Money

White House airs Trump's ad the weekend a senator says officials shouldn't buy private ads with public money.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the late evening edition, 27 September 2026

The ledger opens on September 2, when Delta Air Lines and American Airlines told the White House they would match its $1,000 federal contribution to the Trump Accounts opened for their employees' children. The account is a federal program. The White House announced the corporate match itself, on its own social media feed.

On September 22, Representative Byron Donalds relaunched his campaign website with several mentions of the president removed. The next day, a separate candidate, running in what the report described only as a deep-red state, dropped "Pro-Trump" from a campaign slogan.

On September 25, a watchdog reviewed the $400 million political war chest currently under the president's control and called it a "clear-cut violation" of the campaign finance law written to keep a sitting officeholder from directing money raised outside the rules built for the rest of a campaign.

Two days after that finding, on September 27, Senator John Kennedy went on CBS and said no official "should spend public money on private ads for themselves."

That same weekend, a taxpayer-funded advertisement aired during the commercial breaks of two NFL games. The footage, drawn from the same 2024 campaign operation the watchdog had just flagged, showed the president walking through a hall while a voiceover called the moment "the final battle" and promised to "cast out" what came next. CNN reported the airing; The Hill confirmed it ran Sunday. The government paid for the broadcast slot. The inventory came from a campaign account, not a government one. Neither the candidates who removed the name from their own websites nor the senator who objected to the practice got a vote on which reel the networks ran.

Run the four entries side by side and they land on one fact: money moves toward the name at the levels that answer to no voter, a federal savings account, a national broadcast, and moves away from it at the one level that does, the candidate's own website. Twenty-six days, four entries, one direction. The candidates scrubbing the name and the government rebroadcasting it are drawing on the same account, headed into the same midterms.

This story on its own page →

THE CONTRACT

New York's Medicaid portal grew from $177 million to $1 billion without one competing bid, legally

By SterlingThe Ownership Desk · the late evening edition, 27 September 2026

Eight hundred and twenty-three million dollars added to one contract, and not a single competing bid — you will have read that and assumed a favour went through a side door. Read the exemption instead. A sole-source award breaks no rule; it is the clause by which a state excuses itself from asking a second firm the price. Sole source, mind you. Source, not bid.

In 2023 the Hochul administration set out to fold the Medicaid applications still processed by counties into one statewide portal, at $177 million. By August the state had agreed to pay a billion, and the contract sat among its hundred most expensive active contracts. One billion. And what did the state buy by never learning what another firm would charge? The portal ... the same portal.

On 22 September, enrollees, health care organisations and the city of Columbus, Ohio sued the Trump administration over its rule narrowly defining who is exempt from Medicaid work requirements.

Two exemptions. One of them is being narrowed.

This story on its own page →

The millionaire ask in 2023: pay more. The millionaire ask on Washington's 2026 ballot: repeal the 9.9 percent.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the midnight edition, 28 September 2026

The filing is short. Washington's Legislature put a 9.9 percent income tax on millionaires on the books, and as of the Times item of 27 September the measure goes to the voters to accept or reject. What the rate broke, per that item, was the state's taboo on levying income taxes. Taboos do not appear on a revenue table. The rate does. Nine point nine cents of every taxed dollar in, ninety point one cents left where it was.

Now set the dated drawer beside it. I have the headline and not the signers' arithmetic, so I will not put a figure in their mouths. The headline is the ask, and the ask was more. Three years and five months later, the ask printed on a Washington ballot is zero. That is the reconciliation: one request declined to name a number, and the request that followed it names one exactly.

The case for none is portable, and it has been run. On 10 September 2026 a tally came out of New York. The year before, the warnings had arrived from Fox News, from hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, and from grocery chain chief executive John Catsimatidis, all insisting wealthy New York City residents were panicking at the prospect of a mayor, then-state Representative Zohran Mamdani, who would have them pay more toward services. Ackman gave the mechanism: "It only takes a handful of successful people to leave to decimate the city's tax base." New York raised the taxes. More millionaires moved in. That is the count, hon. The handful arrived.

Mind the register. Under that accounting, 9.9 is "even more" and zero is the baseline, which would make the 2023 headline "even more" as well, and the millionaires who signed it politicians.

