MMN Editor

Most of us have received a random text that makes us pause for a second. Maybe it promises a prize. Maybe it claims to be from a delivery company. Lately, another type of message is spreading quickly: the remote job scam.That is exactly what happened to Peter from New York. He wrote in after receiving a suspicious message about a high-paying YouTube job.Here is what he sent:”I received this text today, and I think it’s a scam. How can I tell for sure, and what do I do next?”Below is the message Peter received. At first glance, it looks like a job opportunity. However, when you break it down line by line, several warning signs appear. Let’s walk through them.Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.FAKE GOOGLE SECURITY PAGE CAN TURN YOUR BROWSER INTO A SPYING TOOLThe text comes from an unknown international phone number starting with +63, which is the country code for the Philippines. Legitimate companies rarely recruit through random text messages from unknown numbers. Real employers usually contact candidates through job platforms, email or professional networks like LinkedIn. When a job appears out of nowhere and promises high pay, it should immediately raise suspicion.The message claims:Those numbers are a major warning sign. Entry-level remote work, such as “boosting video views” or “YouTube optimization,” does not pay anywhere near that range. Scammers often use unusually high pay to trigger excitement and urgency. When money sounds too good to be true, it usually is.The text says “no experience required, free paid training provided.” Scammers often combine high income with zero qualifications. That combination is designed to attract as many people as possible.Real digital marketing jobs usually require:A company offering $10K per month with no requirements is not realistic.BE AWARE OF EXTORTION SCAM EMAILS CLAIMING YOUR DATA IS STOLENThe text claims the job is to “increase video exposure and view count.”That description is extremely vague. It does not explain:Scam job offers often stay vague so they can adapt the story later.The message says: “5 urgent openings available, first come first served.” This is a classic scam tactic. Urgency pushes people to respond quickly before they have time to research the offer. Real companies rarely hire qualified candidates on a first-come basis through text messages.The message tells recipients to reply “OK” and then send a numeric code. This step is often used to move the conversation to another messaging platform, such as Telegram or WhatsApp, where scammers continue the scheme. Once the conversation moves there, victims may be asked to:These scams are often called task scams, where victims complete simple online tasks and may even receive small payments at first before scammers demand larger deposits for payouts that never come. They have exploded worldwide over the past few years.The message never names a real company. It mentions a “manager” named Goldie but provides:Legitimate employers want applicants to know who they are. Scammers avoid details that can be verified.Many of these scams follow the same pattern. First, scammers promise easy money for simple tasks lsuch as liking videos or boosting views. At the beginning, they may even send a small payment to build trust. Then things change. Victims are asked to deposit money to unlock larger payouts or complete “premium tasks.” Once payments are sent, the scammers disappear. The Federal Trade Commission says Americans lost hundreds of millions of dollars to job scams in recent years, and text message recruitment scams are rising fast. Google warns about growing job scams and how to verify recruitersWe reached out to Google, and a spokesperson provided the following statement to CyberGuy:”Google is aware of these job scams happening across the industry and believes they’re growing around the world. We strongly encourage any candidate, or individual receiving them, to exercise caution and report it to the platform you received it on as a phishing attempt and/or spam. Our recruiting team focuses on contacting candidates in official capacities and are very clear about who we are, why we’re reaching out, and do so from legitimate emails or profiles on job sites. Jobseekers should verify anyone contacting them by email addresses, looking up the person online, such as on LinkedIn, and if something does seem suspicious, flag it to the outlet where it was received. Folks can also vet and report these scams to Google at support.google.com. Our Google careers page reflects all of our current job postings, so candidates should check offers against those. Generally speaking, Google also continues to offer a range of tools and insights that help people automatically spot and avoid scams like these whether they receive them via email, search results, text messages, etc.”FAKE GOOGLE GEMINI AI PUSHES ‘GOOGLE COIN’ CRYPTO SCAMIf you receive a message like Peter’s, here are some smart steps to take.Replying confirms your number is active. That can lead to more scam messages.Scam texts sometimes include links that lead to phishing pages designed to steal login credentials or financial information. Install strong antivirus software on your devices, which can help detect malicious links, block dangerous websites and warn you before you open something risky. Get my picks for the best 2026 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android & iOS devices at Cyberguy.com.Scammers often harvest phone numbers and personal details from data broker sites and public profiles. Using a data removal service to remove your information from these sites can make it harder for criminals to target you with job scams and other fraud. Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting Cyberguy.com.Search for the company name online. Look for an official website, verified social media or job listings.Legitimate employers never require deposits for training, equipment or task access.You can report scam texts directly from your phone.On iPhone:Open the message, tap the phone number at the top of the screen, scroll down and select Block Contact. You can also tap Report Spam under the message. If the option appears, then click Delete and Report Spam, which sends the report to Apple and deletes the message.On Samsung Galaxy phones:Steps may vary slightly depending on your Samsung model and software version.Open the Messages app and select the conversation. Tap the three-dot menu in the upper right corner, then tap Block and report spam, then confirm by tapping Yes. This blocks the number and helps Samsung identify and filter future scam messages.In the United States, you can report scams at reportfraud.ftc.gov. Reports help investigators track large scam networks.The safest move is simple. Peter should not reply to the message. Instead, he should block the number and report it as spam. If he has already responded, he should stop communicating immediately and avoid clicking any links or sending money. If he shared personal information such as his phone number, email address or financial details, it may also be wise to monitor his accounts closely and consider signing up for an identity theft protection service. The good news is that spotting the red flags early can prevent a much bigger problem later. See my tips and best picks on Best Identity Theft Protection at Cyberguy.com.Scammers constantly adapt their tactics. Today, it might be a fake delivery notice. Tomorrow, it might be a high-paying remote job. The message Peter received hits many of the classic warning signs: unrealistic pay, vague job duties, urgent language and a request to reply quickly. When a stranger promises easy money through a random text message, pause for a moment. That short pause can save you a lot of trouble.Now I am curious. If a text suddenly promised you $10,000 a month for simple online tasks, would you recognize the warning signs before replying? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter. Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Saudis have had enough of Iran’s strikes.
The Iranian strategy of firing its missiles against the Gulf countries because of their collaboration with the US-Israeli strikes threatens turning these neighboring states against the mullahs’ regime.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, the threats of military action from Riyadh have evolved into the expulsion of Iranian diplomats over the aggression against the Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia announced the expulsion of Iranian military attachés and embassy staff, declaring them persona non grata and ordering them to leave the Kingdom within 24 hours, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Saturday. https://t.co/vi2i1srTzH
— Saudi Gazette (@Saudi_Gazette) March 21, 2026

Gulf News reported:
“The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs renewed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s unequivocal condemnation of the blatant Iranian attacks against the Kingdom, the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and a number of Arab and Islamic countries.
[…] Reaffirming the ministry’s statement issued on 9th March 2026, […] the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has notified the military attaché of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Kingdom, the assistant military attaché, and three members of the mission staff to leave the Kingdom, and has declared them personae non gratae. They are required to depart the Kingdom within 24 hours.”
Iranian missile launch – Wiki Commons
The Saudi Press Agency (SPA) stated that the continued targeting by Iran ‘constitutes a flagrant violation of all relevant international conventions, the principles of good neighborliness and respect for states’ sovereignty, the Beijing Agreement, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2817’.
EFE reported:
“Saudi authorities warned that Tehran’s actions risk further escalation and could have lasting consequences for bilateral relations.
‘The kingdom will not hesitate to take all necessary measures to preserve its sovereignty, safeguard its security, and protect its territory, airspace, citizens, residents, and resources’, the Foreign Ministry said, citing Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which recognizes the right to self-defense.
Since the start of the conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran on February 28, Saudi Arabia, like other Gulf countries, has faced repeated missile and drone attacks, most of which have been intercepted by its air defense systems.”
Read more:
NEW: Saudi Arabia Threatens Military Action Against Iran (VIDEOS)

The post Saudi Arabia Expels Iranian Diplomats Over Aggression Against Kingdom appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Almost two years ago, I was down in New Orleans for my family’s annual Jazz Fest pilgrimage, surrounded by tens of thousands of other live music fans. Although we had been a number of times in the past, 2024 was a special year because The Rolling Stones were headlining the festival. Halfway through their set, the familiar opening bars to “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” belted out from the stage as we all joined Mick Jagger in singing along.
