“David J. Rush, 49, of Ashburn, Virginia,” the US Department of Justice informs us, “pleaded guilty today [October 6] to executing a scheme to defraud the federal government relating to the misuse of his government position, resulting in a loss of approximately $194 million.”

Rush faces a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, in addition to three years of “supervised release, forfeiture, restitution, and a fine.”

I’m glad to see that restitution may be part of the sentence. Sure, it only maximally amounts to about $1.75 for each American, and we’re unlikely to see the maximum, but it’s the thought that counts, right?

Oh, wait … apparently the “restitution” isn’t to the Americans the money came from, but rather to the crime ring which stole it from us before Rush got his double-crossing hands on it.

Make no mistake, Rush is small potatoes.

Because I’m lazy, I asked Google’s Gemini “how long does it take the federal government to spend $194 million?”

The answer: “[R]oughly 14.6 minutes (about 874 seconds) … based on recent annual federal spending of approximately $7 trillion” (I checked the spending number and the math — not an AI hallucination).

I guess it’s the principle of the thing. If the feds let even one of their hirelings get away with stealing from the gang itself, even  just a measly 14.6 minutes’ worth of the annual loot, more of those hirelings might decide they’d like a taste too, and next thing you know the gang’s leaders migh have to give up the thug life and get real jobs serving caffeinated beverages or pumping out septic tanks. Can’t have that!

But it’s also the principle of the thing  working from the other direction: If it’s not theft for the feds to steal the money from you, how is it theft for Rush to steal the money from them?

And Rush’s form of theft was arguably less violent than his bosses’ preferred way of doing things.

All Rush did was “create fictitious government authorities … to obtain US government funds for his own benefit.”

He didn’t point his gun at anyone else’s head and tell them to cough up or go to jail like the IRS branch of the fed gang does.

He didn’t take out huge loans and fraudulently list other people as the guarantors out of whose hides the principal and interest would be taken like the Congress chapter of the fed gang does.

He just created fake paperwork and raked off 14.6 minutes’ worth of already stolen money.

And he probably didn’t spend any of it on missiles to murder Iranian schoolgirls with. Heck, whatever part of it he didn’t sock away for later likely went into the productive economy for luxury vacations, cool sportscars, erotic massages, etc.

Maybe that’s not commendable as such, but it beats the money getting spent on concentration camps for immigrants, SWAT teams to take out recreational pharmaceuticals dealers, etc.

And now the federal gang will steal another million bucks or so from the rest of us to keep Rush in a cage for 20 years, instead of just handling the problem the way smaller, more efficient crime rings do (cement shoes don’t cost nearly as much, even if there’s a missing persons report filed).

I’ve heard the current administration described as “the Sopranos, DC chapter.” If only. It’s the mafia version of “too big to fail.” Its protection rackets and heist schemes are poorly planned and inefficiently executed, and when one of its rogues goes rogue it puts on a show trial instead of ordering a hit.

“This thing of theirs” makes The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight look like a well-oiled crime machine.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“A vote for the Libertarian,” Madison Cercy tells the Washington Times, “or a protest vote from any Republican who sits this one out, is a vote to hand the U.S. Senate to the democratic socialists.”

Cercy, a spokeswoman for Ken Paxton’s US Senate campaign in Texas, is responding to a Rasmussen poll that shows Paxton trailing Democratic candidate James Talarico by 1%, with 5% of likely voters undecided … and 4% planning to support Libertarian Ted Brown.

It’s not just Texas. In Kansas’s Senate race, Libertarian David Graham also draws 4% in polling, with incumbent Republican Roger Marshall trailing Democrat Adam Hamilton by 2%. In Montana’s 1st US House district, Libertarian Nick Sheedy enjoys 5% support, with Republican Aaron Flint enjoying a razor-thin 1% lead over Democrat Sam Forstag.

In every election cycle, Republicans and Democrats start playing the “spoiler” card whenever a race looks uncomfortably close.

Usually it’s Republicans griping about Libertarians and Democrats grousing about Green Party candidates, on the supposition that those two “minor” parties’ voters would, in the “normal” course of things, vote Republican and Democrat respectively.

That supposition is probably incorrect — many third party voters simply won’t vote if they don’t see options they prefer on their ballots, and others might vote opposite the assumptions of the big players’ strategists.

