Author

admin

Browsing

The end of the shutdown delivered something rare in Washington: a second chance to get healthcare right. As part of the agreement to reopen the government, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., committed to holding a vote in December on extending the enhanced premium tax credits in the individual market. That creates an opportunity to avoid steep premium hikes and to begin building a system that works better for patients. 

For Democrats who voted to end the shutdown, the incentives are straightforward. They want to show that their compromise leads to real relief for families facing higher premiums. They will look for a deal that solves the problem in front of them, but they will back away if Republicans turn the bill into another fight over repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The task now is to fix what is broken, not revisit old conflicts. 

This moment also gives Republicans a chance to show they can govern. Healthcare costs are a major driver of the affordability crisis facing families. They reduce take-home pay, increase the price of goods and services, and push both households and governments deeper into debt. Employers, who carry most of the cost of coverage for people under 65, feel the pressure directly, and workers feel it in their wages. 

President Donald Trump has already outlined an important principle: instead of routing federal subsidies through insurance companies, direct that support to individuals so they can choose the care and coverage that work best for them. Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott has made a similar argument, calling on Republicans to fix Obamacare. Combined with growing bipartisan support for price transparency, these ideas point toward a practical strategy that empowers patients and employers and encourages a more competitive market.

Today’s system moves in the other direction. Prices are hidden, administrative layers keep expanding and incentives are misaligned in ways that guarantee prices will rise year after year. These problems are especially severe in the individual market, which has fewer participants, a less healthy risk pool and limited plan competition. Making this market functional again requires more enrollment, more choices and more transparency. 

The December vote is the right moment to begin that shift. A package that addresses the immediate subsidy issue and lays the groundwork for long-term reform is both achievable and necessary. There are practical solutions already developed by center-right institutions such as the America First Policy Institute, the Paragon Institute, leaders in Congress and Trump’s policy proposals. 

The first step is a responsible phase-out of the enhanced premium tax credits through 2026. This avoids an abrupt cutoff and gives the rest of the reforms time to take effect.

Second, Congress should adopt a proposal from the Paragon Institute to restore and reform the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments in Obamacare, giving qualifying enrollees the option to receive their CSR subsidies directly into a health savings account (HSA). This one change addresses several problems at once. 

JD Vance teases

It lowers premiums and reduces federal costs. When CSR payments were halted in 2017, insurers responded by sharply raising premiums on silver plans, a practice known as ‘silver loading.’ Because premium tax credits are tied to the price of silver plans, this increased federal spending. A 2018 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that restoring CSR funding would reduce the federal deficit by about $30 billion over a decade. Providing the funding is less expensive than continuing the current workaround. 

It also creates the budget space needed to phase out the enhanced premium tax credits in a responsible way. The savings could be used to fund the phase-out or to provide more generous HSA contributions from the CSRs to strengthen support for lower-income Americans. 

Most importantly, it empowers patients. According to Paragon, the typical annual HSA contribution for someone receiving CSR assistance would be about $2,000. That is meaningful support that families can control directly. If they remain healthy, unused dollars stay in the account and continue to grow. If they get sick, they can use the funds for out-of-pocket costs. Because the money belongs to them, they have a clear incentive to compare prices and choose high-value care, which encourages greater competition among providers.

Next, Congress should strengthen the individual market’s risk pool by expanding affordable choices. That means allowing any health plan approved by the state insurance commissioner to be included in the exchanges, expanding access to copper plans, adjusting age-rating rules so younger people pay less, and modernizing individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs) so more small businesses can offer coverage. Practical changes, such as letting employees choose between an ICHRA and a traditional group plan, allowing workers to contribute pretax dollars to close premium gaps and removing unnecessary COBRA requirements, would make ICHRAs more attractive.  

The first step is a responsible phase-out of the enhanced premium tax credits through 2026. This avoids an abrupt cutoff and gives the rest of the reforms time to take effect.

Finally, these reforms should be paired with the bipartisan Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, sponsored by Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall and Colorado Democrat Sen. John Hickenlooper. The bill would strengthen enforcement of price transparency rules so small businesses, self-funded employers and new purchasing groups can contract directly with providers and transparent pharmacies. This would reduce costs, remove middle men, and increase competition.

This is a moment for practical governing. The shutdown deal did not only reopen the government. It opened a door. If Republicans take this opportunity, they can solve a real problem for millions of Americans and begin a long-overdue transition to a health system that puts patients, not bureaucracies, in charge. 

December’s vote could be the start of that transition. It should be. 