I was reminded of the Stones’ memorable anthem earlier this week when the news broke that antitrust lawyers at the Department of Justice and state attorneys general gave up on trying to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, settling for a quarter billion dollars in fines and some major concessions from the ticketing giant.
It all began the same year, 2024, when the Justice Department sought a dramatic breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster amid growing frustrations among music fans – especially after the chaos surrounding Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour.
After 18 months of investigation and a full year of discovery that continued into the Trump administration, DOJ lawyers found no evidence of classic monopoly conduct including price-fixing or exclusionary barriers. The case rested on a narrow definition of the marketplace that many legal experts questioned, overlooking the broader live-entertainment ecosystem where artists, secondary markets, and competitors like SeatGeek and StubHub operate.
With those factors in mind, the same lawyers concluded that a federal judge was unlikely to force the breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, akin to recent rulings in the case of Google and Meta. Settlement, which has been the rule rather than the exception in roughly 90% of antitrust cases over the last two decades during both Democratic and Republican administrations, was the pragmatic outcome.
Even if the case had succeeded, it’s unlikely it would have lowered ticket prices. Primary ticketing companies like Ticketmaster don’t set the prices – artists and their teams do, based on basic supply and demand in a post-pandemic boom for live events. Additionally, venues keep more than two-thirds of any service fees charged by ticketing companies to cover costs for operations, staffing, and security. As the DOJ lawyers found through the discovery process, high prices largely reflect extraordinary demand for top acts, not a ticketing conspiracy.
A handful of state attorneys general, many from blue states, are choosing to keep pressing for a breakup, but continuing to demand an outcome that courts are unlikely to support. This risks turning a serious policy debate into something closer to Mick Jagger-level stagecraft and risks diverting attention from issues that more directly affect consumers and the economy.
It’s time for common-sense Democrats – and anyone focused on delivering results – to recognize the realities of the live entertainment business. Artists set ticket prices, and Live Nation typically nets only about five cents on the dollar. The focus should be on policies that actually help fans and support a thriving live-music economy.
The settlement itself includes several pro-consumer reforms designed to increase flexibility and competition. Live Nation agreed to open its amphitheaters to all promoters, who will be able to distribute up to 50% of tickets as they see fit, while capping total service fees at 15%. Ticketmaster will offer both exclusive and non-exclusive contracts to major venues, preserving choice. Those are meaningful changes that expand access and competition in the marketplace.
At the end of the day, the case against Live Nation was never likely to solve the problem fans care about most: ticket prices driven by enormous demand for live entertainment. What it has done, however, is produce practical reforms that improve transparency and access.
Democrats – and policymakers across the spectrum – are at their best when we focus on real solutions for consumers and working people, not symbolic fights that deliver little relief. As proof of that theory, look at the recent gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, where both Democrats won by double digits campaigning on actual plans and policies to tackle the affordability crisis Americans are facing.
The Justice Department recognized the limits of the case and chose a pragmatic path forward – and they got that satisfaction the Stones sing about. State officials should take the same approach. Let the settlement stand and move forward. Fans, artists, and the entire live-music ecosystem will be better off for it.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Electricity demand is rising for the first time in decades as data centers are built, manufacturing is reshored, and electrification increases. As White House National Energy Dominance Council officials explained at the Electric Power Supply Association’s annual summit, President Donald Trump and his administration are leading efforts to keep electricity prices affordable.
Most recently, President Trump and seven of the country’s largest tech companies signed the Ratepayer Protection Pledge to ensure that data centers pay for their own electricity costs and protect Americans from electricity price increases due to data center demand. Despite the administration’s efforts, some electric utilities in the mid-Atlantic are threatening to undermine the core principle of the pledge and shift the risk of building new generation onto captive customers.
In the 1990s, electricity markets across the country turned to competition, allowing independent power producers to compete in a marketplace that rewards the cheapest and most efficient power plants.