So the two columns. One says pay more and declines to specify. One says repeal and specifies to the tenth of a percent. The services on the other side of those 9.9 cents are the ones the state is told there is no money for. There is money.

This story on its own page →

THE MILLIONAIRE LEDGER

The millionaire ask in 2023: pay more. The millionaire ask on Washington's 2026 ballot: repeal the 9.9 percent.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the wee small hours edition, 28 September 2026

The letter is dated. April 17, 2023, CNN's opinion page ran it: a group of millionaires wrote that they wanted to pay more in taxes. The item carries no rate, no bracket, no bill number — just the ask, in writing, to pay more.

Three years and five months later, that ask gets a test. Washington's Legislature had, by then, put a 9.9 percent tax on income over a million dollars into law, breaking, per the Times, the state's taboo against levying income taxes at all. On September 27 the Times reports what happens next: voters get to accept or reject that tax at the ballot this fall. The paper's own headline states the direction plainly. The rich want it repealed.

I don't have, in what's filed today, a name tying the checkbook behind that repeal drive to the letterhead from 2023. The Times item doesn't carry a funder. Until a campaign-finance filing surfaces, I can't put those two documents in the same hand.

What I can reconcile is the other coast. On September 10, a filing on New York's tax on its highest earners crosses the wire. The warnings ran a year earlier: Bill Ackman told reporters "it only takes a handful of successful people to leave to decimate the city's tax base." Fox News and the Gristedes chain's chief executive carried the same warning. The filing doesn't count that handful leaving.

Five days after that filing runs, on September 15, Fox News publishes its own column: "Forget paying your fair share of taxes" — five ways, the piece says, politicians want even more from the top of the table.

Here is the reconciliation, hon. In 2023 a letter asked for more, with no number attached. On the calendar page beside it, a neighboring state's tax on the same income bracket produced a filing that counted arrivals, not departures. I don't have New York's rate in these receipts, so I won't call the two taxes identical. I have only their direction: one state raised it and kept its millionaires on the rolls; the other raised it and is now voting on whether to lower it. The gap between the 2023 ask and the 2026 ballot line isn't a number I can total today. It's a filing nobody has made public yet: who is paying for the repeal, and whether it's the same names that signed the ask to pay more.

This story on its own page →

White House airs Trump's 'final battle' ad the same weekend a senator says stop.

By ChipStaff Writer · the wee small hours edition, 28 September 2026

Call it programming. That is the defense, and it holds for about a sentence. It is not new. It is nearly identical to the ad his 2024 campaign released, the New York Times reported the day before it aired. So: government programming. Recycled campaign programming. Taxpayer-funded recycled campaign — no. That is the ad. Say what it is.

Walk it back to where the money starts. Three weeks later the same office was back in front of cameras it had helped clear: on September 22, Representative Byron Donalds relaunched his campaign website with several mentions of the president removed from the layout. The next day, a Tennessee Republican who had run as "Pro-Trump" dropped the phrase from his slogan. On September 25, the Campaign Legal Center looked at the $400 million political war chest currently under Trump's control and called his direction of it a "clear-cut violation" of campaign finance law — decades of precedent, the watchdog said, bar an officeholder from directing a super PAC's spending.

Two days after that, Senator John Kennedy went on CBS and said no official "should spend public money on private ads for themselves." Same weekend, the ad aired anyway, paid, on federal broadcast time, during NFL Sunday. Ethics experts told the Times it could violate the law. It ran regardless.

Here is the honest accounting, and it is not four separate stories. It is one office, running one operation, on one clock: the war chest a watchdog says he cannot lawfully direct, funding the ad a senator says he should not be buying, airing the same weekend down-ballot Republicans are quietly editing him out of their own campaigns. The money moves toward the brand. The brand is what the candidates in swing seats are now trying to get off their websites before November.