The incorrectness doesn’t bug me nearly as much as the arrogance.

For more than a century, the Republican and Democratic parties have used ballot access laws and debate exclusion criteria to rig elections, making it as difficult and expensive as possible for “third party” and independent candidates to even appear on ballots.

Then when Republicans and Democrats lose, or look like they may lose, the whining begins.

“Why, the nerve! How dare anyone but us seek political office? Those other guys can’t win — we’ve busted our butts to make sure of that! But here they come, ‘stealing’ our votes and ‘spoiling’ the rightful outcomes! There oughta be a law! Oh, wait, there is … why isn’t it working?”

Note to political candidates:

Votes don’t belong to you, and aren’t “stolen” by other candidates.

Votes belong to voters and have to be earned — in those voters’ judgment — by you or by those other candidates.

Additional note to the Texas GOP:

You nominated a guy who was impeached on 20 counts by a legislature controlled by your own party. Those counts included abuse of office and accepting bribes. You nominated a guy who plea-bargained his way out of a felony indictment for securities fraud. You nominated a guy who committed voter fraud at least twice by voting “from”  an address he didn’t live at.

Stop blaming the Libertarian for your nominee’s deservedly poor standing with the voters. James Talarico may not deserve to win the race, but Ken Paxton definitely deserves to lose it. Texas could, and  unfortunately almost certainly will, do a lot worse than Ted Brown. If he saves you from six years of Paxton, he deserves a medal.

Stop whining about “spoilers” already and start trying to earn support instead of just demanding it.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

I suspect nearly everyone reading this column will agree that ovarian cancer is a terrible thing, and that preventing ovarian cancer, or predicting it and catching it early to enhance a woman’s chance of surviving it, is a good thing.

I open with those stipulations, burying the lede just a little bit, to preempt the obvious arguments against my position on this report from The Hill:

“A group of lawmakers spanning both parties and chambers is introducing legislation that would require insurance plans to cover genetic testing for patients with hereditary risk factors and expand education and outreach about gynecologic cancer risk. Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Katie Britt (R-Ala.) are leading the bill, the Ovarian Cancer IMPACT Act …”

Genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk sounds like a great idea.

And genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk (and other cancer risks) costs money — typically $250 to $500, sometimes less if fewer gene markers are screened for, sometimes much more if the tests are more comprehensive.

Before considering who should bear those costs and why, I should probably take a moment to  discuss the exact role the US Constitution assigns to Congress when it comes to the provision and delivery of healthcare:

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

It’s simply not Congress’s business to decide what kind of testing or treatment your insurer or other healthcare provider may, or even must, offer.

Not that Congress pays attention to the Constitution when paying attention to the Constitution seems inconvenient. They just wave their hands, quack about “interstate commerce,” and mandate whatever they want to mandate about your healthcare options — even if you, your insurer, your healthcare provider, and the testing company are all located in the same state.

So, what happens when every insurance company gets told that, by law, it must pay for this or that kind of genetic screening?

In four words, everyone’s healthcare costs go up. Not just the healthcare costs of  women who are, or may be, at risk for ovarian cancer. Everyone’s.

Why? Because patients at such risk can’t be magically identified in advance and charged for those testing costs.

The costs can’t even be limited to the half of the population that MIGHT have to worry about ovarian cancer, because many healthcare policies are “family” policies provided through employers, and the single male who gets insured today may add a female partner or daughter to the policy tomorrow.

So, all of us get to pay for testing we may or may not ever want or need.

In a free and open healthcare market, many insurers might cover these tests as part of their normal policies, or offer them as cheap add-on options to those most likely to want them. After all, testing for ovarian cancer is much cheaper than treating ovarian cancer.

However, we live in the opposite of a free and open healthcare market.

Decisions about what testing, prevention, and treatment options get covered are made by politicians and bureaucrats, usually with the “assistance” of industry lobbyists who know which testing, prevention, and treatment options best serve their employers’ bottom lines.

The Ovarian Cancer IMPACT Act is almost certainly less about women’s health than about who enjoys a payday at others’ expense.

Like speech, press, and religion, we’d be better off with complete  separation of medicine and state.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY