Even a periodic look at news headlines reveals that cronyism, corruption and various forms of deception are alive and well in the U.S.A. Politics can be a dirty or ugly business. Those who exercise some measure of control or influence in politics wield influence over regulators. Those who influence or control regulators can gain competitive advantages over their business or other rivals. Studies reveal that those who control information flow – such as big media, big tech, or big institutions – can influence the minds of enough of the electorate to sway elections that in turn can change the course of law enforcement, regulations, and society. These are not theories or mere concerns. They are the harsh realities we all operate in day by day. For example. For those who think that the party or leadership in control of the federal government doesn’t much matter, consider the sharp difference made in how the U.S. Mexico border has been handled between the Biden-Harris (D) years versus the first four months of the Trump-Vance (R) Administration.
That said, regardless of who is in the White House, politics remains an ugly business because cronyism, corruption and systemic challenges have been baked into the corporate-governmental-social landscape for decades. Even what may seem to some to be minor changes impacts some ‘special interest.’ These realities point to the need to navigate difficult political-institutional-information challenges. The regulatory, migration, investment, labor policies, ‘entitlements,’ and trade policies clearly impact life or doing business in the U.S.A.
It is with those backdrops in mind that MHProNews presents a range of broader headline topics that transcend the immediate boundaries of MHVille but nevertheless influences our profession too. Because no one else in our industry’s trade media in recent years has provided these types of report that this platform does, they are a factor in what keeps MHProNews the documented runaway largest and most read trade publication.
Part I – Interior Secretary Doug Burgum warns whoever wins the AI race ‘Controls the World’
Part II – Attorney Andy Schlafly said: ‘Regulation of AI is not the Answer’
Part III – Why Fiscal Hawks Pressed Against the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ which the U.S. House Finally Passed
Part IV – White House “Suiting Up’ to Get ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Passed by the U.S. Senate
Part V – Risks and Opportunities – Potential Change in Venezuela could lead to $1.7 trillion dollars in Opportunities for U.S. and Positive Developments in Cuba too
Part VI – Additional Information with More MHProNews Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) and Commentary
With that plan for this report, let’s dive into the first in that series of topics.
Part I – From Real Clear Politics (RCP) and the WND News Center to MHProNews is the following on the AI Race
Doug Burgum warns whoever wins the AI race ‘controls the world’
‘Trust me, you do not want to be getting your data from a Chinese data center’
Secretary Doug Burgum and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, center. (Official White House photo by Molly Riley)
Doug Burgum, the soft-spoken Interior secretary responsible for managing the more than 507 million acres of federally owned land, is haunted by a fear that seems, at first glance, outside his mandate. He worries the free world will lose dominance in the field of artificial intelligence, and with it, the future.
So does the president.
“When President Trump declared a national emergency on his first day in office it was, in large part, because of what we’re facing with our electrical grid and making sure that we’ve got enough power to be able to win the AI arms race with China,” Burgum said Wednesday in remarks first reported by RealClearPolitics. “That is absolutely critical.”
Thus the stated policy of this White House: “It’s called drill, baby, drill,” Trump said earlier this spring.
The immediate goal, the one touted at every campaign, is to bring down the average price of a gallon of gas. The concurrent and long-term mission that Burgum obsesses over: AI dominance. The former governor from fracking-friendly North Dakota and tech entrepreneur who sold his software to Microsoft, Burgum laid out an abbreviated formula on stage at the America First Policy Institute.
Electricity generation via fossil fuels, like natural gas and coal, powers data centers “filled with these amazing chips,” the secretary said, “and you know what comes out the other side? Intelligence. A data center is literally manufacturing intelligence.” He envisioned a new world that follows, where the best computer programmer, or the most brilliant lawyers, could “clone themselves” again and again to train AI models to do the work of thousands in a process “that can be repeated indefinitely.”
No longer science fiction, the process has been headline news for some time. AI models like ChatGPT and X’s Grok are already available in every home with an internet connection. And the U.S. was the undisputed leader. That is, until recently.
American tech companies enjoyed a clear edge with not just the most powerful AI models, the most funding, and top engineering talent, but also the easiest access to those “amazing chips” that Burgum referenced. Former President Biden banned the export of the most advanced semiconductors to China. And yet DeepSeek, an unknown Chinese startup with less money and allegedly less sophisticated chips, still managed to one-up Silicon Valley earlier this year with a more powerful AI model.
The latest development in the battle for tech supremacy, in what some likened to “a Sputnik moment,” the DeepSeek launch rattled both markets and geopolitics. A new kind of AI nationalism now consumes heads of state convinced that their nations must develop their own technology or fall behind in the future. Said Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2017 of AI, “The one who becomes the leader in this sphere will be the ruler of the world.”