Disclaimer: Gingrich 360 has consulting clients in the healthcare industry which may be impacted by changes to healthcare laws. 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Investor Insight

Heliostar offers a rare combination of immediate cash flow from two producing mines and a significant growth story driven by the high-grade Ana Paula development project. This blend of near-term production, strong margins and a robust pipeline positions the company as a compelling emerging mid-tier gold producer.

Overview

Heliostar Metals (TSXV:HSTR,OTCQX:HSTXF,FRA:RGG1) is an emerging mid-tier gold producer focused on unlocking high-grade gold production in Mexico’s premier mining regions.

The company rapidly expanded its asset base by acquiring a diverse portfolio of producing and development-stage assets. This positions it for long-term, scalable production growth supported by both high-grade underground and large open-pit heap-leach operations.

View of Heliostar Metals

Heliostar now holds two producing mines – La Colorada and San Agustin, with combined production of 30,000 to 40,000 oz of gold – and is advancing the development of its flagship Ana Paula project. Two additional development assets in Mexico, Cerro del Gallo and San Antonio, in addition to exploration projects in North Sonora and Unga in Alaska complete Heliostar’s portfolio. This diversified platform enables the company to fund development through operating cash flow while continuing to expand its resource base.

Heliostar prioritizes capital discipline and low-cost acquisitions, significantly expanding its asset base while maintaining a lean financial structure. With a growing operating cash flow, the company is reducing reliance on equity financing for development.

Heliostar Metals

The company is positioned for strong year-over-year production growth as San Agustin restarts in Q4 2025, La Colorada executes its updated 2025 mine plan, and Ana Paula advances toward construction and expected first production in 2028, following a positive underground PEA in November 2025 and an ongoing feasibility study. These milestones support the company’s strategy of building a multi-asset production base with increasing scale and margins.

Looking ahead, the company has a long-term vision of achieving 500,000 ounces of gold production annually by 2030. This growth will be driven by the development of Ana Paula, followed by Cerro del Gallo and San Antonio, with continued exploration success and strategic acquisitions supplementing organic growth.

Company Highlights

  • Heliostar Metals is rapidly advancing from a junior explorer to a mid-tier gold producer, targeting 150,000 oz per year in the near term and 500,000 oz annually by 2030.
  • Heliostar has rapidly expanded its portfolio with key acquisitions, now controlling two producing mines and three advanced-stage growth assets in Mexico. Added 3.5 million measured and indicated gold ounces for just US$15 million, reinforcing a capital-efficient growth model.
  • The company prioritizes capital discipline and low-cost acquisitions to expand its asset base and maintain a lean financial structure. Unlike many juniors that rely on dilution to grow, Heliostar leverages gold production cash flows to drive project development.
  • Annual gold production at La Colorada and San Agustin mines as of 2025 is between 30,000 to 40,000 oz, with mine operations earning $14.2 million in Q3 2025. Cash flow from these two mines funds Heliostar’s exploration and development without significant dilution.
  • CEO Charles Funk leads a seasoned team of mine builders and exploration experts with a track record of developing world-class deposits.
  • The company also features a favorable shareholder registry: 53 percent institutional investors, 42 percent high-net-worth and retail investors, and 5 percent held by the board and management.

Key Projects

Ana Paula (Flagship Development Project)

Ana Paula is Heliostar’s flagship high-grade underground gold project located in the Guerrero Gold Belt, one of Mexico’s most prolific precious metals regions.

Mountain landscape showing Guerrero Gold Belt near Heliostar Metals

The November 2025 underground PEA confirms Ana Paula as a low-cost, high-margin development opportunity with a nine-year mine life producing approximately 875,000 ounces of gold, averaging roughly 101,000 ounces per year after ramp-up. The project benefits from a wide, high-grade panel that continues to demonstrate strong continuity and exceptional grades, supported by a mineral resource of 710,920 ounces of measured and indicated gold at 6.6 grams per ton (g/t) and 447,500 ounces of inferred gold at 4.24 g/t.

Heliostar has transitioned the project to an underground-only development plan to enhance economics, minimize surface disturbance and reduce capital intensity. The company is advancing engineering and permitting programs, including a permit amendment to convert the existing open-pit approval into an underground operation. A recently expanded 20,000-metre drill program is underway to upgrade inferred resources, expand the mineral envelope and support the ongoing feasibility study. Recent results included 83.2m grading 17.35 g/t gold from 76.0 m and 70.7 m grading 9.38 g/t gold from 49.65 m.

Heliostar intends to advance the existing decline in 2026 to access underground drilling platforms and complete bulk sampling, enabling a construction decision shortly thereafter and positioning the project for first production in 2028. Ana Paula is expected to become the cornerstone asset underpinning Heliostar’s long-term production growth.

