Politics
Republican governors tried to slash state budgets. They have advice for Elon Musk.
Before Elon Musk and his chainsaw, there was Mitch Daniels “the Blade.”
The former Indiana governor and Office of Management and Budget director under President George W. Bush, Daniels established a reputation in the early 2000s as a knife to government. As governor, he shrunk the size of his state’s workforce by 18 percent and turned a $700 million deficit into a $2 billion surplus.
Daniels even doled out refund checks to Hoosier taxpayers on the backs of the cuts.
Now, he and a crop of like-minded former GOP governors are looking at Musk and President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency with a bit of nostalgia, uncertainty and — in Daniels’ case — caution.
“I certainly would have cautioned against throwing out a number that’s just preposterous,” Daniels told Blue Light News of the $2 trillion Musk has set as a benchmark for DOGE savings. “There’s a real value in an effort like this because they illuminate the fact that the government does a lot of very silly or unnecessary or even counterproductive things, but I would have urged that they go achieve some real success first and then talk. Talk less, do more.”
It’s not just Daniels. Former governors of Illinois and New Jersey attempted similar, albeit less aggressive, moves to cut government, sometimes stymied by the same bureaucracy they tried to eliminate.
The Trump administration has suggested it’s not doing anything new, invoking President Bill Clinton’s “Reinventing Government” initiative headed by Vice President Al Gore as an example. Musk even gave a hat tip to the Clinton White House, recently posting “What @DOGE is doing is similar to Clinton/Gore Dem policies of the 1990s.”
Who can forget the time Gore promoted the effort on David Letterman’s late-night TV show by taking a hammer to a government ashtray.
In interviews, the former GOP governors outlined successes and pitfalls of their respective approaches. Former Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner said it was “very, very, very tough to shrink” the government in his state, while former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie acknowledged making some cuts to human services he quickly regretted — forcing him to backpedal.
“I did a bunch of line-item vetoing and by definition that’s done more quickly because a bunch comes, and you have a certain period of time to do it. There were cuts to human services that wound up affecting kids in ways that I didn’t anticipate they would, and so I went back and changed it,” recalled Christie, a longtime Trump critic and former presidential candidate. “I took some abuse for it when it happened and I deserved it. I made a mistake, so I think when that happens, you just have to go ‘OK. I made the mistake, now fix it.’ It’s not like the mistakes are never going to be made.”
Daniels once even put pennies on the tires of state-owned vehicles to see if they were used. When he came back a month later and the pennies were still there, Daniels himself served as auctioneer and sold the fleet of 1,000 of them. He even cut the state’s force of planes and helicopters from 22 to 6.
But none of those efforts were anywhere near as chaotic as Musk’s DOGE, which has come with multiple instances of employees being fired and then re-hired, most notably nuclear weapons program workers and workers responding to the spread of bird flu.
“Personnel costs are such a small part of the money federal government spends and wastes,” Daniels said. “I think they don’t want to over emphasize that, because it hands the friends of the status quo a club: You know, you’re hurting these innocent people.”
Daniels, like Trump, had a Republican legislature to back him up. Rauner and Christie weren’t so lucky, facing resistance to their efforts to reduce government from Democratic-led state legislatures. And then there are outside pressures, similar to the legal challenges facing Trump.
“There are all kinds of restrictions and union rules and regulatory rules for what you can do as an executive versus what needs legislative or other approvals, including union approvals and employee approvals,” Rauner said in an interview.
Rauner was a Daniels acolyte who “studied what he did” and even tried to poach some of the Indiana governor’s staff. One top lieutenant made the move. But if Rauner’s Turnaround Agenda was designed to overhaul state government, his proposals left him butting heads with the Democratic-led Illinois General Assembly, and resulted in a more than two-year budget impasse that saw social service programs drastically cut or eliminated.
He said Republicans believe the Trump administration “deserves credit for trying [to reduce government] because nobody else, literally nobody, has been willing to do it at the federal level in anything like this scale and speed.”
And he compared Trump’s sledge-hammer approach to how the corporate world operates — “move fast and break things that are broken. And most Republicans regard the federal bureaucracy as broken. So I think they’re trying to do what a lot of people would support.”
That’s except for one thing. Rauner acknowledged he wouldn’t cut education. “It’s the most important thing we do collectively as a community and as a society,” he said.
