Ken Buck: The Multibillion-Dollar Problem The Left Wants To Ignore 56%

By Ken Buck0%

8/5/2026, 4:57:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Straw Man, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 24.7% saturation with 181 hits. Analysis detected 815 faulty-reasoning hits from 734 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.3% and a BS Rank of 56% (12,633 of 28,112 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.10% of the article peer group.

After years of absentee oversight that enabled government fraud and abuse to run rampant, President Donald Trump and his advisers are tightening the federal purse strings. 
Late last month the Trump administration suspended over $1 billion of Medicaid payments to California and Minnesota, citing suspected fraud and noncompliance. 
The deferrals come on the heels of another $1.5 billion of halted payments the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services took against the same two states earlier this year. 
The actions send a clear message: States that refuse to get serious about fraud and abuse will quickly see the spigot of federal funding shut off. 
It's about time. 
The Government Accountability Office estimates that taxpayers lose as much as $521 billion to fraud every year. 
The federal government made at least $186 billion of improper payments last year, over half of which occurred in health care programs. 
Since 2003, the federal government has made $3 trillion in improper payments. 
That's not a rounding error; it's huge chunks of taxpayer money handed out to criminals. 
Another recent report found that 20 programs account for nearly 90% of federal obligations, making them high risk for abuse. 
Liberal states have refused to police this epidemic of taxpayer exploitation. 
They insist that commonsense measures to verify eligibility somehow disadvantage at-risk communities. 
If an individual accepts a job, they must file the appropriate paperwork with their employer. 
Why should they not have to meet similar verification benchmarks to accept a check from Uncle Sam? 
Democrats swear up and down a person should have to consent to a background check, complete a waiting period and safety course, and meet an age requirement to purchase a firearm -- a right written into the Constitution. 
But when it comes to enrolling in a taxpayer-funded program, it becomes heresy that an individual should have to prove they actually qualify for it. 
It is appropriate that the Trump administration started with California and Minnesota, two states that have shown utter contempt for accountability. 
Under what one newspaper called California Gov. 
Gavin Newsom's "Empire of Fraud," Californians lost at least $180 billion to fraud and mismanagement. 
During the pandemic, unemployment insurance fraud in California exceeded $32 billion. 
Between 2019 and 2024, the state spent $24 billion on homeless programs, yet its homeless population grew. 
And more recently, an investigation revealed widespread Medicaid and Medicare fraud by sham hospice centers. 
Under Newsom, spending on the state's public health insurance program, Medi-Cal, increased from $94 billion in 2018 to over $197 billion, even as California's population shrank. 
That's an unmistakable red flag. 
Either the governor blithely ignored or was willfully negligent to the problem. 
Either way, it bodes poorly for the man who pitches himself as the future of the Democrat Party. 
Likewise, Minnesota distinguished itself as a destination for criminals. 
Gov. 
Tim Walz turned a blind eye to massive schemes that defrauded taxpayers of more than $9 billion. 
A U.S. 
House Oversight Committee report released in June states that Walz failed for years to address widespread pilfering of the state's social programs, even after receiving repeated warnings. 
The CMS's deferred payments to Minnesota specifically target 14 high-risk programs that the state's legislative auditor identified as vulnerable to fraud. 
It shouldn't take massive scandals to make public leaders get tough on fraud and abuse. 
Stealing from taxpayers is never acceptable, no different than if they were robbed at gunpoint. 
Yet the left is content to let it continue. 
They would rather funnel money to criminals and illegal immigrants than steward families' hard-earned money, because accountability doesn't grow the welfare line. 
The Trump administration has shown it takes fraud seriously. 
Earlier this year, it launched the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, headed by Vice President JD Vance. 
The initiative has already identified $230 billion in government fraud and stopped $56 billion in fraudulent payments. 
No wonder the public supports it. 
The administration's suspension of payments to California and Minnesota is another major step toward stopping the robbery of federal coffers. 
Let's hope it sends a message to other states across the country to toughen up on fraud or wean themselves off taxpayers' money. 
Ken Buck received his law degree at the University of Wyoming and served in the United States House of Representatives from 2015-2024 representing Colorado's 4th congressional district. 
He now serves as a Fellow with the Independent Center. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.8%Ken Buck: 7.9%Cowboy State Daily: 1.5%Confirmation Bias15.8%This article: 4.0%Ken Buck: 2.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.5%Anchoring Bias4.0%This article: 3.0%Ken Buck: 1.5%Cowboy State Daily: 1.6%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Ken Buck: 3.1%Cowboy State Daily: 1.5%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Ken Buck: 1.7%Cowboy State Daily: 2.2%Negativity Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Ken Buck: 2.1%Cowboy State Daily: 1.0%In-Group Bias2.7%This article: 4.5%Ken Buck: 2.2%Cowboy State Daily: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.5%Ken Buck: 0.7%Cowboy State Daily: 0.5%Recency Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Ken Buck: 2.5%Cowboy State Daily: 0.3%Ad Hominem2.5%This article: 9.8%Ken Buck: 7.2%Cowboy State Daily: 0.4%Straw Man9.8%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 1.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.4%Ken Buck: 7.1%Cowboy State Daily: 1.1%False Dilemma7.4%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.0%Ken Buck: 6.9%Cowboy State Daily: 2.6%Hasty Generalization11.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.8%Ken Buck: 0.4%Cowboy State Daily: 0.2%Bandwagon0.8%This article: 4.1%Ken Buck: 6.3%Cowboy State Daily: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion4.1%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.3%Ken Buck: 1.2%Cowboy State Daily: 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.3%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.0%Ken Buck: 0.5%Cowboy State Daily: 0.6%Unattributed Quote1.0%This article: 2.0%Ken Buck: 1.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 24.7%Ken Buck: 12.3%Cowboy State Daily: 1.4%Biased Writer Voice24.7%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Ken Buck: 7.1%Cowboy State Daily: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Ken Buck: 0.0%Cowboy State Daily: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

734 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers6.0%attributed speech690writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words39% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.2 ptsWriter: 26.2%Government Accountability Office: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%Government Accountability Office: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Government Accountability Office: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%Government Accountability Office: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.