La Colorada Mine

Aerial view of Heliostar Metals

La Colorada, located in Sonora, Mexico, is a fully operating open-pit heap-leach mine that underwent a major turnaround in early 2025. Mining was restarted in January 2025, and an updated October 2025 technical report outlines a significantly strengthened operation with a 6.1-year mine life and total production of 286,000 ounces of gold. The mine is expected to produce between 17,500 and 23,800 gold-equivalent ounces in 2025 at competitive cash costs and all-in sustaining costs, benefiting from strong gold prices and improved operational performance.

La Colorada has meaningful opportunities for growth through drilling of the Veta Madre Plus area, which could add up to 28,000 ounces of additional near-surface resource, and the evaluation of the underground potential at El Creston, where deeper drilling has returned high-grade gold and silver intercepts. Further optimization of low-grade stockpiles also offers a route to additional production with minimal capital requirements. With its expanded reserves, improving margins and active exploration pipeline, La Colorada remains a key cash-flow generator and a vital contributor to Heliostar’s self-funded growth strategy.

San Agustin Mine

Heliostar Metals

San Agustin is a heap-leach gold mine in Durango, Mexico, that produced approximately 14,700 ounces of gold in 2024 and continues to generate cash flow through stockpile processing in 2025. The mine is scheduled to restart active mining in the fourth quarter of 2025 following approval of the Corner Permit Area, with the restart plan outlining roughly 44,500 ounces of total gold production over a 1.2-year mine life. The restart requires just US$4.2 million in initial capital, funded entirely from Heliostar’s balance sheet, and delivers strong economics with significant leverage to higher gold prices. Beyond the restart, San Agustin provides meaningful growth potential through near-surface oxide expansion and deeper sulfide and breccia targets, where drilling has identified encouraging mineralization.

Cerro del Gallo Project

Cerro del Gallo is a large-scale, gold-silver development project in the Guanajuato district with 2.86 Moz of measured and indicated gold resources and an additional 1 Moz inferred. The project is advancing through permitting and a pre-feasibility study expected in Q4 2025, which is evaluating a long-life heap-leach operation targeting 80,000 to 100,000 ounces of annual gold production. With its scale, simple metallurgy and strong development profile, Cerro del Gallo represents a cornerstone growth asset supporting Heliostar’s strategy to expand production later this decade

San Antonio Project

San Antonio is an open-pit heap-leach development project in Baja California Sur hosting 1.74 million ounces of measured and indicated gold resources. A January 2025 PEA outlines robust economics, including 1.1 Moz of total production over 13 years, low AISC and an after-tax NPV5 of US$715 million at US$2,600 gold. The project is progressing through additional studies and environmental permitting and provides significant medium-term growth potential within Heliostar’s pipeline.

Unga Project

The Unga project in Alaska is a high-grade gold exploration asset, with an inferred resource of 384,000 oz gold (13.8 g/t). While not a primary focus, the project remains a long-term high-grade growth opportunity.

Management Team

Charles Funk – President & CEO

Charles Funk brings over 18 years of experience in business development and exploration. Before joining Heliostar, he held senior roles at Newcrest Mining and OZ Minerals, two of the world’s most prominent mining companies. Funk led the Panuco discovery for Vizsla Silver in 2020, demonstrating his strong expertise in identifying and advancing high-potential gold and silver deposits. Under his leadership, Heliostar has pursued transformational acquisitions that have rapidly expanded the company’s asset base while maintaining capital efficiency.

Gregg Bush – Chief Operating Officer

A highly regarded mine builder, Gregg Bush has a strong track record in mine development, project integration, and operations management. He previously served as COO of Capstone Mining for nine years and as SVP of Mexico for Equinox Gold. With deep experience in Latin American mining operations, Bush plays a pivotal role in advancing Heliostar’s production assets, optimizing operations and ensuring efficient project execution.

Sam Anderson – VP Projects

Sam Anderson brings 20 years of experience in mine geology and project management, including 17 years at Newmont, where he served as mine geology superintendent and senior manager of exploration business development. He played a significant role in the development of Newmont’s Merian Mine in Suriname, from resource stage to steady-state operation. His expertise in mineral resource expansion and project evaluation is crucial to advancing Ana Paula and Cerro del Gallo toward production.

Mike Gingles – VP of Corporate Development

With over 35 years of corporate and entrepreneurial experience in the mining industry, Mike Gingles has been a key player in major mining deals. He led the Pueblo Viejo and Turquoise Ridge transactions for Placer Dome, two of the largest gold assets in North America. His expertise in strategic partnerships, corporate finance, and project acquisitions has positioned Heliostar for transformational growth.