Some utilities, like Exelon, want to re-establish monopoly systems where they own and operate the power plants that generate electricity, the long-distance transmission lines, and the local distribution infrastructure. Under this model, utilities would build generation with guaranteed returns and shift construction risk, cost overruns, and performance failures directly onto ratepayers. Unlike a monopoly system, competitive markets put the risk of investment on the power producers and their investors, not the end users.
If power demand is rising so quickly, why aren’t utilities already building?
Utilities in competitive markets can still build generation today, they just have to do it competitively and without guaranteed returns. Consider National Grid Ventures’ recent announcement in New York. Despite being a major electric utility provider, its competitive affiliate, National Grid Ventures, is pursuing generation projects through competitive channels, accepting market risk rather than demanding ratepayer guarantees. New York and Governor Kathy Hochul have also been tackling affordability concerns by holding utilities accountable. Last month, Hochul moved to block Con Edison’s proposed rate increase and directed regulators to audit utility salaries across the state. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro also acknowledged that utilities lack public accountability, and transparency while making billions of dollars through guaranteed returns.
Utilities’ own load forecasts show surging power demand, and their supporters argue that capacity markets are “loudly” signaling scarcity. If utilities are so confident in their own predictions, why are they not building generation already?
The answer is simple: utilities want the upside without the risk. They seek guaranteed cost recovery regardless of whether their projects succeed, whether costs spiral, or whether the forecasted demand materializes. Competitive power suppliers, by contrast, put their own capital on the line. If they build inefficiently or misjudge the market, investors—not ratepayers—absorb the losses, shielding customers from higher bills.
Utilities may also be exaggerating their own forecasts to increase profits. After Ohio introduced a new method of forecasting  data center demand, AEP Ohio’s “speculative data center queue” dropped from 30,000 MW to 5,642 MW of load when “substantial financial commitments” were required. Did 81% of projected demand evaporate overnight, or are utilities being less than diligent with their public projections? You be the judge.
Virginia is a clear counterexample
Exelon and other utilities have argued that returning to monopoly generation is needed to meet the growing demand, but that’s far from reality. If monopoly-owned generation was the clear answer to rising demand, one would expect that Virginia’s monopoly system has the power it needs to meet data center demand. Instead, Virginia is one of the top electricity importers in the country, relying heavily on power generated in states with competitive generation.
Ensuring that the grid remains reliable is essential, and one of the ways that this is done is through capacity costs where power plants are paid to ensure they can deliver when electricity is needed. Virginia ratepayers face some of the highest capacity costs in the mid-Atlantic. In 2025 and 2026, capacity prices in Dominion’s service territory was 64% higher than the rest of the mid-Atlantic’s grid operator, PJM. When PJM’s capacity prices were near record lows, Appalachian Power’s capacity costs were more than 1,000% higher than the rest of the mid-Atlantic’s.
If monopoly generation is so much better at meeting demand efficiently and affordably, why would a state like Virginia have to import nearly a third of its power while paying significantly higher capacity prices?
Competition protects customers
Competitive markets have consistently delivered lower costs, faster innovation, and greater accountability than monopoly utility generation. Market participants respond to price signals, invest their own capital, and compete to serve customers efficiently.
Policymakers should resist calls to turn back the clock. Competition, not monopolies, will help the Trump administration protect customers from the costs of new energy infrastructure.
Todd Snitchler is President and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA).
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Imagine a military commander preparing for battle, ready to deploy forces with the intelligence, personnel, and plans in place, only to be stopped not by enemy action, but by equipment. Otherwise mission-capable platforms sit idle because a single uncertified microelectronic component cannot be replaced or trusted.
That scenario is likely, not because of a sudden crisis or battlefield failure, but because the United States remains overwhelmingly dependent on foreign-produced foundational-node semiconductors that are embedded across nearly every defense platform.
