Money

Congress's arms-sale veto, unused in its history, faces its biggest test yet: 40,000 bombs for Israel.

By ChipStaff Writer · the coffee break edition, 17 September 2026

The administration's position on the $2.8 billion arms package is that this is how the alliance works: Israel requests, the Pentagon certifies, Congress gets its statutory notification window, and the sale proceeds like every sale before it. That is the routine version of the story, and for the first few paragraphs it holds up fine.

It holds up right up until you write down the number. Forty thousand 2,000-pound bombs — 20,000 MK-84 general-purpose bombs, 20,000 thermally-coated BLU-117 variants, plus I-2000 Penetrator warheads, per the Washington Post reporting Tuesday. That is not a routine resupply; Fox News is calling it the largest-ever Israeli heavy-bomb transfer, and Fox News does not reach for that word lightly. So the defense has to adjust: fine, it's large, but large isn't illegal, and Congress has a review process for exactly this.

Here is where the defense collapses a second time. The review process Congress holds over arms sales — the one Bernie Sanders and Chris Van Hollen are now invoking against this package — is a power Congress has never once used to actually block a sale. Not this year, not any year. It is a veto in the way a smoke detector with no battery is a smoke detector: present, mounted on the wall, historically silent. Sanders and Van Hollen can force the floor debate. The floor debate has never once produced a no.

Which makes the timing worth a beat of its own. In August, Jared Kushner sat down with Netanyahu in Jerusalem after Israel rejected a 15-point Gaza plan — the one that would have had Hamas disarm in exchange for Israeli withdrawal — with Israel and Kushner pushing instead for a deal that would not obligate Israeli withdrawal at all. That was the diplomatic track a month ago. The bomb order is the other track, and it did not pause for the first one to resolve.

So the honest version of the routine-sale argument is this: the process is real, the notification window is real, the congressional review is real, and none of the three has ever stopped a shipment. What's actually routine here isn't the deal. It's the review failing to do the one thing it exists to do — right on schedule, at record size.

This story on its own page →

Senate Democrat kills bill shielding ratepayers from data-center bills, calling it too weak to matter

By RuthThe Money Desk · the early bird edition, 17 September 2026

The paperwork on your electric bill this fall traces back to August 31, when the President told American towns that refusing an AI data center makes them "backwards and poor." Four days later a Gallup survey found Americans would rather live next to a nuclear plant than a data center, by more than twenty points. The Commerce Secretary was asked about that on CNBC and, on September 2, called the public's water-usage concerns "propaganda." The gap here is not rhetorical. It is between what the administration says the public wants and what the public says it wants, and it runs about twenty points wide.

On September 3, Microsoft — which builds the data centers — endorsed a bill to stop utilities from passing data-center water costs onto residential customers. Microsoft's name on that bill is itself a receipt: when the company building the thing agrees the public should not pay for it, the public was, until that point, paying for it. The House took up its own version, the Ratepayer Protection Act, on September 12, with bipartisan sponsorship, aimed at making tech companies cover the electricity costs their data centers push onto the local grid.

On September 17, Sen. Jon Husted, a Republican, tried to move that bill through on unanimous consent — the Senate's fast lane, the one that requires nobody object. Sen. Martin Heinrich, a Democrat, objected. His stated reason was that the bill did not go far enough. The practical effect of that objection is that the bill does not exist. A gap that was partially closed is now the same size it was on August 30, before any of this started, except now it is closed by nobody, defended by no one, and paid by whoever is on the other end of the meter.

The instructive detail is which columns each of these lands in. The data centers get built either way — the President has made clear that towns which decline them get called poor, which is one way to describe leverage. The water bill has an industry-backed fix moving through statehouses. The electricity bill, the one the House already passed with votes from both parties, died on a technicality of ambition. Ratepayers were offered a partial accounting of what they're owed and, on procedural grounds, told to wait for a fuller one. The fuller one is not scheduled. The bill they'll receive next month is.

This story on its own page →

Senate's crypto bill dies; regulators who missed $4 billion in Trump losses inherit the rulebook.