Hernan Dorado – VP Sustainability & Special Projects

As a fifth-generation miner, Hernan Dorado has more than 20 years of experience in the mining sector, including a founding role at Guanajuato Silver, where he served as COO. He has extensive experience in Mexican mining operations, permitting and sustainability practices, ensuring that Heliostar’s projects meet the highest environmental and social responsibility standards.

Vitalina Lyssoun – Chief Financial Officer

Vitalina Lyssoun is a chartered professional accountant (CPA, CA) with over 16 years of financial expertise with a focus on the resource sector. She has strengths in Canadian and US public company reporting, regulatory and tax compliance, and internal controls. She is fluent in Spanish and has experience in operations based in Mexico, Central America and West Africa. Most recently, Lyssoun built and led the corporate accounting team at Gatos Silver, including through their recent merger with First Majestic Silver.

Stephen Soock – VP Investor Relations & Development

Stephen Soock has been in the mining industry for almost 20 years in both technical and capital markets roles. He has worked in various technical roles at mine sites across Canada, including Vale’s Thompson Nickel operation, Mosaic’s Belle Plaine solution potash mine and Rio Tinto’s Diavik Diamond mine complex. Prior to joining Heliostar, Stephen spent eight years as a sell-side research analyst covering growth and development companies in the junior precious metals space. He graduated from Queen’s University with a B.Sc. in Mining Engineering, is a CFA Charterholder, and a Brendan Woods ranked analyst.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Nevada Sunrise Metals (TSXV:NEV,OTCP:NVSGF) is a Nevada-focused exploration company with a portfolio spanning gold, copper and lithium projects. Nevada ranked as the world’s second most attractive exploration jurisdiction in 2024, providing a strong foundation for the company’s growth strategy.

The Griffon Gold Mine project, a past-producing gold asset located within the prolific Battle Mountain–Eureka Trend. Griffon hosts Carlin-type mineralization, produced 62,661 ounces of oxide gold from 1998 to 1999, and benefits from extensive historical drilling, favorable host stratigraphy and new target zones identified by VRIFY’s DORA A.I. predictive modeling. Ongoing geophysics and geochemical programs in 2025 will refine drill targets ahead of a drilling program planned for 2026.

Large, open-pit mine in desert landscape with distant mountain at Nevada Sunrise MetalsDiscovery Ridge Pit, Griffon Gold Mine Project, White Pine County, Nevada

Nevada Sunrise integrates historical data with advanced geophysics, modern geochemical methods, and AI-driven exploration tools. This technology-enhanced approach, combined with experienced leadership and a strong technical team, is central to the Company’s strategy for building shareholder value.

Company Highlights

  • Flagship past-producing gold project in a Tier-1 jurisdiction: The Griffon Gold Mine project lies within Nevada’s prolific Battle Mountain–Eureka Trend, near producing mines and major gold developers.
  • AI-powered exploration strategy: Nevada Sunrise is using VRIFY’s predictive modeling to identify high-priority drill targets, an emerging technology rarely applied in Nevada.
  • Clear path to 2026 drilling: Soil, magnetic, IP/resistivity and CSAMT surveys in fall 2025 will feed into an updated AI model, enabling optimized drill targeting planned for 2026.
  • Highly experienced management and geological team: Leadership includes executives and advisors with decades of exploration success across Nevada and globally.
  • Diversified asset portfolio: Gold, copper and lithium assets create optionality across multiple mineral markets.
  • Flagship past-producing gold project in a Tier-1 jurisdiction: The Griffon Gold Mine project lies within Nevada’s prolific Battle Mountain–Eureka Trend, near producing mines and major gold developers.
  • AI-powered exploration strategy: Nevada Sunrise is using VRIFY’s predictive modeling to identify high-priority drill targets, an emerging technology rarely applied in Nevada.
  • Clear path to 2026 drilling: Soil, magnetic, IP/resistivity and CSAMT surveys in fall 2025 will feed into an updated AI model, enabling optimized drill targeting planned for 2026.
  • Highly experienced management and geological team: Leadership includes executives and advisors with decades of exploration success across Nevada and globally.
  • Diversified asset portfolio: Gold, copper and lithium assets create optionality across multiple mineral markets.

This Nevada Sunrise Metals profile is part of a paid investor education campaign.*

Click here to connect with Nevada Sunrise Metals (TSXV:NEV) to receive an Investor Presentation

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Rapid Critical Metals Limited (‘Rapid,’ ‘RCM’ or ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that it has completed the acquisition of the Webbs Consol Silver Project (Webbs Consol) in northeast New South Wales, comprising EL 8933 and EL 9454 from Lode Resources Limited (ASX: LDR) (Lode Resources).

The Board sees the acquisition of the Webbs Consol as a highly accretive strategic investment for Rapid which:

  • Builds critical mass to the Company’s existing Webbs and Conrad high grade deposits;
  • Secures a district-scale silver corridor by consolidating contiguous tenure across a high- grade silver belt in the New England Fold Belt;
  • Unlocks new discovery potential with adjoining tenure, increasing the likelihood of new discoveries between the two high grade silver deposits;
  • Consolidates ownership of three nearby, high-grade deposits supporting unified mine planning, centralised processing options, and potential operating synergies; and
  • Positions Rapid for growth with proximity to existing infrastructure and strong silver market fundamentals, providing a favourable backdrop for accelerated development.

Commenting on the completion of the Webbs Consol acquisition, Byron Miles, Managing Director of Rapid, said:

“The completion of the acquisition of the Webbs Consol builds on the Board’s strategy of becoming one of the ASX’s leading silver-focused growth Companies with a platform in New South Wales with significant potential for further growth.

We have now secured a contiguous silver corridor with outstanding geological prospectivity and opened up exciting potential for new discoveries in the area.

With a prospective portfolio of assets and a team focused on execution and delivery, we are well placed to accelerate exploration and development activities to create long-term value for our shareholders.”


Click here for the full ASX Release

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Corazon Mining Ltd (ASX:CZN) (‘Corazon’ or ‘Company’) is pleased to announce the granting of two key tenements at its Two Pools Gold Project (‘Two Pools’ or the ‘Project’) in the Gascoyne region of Western Australia (Figure 1).

Highlights

  • Two core tenements at the Two Pools Gold Project have been successfully granted by the West Australian Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DEMIRS).
  • Granting allows Corazon to expedite works to enable diamond drilling to commence in early 2026, pending completion of heritage surveys, and discussion with drilling contractors have commenced.
  • The initial program is designed to confirm high-grade historical results and provide essential structural controls on mineralisation.
  • Planning for follow-up Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling at Two Pools is also underway as part of the Company’s systematic exploration campaign.
  • The granting marks another key milestone in the Company’s positive operational reset over the past three months.

The granting of Exploration Licences E52/4460 and E52/4468, which were vended into the Company as part of the Two Pools acquisition – represents a significant regulatory milestone. With tenure now secured, Corazon is moving immediately to finalise preparations for its maiden drill program.

Corazon Mining Ltd Managing Director, Simon Coyle, commented: “The granting of these tenements is an important green light, allowing us to get boots on the ground at Two Pools. We are now moving quickly to secure a rig and finalise logistics to ensure we are drilling early in the new year. Our maiden diamond program is designed to give us a definitive look at the geology and structure of the high-grade zones, setting the stage for a systematic and aggressive exploration campaign throughout 202c.

The reset of the Company over the last three months has been extremely positive and productive. With the team now fully operational and our key tenure granted, we look forward to the exceptional development of both Two Pools and Feather Cap Gold Projects in 202c.”

Click here for the full ASX Release

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

The Trump administration is making good on its promise to shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy, starting with the Department of Education. Education Secretary Linda McMahon recently announced that her department has signed six interagency agreements with four other federal departments – Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor, and State – to shift major functions away from the Education Department.  

These agreements will redistribute responsibilities like managing elementary and secondary education programs, including Title I funding for low-income schools, to the Department of Labor; Indian Education programs to the Interior Department; postsecondary education grants to Labor; foreign medical accreditation and child care support for student parents to Health and Human Services; and international education and foreign language studies to the State Department, to agencies better equipped to handle them without the added layer of bureaucratic meddling. 

Interagency agreements, or IAAs, aren’t some radical invention. They’re commonplace in government operations. The Department of Education already maintains hundreds of such pacts with other agencies to coordinate on everything from data sharing to program implementation. What makes this move significant isn’t the mechanism – it’s the intent. By offloading core duties, the administration is systematically reducing the department’s scope, making it smaller, less essential, and easier to eliminate altogether. This approach is the next logical step in a process aimed at convincing Congress to vote to abolish the agency entirely. 

Remember, the Department of Education was created by an act of Congress in 1979, so dismantling it requires congressional action. In the Senate, that means overcoming the filibuster, which demands a 60-vote supermajority. Without it, Republicans would need a handful of Democrats to cross the aisle – or they’d have to invoke the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster for this legislation.  

Conservatives have wisely resisted that temptation. Ending the filibuster might feel expedient now, but it would set a dangerous precedent, allowing Democrats to ram through their big-government agendas – like expanded entitlements or gun control – with a simple majority the next time they hold power. It’s better to build consensus and preserve the procedural safeguards that protect limited government. 