Today, U.S. companies account for nearly half of the world’s chip sales, but U.S. semiconductor manufacturing represents only about 12 percent of global capacity. Most semiconductor production still occurs overseas, concentrated in East Asia, including Taiwan and China, which supply the same commercial components embedded across U.S. defense and critical infrastructure systems. This dependence exposes commanders and maintainers to delays, certification bottlenecks, and persistent supply uncertainty long before a crisis emerges. It also aligns Beijing’s deliberate effort to shape industrial capacity, supply chains, and technology ecosystems to build long-term military advantage. Foundational semiconductor manufacturing — particularly high-volume, foundational production — is central to that effort.
Foundational-node semiconductors — generally 28 nanometers and larger, including analog, mixed-signal, power, RF, MEMS, and other mature-process technologies — are not exotic or experimental. They are the building blocks embedded across virtually every modern defense and industrial system. Their importance lies not in cutting-edge speed, but in reliability, scale, and assured access.
President Trump’s recent proclamation on the Section 232 investigation into semiconductor imports is a welcome acknowledgment that microelectronics supply chains are inseparable from national security.
But a focus on advanced-node chip manufacturing alone risks leaving one of the most immediate readiness vulnerabilities unaddressed: America’s overwhelming dependence on Asia for foundational-node semiconductors.
Addressing this vulnerability will require more than trade remedies or incremental procurement tweaks. The U.S must use economic incentives and federal purchasing power to ensure domestic access to the foundational semiconductors that underpin military readiness.
The Administration has used this authority before. When steel imports were deemed a threat to national security, decisive action under Section 232 helped stabilize domestic production and preserve a critical industry that both the military and broader economy rely on. Foundational semiconductors now present a similar challenge. Like steel, they are defined not by cutting-edge performance but by scale, reliability, and assured access. But unlike steel, semiconductors are embedded deep within commercial supply chains, meaning trade action alone cannot guarantee secure access; rebuilding domestic capacity will be necessary. But it won’t be cost-neutral.
Mature-process manufacturing is often lower-margin and globally distributed, and domestic expansion will require capital investment, workforce development, and sustained demand signals. Some defense programs may face modest per-unit cost increases or requalification efforts during transition. But the cost of predictable investment today must be weighed against the far greater cost of delay, disruption, or unavailability during crisis.
Necessary but not sufficient
Actions under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 can play a necessary role by helping level the economic playing field so secure U.S. manufacturing can compete and scale. Decades of state subsidies, non-market practices, and cost distortions have pushed foundational-node manufacturing offshore. Without correcting those imbalances, domestic production will remain structurally disadvantaged.
But trade actions alone will not solve the problem. Tariffs or related measures are not an end in themselves, but they can help create a level economic playing field that allows secure U.S. manufacturing to compete and scale.
Why procurement must shape the commercial market
Modern defense systems rely heavily on commercial off-the-shelf components, which are sourced from the same global supply chains that serve consumer and industrial markets. As long as the broader commercial ecosystem remains anchored overseas, defense procurement preferences alone cannot ensure security of supply. This makes it necessary for procurement policy to influence where and how these components are produced.
Existing procurement preferences typically apply at the system level, allowing critical semiconductor components embedded deep within the supply chain to remain concentrated overseas even when a finished platform qualifies as American-made. That framework does little to mitigate geographic concentration risk. Closing this gap requires applying domestic sourcing principles to clearly defined semiconductor categories within national-security acquisitions.
To address this, the President should direct the Department of War and relevant civilian agencies to implement a thoughtfully phased requirement that foundational-node semiconductors used in defense mission systems and designated critical infrastructure be produced in the United States. Phasing matters: it allows time for investment, scaling, and qualification while protecting existing systems. Implementation should focus first on new-start programs and major upgrades, with waiver authority where domestic capacity is not yet sufficient. During transition, dual sourcing and targeted stockpiling can mitigate disruption and avoid creating new single points of failure. The objective is resilience, not rigidity. But the direction must be clear, mandatory, and enforceable. This would not impose a mandate across the entire commercial semiconductor ecosystem. Rather, it would condition federal procurement of designated defense and mission-critical systems on assured domestic sourcing for clearly defined semiconductor categories. Conditioning federal spending on national-security criteria is a long-standing and well-established authority.
