The federal government is too big, too inefficient, and too careless with taxpayer dollars. This is not a new problem, but recent revelations have made it abundantly clear just how deep the rot goes. As Rep. Jim Jordan pointed out in a recent hearing, the United States spends $7 trillion annually, with 400 agencies and subagencies, and over 1,000 boards and commissions. Within that staggering amount of money, billions of taxpayer dollars are funneled into wasteful and, frankly, absurd programs. (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA3ma1MeSIU)

Take, for instance, the $32,000 spent on a transgender comic in Peru or the $16 million allocated to gender development programs overseas. Why is the American taxpayer funding projects like these when we have a $36 trillion national debt? The problem is not just the waste itself but the utter lack of transparency. As Sen. Lankford rightly pointed out, taxpayers don’t even know how their money is being spent because there is no simple way to track it. States like Iowa and Ohio have implemented systems that allow citizens to push a button and see where their tax dollars go—why hasn’t the federal government done the same?

The attack on Elon Musk by the Democratic establishment is a direct result of his role in exposing these wasteful expenditures. Musk is not fabricating these facts—he is simply shedding light on them. Instead of acknowledging the problem and working toward reform, Democrats have chosen to target the messenger rather than fix the issue. When Musk pointed out that the U.S. government had been wasting money on redundant agencies and unnecessary projects, he was met with fierce opposition. Rather than eliminating waste, Democrats seem more interested in silencing those who reveal it.

But the scandal doesn’t end there. The most shocking revelation to come out of recent reports is that U.S. taxpayer money was used to fund news outlets. USAID, an agency responsible for distributing foreign aid, was found to have paid Politico $8.2 million over 237 transactions. Even more alarming, the FDA alone paid Politico $517,000 for just 37 subscriptions. This raises an obvious question: Why is the government paying the media? The answer is just as obvious—state-funded narrative control.

For years, outlets like Politico have pushed pro-Democratic messaging, from downplaying the Hunter Biden laptop story to attacking President Trump and his administration. Now, we know that at least part of their funding came from the federal government itself. USAID was shut down by Musk and his team, and what happened next? Politico couldn’t even make payroll. The same outlet that spent years attacking Trump and his policies was, in part, being propped up by taxpayer money. This is not journalism; it is propaganda, bought and paid for by the government.

And yet, when Musk exposed these financial ties, Democrats didn’t condemn the corruption—they doubled down on their attacks. They claim Musk is overstepping, that he is interfering with government operations. But the truth is simple: he is doing his job. The Department of Government Efficiency exists to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and Musk is fulfilling that role.

The Democratic Party has long relied on bloated bureaucracy and a compliant media to maintain control. But now that their game is being exposed, they are panicking. Their rallies, once seen as symbols of political strength, have become laughingstocks. The recent viral clip of Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters dancing and yelling incoherently only reinforces the perception that the party is out of touch with reality. Meanwhile, average Americans—who work hard and pay their taxes—are left wondering why their money is being spent on nonsense.

The outrage should not be directed at Musk for exposing the waste; it should be directed at those who enabled it. The American people deserve better. They deserve a government that is accountable, transparent, and fiscally responsible. Instead of attacking those who shine a light on corruption, we should be demanding answers from those responsible for it.

The Democrats' attempts to cover up their failures are failing. More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that they have been robbed—both financially and politically. The truth is coming out, and no amount of media manipulation or government overreach will be able to stop it. 

Orlando officials are pushing forward with a plan to convert a work-release center on Caylee Avenue into a 300-bed homeless shelter. While some may view this as a necessary step to address homelessness in the city, the reality is that this decision comes with significant consequences for the surrounding community—particularly the Soto District. Residents and business owners have expressed strong opposition to the shelter, citing concerns over safety, property values, and the overall well-being of their neighborhood.

Residents in the Soto District feel blindsided by this proposal, claiming they were left out of discussions before the city advanced the project. Many argue that their community has already absorbed more than its fair share of shelters and the challenges that come with them. The security and stability of neighborhoods should be a priority, yet city officials seem more focused on finding a quick solution rather than considering the long-term effects on the community.

The solution to homelessness should not come at the expense of hard-working families and business owners. Crime, loitering, and public disturbances often accompany homeless encampments, these issues will spill into the surrounding areas, burdening law-abiding citizens and taxpaying citizens.

Spending millions of taxpayer dollars on prime real estate in the city just to provide a space for homeless individuals to loiter around is a slap in the face to the hard-working people of the community. The City of Orlando has proposed investing $7.5 million from its Accelerate Orlando funds to establish a new Open Access homeless shelter. This facility is intended to operate 24/7, providing accommodations and essential services for up to 250 individuals experiencing homelessness. 

Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his teachings on the order of charity, emphasizes that our moral obligations begin with those closest to us—our families and communities—before extending outward. By this principle, prioritizing the well-being and security of the Soto District’s hardworking residents should take precedence over funding a shelter that primarily benefits transient populations.

The people of this district have invested heavily to live in a safe, thriving community, and their financial contributions through taxes should be used to uphold and enhance their quality of life rather than being diverted into a project that disrupts their neighborhood.

Rather than concentrating shelters in urban areas where they can disrupt established communities, a better solution would be to transport homeless individuals to rural areas where they could engage in meaningful labor. The agricultural industry, for instance, has long struggled with labor shortages. A government-backed initiative could place homeless individuals in farming and agricultural roles, providing them with structured employment, food, and shelter in exchange for their labor. This approach would not only address the issue of vagrancy in cities but also contribute to economic productivity. Over time, such programs could help individuals develop job skills, earn a sense of purpose, and work toward long-term independence.

​Government intervention should focus on encouraging accountability rather than fostering reliance on taxpayer-funded resources. By continuing to expand shelters and offering free services without structured expectations, officials risk creating an endless cycle of dependency rather than fostering independence.

Moreover, there is a growing frustration with policies that allow squatting and other forms of property encroachment. Homeowners and businesses invest in their communities, only to find themselves forced to deal with increasing lawlessness. There is a valid concern that leniency toward these issues may send the wrong message—that it is acceptable to rely on handouts without taking steps toward self-improvement.

It is clear that the Soto District is not the right place for this shelter. A shelter only provides a new place for homeless people to loiter while spending millions of dollars of tax payer money. 
​
We must look beyond inner city shelters and invest in structured programs that encourage self-sufficiency. Transporting the homeless to rural work programs is an effective, long-term strategy that benefits both individuals and society as a whole. The current proposal is not the answer, and the residents of the Soto District should not have to bear this burden and puts their safety and community stability at risk.