The Trump team’s strategy is smart: It breaks down the bureaucracy piece by piece, demonstrating to the public and lawmakers that other agencies can handle education-related workloads more efficiently. Why prop up a standalone department riddled with waste when existing structures can absorb its functions? The administration’s approach goes beyond administrative housekeeping to serve as proof of concept that education policy belongs closer to home, not in the hands of distant D.C. officials. 

Of course, the only ones howling about sending education back to the states are the teachers unions and the politicians in their pockets. Groups like the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) thrive on centralized power. It’s easier for them to influence one federal agency where they’ve already sunk their claws than to battle for control across 50 states and thousands of local districts.  

We’ve seen this playbook in action. During the COVID-19 pandemic, unions lobbied the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – another federal entity – to impose draconian guidelines that made school reopenings nearly impossible. They held children’s education hostage, demanding billions in taxpayer-funded ransom payments through stimulus packages. 

The unions’ power grab isn’t new. The Department of Education itself was born as a political payoff. Democrat President Jimmy Carter created it in 1979 to secure the NEA’s endorsement for his reelection bid. It’s no secret that teachers unions have long controlled Democrat politicians, but even some Republicans aren’t immune.  

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.) came out swinging against dismantling the department, claiming it was established “for good reason.” That “good reason” apparently includes his own ties to the unions. Fitzpatrick is the only Republican in Congress currently endorsed by the NEA. Back in 2018, the NEA even backed him over a Democrat challenger. Over the years, he’s raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from public-sector unions. Is it any wonder he’s against Trump’s plan?  

Meanwhile, more than 98% of the NEA’s political donations went to Democrats in the last election cycle, yet less than 10% of their total funding went towards representing teachers. Follow the money, and you’ll see why federal control suits them just fine. 

Sending education to the states would empower local communities, where parents and educators know best what’s needed. It would also mean more dollars reaching actual classrooms instead of lining the pockets of useless bureaucrats in Washington. Federal education spending gets skimmed at every level, with administrative overhead siphoning off funds that could buy books, hire teachers, or upgrade facilities. 

Critics claim abolishing the department would gut protections for vulnerable students, but that’s a red herring. Federal special-needs laws, like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, predated the department and can continue without it. Civil-rights enforcement in schools doesn’t require a dedicated agency; the Justice Department and other entities already handle similar oversight. Moreover, the word “education” appears nowhere in the US Constitution. The department’s very existence arguably violates the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. 

The evidence against federal involvement is damning. Since the department’s inception, Washington has poured about $3 trillion into K-12 education. Achievement gaps between rich and poor students haven’t closed, and in many cases, they’ve widened. Overall academic outcomes have stagnated or declined. Per-student spending, adjusted for inflation, has surged 108% since 1980, yet test scores remain flat. The US spends more per pupil than nearly any other developed nation, but our results are an international embarrassment. 

The Trump administration has already taken decisive action to chip away at this failed experiment. They’ve slashed millions in diversity, equity, and inclusion grants that promote division rather than learning. Thousands of department employees have been let go, streamlining operations and cutting costs. The unions are probably gearing up to sue over these latest interagency agreements. But they tried that before – challenging the administration’s personnel reductions – and lost at the Supreme Court. The chief executive has clear authority to manage the executive branch, and the unions would likely face another defeat if they push this latest move to litigation. 

It’s time to end the charade. The Department of Education focuses on control rather than helping kids. By dispersing its functions and proving the sky won’t fall, the Trump team is paving the way for real reform. America’s students deserve better than a federal fiefdom beholden to special interests. Let’s send education back where it belongs: to the states, the localities, and the families who know their children best. 

In an era where “democratic socialism” has gained renewed traction among politicians, activists, and intellectuals, one might assume the term carries a clear, operational meaning. Yet, a closer examination reveals a concept shrouded in ambiguity, often serving as a rhetorical shield rather than a blueprint for policy.  

Proponents often invoke it to promise equality and democracy without the baggage of historical socialist failures, but this vagueness undermines serious discourse. Precise definitions are essential for theoretical, empirical, and philosophical scrutiny. Without them, democratic socialism risks becoming little more than a feel-good label, evading accountability while potentially eroding the very freedoms it claims to uphold. 

The Historical Consensus on Socialism: State Ownership and Its Perils 

During the socialist calculation debate of the early twentieth century, a clash between Austrian economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and their socialist counterparts, including Oscar Lange and Abba Lerner, the consensus definition of socialism was straightforward: state ownership of the means of production. As I demonstrate in my coauthored paper, “The Road to Serfdom and the Definitions of Socialism, Planning, and the Welfare State, 1930-1950,” this understanding was shared not only by critics but also by the socialist intellectuals of the time.  