Such a mandate would send a clear signal to industry, catalyze private investment, and ensure that once domestic capacity exists, it is consistently utilized. Combined with trade measures that address economic distortions, procurement reform would shift both commercial and defense supply chains toward trusted domestic production.
To be sure, any domestic sourcing requirement must be narrowly tailored and responsibly phased. Policymakers must operate within established national-security procurement authorities and applicable trade-law exceptions. Incentives, trusted-foundry certifications, and multinational cooperation all have important roles to play across the semiconductor ecosystem. But none of these tools alone guarantees that foundational-node production will scale domestically at the level and reliability required for mission-critical systems.
Importantly, this policy is not a retreat from allied coordination. Trusted partners remain essential. For designated defense applications, assured domestic capacity complements allied integration by reducing concentrated geographic risk and strengthening collective resilience. Secure domestic production for mission-critical systems can coexist with robust commercial trade and multinational supply-chain cooperation.
This is urgent and justified
The Pentagon’s assessment of China’s military and industrial strategy leaves little room for complacency. The vulnerabilities are documented. The consequences are foreseeable. And the ability to act already exist within executive authority.
The Department of War’s 2025 Annual Report to Congress makes clear that Beijing is pursuing a deliberate, whole-of-nation strategy to shape industrial capacity, supply chains, and technology ecosystems to secure long-term military advantage. Foundational semiconductor manufacturing—where scale, reliability, and control matter more than cutting-edge performance—sits squarely within that strategy.
At the same time, the tools to address this vulnerability already exist. The President does not need new legislation to close this gap. Within the existing acquisition framework, designated semiconductor categories can be treated as covered end products for national-security procurements, and defense regulations can be amended accordingly, while Defense Production Act authorities expand domestic capacity. This approach remains bounded to federal procurement and consistent with established law. The question is no longer whether action is justified, but whether it will be taken in time.

Ross Miller is Senior Vice President, Strategy at SkyWater Technology, where he leads enterprise and government strategy, strategic marketing, and mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships. Earlier in his career, Ross served as an active-duty U.S. Air Force officer in the Space and Missile Systems Center, where he was a program leader responsible for satellite payload integration, testing, and mission deployment.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s repeated claims in recent weeks promoting his state as more tax-friendly than Florida and Texas don’t add up, according to an expert who ran the numbers.”Texas and Florida are the REAL high-tax states,” Newsom recently posted on X, explaining onstage at SXSW in Austin, Texas that California has the most “progressive tax rates in America” while taking shots at the tax burden in Florida and Texas.”Your middle class pays more taxes in Texas than our middle class in California,” Newsom said in Texas. “It’s a great mythology, it’s just ‘the richest of the rich come here because they can avoid paying a damn penny.”The comments drew pushback from conservatives on social media, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and from Just Facts President James Agresti, who says he looked into a “number of different angles” to determine the “validity” of Newsom’s claims.FROM ‘JUMP ON A BUS’ TO TAX CRACKDOWNS: BLUE STATES CHASE WEALTHY RESIDENTS FLEEING TO RED HAVENS”I looked at how much is each state taxing each of its citizens on average? So if you look at California, they collect about $10,000 a year in taxes for every person in the state, whereas the figures for Texas and Florida are only about $5,000, or about half as much,” Agresti told Fox News Digital.”However, California is a higher-income state, so I also looked at it as a percentage of the states’ economies and what I found is that California taxes about 14% of its economy, as opposed to 9% for Texas and Florida.”Just Facts broke those taxes down in a recent study and found that California imposes some of the highest taxes in the nation, with a top personal income tax rate of 13.3%, while both Texas and Florida have no state income tax.Property taxes in California account for about 2.8% of personal income, slightly lower than Texas at 3.6% and close to Florida’s 2.6%, though measured as a share of home values, California’s rates are generally lower than both states, but in other tax areas, California is largely more burdensome.The state’s unemployment insurance tax rate matches Texas at 6.2%, but is higher than Florida’s 5.4%. California also has a higher statewide sales tax at 7.2%, compared to 6.2% in Texas and 6.0% in Florida. Drivers in California face significantly