Support Our Journalism

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Politics National News World Economy Lifestyle Store

Tag: low income

Smell The Grift: Trump's Latest Cash Grab Is Literally A Stinker

Thanks to President Donald Trump’s obsession with turning everything into a cash grab, you can now identify the most die-hard MAGA voters by a new smell.

The president’s latest cologne and perfume sets have officially hit the market, and his cultists can now spritz themselves with the scents for the low price of $249—or $398 if they buy two.

“Trump Fragrances are here,” he wrote via Truth Social Tuesday.

Out of originality, the president named the new smell “Victory 45-47,” basing the name off of his two presidential wins. Trump also strangely claims the fragrances are “all about Winning, Strength, and Success — For men and women.”

The bottle appears to include a gold Trump statuette—perhaps from his trimmer days—with his signature scribble stamped at the base of the bottle.

“With every spray, Victory 47 captures confidence, beauty, and unstoppable determination,” the website description reads for the women’s perfume. “A sophisticated, subtly feminine scent that’s your go-to signature for any occasion.”

While Trump’s marketing team seems to be all in on the idea, even Fox News host Jessica Tarlov slammed the product on Tuesday. Referencing the passing of Trump’s Medicaid-gutting budget bill, Tarlov tweeted, “16 million Americans are about to lose their healthcare, but go buy my gross perfume…”

Of course, the president is no stranger to a good grift. This past December, he was hocking a cologne and perfume set based off of the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt against him. That bottle had “Fight Fight Fight” plastered across the bottle. Bottles are still in stock, according to the website.

On top of that, Trump has hawked watches, guitars, shoes, bibles, and more. And certain business ventures, such as his profits in various cryptocurrency schemes, are generally managed by his sons.

Last month, Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was backed into a corner when addressing his father’s memecoin, $TRUMP. During an interview on NewsNation, the reporter pointed out that Trump Sr. had made over $57 million from the memecoin. “So he does benefit financially,” the reporter said.

“But he doesn’t touch it. That’s all walled off,” Don Jr. said. “He doesn’t get involved in that.”

In other words, just trust us. He’s not dipping his hand into the honey jar.

As for Trump’s latest fragrance line, it’s just another one to add to the list of grift. On the bright side, it might make it easier to identify those MAGA voters who have left their red hats home for the day.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Blue States That Finance Government Need Less Federal Help

"Move it back to the states," Donald Trump says about education, about FEMA and, as will probably happen, about Medicaid. What that would mean to Americans depends on what state they live in. As the federal government moves forward on this, it's a good bet that high-income states can handle the changes better than low-income ones.

Yes, it's true: Taxpayers in high-income states, largely blue ones, have been subsidizing residents of less wealthy red states.

A few years ago, there was an interesting feud between Joe Manchin, senator from West Virginia, and Mikie Sherrill, who represents a well-heeled congressional district in New Jersey. Funds for a federal child care subsidy were to be cut, and Manchin wanted the plan rejiggered to send a bigger chunk to the many low-income families of West Virginia. That would have meant less help for suburban parents in New Jersey.

Sherrill responded: "New Jersey already pays more than $10 billion in taxes than we receive in federal spending, and I will not let another federal program pay less to New Jersey taxpayers than it does to all other Americans."

According to Trump's vision of New Federalism, services provided by the federal government would be better handled by states. But the bills for these services would also largely go to the states. Obviously, states with high incomes and high taxes are better equipped to replace Washington dollars.

Florida may have attracted a lot of rich people seeking low taxes, but if the Federal Emergency Management Agency stopped showering money for hurricane relief every time a big blow tears up the coastline — forcing Floridians to bear more of the cost — well, good luck with that.

FEMA's core principle for disaster relief has been "locally executed, state managed and federally supported." Home insurance costs have already skyrocketed in Florida. Add to that the economic fallout of making the people living there pay more for building back?

Public schools are mostly funded by state and local taxpayers. The Department of Education does give money to schools with high percentages of low-income students, many in rural areas, and pays for special education. Over 23% of Mississippi's school district revenue comes from federal funding. By contrast, the feds account for only about 7% of New York state's.

Meanwhile, look at outcomes. The top state for test scores is Massachusetts, followed by New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and New York. These states would probably do OK without a Department of Education.

The House budget resolution targets cuts to Medicaid of up to $880 billion or more over 10 years. Medicaid is jointly financed by states and the federal government but administered by the states. If a state wants to make up for lost Medicaid funds, it can raise taxes. Or it could cover fewer people, cut benefits or pay doctors less.

Despite a much-publicized movement of rich people from high-tax places like New York and California to lower-tax Florida and Texas, the big money has largely remained in the urban centers where it was originally made.

"The Ultra-Rich are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California," Bloomberg News reports. Despite mesospheric housing prices, some corporate departures and high taxes, Bloomberg writes, "it remains one of the most popular places for global wealth."

And the state is run by Democrats. Texas may be a red state, but its economic engines are the blue cities of Austin, Dallas and Houston.

Trump's 2017 tax cuts overwhelmingly went to the upper incomes. Extending them now would do more of the same. Where do those upper incomes live? (See above.)

I may be the thousandth pundit to note that Trump-o-nomics hurts working people most, that is, his voters. What can you say except that elections have consequences.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump Pushes Plan To Gut Medicaid Despite Promise To Protect Program

President Donald Trump on Wednesday endorsed the House Republican budget plan, which would decimate Medicaid, the federal health insurance program that covers 72 million disabled and low-income Americans. What do Republicans get in return? Tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich.

In a rambling post on X, Trump wrote: "The House and Senate are doing a SPECTACULAR job of working together as one unified, and unbeatable, TEAM, however, unlike the Lindsey Graham version of the very important Legislation currently being discussed, the House Resolution implements my FULL America First Agenda, EVERYTHING, not just parts of it! We need both Chambers to pass the House Budget to 'kickstart' the Reconciliation process, and move all of our priorities to the concept of, 'ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.' It will, without question, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

The budget Trump endorsed would require cuts to Medicaid so extreme that it would surely force states—which administer the program—to either make up for the loss of federal subsidies or kick many recipients out of the program. Those cuts would then be used to help extend the tax cuts Republicans passed in 2017, which primarily benefitted the wealthy.

According to a July 2024 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank:

Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC). As a share of after-tax income, tax cuts at the top—for both households in the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent—are more than triple the total value of the tax cuts received for people with incomes in the bottom 60 percent.

Trump’s endorsement of the House GOP budget plan came just hours after he said in an interview with sycophantic Fox News host Sean Hannity that he wouldn't touch Medicaid.

“Medicare, Medicaid—none of that stuff is going to be touched," Trump said, an apparent lie if he wants the House Republican budget to pass.

"It's difficult to reconcile President Trump's vow to 'love and cherish' Medicaid with his endorsement of the House budget that would cut over $800 billion from the program. Cuts of that magnitude go well beyond eliminating fraud and abuse," Larry Levitt, executive vice president of health policy at KFF, said in a post on X.

Before Trump’s endorsement, the House budget appeared to be in trouble, with multiple GOP lawmakers in competitive House seats balking at the idea of stripping health care away from their constituents, Politico reported.

From Politico’s report:

The vulnerable incumbents wary of slashing Medicaid services include Reps. David Valadao of California, Don Bacon of Nebraska, Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania. Others like Nicole Malliotakis of New York from redder districts have also raised concerns. They were generally blindsided by the deeper level of proposed cuts, a Republican said, as that possibility never came up in earlier discussions with GOP leaders.

With the narrow majority Republicans have in the House, they can afford to lose just one vote and have the budget pass.

Of course, Trump's endorsement of the proposed budget could breathe life into House GOP leadership's efforts since Republican lawmakers have so far refused to stand up to Trump out of fear.

Even if the bill does pass the House, it would then have to pass the Senate, where Republicans are also criticizing the House bill.

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri told HuffPost on Tuesday that he does not support the kind of massive Medicaid cuts that the House budget calls for.

“I would not do severe cuts to Medicaid,” Hawley said of the program, which voters in his deep red state voted in 2020 to expand to cover an additional 460,000 people in the state.

In sum, Republicans are in disarray. Who could’ve seen that coming?

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

World

        About The National Memo
    
The National Memo is a political newsletter and website that combines the spirit of investigative journalism with new technology and ideas. We cover campaigns, elections, the White House, Congress, and the world with a fresh outlook. Our own journalism — as well as our selections of the smartest stories available every day — reflects a clear and strong perspective, without the kind of propaganda, ultra-partisanship and overwrought ideology that burden so much of our political discourse.
TAGS

Created By

RebelMouse

About Masthead Terms of Service Privacy Statement Advertise Contact

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Smell The Grift: Trump's Latest Cash Grab Is Literally A Stinker

Blue States That Finance Government Need Less Federal Help

Trump Pushes Plan To Gut Medicaid Despite Promise To Protect Program

Shop our Store

Constitution Cork Coaster

Democracy Mug

Make America Think Again Hat

Constitution Rocks Glass

Headlines

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reminds Us Why Judicial Elections Are Vital

How House 'Opponents' Of Big Ugly Budget Bill Rolled Over For Trump

Editor's Blog

Why Trump's Iran Strike Hype Is Falling Flat

Besides Food Dyes, What Endangers Children's Health? Bobby's Hypocrisy

At First HHS Press Conference, Kennedy Enrages Autism Families With Falsehoods

Brilliant Tariff Strategy Or Market Manipulation? We Report, You Decide

Corona Virus