Socialism, in this context, entailed the state directing resources through planning, often requiring ownership to fund expansive welfare programs. This definition is crucial for interpreting Hayek’s seminal work, The Road to Serfdom (1944), which posits a unique threat to democracy arising from state ownership of the means of production. Hayek argued that central planning inevitably concentrates power, leading to authoritarianism as planners override individual choices to meet arbitrary goals. Far from a slippery slope toward any government intervention, Hayek’s warning targeted the specific dynamics of state-owned economies, where the absence of market prices stifles the flow of information and the structuring of incentives, ultimately endangering democratic institutions. Using this definition, my coauthors and I, in our paper “You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Chains?” empirically test and confirm Hayek’s hypothesis that democratic freedoms cannot be sustained under socialism.  

Economists working in this tradition, from Mises to contemporary scholars, retain this rigorous definition. It serves as a foundation for understanding why socialist systems have repeatedly faltered: without private ownership of the means of production, rational economic calculation becomes impossible, resulting in waste, shortages, and coercion.  

The Vagueness and Contradictions of Modern Socialist Rhetoric 

Contrast this clarity with the approach of many contemporary socialists, including those advocating democratic variants. Definitions of socialism often shift, praised in moments of perceived success and disowned when failures mount. This pattern is not new; it has recurred across a range of historical experiments, from the Soviet Union to Venezuela. Kristian Niemietz’s Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies offers a comprehensive review of socialist rhetoric that highlights this inconsistency: regimes are initially hailed as “true” socialism, such as “worker-led” and “democratic,” only to be retroactively labeled as distortions or “state capitalism” once repression and economic stagnation emerge.  

When Hugo Chavez introduced socialism in Venezuela in 2005, he claimed that he was re-inventing socialism so as to avoid the outcomes of the Soviet Union, stating that they would “develop new systems that are built on cooperation, not competition.” And that they “cannot resort to state capitalism.” Bernie Sanders famously endorsed this socialism, saying that the American dream was more likely to be realized in places like Venezuela and calling the United States a banana republic in comparison. Nobel laureate economist Joe Stiglitz was quick to point out the “very impressive” growth rates and the eradication of poverty. But socialism in Venezuela, according to the state ownership of the economy measure from Varieties of Democracy, corresponded to the classic definition of socialism, leading to the very blackouts, empty grocery shelves, and suppression of political freedom socialists explicitly sought to avoid.   

This vagueness extends to democratic socialism today. Proponents often speak in lofty terms, such as “workplace democracy,” without specifying policies. Such abstractions allow evasion of empirical evidence. By rendering the concept unfalsifiable, socialists can dismiss critiques as attacks on straw men, perpetuating debates that stall progress. If democratic socialists insist on reclaiming the term “socialism,” as distinct from the technical term used by economists, the burden falls on them to explicitly state their divergence and provide a concrete definition amenable to empirical testing. 

The Imperative of Precision for Empirical and Philosophical Inquiry 

A precise definition is not mere pedantry; it is the prelude to meaningful investigation. To enable cross-country comparisons, socialism must be defined through specific policies, not vague platitudes. What exact measures constitute this vision? Some socialists point to the Nordic countries as their model, but these countries have important differences between them. And, if a country is the model, then democratic socialists must consistently advocate for all the policies in that country, including those that might contradict their ideals, such as flexible labor markets or low corporate taxes. The Nordic countries, as measured by state ownership of the economy, are capitalist. Similarly, as measured by Fraser Economic Freedom of the World Index, they are also some of the most economically free.   

Empirical literature in economics often examines the effects of specific policies in isolation, separate from the discussion of comparative economic systems, revealing trade-offs often ignored by democratic socialists. Minimum wage laws, for example, often supported by unions, can reduce employment opportunities, particularly for low-skilled workers and minorities. Prevailing wage requirements, pushed by unions, may inflate costs and exclude smaller firms, suppressing economic mobility and also having racially disparate economic impacts.  

Philosophical debates demand equal rigor. Consider unions, a cornerstone of many democratic socialist platforms. Do proponents support open ballot laws, which protect workers from intimidation during union votes, or do they favor secret ballots to ensure true democracy? Exempting unions—as labor cartels—from antitrust laws raises concerns: why allow monopolistic practices that could hike prices and limit competition, regressively harming consumers? If a national or subnational electorate democratically enacts right-to-work laws, preventing closed-shop unions, should this override a workplace vote? Such questions expose potential anti-democratic undercurrents, where “worker democracy” might privilege special interests over broader societal choice. 