higher gas taxes as well, paying 70.9 cents per gallon, more than triple Texas’ 20 cents and well above Florida’s 40.3 cents.PROPOSED CALIFORNIA WEALTH TAX DRIVES BILLIONAIRE EXODUS TO FLORIDA REAL ESTATE, LOCALS CONFIRMA Wallethub 2025 analysis ranking U.S. states by overall tax burden showed California coming in at 4th overall, behind Vermont, New York and Hawaii. On a per-capita basis, California also collects significantly more in state and local taxes than either state, according to data from the Tax Foundation. At the heart of the issue is the data, Agresti says, making the case that Newsom is likely pulling from the Institute On Taxation & Economic Policy (ITEP) which Agresti said is widely used by mainstream news outlets and experts but is “fatally flawed” because “it does not account for all forms of income or all taxes.”Agresti has been speaking out against ITEP’s methodology for over a decade, explaining in a 2015 post that the group “uses a partial measure of income in virtually all of its studies” and is “based on calculations that exclude certain taxes.”CALIFORNIA BILLIONAIRES FLEE STATE’S WEALTH TAX IN THE MOST-PREDICTABLE RESULT EVERITEP’s analysis focuses on how tax burdens are distributed across income groups rather than overall tax levels. The group argues that states such as Texas and Florida look “low tax” largely because they do not levy a broad-based personal income tax, a structure that disproportionately benefits high earners.To make up the difference, those states rely more heavily on sales, excise and property taxes, which tend to take a larger share of income from lower-income households. California, by contrast, uses a highly progressive income tax system that places more of the burden on top earners and helps offset regressive taxes lower down the income ladder.Critics, however, say that framing captures only part of the picture because it focuses on tax burden by income group rather than overall tax climate, where California remains far more burdensome for top earners, investors and many businesses.”It’s information from this group and others like it, by the way, that have misled people to believe that middle-income folks in the United States pay a higher federal tax rate than upper-income folks,” Agresti said. “In fact, a survey done by Just Facts found that about 80% of America’s voters believe this fiction, even though the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Treasury, and the center-left Tax Policy Center all say that middle-income Americans pay an average effective federal tax rate of about 15% while upper income, or the top 1%, pay a rate of about 30%. And by the way, that includes all taxes and all income, all tax loopholes, it’s basically all taxes paid divided by all income earned or received.”Fox News Digital reached out to ITEP for comment.Agresti said Newsom is a “master of twisting statistics to paint a picture that is the exact inverse of reality” and pointed to the governor’s claim that the exodus of residents due to high taxes is a “myth.””Here’s the facts: According to his own Secretary of State, every year of Newsom’s governorship, more people have moved out of California into other states than have moved from other states into California,” Agresti, who has posted the data on his website, said. “In fact, over the time of his governorship, about 1.5 more million people have left California than moved in.””So how does Newsom get his claim, his evidence? Well, he looks at total population growth, which is dominated by immigrants moving in from other countries. The issue is not whether people would rather live in California than Mexico, but whether they would rather live in California than other states. And the data clearly show they do not.”Newsom has also been touting data showing California now has the fourth-largest economy in the world, just surpassing Japan’s, which Agresti also took issue with and described as “fiction” according to his examination of the numbers.”Here’s the fatal flaw in what he’s doing there,” Agresti said. “He is converting Japanese yen into U.S. dollars using a highly deceptive measure called foreign currency exchange rates. Scholars in this field warn explicitly: You are not to convert GDPs using exchange rates because it inflates the relative sizes of economies that have high prices, as California does. When you actually look at the proper way to transfer these exchange rates and account for them, Japan’s GDP is 56% larger than California’s.”Additionally, Agresti pointed to data that shows California has a greater rate of poverty than any other state in the nation, as well as electricity prices that are more than twice the national average.”When you look at California as a whole, it is one of the highest-tax states in the nation, and also there’s a lot of fallout from Newsom’s policies that make it one of the most expensive places to live in the entire United States,” Agresti said.Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom’s office for comment.Fox News Digital’s Bradford Betz contributed to this report 

Topline: Almost 80% of the City of Rocky Mount’s cash and investments are gone following the disastrous tenure of City Manager Keith Rogers, according to a North Carolina state audit released on March 9.
