The BLUE PRESS JOURNAL

We aim to be a voice in the ongoing political discourse, providing both factual information and opinionated analysis, from a progressive or center-left perspective, free from the direct influence of major
established Main Street Media.

  • This is what Oligarchy Looks Like.

  • GOP Tax Cut Legislation Threatens to Upend America’s Healthcare System

    The recent passage of massive tax cut legislation by the House and Senate has sent shockwaves through the American healthcare system. While the bill’s proponents claim it will boost economic growth, the reality is that it poses a significant threat to the stability of rural and safety-net hospitals, and ultimately, the patients who rely on them.

    At the heart of the issue is a provision that alters state-levied provider taxes, resulting in a substantial reduction in spending – to the tune of nearly $191 billion over the next decade, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). An analysis by the National Rural Health Association and Manatt Health found that an earlier version of the bill introduced in the Senate would have resulted in a staggering $58 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next 10 years for rural hospitals.

    The final bill that passed includes a five-year, $50 billion rural health relief fund, but provider groups argue that this is merely a Band-Aid solution compared to the overall cost of the cuts. In reality, this temporary fix is unlikely to mitigate the long-term damage caused by the legislation.

    As a direct consequence of the bill’s provisions, hospitals are poised to experience an alarming surge in uncompensated care and an overwhelming influx of patients flooding emergency rooms. This crisis will unfold as millions of American families are pushed to the brink, losing their essential healthcare coverage due to the draconian Medicaid work requirements and the heartless eligibility alterations embedded in this legislation. The repercussions will be catastrophic, leaving our hospitals grappling desperately to provide the care that every patient and community so profoundly deserves.

    “We are in a crisis,” said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America’s Essential Hospitals, a group that represents hospitals serving primarily low-income patients. “Widespread coverage losses plus weakened hospitals is a recipe for disaster, and patients will pay the price.”

    The impact on rural hospitals will be particularly severe, as they are often the lifeline for communities with limited access to healthcare services. The loss of funding will exacerbate existing challenges, such as staffing shortages and outdated infrastructure, making it even more difficult for these hospitals to provide essential care to their patients.

    While the tax cut legislation may have been touted as a economic stimulus, its true impact will be felt in the healthcare sector, where it threatens to destabilize rural and safety-net hospitals.

  • Declaration of Independence: Historical Grievances and Trump’s Presidency

    As we commemorate the anniversary of our country’s independence, it is fitting to reflect on the reasons behind our decision to separate from England and the grievances that led to this historic split. In the weeks leading up to July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was crafted, and its authors sought to justify the case for separation from Great Britain by citing specific examples of the King’s abuses of power.

    The Declaration of Independence lists 27 grievances against the King and his regime, many of which are eerily relevant to the presidency of Donald Trump. Two hundred and forty-nine years later, it is striking to see how many of these grievances apply to Trump’s actions and policies.

    Let us examine a few examples. The King was accused of refusing to assent to laws that were wholesome and necessary for the public good. Similarly, Trump has shown disregard for Congress by ignoring existing laws and using his executive power to unilaterally impose his will. For instance, he launched a military attack on Iran without consulting Congress, and he has impounded funds approved by Congress.

    The King was also accused of forbidding his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance unless they were suspended until he gave his assent. Trump has attempted to do something similar by introducing a provision in his tax and spending bill that would ban states from enacting measures to regulate artificial intelligence and withhold federal funds from states that do not comply with his policies.

    Furthermore, the King was accused of refusing to pass laws that would accommodate large districts of people unless they relinquished their right to representation in the legislature. Trump has threatened to deny disaster relief to California unless it abandons its legislative independence and changes its water policies to his liking. He has also threatened to cut off federal funding to New York City if it enacts laws or policies that he opposes.

    The King was also accused of calling together legislative bodies at unusual and distant locations to fatigue them into compliance with his measures. Trump’s administration has moved to relocate federal agencies and repurpose their office buildings, making life uncomfortable for employees and officials.

    In addition, the King was accused of dissolving representative houses repeatedly for opposing his invasions on the rights of the people. Trump’s Department of Homeland Security has sent Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles, allegedly to “liberate” the city from its elected representatives.

    The King was also accused of endeavoring to prevent the population of the states by obstructing laws for naturalization and refusing to pass laws to encourage migration. Trump has revealed a plan to denaturalize certain American citizens, imposed a ban on migration from many nations, and undone the immigration status of hundreds of thousands of people living in the United States. He has also taken steps to block foreign students from attending American colleges and universities.