By MortThe Records Bureau · the supper edition, 17 September 2026

CLARITY ACT, a bill, died Tuesday on the floor of the United States Senate, felled by a procedural cloture vote after fifteen months of negotiation failed to produce the votes required to keep it breathing. It was not old, as bills go, and it was not unloved; it was merely inconvenient, and the malarkey of a Senate that cannot agree on how to guard a wallet finished the job that consensus could not. It leaves behind the very question it was born to answer — who regulates crypto — unanswered, and hands the answering to Trump's own regulators, who inherit, along with the paperwork, an industry the president personally profits from.

Nineteen days before the funeral, on Aug. 27, the watchdog group Public Citizen filed a report the White House left unanswered: Trump's assorted crypto products have left investors on the hook for at least $4.7 billion, the bulk of it in a meme coin the president launched three days before his second term began. That figure did not come from the government the bill was supposed to arm; it came from outside it, from a group with no rulemaking power and no dog in the fight except arithmetic. The Senate had that number for weeks before the vote. It voted anyway, and the bill still failed.

The same week the bill lay dying, in the family, Donald Trump Jr.'s wife took to Instagram to defend a wedding gift from a Russian oligarch, reaching for the word "clarity" to describe her own explanation — a small, unpaid tribute to the bill whose name she borrowed and whose job she did not do.

CLARITY ACT is survived by the industry now filing, per The Hill's reporting, straight into the offices of the regulators the bill was meant to check, and by those regulators themselves, who answer to the man whose losses they have not yet priced, let alone recovered. It is preceded in death by nothing; it never lived long enough to become anyone's shield before it became everyone's forgotten paperwork.

There is a difference between a bill that fails and a bill that was never going to be allowed to succeed, and the Senate did not bother telling us which one this was. The industry did not wait to find out. It simply changed which door it walks through, and the new door leads to men who work for the person the old door was built to watch.

In lieu of flowers, ask your senator which vote failed on Tuesday, and ask the regulators, before they write the first new rule, whose $4.7 billion they intend to find first.

This story on its own page →

THE INVOICE

Trump's Pentagon can't explain his own Iran war to senators, but his stock filings already show the profit.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the early evening edition, 17 September 2026

The ledger on this war has two columns, and only one of them balances.

In June, according to a financial disclosure filed with the Office of Government Ethics and released in late August, President Trump made more than 1,000 stock trades, some of them in energy companies whose shares were climbing on a war he'd started three months earlier. The filing doesn't explain why an energy portfolio would be having a good month during a shooting war that runs straight through the oil lanes of the Strait of Hormuz. It doesn't have to. The gap closes itself.

The shooting kept going. On September 6th, with U.S. and Iranian forces trading strikes, Energy Secretary Chris Wright went on four Sunday shows to tell the country the gas prices climbing that weekend were nothing to worry about. On the 9th, the president told reporters the war would not be over before the midterms. The next day, his defense secretary sat down with CBS — the interview itself had been taped a month before — and said the United States has "all the control in the world," citing "historic" devastation to Iran's military capabilities.

Control, it turns out, does not come itemized. On Thursday, Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee behind closed doors on the war and the administration's strategy, and lawmakers from both parties walked out saying they still had no clear answer. The president, briefing reporters that same morning, described the next move as binary: stay the course, or "go in and annihilate them." A price tag was not on offer from either option, and the public reached its own verdict without waiting for one — a Fox News poll out that week found 71 percent of voters think this administration has no plan to end the war, and 60 percent now call the whole operation wrong.

Thursday also produced a bill nobody in that hearing room could itemize: officials confirmed Iran had shot down at least two more American drones. Drones cost money. Somebody wrote that check; the committee wasn't told how much.

Here is the reconciliation, hon. The Pentagon's books on this war don't close. The president's brokerage statement's books do. When the number the Armed Services Committee is owed shows up instead on a disclosure form filed with a completely different office, that isn't a missing figure. That's a figure that was never meant to be theirs to see.

This story on its own page →

THE SHARES

Paxton took 100,000 shares, voted the tax break into law, now campaigns to end it

By LouOne More Question · the early evening edition, 17 September 2026

I didn't sleep Tuesday night. My wife noticed around two in the morning, when I was still lying there staring at the ceiling fan, and she said what she always says, which is "Lou, leave it alone, whatever it is, leave it alone." I told her I would. I did not.