Rogers’ annual salary of $225,000 made him the highest-paid employee in Rocky Mount history at the time of his resignation, according to records obtained from the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer.
Key facts: Rogers took office in March 2023 and resigned in September 2024 with no official explanation.
His resignation settlement included a payment of $169,875, per the Rocky Mount Telegram. That included six months of salary and money to remain on call as a consultant for three months.
The new state audit found that Rogers was hired without the “basic due diligence typically used to prevent the employment of unqualified individuals,” and his previous work history should have raised red flags.
As town manager of Dumfries, Va., from 2019 to 2023, Rogers had already “demonstrated a pattern of making unqualified hires, approving questionable salary increases … and overseeing a $1 million budget overspend.” Rocky Mount never checked his references before hiring him, according to the audit.
The decision led to “severe financial distress.” In August 2023, Rocky Mount had $100 million in cash and investments. By August 2025, the city had spent $78.2 million and the balance was down to $21.8 million, the audit found.
Rogers increased city purchasing and debt service by 153% in a single year “without thorough financial feasibility analysis or oversight.” The city spent $17.2 million on land for a casino that was never built. They are now paying a consultant $10,000 per month to attract tenants for the land, according to the audit.
Rogers’ tenure also saw a sharp increase in compensation to city bureaucrats, Open the Books’ database shows.
Before Rogers led the city, from 2017 to 2022, the city payroll increased by an average of 2.3% per year. When Rogers was appointed in 2023, the payroll increased by 15%, driven by a 28% boost for employees listed as “administrative officials” or “government officials.” The fire department’s payroll increased by only 4%.
In 2024, Rocky Mount’s payroll increased by another 11%.
The overspending led to increased property taxes and utility bills and forced the city to lay off 10% of its workforce last year, according to the audit.
Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com.
Background: Somehow, Rogers already has a new government job. He was appointed county administrator of Charles City County, Va., in June 2025. His new salary has not been disclosed, but his predecessor made $153,490 in 2024.
Summary: As is often the case, everyday taxpayers in Rocky Mount will be the ones paying the price for their government’s poor decisions.
The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com
This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

 
Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif.
A former Chief of Staff to Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom continued receiving taxpayer-funded payouts despite being on leave for an ongoing investigation into alleged corruption.
Dana Williamson, who served as the governor’s chief of staff from 2023 to 2024, received a total payout of over $62,000 in 2025, including $30,000 for unused vacation time she used to remain on payroll and an additional $22,000 for remaining time off, according to the L.A. Times. The payments to Williamson were made under a California policy that allows employees to cash out unused vacation time when leaving their job.
Williamson was placed on leave in December 2024 and was indicted by the U.S. Attorney’s office in November 2025 on 23 federal counts related to fraud, conspiracy, and tax crimes after allegedly conspiring to divert approximately $225,000 in campaign funds between 2022 and 2024, according to the Eastern District of California. Investigators were able to record a high-level meeting with Williamson and two co-conspirators that took place in 2024, the Associated Press reported.
California has a fund that pays out unused vacation time, which remains unfunded and owes workers $5.6 billion, according to the Times. This is all amid the estimated $17.7 billion budget shortfall, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
A spokesperson from Newsom’s office defended the payment in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation, adding, “unlike Donald Trump, we don’t pick and choose which laws to follow.”
The Republican Party of California did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Federal prosecutors also charged Democratic California lobbyist Greg Campbell and Democratic California Deputy Attorney General Sean McCluskie with Conspiracy to Commit Bank and Wire Fraud under the same indictment. Campbell also faced a count of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Campbell and McCluskie pleaded guilty to the charges shortly after the indictment was unsealed.
Williamson is also accused of falsifying COVID Paycheck Protection Program loans and filing fraudulent tax forms claiming more than $1 million in business deductions and using them on personal purchases and vacations, according to AP. Newsom has not been accused of wrongdoing in any of the complaints or indictments.
The former chief of staff has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting her next court date, which is expected in April.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org