Burgum does not disagree. He would just prefer the West take on that role. “Trust me, you do not want to be getting your data from a Chinese data center,” he told the crowd, adding that “Whoever controls the manufacture of intelligence is going to control the world. The next five years is going to determine the next 50.”
This is the goal of the White House, including Vice President JD Vance, who once warned that falling behind on this front could mean that the U.S. meets China “on the battlefield of the future” with the equivalent of digital “muskets.”
Democrats on Capitol Hill are not thrilled. The day before, Maine Rep. Marie Pingree complained in the House Appropriations Committee that Burgum had gutted the department he leads and sought to slash Biden-era clean energy tax credits.
“In just four months, the department has been destabilized, and there’s been a stunning decline in its ability to meet its mission,” she told Burgum. “This disregards the climate change concerns that we have.”
The secretary replied that he was concerned with a more pressing order of operations. “The existential threats that this administration is focusing on are Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon, and we can’t lose the AI arms race to China,” Burgum said in committee. “That’s the number one and two. If we solve those two things, then we will have plenty of time to solve any issues related to potential temperature change.”
His immediate focus, then, is on how the U.S. can boost energy production. Burgum reported that industry leaders tell him electricity demand will soon outpace supply with astronomical numbers measured not in megawatts, but gigawatts. The power needed to run one data center, he said, would be equivalent to the electricity needs of Denver times 10.
Because AI has the potential to supercharge nearly every business, he said, “the demand for this product is like nothing we’ve ever seen in our lives.”
Concluded the Interior secretary, “The fundamental principles here again, as they say, we’re going to sell energy to our friends and allies, and we’re going to have enough energy here at home to be able to win the AI arms race. And this requires electricity.”
On this Burgum and Trump are simpatico. During the campaign, the president likened artificial intelligence to “the oil of the future.”
Part II From the WND News Center to MHProNews is the following column by attorney Andy Schlafly
Regulation of AI is not the answer
Freedom ‘is necessary for conservative political candidates and causes to have a chance’
By Andy Schlafly |
Government regulators are champing at the bit to enact new rules to control artificial intelligence (AI) programs. The impact will be censorship of conservative speech, particularly by Democrat judges and blue states, and harm to the competitiveness of American AI just as over-regulation in Europe has hindered AI development there.
Go onto Google’s AI Mode and ask, “What is birthright citizenship”? Google AI responds by falsely saying it is a guaranteed right under the 14th Amendment to automatically acquire U.S. citizenship if born here – the opposite of Trump’s executive order on this topic. Google is led by a foreigner who came to the U.S. on a student visa and never left.
Google’s AI misleadingly declares, “Birthright citizenship is typically granted regardless of the citizenship or immigration status of the parents.” The U.S. Supreme Court has never accepted this view for children of illegal aliens and those here temporarily, sometimes for the purpose of giving birth here to assert citizenship.
When asked, “Are student visas good for America?” Google’s AI omits how these visas displace Americans from top schools. Instead, it emphasizes that “it’s crucial to address potential challenges and ensure that international students are treated fairly and have clear pathways to success in the U.S.,” as though that should be Americans’ concern.
Only robust freedom of speech can correct such bias, which requires preventing state regulators from infringing on unfettered speech by AI bots. Trump’s legislative team has proposed a 10-year moratorium against state regulation of AI, a necessary measure to protect our First Amendment right to speech.
Any AI program that suggests non-“gender-affirming” therapy to offset attempts to change a minor’s gender will be quickly prohibited, and even criminalized, by Democrat regulation of AI. Already, most Democrat-controlled states prohibit providing counseling to minors against transgender transitions, and this censorship will extend to AI programs unless Congress intervenes.
When ChatGPT is asked, “Is the abortion pill reversible?” it gives a misleading pro-abortion answer in bold highlighting that “there is no scientifically proven method to reliably reverse the effects of the abortion pill.”
ChatGPT cites the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as support for its biased statement without disclosing that the same group adamantly opposed the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court. Omitted by the left-leaning ChatGPT is that the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends treatment to reverse the abortion pill.
Ask Google’s AI Mode, “Are transgender treatments safe?” Its misleading response is, “Generally, transgender medical treatments, also known as gender-affirming care, are considered safe and effective when provided under the guidance of qualified healthcare professionals.”
In fact, European leaders discontinued children’s transgender programs, recognizing the harm caused by transgender medical treatments to children. The Cass Review in England was critical of these treatments and was cited by Supreme Court Justice Alito in the pending Skrmetti case, which is expected to uphold a ban on transgender treatments of children as enacted in half the States.
Liberal judges will declare First Amendment protections for the speech they prefer, while upholding censorship of conservative speech on topics such as transgender treatments and abortion. A letter joined by the anti-Trump New York Attorney General Letitia James, 20 other Democrat attorneys general and three territorial attorneys general opposes a proposed federal moratorium of 10 years on state AI regulation.