Like Rauner and Daniels, Christie, a former two-term governor of New Jersey, has been watching closely at how Trump’s team is trying to recreate government.
Christie argued a lack of transparency is the biggest problem with the current reinvention of government.
He pointed to the recent flub in which DOGE “accidentally canceled” efforts by the U.S. Agency for International Development to prevent the spread of Ebola. Musk said the initiative was restored, but those kinds of mistakes don’t sit well with the public.
“That’s why I think you should be going through a process where people know what you’re doing and that you’re doing it in a transparent way by examining it before you cut it,” said Christie. “Here, I think it’s the opposite process.”
Daniels, perhaps more than any national figure, has long argued that the U.S. faces a debt timebomb — a thread he referred to in a 2011 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference as the “new red menace.” (The speech received raucous applause: “times change!” he said.)
In the same speech, notably, Daniels trotted out the idea of a taxpayer refund — setting aside money for taxpayers “beyond a specified level of state reserves.” Today, he argued that a DOGE tax credit would be a “giveaway as crass as what Biden tried to do with student loans.” Daniels later signed into law the taxpayer refund, and taxpayers have benefited from it at least three times.
Back then, Daniels also argued for presidential impoundment authority, the ability to not spend money appropriated by Congress, an idea on which Trump also campaigned.
“Nothing radical about it,” Daniels said now.
Daniels isn’t opposed to Musk’s project. But he said it’s his native OMB that has the real “authority” to cut more deeply into the bone.
“I want to see them build the case for restraint by doing some things that are effective,” Daniels said. “The sky won’t fall. I’ve always said you’d be amazed how much government you’d never miss.”
But the cuts he thinks Trump and Musk can achieve are incremental, Daniels said — doubtful Trump and Musk will find the kind of cuts they’re looking for.
“This president has taken off the table the only way you’d ever get close to such a number, and that’s entitlement reforms,” he said. “If they won’t touch Medicaid, then they don’t have a chance of doing much that’s real.”
Politics
Exclusive: Spanish soccer boss pushes for 2030 World Cup final as pressure grows from Morocco
ATLANTA — Spain’s soccer chief told Blue Light News he is confident that either Madrid or Barcelona will host the World Cup final in 2030, as Morocco joins the race to stage the biggest sporting event in the world.
On a sun-baked afternoon in Atlanta outside La Casa de España, Rafael Louzán — who has been in charge of the Royal Spanish Football Federation since late 2024 — said that Spain has a storied history of hosting major events and would do so again when the World Cup returns to the Iberian peninsula for the first time since 1982.
Spain and Portugal will jointly host the 2030 World Cup with Morocco, and some matches will be played in South America to celebrate the centenary edition of the tournament. The first World Cup took place in Uruguay in 1930.
“We have a deep respect for our co-host nations, and not only Morocco, also Portugal and also Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. But Spain is the nation who leads the World Cup,” Louzán said.
“We are really confident because we have 55 percent of all matches organized for the World Cup and we have 11 cities. Morocco has six and Portugal has two or three. We have plenty of confidence that we can organize the final in Madrid or Barcelona. We have two great stadiums and we know that the world of football doesn’t hesitate about who’s going to organize the World Cup final,” he added.
“We have one of the greatest leagues in the world. We are one of [the] top nations in terms of championships, not only in the national team, but also in the clubs. So, we are confident,” said Louzán, speaking after being mobbed for pictures by ecstatic Spanish supporters.
A senior Moroccan soccer official confirmed to Blue Light News in Boston that his federation was keen to host the 2030 final, and that the country had the infrastructure to do so. Morocco has spent billions of dollars on new arenas, highlighted by the Hassan II Stadium that is under construction near Casablanca and designed to hold 115,000 spectators.
Soccer officials expect a decision on the showpiece match from FIFA within the next few months and a political lobbying battle to intensify ahead of the governing body’s verdict.
“Spain has a great capacity to host major events, not only sporting events. We recently hosted the pope’s visit, [and the 2022] NATO congress in Spain,” Louzán said. “I think that Spain has achieved a great capacity for organizing major events and we are confident that we can organize the best World Cup ever in Spain.”