These inconsistencies highlight a deeper issue: democratic socialism often conflates social democracy – market economies with robust safety nets – with true socialism, diluting the latter’s radical edge while inheriting its definitional baggage. Without clarity, it risks repeating history’s errors, where good intentions devolve into coercion. 

Toward Clarity and Accountability 

Democratic socialism’s appeal lies in its promise of equity without tyranny, but its vagueness invites skepticism. Only by adhering to historical definitions and demanding specificity can we foster advancement in these debates. What policies do democratic socialists argue for exactly? How will they avoid the pitfalls of past experiments in socialism, which often started with the noblest of intentions? Until answered, democratic socialism remains an elusive mirage.  

The global pharmaceutical market is set to surpass a total value of US$1.75 trillion by the end of the decade, according to Evaluate Pharma.

Experienced and novice investors alike may want to consider pharmaceutical exchange-traded funds (ETFs) as a way to gain exposure to the top pharma companies. Like all ETFs, pharmaceutical ETFs are a good option for those who want to trade a set of assets in the pharmaceutical industry instead of focusing solely on individual pharmaceutical stocks.

The main advantage of a pharmaceutical ETF is the fact that it can provide exposure to an overarching sector, but still trades like a stock. Pharma ETFs also offer less market volatility and lower fees and expenses.

Big Pharma ETFs

Many of these funds have diverse holdings across some of the most important sectors in the pharmaceutical industry, including pain therapeutics, oncology, vaccines and biotechnology. Data was gathered on November 20, 2025.

1. VanEck Pharmaceutical ETF (NASDAQ:PPH)

Total assets under management: US$1.15 billion

Established in late 2011, the VanEck Pharmaceutical ETF tracks the MVIS US Listed Pharmaceutical 25 Index. It has the capacity to provide big returns, even though there are some risks attached to the ETF. An analyst report indicates that investors looking for ‘tactical exposure’ to the pharma sector might consider this ETF as an investment option.

The ETF has 26 holdings, with the top five being Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY), Novartis (NYSE:NVS), Merck & Company (NYSE:MRK), Novo Nordisk (NYSE:NVO) and the McKesson (NYSE:MCK).

2. iShares US Pharmaceuticals ETF (ARCA:IHE)

Total assets under management: US$669.2 million

Created on May 5, 2006, the iShares US Pharmaceuticals ETF tracks some of the top US pharma companies. In total, the iShares US Pharmaceuticals ETF has 45 holdings, with the vast majority being large-cap stocks.

Of its holdings, Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) and Eli Lilly are by far the largest portions in its portfolio, combining for nearly 50 percent, followed by Merck, Royalty Pharma (NASDAQ:RPRX) and Viatris (NASDAQ:VTRS).

3. Invesco Pharmaceuticals ETF (ARCA:PJP)

Total assets under management: US$299.48 million

The Invesco Pharmaceuticals ETF is primarily focused on providing exposure to US-based pharma companies. An analyst report states that this ETF chooses individual securities based on certain investment criteria, namely stock valuation and risk factors.

This ETF was started on June 23, 2005, and currently tracks 31 companies. Its top holdings are Eli Lilly, Amgen (NASDAQ:AMGN), Johnson & Johnson, Merck and AbbVie (NYSE:ABBV).

4. State Street SPDR S&P Pharmaceuticals ETF (ARCA:XPH)

Total assets under management: US$189.93 million

The State Street SPDR S&P Pharmaceuticals ETF came into the market on June 19, 2006, and represents the pharmaceutical sub-industry sector of the S&P Total Market Index (INDEXSP:SPTMI).

This pharma ETF tracks 52 holdings, with relatively close weighting among its holdings, a fact that sets it apart from other entries on this list. XPH’s top five holdings are Jazz Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:JAZZ), Tarsus Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:TARS), Eli Lilly, Ligand Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:LGND), and Crinetics Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:CRNX).

5. KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF (ARCA:KURE)

Total assets under management: US$95.29 million

The KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF was launched in February 2018 and tracks an index of large- and mid-cap Chinese stocks in the healthcare sector, all weighted by market capitalization. According to an analyst report, the fund provides investors with ‘exposure to a relatively small slice of the Chinese economy.’

The ETF tracks 50 holdings, and its top five are BeOne Medicines (NASDAQ:ONC), Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine (SHA:600276), Innovent Biologics (HKEX:1801), WuXi Biologics (HKEX:2269) and Sino Biopharmaceutical (HKEX:1177).

Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistilli, hold no investment interest in any of the companies mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com