The libertarian Cato Institute released the report, which graded states by spending, revenue and taxes. The top ten states in the rankings starting at the top are Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, South Dakota, Montana, Hawaii, Georgia, Idaho, and Vermont.

The bottom ten states, according to the analysis, are New Mexico, Missouri, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, Delaware, Washington, Maine, New York and lastly, Minnesota.

The bottom six states received a grade of “F.”

Walz’ poor rating comes just weeks before the presidential election where he and his running mate Vice President Kamala Harris are in a nearly tied race with former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio.

The report explains the reasoning for Walz’ low score, pointing to a series of tax hikes under his leadership as well as spending increasing by 36% since 2022, from from about $52 billion to nearly $71 billion.

From the report:

In 2019, Walz’s budget would have added ‘$2 billion more in new spending and taxes would increase by $1.3 billion to pay for it, with the rest of the money coming from an existing surplus.’ But he compromised with the legislature, and the final tax increase was about $330 million annually. Walz also pushed for higher gas taxes and higher vehicle fees to raise about $1 billion annually for transportation, but those increases were rejected.

Walz pushed for more tax hikes in 2021. He proposed adding a new individual income tax rate of 10.85 percent above the current top rate of 9.85 percent, a surtax on capital gains and dividends, and a hike to the corporate tax rate from 9.8 percent to 11.25 percent. The proposals—which would have raised about $1.6 billion annually—were rejected by the legislature…

Walz hit the middle class with HF 2887, which raised taxes and fees on vehicles and transportation. The increases included indexing the gas tax for inflation, increasing vehicle registration taxes, raising fees on deliveries, and raising sales taxes in the Twin Cities area.

At an event in Dallas held on the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 terrorist attack against Israel held by the nonprofit America for Israel, Cruz said after the attack, the State Department’s Office of Palestinian Affairs tweeted, “Israel must not respond. There must be no military response.” He replied, saying, “This is disgraceful. Whoever wrote it should be fired and it should be deleted.” Within minutes, the post was deleted, he said.

The next day, October 8, 2023, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted that he’d spoken to the Turkish foreign minister “and we have agreed that Israel must not retaliate and there must be no military response whatsoever,” Cruz said.

Turkey’s president also compared Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Nazi leader Adolph Hitler and called for “an alliance of humanity” to stop his “murder network.”

Cruz said Blinken’s position was “utterly disgraceful” and his social media post “should be deleted again. They deleted it within minutes,” he said.

Israel must eliminate the Islamic terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah, largely funded by Iran, Cruz says, because it’s “unquestionably in the national security interest of Israel and unquestionably in the national security interest of America.”

One year into the conflict with Hamas, Iran launched 200 missiles at Israel. Afterwards, President Joe Biden told reporters that “all seven of us [G7 country leaders] agree that they [Israel] have a right to respond but they should respond proportionally.” France’s president called for a ceasefire and an Israeli weapons embargo.

At the Dallas event, a member of the Israeli Knesset questioned Biden’s remarks and Cruz said those calling for a cease fire with terrorists were “siding with genocidal maniacs.”

Israeli MK Ohad Tal, Knesset Chair US/Israel Relations Caucus, asked what a proportionate response would be to Iran “terrorizing Israel for 30 years, building a network of proxies all around the Middle East in order to attack Israel.”

He cited “Hezbollah launching 150,000 ballistic missiles, Shiite militias in Syria with 40,000 soldiers, same number of militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen and so many other forces.” He said Iran “sent Hamas on October 7 to slaughter, to burn families alive. Hezbollah shot at Israel about 1,200 rockets only in the past year. … Are we supposed to go to Iran to rape, to slaughter, to kill, to burn” Iranians, he asked. “Is this what we’re supposed to do? … We are supposed to wait for Iran to arm their missiles with nuclear warheads?”

Everyone in the west and America “should wake up and realize that we are serving the same purpose” against Iran, he said. “We are fighting your war.”

In a social media post, Netanyahu explained that “Israel is defending itself on 7 fronts against the enemies of civilization. We’re fighting in Gaza against Hamas, those savages who murdered, raped, beheaded, and burned our people on October 7. We’re fighting in Lebanon against Hezbollah, the most heavily armed terror organization, which was planning an even greater massacre than October 7 on our northern borders, and that has rocketed Israeli towns and cities for nearly a year.

“We’re fighting against the Houthis in Yemen and the Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria that together have launched hundreds of drones and missile attacks against Israel. We’re fighting against terrorists in Judea and Samaria who are trying to murder civilians in the heart of our cities. And we’re fighting against Iran, which last week fired over 200 ballistic missiles directly at Israel, and which stands behind the seven-front war against Israel.”