    The King was accused of obstructing the administration of justice by refusing to establish judiciary powers. Trump has been accused of obstructing justice during the Russia investigation, and his administration has faced contempt proceedings for not abiding by court orders.

    Moreover, the King was accused of keeping standing armies in times of peace without the consent of the legislature. Trump ordered Marines and National Guard troops into Los Angeles without the consent of the state legislature or the governor, and over the objection of local officials.

    The King was also accused of cutting off trade with all parts of the world. Trump has proposed draconian global tariffs that would bring trade to a halt, claiming that trade deficits with countries such as Lesotho are a national emergency.

    Finally, the King was accused of depriving citizens of the benefits of trial by jury. The Trump administration has rounded up Venezuelan migrants and sent them to an infamous Salvadoran prison without affording them due process or court hearings.

    As we reflect on the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence, it is striking to see how many of them are relevant to the presidency of Donald Trump. It is a sobering reminder of the importance of holding our leaders accountable and protecting the rights and freedoms that our founding fathers fought so hard to establish.

  • Republicans Push Through Tax Cut Bill, Leaving Millions to Suffer the Consequences

    In a move that has been widely criticized, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a massive bill on Thursday that cuts taxes and slashes Medicaid funding, sending the legislation to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature. The bill, which passed by a narrow margin of 218-214, is expected to have far-reaching and devastating consequences for millions of Americans.

    The bill’s passage was made possible by Republican lawmakers who, despite previously expressing concerns about the legislation, ultimately caved to pressure from the Trump administration and party leadership. All Democrats and two Republicans, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), voted against the bill.

    The legislation threatens to strip millions of Americans of their health insurance, as devastating cuts to Medicaid funding will leave hospitals, especially those in rural areas, teetering on the brink of financial collapse. Moreover, the harsh reductions to SNAP, which provides crucial nourishment for countless children, are simply inexcusable. To add insult to injury, the bill’s tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthiest households, will only serve to deepen the national debt, inflating it by an astronomical $3.4 trillion.

    The $4.5 trillion price tag of the tax cuts is only partially offset by $1 trillion in cuts to federal food and health programs, a move that will have serious consequences for vulnerable populations. The bill’s fiscal irresponsibility and slapdash legislative process are hallmarks of Republican governance in the Trump era, where ideology and party loyalty have taken precedence over responsible policymaking.

    The bill’s passage is also expected to supercharge Trump’s efforts to round up, detain, and deport millions of immigrants who lack legal authorization to remain in the country, further exacerbating an already fraught immigration system.

    In a stark illustration of the bill’s priorities, the tax cuts will largely benefit wealthy households, while the Medicaid cuts and other reductions in federal health and food programs will harm low- and middle-income Americans. The bill’s supporters have touted it as a “big, beautiful bill,” but the reality is that it is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that will have serious and long-lasting consequences for the country.

    When President Trump signs the bill into law, it is clear that the Republican Party has chosen to prioritize the interests of the wealthy and large corporations over those of ordinary Americans. The bill’s passage is a stark reminder of the deep partisan divisions in Washington and the need to elect a Democratic Majority in 2026!

  • Trump Is Lying Through his Teeth: On Gas Prices

    Donald Trump has once again misrepresented the truth about fuel prices in the United States. In a recent statement, he claimed that gasoline had reached a price of $1.99 in five states, with prices as low as $1.98 in some areas. He also asserted that this low price was spreading to other states, stating, “Now we have no inflation. Gasoline just hit $1.99 in five states: $1.99, isn’t that a nice sound?” He even went so far as to claim that prices had previously reached as high as $7.70 in California, but were now decreasing.

    However, this claim is entirely false. At the time of Trump’s statement, the average gas price in the United States was actually $3.17 per gallon, according to AAA. Even in the state with the lowest average gas price, Mississippi, the price was still $2.71 per gallon. This is a far cry from the $1.99 and $1.98 prices that Trump claimed.

    It is unclear whether Trump is intentionally lying or if his cognitive decline is becoming more apparent. Regardless, his desperation to tout an improved economy has led him to stoop to a new low of deceiving the American public about prices that they experience every day. Fortunately, it is easy to fact-check Trump’s claims by simply checking the prices at a local gas station. The evidence is clear: Trump is lying about gas prices, and it is essential to hold him accountable for his dishonesty.