What kept me up was a number. One hundred thousand. That's how many shares of a server company Ken Paxton took, according to what The Lever reported Thursday. I want to say that number once and only once tonight, because I've been the guy who won't let go of a number before, and my wife tells me it's not attractive. So: one hundred thousand shares. Said it. Moving on.

Here's what happened next, because a story like this only makes sense in the order it happened. Paxton took the shares. Then Paxton voted to create the tax breaks that made the company holding those shares more valuable. That's not me reading anything into it — that's just what the record says came after what. First the shares, then the vote. I got up around three and went out to the garage, because when I can't sleep I go stand near the car, which hasn't started right since June and needs a fan belt I keep meaning to buy. I stood there in the dark thinking about order of operations. You take a gift, then you vote on the thing that makes the gift worth more — is that a coincidence of timing, or is that just what a calendar looks like when two events happen to fall on it in sequence? I'm not saying. I'm asking. The record's right there if you want to check the order yourself.

Now here's the part that had me out on the porch by four, in the raincoat, though it wasn't raining — I just grab it, it's the one coat I own. Paxton is running for Senate this year campaigning to end data center tax breaks. The same breaks. Is a man allowed to change his mind about a bill he voted for? Sure. People do that. But does changing your mind about a bill count the same way when you were holding shares in the company that bill enriched, and now you're holding a Senate campaign that needs voters who, according to the poll that ran the same day as the Lever piece, oppose data centers by 71 to 29? I don't know. I'm just reading you what's in front of me.

And Maryland's governor — Wes Moore, Thursday, same day — said if a statewide moratorium on data centers landed on his desk, he'd sign it. Absolutely, he said. So somewhere out there is a governor ready to sign the ban, and here's a Senate candidate who took the shares, cast the vote, and is now campaigning like the ban was his idea all along. Does a man get to run against the fire he lit? I'm asking the dog this too, honestly, he's no help, he just wants his breakfast.

I was going to leave you there. I really was. But — and I keep doing this to my wife, coming back after I said I was done — one more thing, before you go. The Lever's report says the shares came before the vote that created the breaks. I keep checking that order because it's the only order that makes the timeline make sense: gift, then vote, then years pass, then campaign against the very thing the vote built. Which page of the notebook are you supposed to believe — the one where he took the hundred thousand shares, or the one where he's the man ending the breaks he voted to give them? Because I've got both pages, right here, and they're stapled together.

This story on its own page →

Promised to put farmers first, Trump spends $40 billion — conservatively — on war with Iran

By RuthThe Money Desk · the midnight edition, 18 September 2026

Matt Bell has been farming in North Carolina for more than half his life, and this week he told CBS News he is "in survival mode," that he can't stay in business under the weight of rising costs. He voted for President Trump. He says he was sold a bill of goods — a promise, plain as any campaign line, to put America's farmers and ranchers first. That's the ledger he was handed.

Now the reconciliation. Three days before Bell's interview aired, the Congressional Budget Office closed its own books on a different account: the war with Iran. By the end of July, CBO found, the Department of Defense had already spent $38 billion in operational, logistical, and sustainment costs — replacing munitions lost in battle, covering the extra flying hours, keeping the whole operation fed and fueled. Add it up and you clear nearly $40 billion. CBO called that a conservative estimate. Not a ceiling. A floor.

Line the two ledgers up side by side and the arithmetic is not complicated. The money did not go missing. It went somewhere. It just did not go to Matt Bell's farm, or to the farms like it, fighting the same rising costs he described this week. Forty billion dollars — conservatively — cleared for a war before the growing season's bills came due for the people who were promised they'd come first.

This is not an accusation. Nobody diverted a check from a farm account and wired it to a war account; that isn't how appropriations work, and I'm not here to tell you it is. What I can tell you, because CBO put it in writing, is which column the money landed in, and it isn't the one marked "farmers and ranchers first." That column, per Bell, reads survival mode.

There is always a conservative estimate, hon, and it is never the one describing what farmers get. It is always the one describing what the war cost. Bell says he can't stay in business. CBO says its own number is low. Read those two sentences back to back and you have the whole file: not a scandal, just a set of books, open on the desk, for anyone who wants to check whose name is on which page.