Netanyahu said, “all civilized countries should be standing firmly by Israel’s side.” While some western leaders call for an arms embargo against Israel, he asked if Iran was imposing one on Hezbollah, the Houthis or Hamas.

With or without the west’s support, Netanyahu said, “Israel is defending civilizations against those who seek to impose a dark age of fanaticism on all of us. … Israel will fight until the battle is won, for our sake and for the sake of the peace and security of the entire world.”

On Wednesday, Biden spoke with Netanyahu and “affirmed his ironclad commitment to Israel’s security” and “condemned unequivocally” Iran’s ballistic missile attack, according to a read out of the call issued by the White House.

Biden also “emphasized the need for a diplomatic arrangement” between Israel and Lebanon, urged Israel “to renew diplomacy” with Hamas “to release the hostages” still being held for over one year, and facilitate humanitarian aid to Gaza, the statement says.

When it comes to the leaders of countries and terrorist groups that refer to Israel as “the little Satan” and to America as “the great Satan,” Cruz said, “The enemies of Israel are enemies of America. American policy should very simply be we stand unequivocally with Israel for as long as it takes.”

“If history teaches anything, it is that when somebody tells you they want to kill you, believe them,” he said.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom appears to be taking actions to regulate gasoline on two fronts — through the legislature, and CARB, which consists of 14 voting members — 12 of whom are appointed by the governor without State Senate confirmation.

“In September of last year, CARB estimated that the change could lift gasoline prices 47 cents a gallon, or $6.4 billion a year,” reported the Los Angeles Times. “Other analysts put the price even higher — 65 cents a gallon, or $8.8 [billion] a year.”

It’s unclear how much the new refinery regulations — which would give the state power to tell refineries when they’re allowed to shut down for maintenance and repairs, and determine how much inventory of gasoline to maintain on hand in case refineries have to be shut down — would cost. However, a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats, neighboring governors, and even labor unions is opposing the measure, which does seem ready to pass.

The small group of labor organizations that came out against the bill — employed in energy trades — shared a number of safety and even electoral concerns.

“This issue is readily being used against our candidate in those states and beyond,” wrote the coalition regarding the potential direct implications for the swing states of Arizona and Nevada that rely on California for gasoline, and the use of California’s climate positions as a tool to attack Democrats nationally more broadly. “If we cannot be heard and believed on issues that could jeopardize the lives of our members, something is very wrong in CA. Every member who votes for this bill should be prepared to answer if something goes wrong”

Assemblymember Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, said that he believes most legislators actually no longer support the bill but feel strong-armed by the governor.

“The legislature honestly needs to stand up for itself and tell [Newsom] no. I’m guessing the vast majority of legislators want this bill to die,” said Patterson on X. “We shouldn’t do it just because of the Governor’s strange obsession with this weird policy to give bureaucrats power over gasoline production.”

CARB will be voting on the new amendments to the state’s low carbon fuel standard on November 8, just days after the presidential election, on whether or not to adopt new, stricter standards that will make it harder to generate LCFS credits, and require more LCFS credits to be purchased.

As can be seen in CARB data, the LCFS has been so successful that as of April 2024, the most recent data point, the reduction in carbon intensity of the state’s fuel system is already past the goal for 2026. While the widespread availability of LCFS credits has reduced emissions, the rapid scaling of the desired LCFS credit-producing technologies has also reduced the value of individual credits.

Should the new, more strict LCFS requirements be adopted, fewer credits would qualify, and the cost of credits would go up, but much of the billions of dollars invested in existing infrastructure to generate LCFS credits could turn worthless overnight.

California’s gas taxes are already the highest in the nation, with federal, state, and local taxes and fees adding approximately $1.62 per gallon, which is significantly more than the difference between California and national gas prices. If the LCFS is approved, California gasoline could cost approximately $2.09 to $2.27 per gallon more than the national average, a move that could drive more consumers to electric cars, or out of the state entirely.

The National Federation of Independent businesses on Monday released the survey, which showed small business uncertainty rose last month to the highest level ever recorded by NFIB.

“Small business owners are feeling more uncertain than ever,” NFIB Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg said in a statement.

Small businesses have been crushed by inflation in recent years, with prices rising more than 20% since President Joe Biden took office. Pandemic-era shutdowns and supply chain issues also put many businesses in debt or drained their savings.

Many larger businesses had more reserves or access to capital to help them survive COVID while smaller businesses went under.

“Twenty-three percent of owners reported that inflation was their single most important problem in operating their business (higher input and labor costs), down one point from August but remaining the top issue,” NFIB said.

