Connect with us

Politics

Column: Trimming the fat from the federal budget shouldn't hurt the most vulnerable this much

Published

on

Column: Trimming the fat from the federal budget shouldn't hurt the most vulnerable this much

They’re having big problems in China.

According to the country’s health commission, roughly a third of China’s residents are overweight, with 16% considered obese. Another study found that if the trend isn’t reversed, by 2050 nearly 630 million people in China will either be overweight or obese. Alarmed by the recent findings, this week China’s National Health Commission announced plans to establish health clinics with the specific purpose of helping people better manage their weight. Officials also plan to use Olympic athletes as role models and dispense scales to hotels and other public spaces as not-so-subtle reminders of the potential harm to society.

While it’s easy for individuals to associate weight loss with vanity, the studies all make it clear that government needs to look at the impact of obesity on society through an economic lens. Not just in terms of healthcare costs — obesity can lead to diabetes, heart disease and cancer — but in productivity as well. One recent study found that obesity could drag down the global GDP by more than 3% by 2060. That’s a loss of $4 trillion because of obesity, led by China, India and the United States.

After genetics, Chinese officials listed diet, physical activity, mental health and sleep deprivation as contributing factors to the obesity epidemic. And so Beijing has set its sights on actively trying to improve people’s way of life — a noble ideal that is often overshadowed by human frailty and the ugliness of politics.

Every policy decision an elected official makes reflects how they view the purpose of government. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” It’s important to point out that he was an enslaver, so the question of whose life is worth caring for has always been a moving target. President George W. Bush turned to those same words from Jefferson, while declaring National Sanctity of Human Life Day back in January 2002.

Advertisement

“Let us recognize the day with appropriate ceremonies in our homes and places of worship,” he said. “Rededicate ourselves to compassionate service on behalf of the weak and defenseless, and reaffirm our commitment to respect the life and dignity of every human being.”

Of course, by the time he gave that speech, Bush had already started one war. Ultimately, the collective “war on terror” would claim some 900,000 lives. In 2004, he threw his support behind a ban on same-sex marriage in an effort to fire up his base during the presidential election. So much for respecting “the life and dignity of every human being.” So much for the care of human life being “the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

Like China, we too have a big problem. Jefferson’s words are a challenge to live up to — in foreign policy, in social policy, in public health, even in decisions about a topic as seemingly impersonal as the national debt.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, our government is more than $36 trillion in debt, the highest external debt in the world. That averages to more than $100,000 per person. A lot of extra weight to carry around.

Earlier this month, the House Budget Committee said: “If Congress does not act swiftly to confront the structural disconnect between reckless federal spending and incoming revenues, our nation will experience either slow and painful economic demise through sustained stagnation or a swift and catastrophic sovereign debt crisis whereby our creditors lose confidence in our ability to service and repay our debt.”

Advertisement

A sentiment I agree with.

Here’s where the disagreements tend to multiply: How do Congress and the Trump administration view the role of government? Which human lives do they believe are worth caring for? Whose happiness counts? Which lives should be protected from destruction?

We’re getting answers to all those questions, because the policy decisions that are being made now that Trump’s Republican Party controls the White House and Capitol Hill — the cuts to the federal budget, the firings of federal employees — are all tied to why lawmakers and the president believe government exists.

In five years, every single baby boomer will officially be a senior citizen. That’s more than 70 million Americans eligible for Medicare and Social Security. Sounds like an expensive tab to pick up, right? But a nation where millions of seniors are poor and unable to access healthcare is much worse. Look at our own history: After the stock market crashed in 1929, half of seniors ended up in the poorhouse, depended on charity or died from starvation. Prior to Social Security, only 15% of companies offered pensions. So yeah, we know what America looks like without a safety net — and it’s not pretty.

Fortunately, fiscal prudence does not require dismantling the federal government and eliminating protections for the poor and elderly. Yes, cutting our national debt is important. And it can be done with care for human life and happiness.

Advertisement

However, while China is getting its bloat under control by improving its citizens’ way of life, we seem to be taking the opposite approach.

@LZGranderson

Politics

Dan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’

Published

on

Dan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Dan Bongino returned to private life on Sunday after serving as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for less than a year.

Bongino said on X that Saturday was his last day on the job before he would return to “civilian life.”

“It’s been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump. It was the honor of a lifetime to work with Director Patel, and to serve you, the American people. See you on the other side,” he wrote.

The former FBI deputy director announced in mid-December that he would be leaving his role at the bureau at the start of the new year.

Advertisement

BONDI, PATEL TAP MISSOURI AG AS ADDITIONAL FBI CO-DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALONGSIDE BONGINO

Dan Bongino speaks with FBI Director Kash Patel as they attend the annual 9/11 Commemoration Ceremony at the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York City on Sept. 11, 2025. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump previously praised Bongino, who assumed office in March, for his work at the FBI.

“Dan did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show,” Trump told reporters.

FBI DIRECTOR, TOP DOJ OFFICIAL RESPOND TO ‘FAILING’ NY TIMES ARTICLE CLAIMING ‘DISDAIN’ FOR EACH OTHER

Advertisement

“After his swearing-in ceremony as FBI Deputy Director, Dan Bongino paid his respects at the Wall of Honor, honoring the brave members of the #FBI who made the ultimate sacrifice and reflecting on the legacy of those who paved the way in the pursuit of justice and security,” the FBI said in a post on X. (@FBI on X)

Bongino spoke publicly about the personal toll of the job during a May appearance on “Fox & Friends,” saying he had sacrificed a lot to take the role.

“I gave up everything for this,” he said, citing the long hours both he and FBI Director Kash Patel work.

“I stare at these four walls all day in D.C., by myself, divorced from my wife — not divorced, but I mean separated — and it’s hard. I mean, we love each other, and it’s hard to be apart,” he added.

The FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover headquarters building in Washington on Nov. 2, 2016. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Bongino’s departure leaves Andrew Bailey, who was appointed co-deputy director in September 2025, as the bureau’s other deputy director.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: Unhappy with the choices for California governor? Get real

Published

on

Commentary: Unhappy with the choices for California governor? Get real

California has tried all manner of design in choosing its governor.

Democrat Gray Davis, to name a recent example, had an extensive background in government and politics and a bland demeanor that suggested his first name was also a fitting adjective.

Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, by contrast, was a novice candidate who ran for governor on a whim. His super-sized action hero persona dazzled Californians like the pyrotechnics in one of his Hollywood blockbusters.

In the end, however, their political fates were the same. Both left office humbled, burdened with lousy poll numbers and facing a well of deep voter discontent.

Advertisement

(Schwarzenegger, at least, departed on his own terms. He chased Davis from the Capitol in an extraordinary recall and won reelection before his approval ratings tanked during his second term.)

There are roughly a dozen major candidates for California governor in 2026 and, taken together, they lack even a small fraction of Schwarzenegger’s celebrity wattage.

Nor do any have the extensive Sacramento experience of Davis, who was a gubernatorial chief of staff under Jerry Brown before serving in the Legislature, then winning election as state controller and lieutenant governor.

That’s not, however, to disparage those running.

The contestants include a former Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa; three candidates who’ve won statewide office, former Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and former Controller Betty Yee; two others who gained national recognition during their time in Congress, Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell; and Riverside County’s elected sheriff, Chad Bianco.

Advertisement

The large field offers an ample buffet from which to choose.

The rap on this particular batch of hopefuls is they’re a collective bore, which, honestly, seems a greater concern to those writing and spitballing about the race than a reflection of some great upwelling of citizens clamoring for bread and circuses.

In scores of conversations with voters over the past year, the sentiment that came through, above all, was a sense of practicality and pragmatism. (And, this being a blue bastion, no small amount of horror, fear and loathing directed at the vengeful and belligerent Trump administration.)

It’s never been more challenging and expensive to live in California, a place of great bounty that often exacts in dollars and stress what it offers in opportunity and wondrous beauty.

With a governor seemingly more focused on his personal agenda, a 2028 bid for president, than the people who put him in office, many said they’d like to replace Gavin Newsom with someone who will prioritize California and their needs above his own.

Advertisement

That means a focus on matters such as traffic, crime, fire prevention, housing and homelessness. In other words, pedestrian stuff that doesn’t light up social media or earn an invitation to hold forth on one of the Beltway chat shows.

“Why does it take so long to do simple things?” asked one of those voters, the Bay Area’s Michael Duncan, as he lamented his pothole-ridden, 120-mile round-trip commute between Fairfield and an environmental analyst job in Livermore.

The answer is not a simple one.

Politics are messy, like any human endeavor. Governing is a long and laborious process, requiring study, deliberation and the weighing of competing forces. Frankly, it can be rather dull.

Certainly the humdrum of legislation or bureaucratic rule-marking is nothing like the gossipy speculation about who may or may not bid to lead California as its 41st governor.