    It is worth noting that Trump’s claim of low gas prices is not only false but also misleading. Gas prices have actually increased since he took office, with the national average price rising by 5 cents per gallon. This is a stark contrast to Trump’s claims of decreasing prices and no inflation. The American public deserves accurate and truthful information, and it is essential to call out Trump’s lies and hold him accountable for his words.

  • Jeffries: House Floor Is A ‘Crime Scene,’ Trump Tax Bill Is A ‘Republican Assault’ On Health Care

  • Paramount’s Settlement with Trump: A Threat to Press Freedom

    In a disturbing development, Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS News, has agreed to pay former US President Donald Trump $16 million to settle a widely criticized lawsuit. The lawsuit, which was deemed entirely meritless by legal experts, concerned the media organization’s handling of a pre-election “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. This settlement sets a troubling precedent for free speech, as it appears to reward Trump’s attacks on the media and undermines the principles of a free press.

    As Paramount engaged in negotiations with Trump’s legal team, press freedom advocates and members of Congress urged the company not to settle, warning that doing so would embolden Trump’s ongoing efforts to intimidate and silence media outlets that he perceives as his political enemies. Unfortunately, their warnings were ignored, and the settlement was finalized. This decision has been condemned as “shameful” and a blow to the integrity of the media.

    It has been reported that Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, supported the settlement in the hopes that it would facilitate federal approval of the company’s merger with Skydance, an entertainment company. However, this reasoning has been criticized by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a Paramount shareholder, which argued that the settlement could be seen as a bribe to the Trump administration in exchange for approval of the merger. The advocacy group had threatened to sue Paramount if the company gave in to Trump’s demands.

    The implications of this settlement are far-reaching and alarming. At a time when the Trump administration’s authoritarian tendencies are becoming increasingly pronounced, the need for a free and independent press has never been more urgent. By settling this lawsuit, Paramount has sent a chilling message that the media can be intimidated and silenced by those in power. This undermines the fundamental principles of democracy and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of journalism. As the Trump administration continues to pose a threat to press freedom, it is more important than ever that we defend the right to a free and unfettered press, un beholden to the whims of those in power.

  • Ex-Senator thinks Murkowski dug herself into a ‘hole’ with GOP leadership

  • The “Big Bad Bill” is bad for America: Take Action!!

    Highlights of The Senate Bill

    The Senate Republican legislative package, referred to by its proponents as a “big, beautiful bill,” passed Tuesday the Senate by the slimmest of margins – a single vote. This contentious outcome reflects the deeply divisive nature of the bill’s provisions and its projected far-reaching consequences for various segments of the American population. Democrats argue the bill disproportionately benefits the wealthiest Americans while significantly curtailing vital social safety nets, impacting healthcare, education, environmental initiatives, and immigration policies. Even Elon Musk was against it!

    The nearly 900-page bill, fast-tracked through the Senate, saw Republican leadership making last-minute adjustments, reportedly to secure the minimum votes for passage. This legislative effort is criticized for its fundamental financial reordering: a substantial portion of its funding comes from drastic cuts to federal programs, particularly Medicaid, which faces over $1 trillion in reductions. Concurrently, it allocates an estimated $975 billion in tax breaks, primarily benefiting the wealthiest 1% of the country, with little direct benefit for average taxpayers.

    Impacts on Healthcare and Social Safety Nets

    The bill’s sweeping cuts to Medicaid are projected to remove nearly 12 million people from their health insurance coverage. Beyond individual impact, this has severe implications for healthcare infrastructure: an analysis by Families USA indicates 55 independent rural hospitals, already part of 380 at-risk facilities nationwide, face new and serious threats of closure. Similarly, researchers at Brown University’s School of Public Health estimate that nearly 600 nursing homes across the country are at high risk of shutting down due to these Medicaid reductions, potentially “throwing grandma out.”

    Further impacting vulnerable populations, the bill also proposes a $285 billion cut to food assistance programs for low-income individuals and children.

    Economic and Educational Consequences

    Economically, the legislation is expected to result in significant job losses. An analysis by George Washington University and the Commonwealth Fund projects approximately 477,000 healthcare workers could lose their jobs over the next decade due to Medicaid cuts.

    In the clean energy sector, the immediate elimination of federal tax credits for wind and solar energy projects is anticipated to halt billions of dollars in private investment, leading to hundreds of thousands of job losses, according to the League of Conservation Voters.