Inflation has slowed from its feverish pace earlier in Biden’s term, but prices remain elevated.

“A net negative 17% of all owners (seasonally adjusted) reported higher nominal sales in the past three months, down one point from August and the lowest reading of this year,” NFIB said. “The net percent of owners expecting higher real sales volumes rose nine points to a net negative 9% (seasonally adjusted).”

Small business owners have also reported difficulty with the labor market.

“Uncertainty makes owners hesitant to invest in capital spending and inventory, especially as inflation and financing costs continue to put pressure on their bottom lines,” Dunkelberg continued. “Although some hope lies ahead in the holiday sales season, many Main Street owners are left questioning whether future business conditions will improve.”

The analysis comes after House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, and Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to Director Phillip Swagel of the CBO questioning the budgetary impact of this new demonstration program.

A release from Swagel’s department said the increase in federal spending would range from $10 billion to $20 billion in 2025 compared to earlier projections.

“As predicted, the Biden-Harris Inflation Reduction Act not only quelled investment for new cures, but caused Medicare prescription drug plan premiums to skyrocket, and Democrats are scrambling to cover it up before the election,” Arrington said in a press release. “In July, the Biden-Harris CMS scrambled to create a new federal program that will send billions of tax dollars to large health insurance companies to cover up a massive flaw in their so-called Inflation Reduction Act.”

The new average plan bid for a standard Part D coverage increases by 179% for 2025 partly due to an underestimation of federal attributions to the Part D changes, according to the analysis.

Arrington continued, “Today, CBO confirmed that the administration’s election year Hail Mary will cost taxpayers an astounding $7 billion next year alone, and $21 billion over the planned three-year demo, adding to the more than $2 trillion in Biden-Harris executive spending.”

These plans typically expect monthly reinsurance, which means Medicare payments cover part of the costs of prescription drugs when the catastrophic threshold is reached.

Almost 60% of Part D enrollees are through Medicare Advantage plans and receive coverage through MA-PD plans. The rest are covered through what’s known as stand-alone prescription drug plans.

CBO expects the following changes for prescription drug plans in 2025:

• A $15 reduction for monthly PDPs. This would cost a total of $2.9 billion in federal funding.
• Increases in PDPs will be capped at $35 in 2024 and 2025, totaling $1.8 billion in federal funding.
• Risk corridor subsidies will increase for PDPs that have more than 2.5% of bids in 2025, resulting in $250 million of federal funding.

The budget office said the changes to temporary subsidies, combined with risk corridors, will increase federal spending by $5 billion in 2025, with $2 billion in net spending interest until 2034.

Policies included in the $891 billion Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 have changed the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit that was originally estimated to be $30 million over 10 years beginning in 2025.

This resulted in the sponsors of the Medicare prescription drug plan increasing plan bids and base beneficiary premiums for 2025 while reducing the number of plans that would be available to seniors in 2025.

“When Democrats unilaterally enacted major changes to Medicare two years ago, they set seniors up for new expenses and fewer options,” Grassley said in a release. “This nonpartisan CBO analysis confirms CMS’s cost-shifting plan is a dishonest election year gimmick to cover up those consequences.”

CMS is an acronym for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The program would send federal money to large health insurance companies while falsely lowering the cost for seniors Part D premiums and potentially costing $7 billion in 2025, according to the analysis.

Grassley continued, “Rather than coming to the table and legitimately addressing its partisan mistakes, the Biden-Harris administration threw taxpayer dollars at the problems it created, putting Americans on the hook for tens of billions more dollars.”

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a release, “Today’s final guidance for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program builds off the success of the first 10 negotiated drug prices and continues the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to provide millions of people with Medicare affordable access to innovative therapies.”

This is a contradiction from the reported number taxpayers will pay that was stated in the analysis.

Brooks-LaSure continued, “While saving Medicare and taxpayers billions of dollars, the negotiated prices will also provide people with Medicare a better deal on some of Medicare’s costliest prescription drugs, promoting necessary competition in the market, and ensuring Medicare is strong today and into the future.”

The temporary subsidies, announced in July, affect both those enrolled and the federal payments to Plan D premiums in 2025, 2026 and 2027, though certain policies have yet to be announced for 2026-27, meaning no budgetary estimation for both years.

The budget office said it expects $100 million in 2025 from each organization that controls and collects payments from the government on behalf of Part D plans.

Continuing that most of that would have been paid for by enrollees in the Part D program through premiums, “For that reason, the effect of CMS’s subsidies on plans’ revenues is much smaller than the federal cost. By providing larger federal subsidies to prescription drug plans, the federal payments to Part D plans effectively cover costs that would have been borne by Part D enrollees.”