Advertisement

Why else was so much coverage devoted to whether Sen. Alex Padilla would jump into the gubernatorial race — he chose not to — and the possible impact his entry would have on the contest, as opposed to, say, his thinking on CEQA or FMAP?

(The former is California’s much-contested Environmental Quality Act; the latter is the formula that determines federal reimbursement for Medi-Cal, the state’s healthcare program for low-income residents.)

Just between us, political reporters tend to be like children in front of a toy shop window. Their bedroom may be cluttered with all manner of diversion and playthings, but what they really want is that shiny, as-yet unattained object — Rick Caruso! — beckoning from behind glass.

Soon enough, once a candidate has entered the race, boredom sets in and the speculation and desire for someone fresh and different starts anew. (Will Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta change his mind and run for governor?)

For their part, many voters always seem to be searching for some idealized candidate who exists only in their imagination.

Advertisement

Someone strong, but not dug in. Willing to compromise, but never caving to the other side. Someone with the virginal purity of a political outsider and the intrinsic capability of an insider who’s spent decades cutting deals and keeping the government wheels spinning.

They look over their choices and ask, in the words of an old song, is that all there is? (Spoiler alert: There are no white knights out there.)

Donald Trump was, foremost, a celebrity before his burst into politics. First as a denizen of New York’s tabloid culture and then as the star of TV’s faux-boardroom drama, “The Apprentice.”

His pizzazz was a large measure of his appeal, along with his manufactured image as a shrewd businessman with a kingly touch and infallible judgment.

His freewheeling political rallies and frothy social media presence were, and continue to be, a source of great glee to his fans and followers.

Advertisement

His performance as president has been altogether different, and far less amusing.

If the candidates for California governor fail to light up a room, that’s not such a bad thing. Fix the roads. Make housing more affordable. Help keep the place from burning to the ground.

Leave the fun and games to the professionals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Kamala Harris blasts Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s Maduro as ‘unlawful and unwise’

Published

on

Kamala Harris blasts Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s Maduro as ‘unlawful and unwise’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Former Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday evening condemned the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, calling the operation both “unlawful” and “unwise.”

In a lengthy post on X, Harris acknowledged that Maduro is a “brutal” and “illegitimate” dictator but said that President Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela “do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable.”

“Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable,” Harris wrote. “That Maduro is a brutal, illegitimate dictator does not change the fact that this action was both unlawful and unwise. We’ve seen this movie before.

“Wars for regime change or oil that are sold as strength but turn into chaos, and American families pay the price.”

Advertisement

SEE PICS: VENEZUELANS WORLDWIDE CELEBRATE AS EXILES REACT TO MADURO’S CAPTURE

Vice President Kamala Harris had strong words for the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. (Montinique Monroe/Getty Images)

Harris made the remarks hours after the Trump administration confirmed that Maduro and his wife were captured and transported out of Venezuela as part of “Operation Absolute Resolve.”

The former vice president also accused the administration of being motivated by oil interests rather than efforts to combat drug trafficking or promote democracy.

“The American people do not want this, and they are tired of being lied to. This is not about drugs or democracy. It is about oil and Donald Trump’s desire to play the regional strongman,” Harris said. “If he cared about either, he wouldn’t pardon a convicted drug trafficker or sideline Venezuela’s legitimate opposition while pursuing deals with Maduro’s cronies.”

Advertisement

SECOND FRONT: HOW A SOCIALIST CELL IN THE US MOBILIZED PRO-MADURO FOOT SOLDIERS WITHIN 12 HOURS

President Donald Trump shared a photo of captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima after Saturday’s strikes on Venezuela. (Donald Trump via Truth Social)

Harris, who has been rumored as a potential Democratic contender in the 2028 presidential race, additionally accused the president of endangering U.S. troops and destabilizing the region.

“The President is putting troops at risk, spending billions, destabilizing a region, and offering no legal authority, no exit plan, and no benefit at home,” she said. “America needs leadership whose priorities are lowering costs for working families, enforcing the rule of law, strengthening alliances, and — most importantly — putting the American people first.”

MADURO’S FALL SPARKS SUSPICION OF BETRAYAL INSIDE VENEZUELA’S RULING ELITE

Advertisement

CIA Director John Ratcliffe, left, President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio watch U.S. military operations in Venezuela from Mar-a-Lago in Florida early Saturday. (Donald Trump via Truth Social)

Maduro and his wife arrived at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn late Saturday after being transported by helicopter from the DEA in Manhattan after being processed.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Earlier in the day, Trump said that the U.S. government will “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”

Harris’ office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending