approval or open bidding.

AB540 is one of the Governor’s 5 priority bills. The Nevada Attainable Housing Act focuses on housing access and attainability. It creates an account in the state general fund which will be administered by the Housing Division. This account will provide loans and other financial assistance for attainable housing projects.

The bill establishes the attainable Housing Council to oversee and guide the administration and allocation of funds from the Attainable Housing Account. The funding and initiatives allocates funds that were originally $200 million which was amended to $150 million but finally appropriated to $133 million to the account. Also amended out of the bill was the prevailing wage clause.

AB121 Landlords will no longer be able to charge a tenant a fee to make a payment through an online portal or website which prohibits junk fees from corporate landlords when paying rent.

AB111 makes wrong-way driving on a divided highway a misdemeanor rather than a civil infraction aiming to curb the large number of roadway fatalities that occur every year.

SB460 this bill is a combined bill from Lombardo education bill into Senator Cannizzaro bill.

It revises provisions governing the annual report of accountability for a school district. Revises the duties of the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, impanels a Public Education Oversight Board. It establishes boards of trustees of certain school districts as well as measures for the designation of focus and priority school districts, sponsors of charter schools and public schools, and much more.

All in all out of 605 bills that made it to the governor’s desk, he passed 518 bills. If you would like to read any of the bills but don’t know how, I would be glad to help you out. Contact me at [email protected].

The next session will be in 2027.

Trump’s attack on Iran, an Economic strategy (editorial)

 Trump’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is part of his Economic strategy to make the rich richer at the cost of lives and economic sustainability for everyone else.

After Netanyahu dog-walked Trump into illegally dropping bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities, we must dismiss his allegations of a total distribution of Iran’s atomic ability; he has delayed but accelerated their ability to make at least low-yield nuclear weapons.

While it is unlikely, but possible, that Trump has committed us to a full-out nuclear or conventional war, what he has essentially done is strengthen Russia and China’s ties to join with Iraq in taking economic actions against the US, in addition to supporting their proxies (primarily Shiite militants) in terrorist activities both abroad and on US soil, thus creating a need for more military-industrial complex spending.

Fighting terrorism is an economic gain for the military-industrial complex, and Trump spent over $22 billion on conflicts in the Middle East over the past year, including military aid to Israel and American operations in the region.

However, other Presidents have also contributed to the total cost of the US global war on terror, which stands at $8 trillion in taxpayer funding and 900,000 deaths.

Regardless, Trump’s 2026 federal budget proposes cuts to domestic programs and a 13% increase in military spending, including $127 billion for a virtually useless missile defense system (Golden Dome).

Both Israel and Iran have a range of missiles capable of reaching each other. However, the US stands uniquely apart from such a threat, unless, of course, Mexico and Canada perceive Trump as a military threat.

Even if such a threat exists, at best, a multi-layered missile defense system would have a 50% interception success rate, which could cost anywhere from $430 billion to $5.3 trillion, prompting experts to question whether the system is worth the cost.

And because of Trump’s antagonism and meritless Tariff actions against Western Allies, it is highly questionable whether NATO, under Article 5, would aid the US in combating terrorism, essentially arguing that the Article only applies to an armed attack, leaving the US to bear the problem alone.

All in all, US citizens can now look forward to massive defense spending, a lower gross national product, and higher death tolls for military members and citizens alike.

Groundwater over appropriations addressed.

“The water of all sources of water supply within the boundaries of the State, whether above or beneath the surface of the ground, belongs to the public.” Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533.025

On June 3, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo signed into law Nevada Assembly Bill 104 (AB 104), which strengthens the authority of the Nevada Water Engineer to address groundwater over-appropriations.

The bipartisan-supported legislation provides current Nevada Water Engineer Adam Sullivan with additional regulatory power to address the issue.

There is nothing new about the demand-appropriation problem. On January 30, 2018, during a Nevada Water Law Summit, then-Nevada Water Engineer Jason King referred to over-appropriations. He said, “Most (Basins) was already over-appropriated before establishing the perennial yield.” He noted, “Popular thinking suggested that not all rights would be put to their maximum beneficial use, so it was acceptable to over‐appropriate.”

Then, on June 29, 2018, King told the Legislative Committee on Public Lands that: “The goal is not to allow the consumptive use of Groundwater rights and domestic wells; to exceed the basin’s perennial yield.”

However, in 2020, Tim Wilson (replaced by Sullivan), who replaced King, stated that the Nevada Water Law does not mandate calculating the perennial yield for water rights administration.

To illustrate the issue, consider Mesquite, Nevada, which has a groundwater perennial yield of 3,600 acre-feet annually from its Basin (222).

