Tag: Opinion

Last month, as required by law, State Auditor Grant Parks published an annual report on state programs and agencies that his office deems to be at “high risk” of costly inefficiency, waste or fraud.

The report reiterated concerns about seven situations, two of which have been on the list since 2007, including the bureaucracy’s chronic inability to successfully employ information technology — embarrassing for a state that is the global center for digital tools.

Parks has added a new program in his latest overview, the Department of Social Service’s food aid for poor families, once called food stamps but now known as CalFresh.

The federal government primarily finances supplemental food benefits, but the state’s share is determined, in part, by its management, as indicated by its rate of error when determining people’s eligibility.

President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill tightens the error rate thresholds. Thus, Parks notes, California’s 11% error rate, if not improved, could require the state to “spend about $2 billion annually to maintain CalFresh benefits.”

The most disturbing item on Parks’ list is the continuing inability of the Employment Development Department to effectively manage unemployment insurance benefits, which first came to light during the COVID-19 pandemic. Billions of dollars in fraudulent benefit claims were approved, almost all of which came in a federally financed expansion of the program.

By happenstance, the high risk report was released just as a scandal was erupting in Minnesota over widespread fraud in a program meant to keep children fed during the pandemic.

Dozens of people, mostly in Minnesota’s substantial Somali population, have been charged with looting the program by setting up companies that billed the state for supplying food that was never delivered.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, whom Kamala Harris chose as her running mate in her campaign for president in 2024, felt the political fallout from the scandal — generated mostly in right-leaning media outlets — and this week dropped his bid for re-election.

Meanwhile, those same outlets — blogs, podcasts and YouTube videos — have been making an accusatory connection between the Minnesota scandal and the Parks report, suggesting the report proves the same kind of fraud was even more rampant in California and laying the blame on Gov. Gavin Newsom, who’s a likely 2028 candidate for president.

This week, Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate for California governor, and Herb Morgan, a Republican running for state controller, cited the Parks report, their own research and tips from whistleblowers in a broad assertion, dubbed “CALIFRAUDIA,” that “California’s exposure to fraud, waste, and abuse across major state programs is likely to reach $250 billion,” adding that it “underscores the urgent need for formal investigation and audit, as a matter of basic fiscal responsibility.”

However, the allegations of widespread fraud and mismanagement during Newsom’s governorship is not confined to those on the starboard side of the political balance beam.

After years of increasingly brutal oppression, Venezuela is finally free of dictator Nicolás Maduro after he was captured last Saturday by the U.S. military in Caracas. Exiled Venezuelans across the world took to the streets to celebrate. “My joy is too big,” said a Venezuelan in Chile.

Many across the world share that joy. Freedom advocates longed for Maduro’s ousting for years. Footage of him in shackles is a welcome sight for those of us who care about individual rights. But there’s a problem: the military operation that led to Maduro’s capture may not be legal or in America’s interest.

Maduro is a murderous dictator who must face consequences for his brutal oppression of Venezuelans. His socialist dictatorship, hostile to human life, crushed Venezuelans’ freedoms for years. He has forced almost eight million Venezuelans to flee since 2014, causing one of the largest displacement crises in recent memory. 

The Venezuelan regime assassinated dissenters, unlawfully detained opposition leaders (such as Maria Corina Machado), and still holds political prisoners hostage. The regime’s hostility towards freedom cannot be overstated.

But the justice in Maduro’s collapse doesn’t make the U.S. government’s actions legitimate.

Some have argued the military operation leading to Maduro’s arrest violated Venezuela’s right to self-determination. But that’s not a concern anyone should have, and that’s not what makes the operation questionable.

The principle of “self-determination” does not include the establishment of a dictatorship. Governments exist with the sole purpose of protecting individual rights. A government cannot be legitimately established with the purpose of oppressing its people, like Maduro’s was. Such a government is lawless and has no right to exist. In principle, it is not illegitimate for a free nation to topple an authoritarian regime, assuming that decision is made in the self-interest of the free country and in accordance with its own laws. 

There should be no concern over the “rights” of a dictatorship, which deserves to be destroyed. The problem is that the U.S. may have acted against its own Constitution and perhaps its self-interest.

Law professor Ilya Somin argues that the U.S. incursion in Venezuela is illegal because it lacks congressional authorization. Somin explains that “the initiation of any large-scale military action requires congressional authorization” and that the air strikes in Caracas and subsequent capture of Maduro far exceed the president’s authority. 

In an interview, political commentator and president of the Board of the Ayn Rand Institute Yaron Brook agreed that the Trump administration’s move may be unconstitutional. Brook added that, even leaving legality aside, it is yet to be seen whether Maduro’s capture is in the interest of the U.S. at all.

The administration’s justification for the operation is muddy. Per Secretary Marco Rubio, this was about the war on drugs and bringing Maduro to justice in America: “Maduro is the head of the Cartel de Los Soles, a narco-terror organization that has taken control of the country. And he is under indictment for pushing drugs into the United States.” President Trump, on the other hand, has indicated that the goal is to recoup stolen oil: “We built Venezuela’s oil industry with American talent, drive and skill, and the socialist regime stole it from us during those previous administrations.”

This unclarity in motives is part of what contributes to skepticism about American interests here. “The legitimate interest of the US government should be the protection of the individual rights of its citizens,” argued Brook. “Is [the operation in Venezuela] in any way protecting the individual rights of Americans? That is hard to tell, because we don’t know why they did it.”

Brook stated that the benefits to America’s interests must outweigh the costs, including monetary and human, for this operation to be morally legitimate. If the goal is to simply put Maduro on trial, or to try and stop the flow of drugs, that’s not legitimate. “[Maduro’s detention and trial] will have zero impact on the flow of drugs from Venezuela. . . and [the operation] would be completely immoral.” (Brook is a fierce critic of the war on drugs.)

The potential American interest at play has to do with turning Venezuela into a rights-respecting country. It’s not America’s role to bring Democracy to foreign countries, says Brook. But under the Maduro regime many enemies of the United States, including Russians, Iranians, and even members of Hezbollah, find haven in the country. Getting them out would weaken their influence in America’s favor. 

President Donald Trump’s new National Security Strategy, released Dec. 4, largely charts a needed correction for the United States on military and foreign policy. Such papers are not meant to be followed literally. And the numerous federal departments resist any changes. Yet each NSS provides the prevailing tone a president wants to be followed by our country’s gigantic bureaucracies at the State Department, at the War (formerly Defense) Department and at the CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies.

Released in Oct. 2022, President Joe Biden’s last NSS stressed, “We have reinvigorated America’s unmatched network of alliances and partnerships… NATO is stronger and more united than it has ever been.” 

By contrast, in the preface to his new NSS, Trump bluntly states his goal: “In everything we do, we are putting America first.” The document text insists: “The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.” Our allies are “wealthy, sophisticated nations that must assume primary responsibility for their regions and contribute far more to our collective defense.” 

This shows the NSS’s main theme: The world has shifted from what political scientists call the “unipolar” moment of the 1990s, when the U.S. dominated the world, to a “multipolar” world with three top powers: the U.S., China and Russia. The previous policy of attempting global dominance “undermined the very means necessary to achieve that goal: the character of our nation upon which its power, wealth, and decency were built.” 

I would add that’s best seen in the $8 trillion wasted on the post-9/11 wars, according to Brown University. That money could have been invested in factories, research and infrastructure to compete with China.

Trump’s NSS also moves strategic emphasis away from Europe toward China and the “Indo-Pacific.” Citing the Purchasing Power Parity calculation, it says that area now comprises almost half the world economy. “To thrive at home, we must successfully compete there—and we are,” it insists, touting Trump’s trade agreements from his Oct. 2025 trip to the region.

The NSS doesn’t mention how, after Trump threatened 100% tariffs on China, Beijing withheld crucial rare-earth minerals from the U.S. market, forcing him to retreat. Nor does it note how, according to PPP, China’s annual economy now is $41 trillion to America’s $30.6 trillion – a third bigger than ours. 

Turning to Russia and Europe, Trump’s NSS sensibly insists it’s an American “core interest” to end the Ukraine War and “stabilize European economies,” whose share of global GDP has shrunk from 25% in 1990 to 14% today. Europe faces “the stark prospect of civilizational erasure.” These words upset the European elites, but were tough love for our old allies.

The war must end to “reestablish strategic stability with Russia.” This is a crucial shift in tone on nuclear arms. Unfortunately, it doesn’t mention the New START Treaty with Russia, which expires on Feb. 5, and which limits each side to 1,550 nuclear delivery vehicles. The Russians have called for an extension for a year to negotiate a new agreement. 

Instead, earlier this year Trump suggested the U.S. could follow other nations in testing new nuclear weapons. The last thing we need is a dangerous and expensive new arms race.

On the Middle East, the NSS boasts how Trump’s June 2025 Operation Midnight Hammer attack “significantly degraded Iran’s nuclear program”; the Gaza ceasefire and hostage release “Trump negotiated” have brought “progress toward a more permanent peace”; and “American, Arab, Israeli, and Turkish support may stabilize” Syria. Although hopeful, the document sensibly is cautious on whether there will be lasting peace in the region.

Unfortunately, Trump’s America First posture includes a more aggressive stance toward Latin America, seen in his belligerence toward Venezuela. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, among other things, warded off “future colonization by any European powers” in the Western Hemisphere. Well and good.