Louzán sat next to FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Sunday, as Spain thrashed Saudi Arabia in Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz stadium. He told Blue Light News that he didn’t discuss 2030 with the global soccer chief, just the success — so far — of the 2026 edition.
“We’re having a great time here in the U.S. and Mexico,” Louzán said. “I spoke with Gianni Infantino and congratulated him for the organization of this World Cup. We are really thankful for the hospitality here in Atlanta and in Chattanooga, which is our base camp.”
Politics
Poll: Americans draw a new line in the betting bonanza sweeping over Wall Street — politics.
Americans have shown little hesitancy about betting on the World Cup, the weather in Dallas and the next James Bond through the prediction markets.
Yet, for many, politics is a step too far.
Results from The POLITICO Poll show that a large group of U.S. adults doesn’t believe wagering on political events like what President Donald Trump will say, who he will pardon, and the outcome of the 2028 presidential election should be legal.
The prediction markets are still new to much of the public, even after their meteoric rise in mainstream media, finance and politics. But as Kalshi, Polymarket and other such companies have opened the door to a world of betting on just about everything and anything, the poll’s results suggest a disquiet among many Americans about the flood of wagers — and especially when they relate to Washington.
Conducted by Public First, an independent U.K.-based polling firm, the survey found that a plurality of U.S. adults — 44 percent — said they believe that betting on election outcomes should be illegal. A similar share of respondents voiced concern about betting on what the president or other newsmakers will say, as well as who will receive a presidential pardon.
“These markets are not for everybody,” said John Aristotle Phillips, who leads the election-centric prediction market platform PredictIt. “People are going to object to certain areas, and they’re going to be somewhat sanguine about others.”
Prediction market proponents have argued that politically focused bets serve as a valuable source of information by offering a wisdom-of-the-crowds lens on the news of the day. The markets, they say, can also help consumers, corporations and small businesses offset the financial risk of a change in administration or the law.
And yet, the results could provide new fodder for those critics who fear that the wagering of millions of dollars on U.S. elections risks staining American democracy. Nearly $700 million has already traded hands on the 2028 presidential election markets from Kalshi and Polymarket’s international platform.
“It’s a bad bet for democracy,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, told Blue Light News. “If you allow election betting, you now have very affluent folks who can bet millions of dollars and simultaneously affect the outcome of an election through dark money. … That type of corruption in our elections is deadly.”
Kalshi declined to comment for this report. In a statement, Polymarket Deputy Chief Legal Officer Olivia Chalos said prediction markets “have become a foundational source of real-time information and forecasting, providing real-time probability signals across politics, sports, culture, economics, and current events to anyone seeking market information about future outcomes.” Chalos added that the company operates a U.S.-regulated venue that is subject to the same rules as other major financial exchanges.
The prediction markets are nothing new in the U.S. But for years, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a small but powerful financial regulator, blocked them from expanding in areas like elections over concerns about unleashing a torrent of betting in the U.S. financial markets.
And then, just weeks before Election Day 2024, a federal judge knocked down the CFTC’s arguments opposing a bid by Kalshi to offer the chance to wager thousands if not millions of dollars on the election. That opened the floodgates on regulated political betting in the U.S. — and the frenzy has only intensified since.
Day traders, political junkies and Wall Street giants are now taking to the prediction markets to wager on a seemingly ever-expanding slate of bets that covers sports, politics and pop culture. Kalshi and Polymarket have partnership agreements with the likes of BLN, The Wall Street Journal’s publisher and Major League Baseball, and boast valuations measured in the tens of billions of dollars. And the CFTC has adopted a far-friendlier posture to the industry’s growth under Trump and its new chair, Michael Selig.
The prediction markets still have a long way to go in winning over most Americans. More than 50 percent of Americans said they would not consider placing a bet on a prediction market, according to The Blue Light News Poll.
Younger Americans, however, do find the markets to be of interest. Of those who were between 18 and 24 years old, 12 percent of respondents said they had placed a prediction-market wager —an identical finding for those who were between 25 and 34 years old. By comparison, just 6 percent of the broader group said they had done so. What’s more, 30 percent of those 18- to 24-year-olds said they’d consider placing a bet on a prediction market, compared to 17 percent of the total group.