In 1990, Mesquite had a population of 1,960 and an annual groundwater use rate of 811 acre-feet per year. The population reached 24,232 in 2024, with an anticipated growth rate of 3.08%. In 2020, the groundwater use rate was 7,137 acre-feet annually, nearly twice (1.98) the perennial yield.

Nevertheless, on September 18, 2012, King informed the Virgin Valley Water District Board members —Karl Gustaveson, Ted Miller, Sandra Ramaker, Kenyon Leavitt, and Richard Bowler — that the Water Engineers had permitted [over permitted]12,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) for underground use by the Water District from Basin 222.

During the same meeting, Mike Moran from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Henderson, NV, suggested a water budget that would account for all surface and Groundwater for $972,544, with the cost split between the USGS and the water district, starting in 2014 over five years. The effort never materialized.

Then, on Tuesday, September 28, 2021, Micheline Fairbank, the former Deputy Director of Nevada’s Division of Water Resources, appeared before Mesquite Mayor Allan S. Litman, Council members Wes Boger, Karen Dutkowski (Called In), George Gault, Sandra Ramaker, and Brian Wursten. 

She told the Council that Nevada water law (NRS 533.024) requires the State Water Engineer to prepare a “water budget” for Groundwater and must manage water resources “conjunctively” with all sources of surface water.

Ms. Fairbank also informed the Council that 2019 legislation, SB150, requires county or city governments to develop an all-source water resource plan. She also addressed the issue of conjunctive (all-source) studies.

She said that historically, the Division of Water Resources managed surface and underground Water separately. Nonetheless, she confirmed that the Water Engineer was required to prepare a “water budget” and manage water resources conjunctively. She acknowledged that the Water Engineer did have a conjunctive water model but lacked the financial resources to implement it locally.

As with the USGS water budget proposal, this effort likewise never received funding from either the City Council or the Water Board.

The 2025 legislation, if enforced:
• Requires the State Engineer to retire certain groundwater rights: This means the State Engineer can permanently remove some water rights from use, especially in over-appropriated basins.
• Revises provisions relating to temporary permits for Groundwater: AB 104 updates the process for issuing or managing temporary groundwater permits, likely tightening rules to prevent further overuse.
• Creates the Nevada Conservation and Recreation Program: This new initiative provides grants to state agencies and local governments to protect natural resources, including Water and wildlife.
• Creates the Account for Retiring Water Rights: This is a dedicated fund for purchasing and retiring water rights from willing sellers. It’s part of a broader effort to reduce groundwater withdrawals and stabilize aquifers.
• Establishes the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program: This program enables water rights holders to sell their publicly owned but appropriated rights to the state.

The bill also includes provisions to prevent the reappropriation of retired water rights, thereby securing long-term water sustainability.

Retiring overappropriated water rights is ambitious at best and impossible to enforce in areas such as Mesquite, where demand continually exceeds the Basin’s perennial groundwater yield.

Without an objective, all-source water budget from the USGS, along with a plan to reduce demand from excessive growth to water budgeted levels, the economic future of Mesquite remains questionable.

Horsford Bill Passes in U.S. Senate After Passing In House, Moves to President’s Desk for Signature (Press Release)

Legislation Will Expand Local Control, Diversify Economy & Increase Economic Growth in North Las Vegas

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Steven Horsford (NV-04) released the following statement today as the U.S. Senate passed legislation he previously passed unanimously out of the House of Representatives: The Apex Area Technical Corrections Act.

Rep. Horsford authored the legislation to allow Clark County to acquire certain federal land (referred to as the Apex Site). The legislation now moves to the President’s desk to be signed into law.

“I’m thrilled to see the U.S. Senate advance legislation that is critical for my constituents and community in North Las Vegas,” Rep. Horsford said. “This vote will help solidify our community’s autonomy in making critical investments without unnecessary hurdles from Washington. Local control of the Apex Site means more jobs, more industries, and more economic growth for our community.”

Under Rep. Horsford’s legislation, the City of North Las Vegas would no longer need approval from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to further develop existing electric power, water, natural gas, telephone, railroad, and highway facilities on the Apex Site. 

More information about Rep. Horsford’s Apex Area Technical Corrections Act is available here. 

Video of Rep. Horsford speaking on the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act is available here.

Is It Too Late For America?

It has happened in numerous countries throughout history. Governments, even democratic ones, evolving into autocratic rule with a strong-man executive, a rubber-stamp legislature, a compliant judiciary, and a cowed populace. In today’s world, we could be describing North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, Hungary, and some other countries. But the question is “How close is the United States to becoming one of these autocracies?”

Thom Hartman provides a thoughtful analysis in the following article:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/11/2327310/-Germans-Hungarians-Russians-Italians-all-Waited-Until-it-was-Too-Late-Are-Americans-About-to-Joi?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web

We encourage you to read the article and to post comments on this blog of your opinions.

Senator Alex Padilla Warns Against Trump’s Unprecedented Overreach in Los Angeles

On June 11th, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) joined a spotlight forum entitled “Cruel and Unamerican: The Abuse of Immigrants to Attack our Constitutional Order” to condemn President Trump’s inhumane, theatrical immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, including his unprecedented move to federalize the California National Guard and mobilize hundreds of members of the U.S. Marine Corps. He warned that Trump’s actions in California are a “test case” for using the National Guard or Marines to attack immigrants’ rights in communities across the country.

Padilla made clear that the blame for the unrest in Los Angeles falls squarely on President Trump. He blasted the President for using the same playbook when the headlines turn against him: scapegoat immigrants and manufacture a crisis. He outlined that Trump sought to sow chaos across Los Angeles to distract from his struggling political agenda, including Republicans’ billionaire-first tax bill that would gut health care and nutrition services that millions of Americans depend on in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy.

Padilla also urged Californians to continue peacefully protesting the Trump Administration’s unprecedented overreach and strongly condemned violence in all its forms, including the small set of bad actors engaging in violent behavior or vandalism.

Padilla said, “Proud to have been born and raised in Los Angeles, and I can tell you that Angelenos have a long history of speaking up for ourselves — for our communities and for the vulnerable in our community. We’ve seen that tradition continue this past week as Angelenos have spoken up against the extreme actions of the Trump Administration. And yes, while a small number of bad actors have sought to exploit the peaceful protests and have engaged in violence or vandalism, the overwhelming majority of activity has been peaceful and protected by the First Amendment.

“Donald Trump created this chaos. He inflamed this violence. And he did it intentionally. He sent federal agents in to terrorize communities, and then turned around and blamed state and local leaders for the very chaos that he unleashed.

“By last Friday, Trump was drowning in negative headlines. And so just as he’s done throughout the years, when all else fails, when everything is going bad, he turns to the same tired playbook: Attack immigrants. Blame immigrants. And manufacture a crisis to try to change the news cycle.”

Padilla criticized Trump for his severe escalation of the conflict, deploying the National Guard without the Governor’s consent or request for the first time since 1965. Since then, Trump has arrested Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California President David Huerta for peacefully protesting, threatened to arrest Governor Newsom, and mobilized approximately 700 Marines to Los Angeles without a clear mission or justification. Padilla warned of the dangerous precedent Trump’s actions set, not just for California but for the entire nation.

Padilla continued, “This is dangerous territory. Servicewomen and men are trained to fight wars overseas not to police communities here in the United States. But that’s exactly what Donald Trump wants. He wants to create theatrics. He wants a viral clip of a protest turned chaotic so he can justify his crackdown on immigrants and distract from his own failures. He’s testing the boundaries of his power.

“And my message to the country today is this: What’s happening in California is not just a threat to California, it’s not just a threat to immigrant communities. It’s a threat to everybody. Because an attack on anyone’s rights is an attack on everyone’s rights.

“And no matter where you live or what’s your background, don’t think that anybody is insulated from Trump’s actions. If Donald Trump can bypass the Governor of California to activate the National Guard and suppress immigrant rights, he’ll do whatever he wants to suppress other rights, too. And if he can deploy Marines to Los Angeles, he can deploy them to any city in America.”

Padilla concluded his remarks by promising to fight against President Trump’s reckless attempt to circumvent due process to enact his mass deportation agenda:

“If he can bypass due process, declare lawful residents ‘criminals’ subject to deportation, and disappear them to foreign countries without even giving them an opportunity to make their case, what’s to stop him from doing the same to any of us?

“California is nothing but Trump’s test case for the rest of the country. We can’t let him get away with it. We won’t let him get away with it.”

On June 12th, Senator Padilla was forcibly removed from a DHS press conference by FBI and Secret Service personnel. He was pushed out of the room, then forced to the floor, handcuffed and led away in spite of clearly stating his name and position and that he had simply wanted to ask a question.

Later Padilla said, “I was there peacefully. At one point, I had a question and so I began to ask a question. I was almost immediately forcefully removed from the room. I was forced to the ground, and I was handcuffed. I was not arrested. I was not detained.

“If this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine what they’re doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country,” he added. “We will hold this administration accountable.”

Sources:

WATCH: Padilla Warns Against Trump’s Unprecedented Overreach in Los Angeles, Condemns Abuse of Immigrants to Attack Our Constitutional Order

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/12/alex-pandilla-noem-press-conference-removed