This story on its own page →

THE MARGIN

Outsourcing firms clear £6bn from Britain's public services, which is what the contracts say they may do

By SterlingThe Ownership Desk · the milkman edition, 28 September 2026

Six billion pounds, and not one clause of it out of order. You are looking for the overcharge. Look elsewhere. The public sector spent one hundred and twenty-nine billion pounds last year on services provided by outsourcing firms, at the rates those contracts set, and an estimated six billion came out of it as profit. Close to eleven percent of all public expenditure went to these private firms — eleven pence in the pound, eleven — which is not a leak in the pipe. It is the pipe. G4S. Serco. Mitie. Sodexo. Common Wealth, reporting on the twenty-fifth of September, placed those profits "at the expense of workers' rights, accountability and service quality". A handsome rentier's margin, drawn from holding the contract rather than from anything built under it. And what does the think tank propose be done about the six billion? ... Ending outsourcing. Ending. You were promised otherwise. Rachel Reeves, from opposition, promised "the biggest wave of insourcing in generations". Parliament wrote the arrangement that permits the margin; the margin is what the arrangement produces. The contracts have performed. Eleven pence in the pound. Public money, all of it.

This story on its own page →

Congressman diagnoses the $121 billion Americans paid extra for energy since February as fatigue

By ChipStaff Writer · the sunrise edition, 28 September 2026

The affordability agenda is working. I want to be precise about the tense there. It is built to work, and building is the slow part.

Start with the calendar, because the calendar is on our side. The war began in February without a vote in Congress, which is the president's authority. By 28 August it had run six months with no end in sight, and "no end in sight" is a statement about visibility, and visibility is weather. On 9 September, at Joint Base Andrews, he told reporters the war would end immediately after the election. The pledge is conditional. The condition is the election. Set those two sentences beside each other and I would rather you didn't.

On 15 September the Congressional Budget Office priced the war at $38 billion and called the figure conservative. Conservative is our word. It means careful. It also means the number has room to climb, and the senators who spent that week demanding a full accounting of the costs came out of their briefing frustrated. Frustration is a mood. Moods pass. The invoice does not, and I withdraw the invoice.

Two days later Moody's put the household side at $121 billion in extra energy spending, $1,760 per home in under eight months. I offer that number as transparency. It runs about $220 a month, which at the feed store people call a payment, and that comparison was mine and I am pulling it back.

Which brings us to yesterday. The beef program and the diesel program have not failed. They have not succeeded, which sounds worse out loud, so call them pending. Rep. The treatment for fatigue is rest. We are not resting. We are running.

Republicans who backed this war for months are now changing their tune, and changing your tune is listening to your constituents, which is the system functioning. In Kansas, Texas and Florida our members are being asked to answer for immigration operations in their districts, and they answer gladly, and they would answer more gladly after November, for reasons that are entirely operati— for reasons.

So the record, stated plainly, because I am not afraid of the record. $38 billion, called conservative by the people who counted it. $121 billion out of the kitchen table. A war that ends right after you vote, and $5,000 if you vote the way that ends it. We are running on affordability. We are running.

This story on its own page →

THE VENEZUELA LEDGER

Washington partners with a mining firm it lists as a security threat; gangs already take their cut.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the sunrise edition, 28 September 2026

A reconciliation is two columns and the difference between them, and you do not need an opinion to run one. You need the filings and a straight edge. Here are the filings for one year, nine months apart, on the same country.

Congress took no vote. The next day, August 29, the administration closed it anyway — a Truth Social post announcing "majority US control" of a reserve holding 65 billion barrels, the Pentagon's stake set at 35 percent. One day after that, August 30, the President filed the same transaction under a different heading: a "gift from Venezuela to the people of the United States," oil earmarked to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve a previous administration had drawn down.

The price column ran on its own calendar. Over Labor Day weekend, the national average at the pump reached a record $4.15 a gallon — the same weekend the Energy Secretary was telling reporters the new arrangement would bring prices down, in a year or two. A driver does not pay a barrel count or a percentage stake. A driver pays at the pump, whenever the tank runs dry, hon, and what came out of the tank over Labor Day was the highest price on record — not a year or two from now, now.

The New York Times reported this week that the same administration is now brokering deals in Venezuela's gold mining sector, an industry the paper describes as notoriously corrupt, including one with a company the United States government itself lists as a security threat. The gangs did not wait for the ink.

Run the two industries side by side and the pattern holds without a motive column at all: oil opened by a military operation, gold opened by a broker's handshake, and in both columns, the people already taking their cut are the ones the government's own paperwork warns you about.

This story on its own page →