RedState91%

New: Another Blue State Ignores Daycares With No Kids Despite Massive Subsidies 80%

By Ward Clark72%

7/6/2026, 6:30:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 46.3% saturation with 323 hits. Analysis detected 2,276 faulty-reasoning hits from 697 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.3% and a BS Rank of 80% (4,379 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.30% of the article peer group.

There's been a lot come to light about the extensive fraud perpetrated on the American taxpayers: Medicare and Medicaid fraud, COVID relief fraud, food aid fraud, and, not least of all, daycare fraud. 
All of these are funneling money, in the millions, likely billions, away from the people it was intended to help and into the pockets of fraudsters. 
Now, add some more to the list: A recent investigation by The Center Square, in Washington, has revealed a bunch of "daycare" operations that had no children, but which were taking big, fat payments from the taxpayers. 
Many Washington state daycare providers receive large taxpayer subsidies, but an investigation by The Center Square found several that had few, if any, children and at least one establishment that received hundreds of thousands of dollars despite residents at the listed address indicating it was not a daycare. 
Yet politicians charged with overseeing the spending continue to publicly say there is no problem with improper payments to the daycares and, instead, have been criticizing journalists for investigating the potential fraud. 
No state official has announced an investigation or crackdown though the legislature instituted some reforms last session. 
No problem? 
No problem with payments to daycares that have no kids? 
Seriously? 
Read More: 'Come Again?' 
FBI Director Claps Back at Walz's New MN Fraud Raid Credit Grab 
New Video by MI Lawmaker Exposes Ghost Daycare Reportedly Raking in $1.1M From Taxpayers 
Watch The Center Square's report: 
According to fiscal.wa.gov, one daycare in West Seattle received more than $229,000 over nine months from July 2025 through March 2026, but the residents at the home repeatedly told The Center Square there was no daycare at the home, nor had there been. 
“Is there a daycare operated from here?” 
a reporter from The Center Square asked. 
“No," the person who answered the door responded. 
The resident also said there had never been a daycare at the address. 
Some of these supposed daycare centers were receiving over $20,000 per month, with no children in evidence. 
That's a calamity, a horrendous fraud perpetrated on the taxpayers of the state of Washington, and politicians with oversight insist there's no problem. 
Well, I don't know about you, but I sure see a problem. 
The state Attorney General sees a problem, too, although fraud isn't what he perceives as the problem so much as the people who are exposing the fraud. 
Attorney General Nick Brown responded by encouraging anyone who would see a reporter “harassing” a daycare provider by knocking on the door, to report it to the hate crimes hotline. 
“Showing up on someone’s porch, threatening, or harassing them isn’t an investigation," noted Brown’s Dec 30, 2025, press release. 
"Neither is filming minors who may be in the home. 
This is unsafe and potentially dangerous behavior. 
I encourage anyone experiencing threats or harassment to either contact local law enforcement or our office’s Hate Crimes & Bias Incident Hotline.” 
Showing up at someone's door who is running a public service - childcare - and who is taking tens of thousands of dollars in payments from the taxpayers isn't threatening or harassing. 
It's a legitimate inquiry into where millions of dollars of taxpayer funds are being shuttled, to whom, and why. 
Why are locations registered as daycare providers, where the owners/operators of these supposed businesses are taking in tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars but having no kids in evidence, somehow immune to inquiry by the taxpaying public? 
Answer: They aren't. 
When you dine at the devil's table, you don't get to choose the menu, and when you accept taxpayer money, you should expect to be open to inquiry. 
Since the state of Washington seems unable to conduct any such inquiry, it's up to journalists. 
That's literally part of the job. 
And, note once again the location, as we've seen it so many times already with these huge fraud scams: Minnesota, California, now Washington: What do these states all have in common? 
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt politicians. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.9%Ward Clark: 6.5%RedState: 7.1%Confirmation Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.2%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 22.4%Ward Clark: 4.6%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic22.4%This article: 1.7%Ward Clark: 1.7%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic1.7%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.7%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Ward Clark: 3.1%RedState: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias1.3%This article: 3.4%Ward Clark: 8.2%RedState: 9.3%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 4.0%Ward Clark: 0.6%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion4.0%This article: 2.4%Ward Clark: 0.8%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Ward Clark: 3.0%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 1.3%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 46.3%Ward Clark: 9.5%RedState: 14.1%Negativity Bias46.3%This article: 8.9%Ward Clark: 2.2%RedState: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias8.9%This article: 6.2%Ward Clark: 0.5%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error6.2%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Ward Clark: 5.7%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 1.9%RedState: 3.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 1.5%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.4%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Ward Clark: 0.8%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias11.8%This article: 1.7%Ward Clark: 0.4%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Ward Clark: 3.9%RedState: 7.0%Ad Hominem1.7%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 2.0%RedState: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.9%Ward Clark: 2.4%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority7.9%This article: 13.1%Ward Clark: 2.2%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma13.1%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.0%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.9%Ward Clark: 10.6%RedState: 10.2%Hasty Generalization9.9%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.4%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.3%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.2%Ward Clark: 6.7%RedState: 8.7%Appeal to Emotion13.2%This article: 3.2%Ward Clark: 1.3%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 3.7%Ward Clark: 1.8%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.7%This article: 4.6%Ward Clark: 1.1%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque4.6%This article: 2.4%Ward Clark: 1.0%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof2.4%This article: 4.0%Ward Clark: 0.2%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature4.0%This article: 4.0%Ward Clark: 0.1%RedState: 0.4%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 15.8%Ward Clark: 2.8%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal15.8%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.0%Ward Clark: 1.6%RedState: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.0%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.7%Ward Clark: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity1.7%This article: 5.5%Ward Clark: 0.4%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading5.5%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.0%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 22.0%Ward Clark: 1.7%RedState: 2.5%Unattributed Quote22.0%This article: 2.7%Ward Clark: 0.6%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.7%This article: 41.5%Ward Clark: 19.9%RedState: 22.0%Biased Writer Voice41.5%This article: 20.1%Ward Clark: 6.8%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination20.1%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 0.2%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ward Clark: 12.3%RedState: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Ward Clark: 2.9%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.0%

697 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers14%attributed speech602writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageThe Center Square • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageNick Brown • 30 words • 0.0% coverageNick Brown • 19 words • 100.0% coverageNick Brown • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNick Brown • 7 words • 100.0% coverageNick Brown • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nick Brown

64%flagged-word coverage
88 attributed words93% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-48.0 ptsWriter: 48.0%Nick Brown: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-16.3 ptsWriter: 24.3%Nick Brown: 8.0%8.0%Indoctrination-23.3 ptsWriter: 23.3%Nick Brown: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+21.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nick Brown: 21.6%21.6%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Nick Brown: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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