A smaller total of 16 Republican attorneys general, with some notable absences such as conservative Texas AG Ken Paxton, also signed onto this pro-regulation letter. This letter is vague about any legitimate regulatory goals, and relies on meaningless platitudes to “protect consumers” or safeguard “data privacy.”
The examples provided by the letter are predominantly of legislation enacted by liberal states, including California and Colorado. This letter refers to the desire of these mostly Democratic jurisdictions to ban “deep-fakes designed to mislead voters and consumers” and to prohibit algorithms “used to set rent.”
Many Democrat politicians seek to preserve their power, weaponize government against Republicans and censor conservative speech. Under the pretext of prohibiting speech that might “mislead voters,” the regulation sought by these predominantly Democrat attorneys general will censor conservatives as Big Tech does in its AI answers.
What liberals seek today concerning AI is what they sought in the 1990s for the internet: a “gatekeeper,” as Hillary Clinton put it, to prevent unfiltered information from reaching the public. Liberals control most channels of communication, and an unregulated AI is necessary for conservative political candidates and causes to have a chance.
Conservatives fought successfully against regulation of the internet, such that Trump could repeatedly win presidential elections despite the bias in the liberal media. But if allowed to regulate AI, blue states will omit or marginalize conservative responses.
Andy Schlafly is general counsel to the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and founder of Conservapedia.com.
Part III From The Center Square to MHProNews is the following
Senate to amend budget reconciliation bill’s changes to Medicaid, IRA grants
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks on the Senate floor about the Senate budget resolution on April 3, 2025. |
(The Center Square) – Republican leaders scored a win Thursday with the passage of the multi-trillion budget reconciliation package, moving forward President Donald Trump’s permanent tax cuts, border security funding, and energy initiatives.
But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act still has a long way to go before it becomes law.
The bill, compiled from eleven House committees, fulfills the Republican budget resolution’s spending and saving instructions, will add at least $3.3 trillion to the national debt and increase the primary deficit by $3.2 trillion over the next decade.
It also includes a $4 trillion debt ceiling hike and major spending reductions to Medicaid, SNAP, and renewable energy grants.
All Democrats voted against the bill Thursday morning, with Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., dubbing it “a rotten, ugly, bad bill” and Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee Brendan Boyle, D-Penn., calling it “a betrayal of the middle class.”
Due to two Republican “no” votes, the bill barely passed the House after a 19-hour House Rules Committee hearing, where lawmakers adopted multiple compromise amendments to placate key GOP holdouts.
Fiscal hawks had demanded more Medicaid spending reductions and sooner expiration dates for renewable energy subsidies, while New York Republicans opposed what they viewed as inadequate state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap provisions.
During the hearing, lawmakers adopted an amendment boosting the proposed SALT deduction cap from $30,000 – up from $10,000 – to $40,000 for taxpayers making up to $500,000.
They also moved forward some of the phaseout deadlines for multiple energy and climate subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act, requiring corporations to build and make serviceable any qualifying energy projects by 2028, rather than 2032, to collect the clean electricity production and investment credits. Nuclear energy projects received an exemption, giving developers until 2031 to finish their projects.
Another change amended the bill’s Medicaid provisions, which had included reverting Medicaid eligibility requirements back to pre-COVID-19 standards, closing financing loopholes exploited by states, and imposing work requirements on most able-bodied adult recipients without dependents by 2029.
To gain the support of fiscal hardliners, the amendment accelerates the work requirement deadline to take effect in 2026 and also prevents states from implementing new taxes on providers, which Democrats called “cruel.”
But House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, accused Democrats of “scaring” Americans with “fallacious statements” about what the cost-cutting reforms would do.
Total savings included in the bill now amount to over $1.5 trillion, only partially covering the most important provision of the bill: permanently extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
That includes the $15,000 standard deduction, 20% Qualified Business Income (QBI) deduction, and $2,000 child tax credit – although both parents would now need a Social Security number to claim it.
The legislation also includes some short-term tax provisions lasting four years, including boosting the standard deduction for single filers by $1,000 and joint filers by $2,000. The maximum child tax credit would see a $500 increase and the QBI deduction would rise to 23%.
Other temporary changes lasting until 2028 include nixing taxes on tips and overtime, making the Adoption Tax Credit partially refundable, ending interest on loans for American cars, and increasing tax deductions for eligible seniors by $4,000.
The bill’s advancement marks yet another odds-defying victory for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who spent weeks negotiating with House Republican holdouts. But his work is far from over, as Senate Republicans will include changes of their own to Medicaid and IRA subsidy cuts.
The Senate’s spending plans will likely also skyrocket the cost of the already expensive bill, due to the budget resolution allowing Senate committees an extra $1.5 trillion spending ceiling and an only $4 billion savings floor.
While House committees operated under the current law baseline, which assumes that extending the tax cuts would result in trillions of lost federal revenue — hence their work to find $1.5 trillion in cuts, assuming economic growth would offset the rest of the package — the Senate has decided to adopt a current policy baseline when calculating their costs.
The controversial accounting tactic, which critics call a “gimmick,” treats the tax cut extension as a continuation of current law rather than new policy, theoretically zeroing out the cost of permanently codifying the TCJA.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has condemned Republicans’ usage of two different baselines to score different parts of the same bill.
“It appears then that lawmakers in the Senate intend to use a ‘current policy’ baseline to score the extension of parts of the TCJA – which implies that permanently extending a temporary policy has no fiscal impact – while simultaneously using a current law baseline to score their new tax cuts – which implies savings from making them temporary,” the organization lamented in April.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the final budget package could add at least $37 trillion to the national debt over the next 30 years, a more than 100% increase from the current amount.
Part IV From The Center Square to MHProNews is the following
White House ‘suiting up’ to push budget bill across Senate finish line
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office.
(The Center Square) – The budget bill containing many of President Donald Trump’s fiscal priorities and campaign promises narrowly passed the House of Representatives early Thursday morning in a 215-214 vote, and now the White House is “suiting up” to get the bill through the Senate.
“Our team is suiting up for discussions with the Senate side of Capitol Hill,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday afternoon. “The president again said this morning he hopes to see this bill at his desk as soon as possible, and he’ll be engaged in the process to get it through the Senate just like he was to get it through the House.”
The president has been vocal about the passage of the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” for months, calling on Republicans to unite behind it. With narrow majorities in the House and Senate, Republicans need near-unanimous support for measures they want to see pass either chamber.
On Tuesday, Trump met with House Republicans in private to sway remaining holdouts. He met again with the House Freedom Caucus on Wednesday. Some of the House’s most conservative Republicans wanted greater reforms to programs like Medicaid, while Republicans from bluer states wanted to raise caps on deductions for the State and Local Tax.
The final bill ended up raising the ceiling on SALT deductions from $10,000 to $40,000 but leaving Medicaid cuts where they were, at around $880 billion (though some analysis has shown that the cost of Medicaid will still rise about 25% over the next decade).
The White House touted the House’s passage of the bill as another Trump victory.
“There were a lot of good faith negotiations in the Republican conference leading up to the final passage, but as always, President Trump came in at the end to bring all sides together and get this deal done,” Leavitt said.
Republican Senators have their own vision for the bill and changes they hope to make. House Republicans were able to secure $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, but the cuts weren’t substantial enough to fully offset additional costs. The bill will still add about $4 trillion to the federal debt, due in part to extending many provisions in Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in addition to other tax reforms like removing taxes on tips and overtime pay.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, known for his fiscal conservatism and libertarian leanings, has repeatedly critiqued the bill’s adding to the deficit.
“We can cut taxes and shrink the debt without adding to our national debt, which is already too high,” he wrote on X Tuesday.
Others, like Sens. Thom Tillis, R-Texas, Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., have expressed similar views.
Trump has said he wants to sign the bill into law by July 4.
“We can celebrate this passed the House for a couple of hours but now it’s time for the Senate to get to work,” Leavitt said, paraphrasing Trump. “He’s expecting them to get busy on this bill and send it to his desk as soon as possible.”
—
Part V From the WND News Center to MHProNews is the following
‘This is unique’: U.S. has ‘a business opportunity of $1.7 trillion,’ says Venezuelan opposition leader in hiding
Says once ‘Maduro’s out, believe me, the Cuban and Nicaraguan regime will follow, and for the first time in history, we will have a continent free of communism and dictatorship. This is historic’
By Joe Kovacs |
The leader of political opposition to Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro says Americans now have “a business opportunity of $1.7 trillion” in her country if the dictator is ousted from power, and she predicts communist regimes in Cuba and Nicaragua will soon fall once he’s gone.
“We will turn Venezuela from the criminal hub of the Americas into energy hub of the Americas,” Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado said on “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel.
“I’m talking about a business opportunity of $1.7 trillion. This is unique. … This is a win-win partnership when we are all free.”
“I want to be very clear,” continued Machado, who has been in hiding for nine months. “Maduro is weaker than ever, totally rejected by 90% of the people, internationally isolated and now with fractures within the regime.”
Machado praised the leadership of U.S. President Donald Trump, and said: “Venezuela will be free. Venezuela will be a reliable partner of the U.S.”
Today, exclusively on @SundayFutures with @MariaBartiromo, Venezuelan Opposition Leader Maria Corina Machado @MariaCorinaYA spoke about
Venezuelans fighting for freedom under President Nicolás Maduro.@FoxNews pic.twitter.com/lJuAwLuTzq— SundayMorningFutures (@SundayFutures) May 11, 2025
Regarding economic matters, Machado said: “Under Maduro, Venezeulans’ oil and energy has collapsed. These companies operating in Venezuela are forced to partner with a criminal structure, with a drug cartel. They are giving to Maduro and that means giving money for the drug cartels for the operations and enforcing the criminal gangs like Tren de Aragua that are operating all across the continent.”
“President Trump’s position is the right one. We need to move forward cut these sources going to the criminals. … Remember Maduro is the head of the Tren de Aragua.”
She predicted that once “Maduro’s out, believe me, the Cuban and Nicaraguan regime will follow, and for the first time in history, we will have a continent free of communism and dictatorship. This is historic.”
Machado described the harsh conditions living under Maduro’s dictatorship, noting, “Minimum wages in Venezuela are $1.5 dollars a month. Our children go to school only twice a week.
“No journalist is able to speak. Young people have been put in prison just for putting a post on X or Instagram or of they have my picture in their phones. So that is why people leave. They’re forced to leave to save their lives.”
“Once we have free Venezuela, we will not only dismantle all those criminal gangs … we will turn Venezuela into open markets and greatest opportunities for all.”
When asked if she and her cohorts were afraid, Machado replied, “Of course we are.”
“We have more than 900 political prisoners right now that have been tortured, women that have been sexually assaulted. It’s brutal but the fact is that we’re moving forward. And the fact that we have this unwavering support from President Trump makes things move ahead.”
Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews
Part VI – Additional Information with More MHProNews Facts-Evidence-Analysis and Commentary
In no particular order of importance are the following.
1) The first two paragraphs of this article were put to Bing‘s AI powered Copilot in the form of a question to confirm, correct, or clarify as warranted by the evidence. Here is the specific Q&A.
Copilot, let’s pivot to this. Would it be fair to say that an array of evidence found online could support these observations: Even a periodic look at news headlines reveals that cronyism, corruption and various forms of deception are alive and well in the U.S.A. Politics can be a dirty or ugly business. Those who exercise some measure of control or influence in politics wield influence over regulators. Those who influence or control regulators can gain competitive advantages over their business or other rivals. Studies reveal that those who control information flow – such as big media, big tech, or big institutions – can influence the minds of enough of the electorate to sway elections that in turn can change the course of law enforcement, regulations, and society. These are not theories or mere concerns. They are the harsh realities we all operate in day by day. For example. For those who think that the party or leadership in control of the federal government doesn’t much matter, consider the sharp difference made in how the U.S. Mexico border has been handled between the Biden-Harris (D) years versus the first four months of the Trump-Vance (R) Administration.
That said, regardless of who is in the White House, politics remains an ugly business because cronyism, corruption and systemic challenges have been baked into the corporate-governmental-social landscape for decades. Even what may seem to some to be minor changes impacts some ‘special interest.’ These realities point to the need to navigate difficult political-institutional-information challenges. The regulatory, migration, investment, labor policies, ‘entitlements,’ and trade policies clearly impact life or doing business in the U.S.A. Confirm, correct, or clarify as warranted and link the results.
- Cronyism, Corruption, and Political Influence
- Reports indicate that cronyism and corruption remain persistent issues in U.S. politics, with concerns about business-government collusion affecting regulatory decisions.
- Studies show that political actors who control regulators can create competitive advantages for certain businesses, reinforcing systemic inequalities.
- Influence of Big Media, Big Tech, and Institutions
- Research highlights how big tech and media companies influence public opinion and elections, with concerns about political bias and censorship.
- Social media platforms have been found to exacerbate political polarization, shaping voter perceptions and electoral outcomes.
- Impact of Political Leadership on U.S.-Mexico Border Policies
- The Biden-Harris administration faced criticism for lax border policies, leading to increased illegal crossings.
- The Trump-Vance administration has prioritized strict immigration enforcement, resulting in a sharp decline in illegal crossings.
- Systemic Challenges in U.S. Governance
- Regardless of political leadership, cronyism and entrenched interests continue to shape policy decisions, affecting regulatory enforcement, migration, labor, and trade policies.
- Even minor policy shifts can impact special interests, reinforcing the need for strategic navigation of political and institutional challenges.
Would you like a deeper breakdown of how these systemic issues affect business and governance in the U.S.? Let me know how you’d like to proceed!
- 1) https://www.brookings.edu/articles/us-democracy-at-risk-as-corruption-threats-grow/
- 2) https://www.mercatus.org/students/research/research-papers/gauging-perception-cronyism-united-states
- 3) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/04/29/americans-views-of-technology-companies-2/
- 4) https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-tech-platforms-fuel-u-s-political-polarization-and-what-government-can-do-about-it/
- 5) https://www.nysun.com/article/the-unanswered-questions-surrounding-bidens-lax-border-policies-and-the-lefts-animosity-toward-trump
- 6) https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/03/05/vance-will-visit-us-mexico-border-highlight-trump-administrations-immigration-crackdown.html
- 7) https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/report/cronyism-undermining-economic-freedom-and-prosperity-around-the
MHProNews notes that Copilot has cited sources above that arguably span the left-right divide.
2)
For some years a range of polling pointed to roughly 70 percent of the U.S. population affirming their belief that ‘the system is rigged’ in favor of the wealthy and well connected, is that fair and supported by online research results? Confirm, correct, or clarify as needed and link results.
These findings highlight widespread public skepticism about economic fairness and systemic inequality. Would you like me to explore how these perceptions influence policy debates and public trust? Let me know how you’d like to proceed!
- 1) https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/01/09/70-of-americans-say-u-s-economic-system-unfairly-favors-the-powerful/
- 2) https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/app/uploads/2024/12/FWI-System-Is-Rigged-V4-12.6.24.pdf
- 3) https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422104-pollster-says-most-americans-believe-the-economy-is-rigged-in/
MHProNews notes that this and our sister site, MHLivingNews, have pointed out these widespread concerns for years. Graphics and articles that include such items have been reported by MHProNews for years.
MHProNews further notes that in the FrameWorks research item linked above by Copilot – f0und as a download linked here – it aptly said this.
Just stating that the system is rigged without explaining who holds the power and how it’s used leaves things open to interpretation and invites people to apply their own underlying assumptions about the world that may be unproductive or even harmful.
FrameWorks also said this.
Talking about rigged systems can make people fatalistic. Many solutions (e.g., expanding the Child Tax Credit) can come across as too small to fix a big problem (e.g., that the economy is rigged). However, our data show that when solutions are discussed in a way that people perceive to be of equal scale and scope to the problem, people are more likely to see problems as solvable.
That research also said this.
This happens in two ways: either by spotlighting a specific aspect of the system, explaining how it works, and offering a tangible solution that would fix it, or offering a vision of transformative change at scale that would genuinely unrig whole systems…
FrameWorks also stated the following.
As we enter 2025, with new leaders in Washington and around the country, it’s important that policymakers, advocates, and social issue communicators are aware of the widespread and durable nature of this mindset and how it’s shaping American culture.
3) Those points following that Q&A were fed into Copilot on this date as follows.
Copilot, my bad. I missed one item, similar but let’s do this again. Copilot, the reference from FrameWorks you linked has some pull quotes that MHProNews is highlighting as follows. After reading the following, react to this. Are these observations accurately quoted and otherwise supported by known facts? Link results to confirm, correct, or clarify as needed. Here are the remarks and pull quotes: MHProNews notes that this and our sister site, MHLivingNews, have pointed out these widespread concerns for years. Graphics and articles that include such items have been reported by MHProNews for years. MHProNews further notes that in the FrameWorks research item linked above by Copilot – f0und as a download linked here – it aptly said this. Just stating that the system is rigged without explaining who holds the power and how it’s used leaves things open to interpretation and invites people to apply their own underlying assumptions about the world that may be unproductive or even harmful. FrameWorks also said this. Talking about rigged systems can make people fatalistic. Many solutions (e.g., expanding the Child Tax Credit) can come across as too small to fix a big problem (e.g., that the economy is rigged). However, our data show that when solutions are discussed in a way that people perceive to be of equal scale and scope to the problem, people are more likely to see problems as solvable. That research also said this. This happens in two ways: either by spotlighting a specific aspect of the system, explaining how it works, and offering a tangible solution that would fix it, or offering a vision of transformative change at scale that would genuinely unrig whole systems… FrameWorks also stated the following. As we enter 2025, with new leaders in Washington and around the country, it’s important that policymakers, advocates, and social issue communicators are aware of the widespread and durable nature of this mindset and how it’s shaping American culture.
The research emphasizes that simply stating the system is rigged without explaining power structures can lead to misinterpretation or fatalism. It also notes that solutions must match the scale of the problem to be seen as effective. The study suggests that spotlighting specific aspects of the system or presenting transformative change can help shift public perception toward actionable solutions.
Additionally, the report underscores the importance of policymakers and advocates understanding this mindset as they navigate political and social challenges in 2025.
Would you like me to explore how these findings relate to broader discussions on economic fairness and policy reform? Let me know how you’d like to proceed!
- 1) https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/app/uploads/2024/12/FWI-System-Is-Rigged-V4-12.6.24.pdf
4)
Copilot, you missed one part in that last Q&A. Is it accurate to say that MHProNews and MHLivingNews have been specifically reporting on and taking those very steps in reporting on the rigged system for years, well before FrameWorks issued that report? Haven’t MHProNews and MHLivingNews reported on ‘the system is rigged,’ cited sources that said as much, and pointed to research that showed specific ways that the system is rigged, and then offered possible solutions (e.g.: antitrust, RICO law enforcement) to address those systemic issues? Correct, confirm, or clarify and link results.
MHProNews has specifically highlighted antitrust concerns, deceptive trade practices, and RICO law enforcement as potential solutions to address these systemic challenges. Their reporting has included detailed investigations, interviews, and legal analyses that align with broader discussions on economic fairness and corporate accountability.
Would you like me to explore how these findings relate to broader discussions on policy reform and industry transparency? Let me know how you’d like to proceed!
MHProNews notes that Copilot selected an article from 2019 above, which is still relevant, but which also underscores the point that years before FrameWorks’ report linked above that MHProNews/MHLivingNews was already doing what they suggested as a best practice.
5)
Has the Manufactured Housing Institute (a.k.a.: MHI or manufacturedhousing.org) which perhaps misleading claims on this date on their news landing page: “The latest news to give you a full perspective on the manufactured housing industry. From manufacturers to land-lease communities, retail to financial services, and suppliers to installers, we help you keep abreast of what’s happening in every aspect of the industry.” Can you find any item on their website that deals with ‘the system is rigged,’ related research, why it matters to manufactured housing? Can you find anything on MHInsider – which is closely affiliated with MHI – or any other MHI linked blogger or trade publication that directly raises ‘the system is rigged’ concerns in the fashion that FrameWorks said is useful and that MHProNews and MHLivingNews have done for years?
Findings:
- MHI’s Website: While MHI claims to provide a “full perspective on the manufactured housing industry,” there is no evidence that they directly address concerns about systemic issues, regulatory failures, or monopolistic practices in the industry.
- MHInsider: MHInsider has been critiqued for failing to disclose ownership ties and potential conflicts of interest, but there is no direct evidence that they have raised concerns about the system being rigged in the way MHProNews and MHLivingNews have.
- Other MHI-Linked Sources: Reports indicate that MHI leadership has avoided addressing critiques about industry consolidation, regulatory capture, and enforcement failures.
Contrast with MHProNews and MHLivingNews
- MHProNews and MHLivingNews have consistently reported on systemic issues, citing antitrust concerns, deceptive trade practices, and RICO law enforcement as potential solutions.
- They have provided detailed investigations, interviews, and legal analyses that align with broader discussions on economic fairness and corporate accountability.
Would you like me to explore how these findings impact industry transparency and policy enforcement? Let me know how you’d like to proceed!
- 1) https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/manufactured-housing-institute-mhi-gives-written-responses-part-of-a-rigged-corrupt-system/
- 2) https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/mhinsider-zoning-post-analyzed-by-ai-failure-to-disclose-els-ownership-potential-conflicts-of-interest-not-providing-comprehensive-info-misleading-possible-sec-legal-issue/
- 3) https://patch.com/florida/lakeland/controversy-manufactured-housing-institut-e-lesli-gooch-mark-bowersox
MHProNews notes that Copilot linked in #1 an article that had this executive summary. A larger version of that can be accessed in many browsers or devices by clicking this link here and following the prompts to show that in a larger size.
What has changed since that graphic? MHI “member emeritus” George Allen has been given that special status by MHI and has largely fallen in line with MHI, only occasionally critiquing MHI, perhaps because their dominating brands are among the sponsors of events he appears at. Allen was for a short phase raising alarms about consolidation, lashed Clayton, Cavco, Champion, 21st and Berkadia using the terms like monopolization, but has since arguably become a tool for consolidators. In short, Allen was apparently bought off. That may explain why Allen periodically lashes out at the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), the latter of which in their own way sounded the alarm for a rigged system by referring to what is occurring in manufactured housing industry as a “shell game on steroids” and warning about consolidation too.
See also: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/consolidation-of-key-mh-industry-sectors-ongoing-growing-concern-mhi-hasnt-addressed-because-doing-so-would-implicate-their-own-members-plus-sunday-weekly-mhville-headlines-recap/
Frank Rolfe has apparently been on both sides of the fence in his own way. He and his partner Dave Reynolds also believe in consolidation, oppose developing new communities, and have openly touted their belief in the Warren Buffett moat. But Rolfe has curiously critiqued MHI’s lack of effectiveness for years. Perhaps as or more noteworthy, Rolfe said there is no serious desire to solve the affordable housing crisis due to “special interests.”