    Education access is also affected. The bill reportedly redesigns federal student loan programs, making it more challenging for low- and middle-income borrowers to qualify for and afford loans. New borrowers would primarily rely on a new “Repayment Assistance Program” (RAP), which could require 30 years of payments, in contrast to existing programs (like SAVE) offering debt relief in 10-25 years.

    Immigration Enforcement and Family Unity

    Regarding immigration enforcement, the bill allocates nearly $30 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This funding not only supports increased agents and upgraded facilities but also explicitly directs ICE to use resources for “promoting family unity by detaining alien parents with their children,” a provision that has drawn significant criticism for its approach to family separation and detention.

    Conclusion

    The legislative package, passed by the narrowest of margins, represents a significant policy shift. Democrats contend its primary effect is a substantial transfer of wealth to the nation’s wealthiest through tax breaks, financed by extensive cuts to critical social programs. This approach, they argue, has far-reaching negative consequences for healthcare access, educational affordability, job security, and the well-being of vulnerable populations, explaining the Republican limiting debate of the bill during the holiday weekend.

    Next call/email your congressperson and tell them not to support the bill when it returns to the congress here.

  • The Republican Budget Dilemma: Why Are They Hurting Their Own Voters?

    The current struggle among Senate Republicans this week to pass a budget proposal, which is unpopular, reveals a deep internal conflict, one that goes beyond typical political disagreements. According to some analysis, the core difficulty lies in a stark reality: a significant number of Republican lawmakers understand that the very people most likely to be negatively impacted by the proposed cuts are their own constituents – the Republican voters.

    Under discussion is a plan described by some as potentially adding a significant $2.8 trillion to the national debt by 2035. Yet, despite this substantial increase in borrowing, the plan reportedly includes deep cuts to vital social programs like Medicaid and Obamacare. These cuts are projected to be severe enough that an estimated 11.8 million people could lose their health insurance coverage. Beyond healthcare, millions more Americans would likely lose access to other essential services upon which they rely.

    Analysis indicates that these reductions would have a significant and disproportionate impact on residents of “red states,” which are integral to the Republican constituency. This consequence would predominantly affect Republican voters, a group that notably includes many individuals from the MAGA demographic.

    This situation presents a peculiar political paradox. If the proposed plan simultaneously increases the national debt by trillions and inflicts significant pain on the party’s own voters, why would Republicans push for it? Specifically, if they are already willing to go $2.8 trillion deeper into debt, why wouldn’t they allocate an additional amount – say, the $930 billion mentioned in one calculation – to mitigate the damage and protect their constituents’ healthcare and services? If debt is acceptable, why not use a fraction more to shield their base from harm?

    The answer, according to the perspective offered here, points towards a fundamental shift in the dynamics of the Republican Party. It suggests that the party’s actions and priorities are no longer driven purely by traditional calculations of representing constituent interests or adhering strictly to fiscal conservatism. Instead, this viewpoint posits that the party has transformed, now operating less as a conventional political organization and more as something resembling a “Trump’s cult.”

    From this perspective, the audacity to harm their own supporters while recklessly escalating the national debt transcends mere policy or political maneuvering; it reveals a troubling allegiance to a non-traditional agenda dictated by the party’s powerful figurehead, Trump. This profound analysis uncovers that the ongoing budget impasse is far more than a dispute over legislative minutiae; it is a glaring symptom of a party whose very identity and motivations have undergone a dramatic transformation and no longer represents the American public. .

    The polls:

    A Fox News poll found that 38% of registered voters support the “One Big Beautiful Bill” based on what they know about it, while 59% oppose it.

    The survey found that the legislation is unpopular across demographic, age and income groups. It is opposed 22%-73% by independents, and 43%-53% among white men without a college degree, the heart of Trump’s base.

    A Quinnipiac University poll found that 27% of registered voters support the bill, while 53% oppose it. Another 20% had no opinion. Among independents, 20% said they support it and 57% said they oppose it.

    A KFF poll found that 35% of adults have a favorable view when asked about the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” while 64% have an unfavorable view. Just 27% of independents said they hold a favorable view of it.

    A survey from Pew Research Center found that 29% of adults favor the bill, while 49% oppose it. (Another 21% said they weren’t sure.) Asked what impact it would have on the country, 54% said “a mostly negative effect,” 30% said “a mostly positive effect” and 12% said “not much of an effect.”

    A poll by The Washington Post and Ipsos found that 23% of adults support “the budget bill changing tax, spending and Medicaid policies,” while 42% oppose it. Another 34% had no opinion.