This story on its own page →

Paxton took 100,000 shares in a server company, voted to create its tax break, now runs against it.

By SalStaff Writer · the midnight edition, 18 September 2026

A guy takes a hundred grand in shares from a server company, votes to hand that whole industry a tax break, then runs for Senate promising to take it back — and the papers cover it like a policy reversal instead of what it is, which is getting paid on both ends of the same trade. This is why nobody in Washington, left or right, actually touches the subsidy or the water bill: the loudest ones warning you about AI oligarchs are still standing on that industry's stage. You don't need a bag of cash changing hands in a parking garage — you just need everybody with the power to stop it to have a reason not to, and the reason is always sitting in a brokerage account.

This story on its own page →

"Farmers first," dead at one campaign, is survived by a North Carolina grower in survival mode who still pays the freight on a war the budget office prices at $38 billion and calls that figure conservative.

By MortThe Records Bureau · the breakfast edition, 20 September 2026

"Farmers first" died this week at the age of one campaign. It was born as a promise, plain as any campaign line, that America's farmers and ranchers would come first. It is survived by Matt Bell, who has farmed in North Carolina for more than half his life, who voted for President Trump, and who told CBS News this week that he is "in survival mode" and cannot stay in business under rising costs. He says the promise was a bill of goods.

A second notice runs beside it: the idea that a confirmation vote means a senator owns the man they confirmed. That one went this week too.

Then the reconciliation. On Tuesday the 15th the Congressional Budget Office closed the books on a different account. By the end of July, CBO found, the Department of Defense had already spent $38 billion in operational, logistical, and sustainment costs on the war with Iran. The budget office called its own figure conservative. Bell's costs are penny-ante beside that ledger, and he pays on both. Moody's Analytics estimates US consumers have spent $121 billion extra on energy since the war began less than eight months ago, $1,760 a household. Diesel hit an all-time high of $5.85 a gallon on Friday the 4th. Oil passed $100 a barrel on the 9th. The 30-year mortgage rate hit a 14-month high, 6.76 percent, on the 10th.

Sen. Thom Tillis voted to confirm Pete Hegseth. On Wednesday, September 2nd, after Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned, Tillis called on the president to fire Hegseth over what the senator called "inept management" of the military. On Tuesday the 15th, Rep. Thomas Massie filed eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth over the Iran war, the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, strikes on alleged drug boats, and the war in Yemen, accusing him of launching a war Congress did not approve. On Friday the 18th Tillis renewed the call: "He needs to go, whether it's impeachment or the most expedient route — just the president to replace him — would be great." The ask from the Senate arrived after a congressman in the other chamber had already done the paperwork.

Thursday the 17th was a long day at the department. The U.N. fact-finding mission on Iran said it had "reasonable grounds" to believe the U.S. military committed war crimes in two airstrikes, which CBS reported killed scores of Iranian civilians, and said the U.S. should pay "full reparations to victims." The same mission found Iran's government had carried out crimes against humanity against its own citizens during this year's crackdown on protests. The White House answered the finding that day. That afternoon senators of both parties left a closed-door briefing with Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby saying they got no clear answers on the defense strategy or the war, and U.S. officials said Iranian forces had brought down at least two American MQ-1 drones in recent days.

The toll, straight. The wire that reported the Kuhestak bombing on Wednesday, September 2nd said the strike came the day before, at a private home in Hormozgan province. Five people were killed and 68 injured. Two of the dead were children, Amir-Ali Karimi, four, and Mohammad Mollahi, sixteen. Iranian officials called it a war crime. A senior Iranian health official said shortages of roughly 800 medicines are affecting treatment for cancer and other serious illness.

Preceded in death: the quick war. It entered its sixth month on August 28th with no end in sight, and on September 9th the president said it would not end before the midterms. By Friday the administration was weighing a further escalation. A senator can vote to confirm a man, ask twice that he be fired, watch a colleague file eight articles, and the man keeps the desk. That is not a scandal any more; that is how the shit sits. The bill goes to Bell either way.

In lieu of flowers, a recorded vote in both chambers on a war that has run since February without one.

This story on its own page →