Sports account for most of the trading activity on prediction markets today — and a major part of the fight swirling around them. States across the country, tribal organizations and entrenched interests in the gambling industry have argued that the companies are skirting existing sports-betting regulations, a charge that the prediction markets and the CFTC have firmly rejected. (The Blue Light News Poll found that, when asked who should regulate the prediction markets, 28 percent of respondents said the federal government, versus 15 percent who said the states.)
But the markets have also swiftly expanded their political wagers, which now go well beyond the outcome of a presidential election and include down-ballot races, the fate of Cabinet secretaries and the passage of legislation. And those markets could become major drivers of the prediction market industry’s long-term growth, analysts at Bloomberg Intelligence wrote in a report this month.
The analysts called markets on politics, elections and public policy “the greatest opportunity” for Kalshi and Polymarket, estimating that those products could grow to see $266 billion in trading volume by 2030. That would represent 27 percent of the platforms’ volume, compared to 10 percent in early 2025, according to the report.
For Caleb Davies, a long-time prediction market trader who lives in Minnesota, political markets are critical. Polls, analyses and pundits, of course, offer some insight into what will happen in an election or with a pending bill, but Davies said, “it’s not the same as getting a whole bunch of smart people betting money.” He added that wagering on the passage of a major bill with sweeping economic implications, such as the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, can be critical as well.
“It’s a unique product,” he said.
Some offshore markets like Polymarket’s international platform even offer trading tied to the Iran war, though the CFTC outlaws U.S.-regulated prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket’s U.S. venue from such topics. A majority of those surveyed said that wagers on the outcomes of war and on terrorist acts should be illegal.
The poll was conducted just weeks after the Justice Department and CFTC charged a U.S. soldier with allegedly using confidential information to trade on the capture of then-Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro through Polymarket, a landmark case that has fanned concerns on Capitol Hill about insider trading in the prediction markets.
That war and terrorism bets would be unpopular was no surprise to PredictIt’s Phillips. But politics more generally, he said, does have a place in the prediction market landscape. And for Phillips, it’s not just about the traders — it’s also about the newsrooms, campaign strategists and broader public who are turning to the markets for clues as to the president’s agenda, whether a bill is going to pass and, of course, who is going to win an election.
“We’re in the early innings,” he said. “There are going to be hundreds or thousands of prediction markets around the globe — some of them are going to be very, very specific to a particular industry or human activity and others are going to be much broader. And there is a place for political prediction markets.”
LOS ANGELES — The political tensions surrounding Iran’s national soccer team were on full display Sunday at SoFi Stadium, where Iranian American fans loudly booed during the playing of Iran’s national anthem before the team’s World Cup match against Belgium.
Among the crowd were several supporters displaying Iran’s pre-revolution Lion and Sun flag, a symbol associated with opposition to the current regime. FIFA prohibits the flag inside tournament venues, but some fans carried it anyway — and at least one supporter waved it during the anthem in an act of defiance.
Conversations with Iranian American fans at the stadium in Inglewood revealed a consistent message: Their protests were directed at Iran’s government, not at the players representing the country on the field. An Iranian American man from Seattle who gave his name as Majid said that he appreciated the opportunity to “confront the tyrannies that are happening.”
“Iran is hostage for the past 47 years or so to a regime that is promoting terrorism and chaos in the region,” he said. “For the team, we support them. But the anthem, the flag — we don’t support it.”
That distinction was evident throughout the match, which ended in a scoreless draw. While the anthem drew intense jeers, Iranian players received loud cheers on corner kicks and takeaways.
The game, held amid U.S.-Iran talks to end the monthslong war between the two countries, was the second of two matches Iran played in Los Angeles, home to the largest Iranian community outside of Iran. Both ended in draws.
- Turek leads Hinson in Iowa Senate poll of likely general election voters
- Capitol agenda: House GOP races to make Recon 3.0 real
- A rising populist tide is threatening New York’s powerful incumbents
- Poll: Americans draw a new line in the betting bonanza sweeping over Wall Street — politics.
- Exclusive: Spanish soccer boss pushes for 2030 World Cup final as pressure grows from Morocco
- Support for Iran’s team – but not for regime
- ‘Don’t count on me to say bad words’
- Tom Cotton, the Senate’s foremost Iran hawk, is in a Trump-induced jam
- Anti-deepfake bill advances to Senate floor
- Capitol agenda: GOP gets louder as Trump gets pushier
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words