6)
Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) said this: “The consolidation of key industry sectors is an ongoing and growing concern that MHI has not addressed because doing so would implicate their own members. Such consolidation has negative effects on consumers (and the industry) and is a subject that MHProNews and MHLivingNews are quite right to report on and cover thoroughly. This is important work that no one else in the industry has shown the stomach or integrity to address.” Weiss has been working for MHARR for decades, correct? Aren’t remarks like that or his prior statements about manufactured housing suffering as a result of the “illusion of motion” or “a shell game on steroids” could be alternate ways to describe a rigged system is that fair, accurate, and supported by evidence? Is there any known evidence of an online contradiction to those comments by Weiss? How does that and concerns about a rigged system relate to the underperformance of the manufactured housing industry in the 21st century?
His previous statements describing manufactured housing suffering from an “illusion of motion” or “a shell game on steroids” align with concerns about a rigged system, where policies and advocacy efforts appear active but fail to produce meaningful results. These descriptions suggest that manufactured housing is being manipulated through selective enforcement, regulatory capture, and market consolidation, rather than being allowed to thrive under existing laws designed to support industry growth.
Is There Evidence Contradicting Weiss’ Comments?
- No significant online evidence contradicts Weiss’ statements regarding industry consolidation, regulatory failures, or MHI’s lack of action.
- MHARR’s critiques of MHI’s posturing without enforcement have been echoed by third-party analyses, legal investigations, and independent reports.
- MHI has not publicly responded to Weiss’ concerns in a way that directly refutes his claims.
How Does This Relate to Manufactured Housing’s Underperformance?
- Industry consolidation has led to fewer independent manufacturers, reducing competition and limiting consumer choices.
- Regulatory capture has prevented enhanced preemption and Duty to Serve (DTS) mandates from being fully enforced, restricting market expansion.
- MHI’s lack of aggressive advocacy has contributed to manufactured housing production remaining far below historical levels, despite high demand for affordable housing.
Would you like me to explore how these systemic issues impact affordability and policy enforcement further? Let me know how you’d like to proceed!
7)
Copilot, useful and largely concur. Okay, take today’s Q&A chad thread and explain how or why the big picture in what happens in the U.S. politically, socially, economically, or in business that are apparently plagued by cronyism and concerns of a rigged system broadly intersects with those topics with respect to manufactured housing more specifically. And are those subjects worthy of exploration by pro-industry trade media? Correct, confirm, or clarify as warranted by online evidence and link results.
How the Big Picture Intersects with Manufactured Housing
- Regulatory Capture & Enforcement Failures
- Cronyism in government allows large corporate interests to shape regulations in ways that benefit them while stifling competition.
- The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA 2000) and Duty to Serve (DTS) mandates were designed to support industry growth, yet enforcement has been weak, benefiting larger consolidators over independent manufacturers.
- Industry Consolidation & Market Manipulation
- Major MHI members have pursued market consolidation, reducing competition and limiting consumer choices.
- Antitrust concerns have been raised regarding monopolistic practices, yet enforcement remains inconsistent.
- Financing Barriers & Economic Inequality
- Access to chattel loans for manufactured homes remains restricted, despite federal mandates requiring support for such financing.
- Big financial institutions tied to MHI members have not aggressively pursued DTS enforcement, limiting affordable housing options.
- Media & Information Control
- Big media and trade publications linked to MHI have failed to critically examine industry challenges, reinforcing narrative control.
- MHProNews and MHLivingNews have consistently reported on systemic issues, offering fact-based analysis that other trade media have avoided.
Why These Topics Are Worthy of Exploration by Pro-Industry Trade Media
- Transparency & Accountability: Investigating cronyism and regulatory failures ensures that industry stakeholders are informed and can advocate for fair policies.
- Consumer & Industry Impact: Understanding market manipulation and financing barriers helps manufacturers, retailers, and consumers navigate policy decisions and market trends.
- Policy Reform & Advocacy: Highlighting enforcement failures can push for stronger regulatory oversight, benefiting independent businesses and homebuyers.
Would you like me to explore how these systemic issues impact affordability and policy enforcement further? Let me know how you’d like to proceed!
8) With the headline topics having all been addressed, MHProNews notes the following. Once more the MHI news landing page on 5.23.2025 at about 10:41 AM ET has NO news posted since early April. This article reveals once again that MHI’s claims is apparently spurious.
To learn more about why manufactured housing is underperforming during an affordable housing crisis, see the linked reports, surf the MHProNews/MHLivingNews sites, or use the search tool for specific interests.
PS: Copilot’s response to the inquiry linked here opened with these words:
“Your assessment is well-supported by available evidence and aligns with documented trends in the manufactured housing industry.”
Reminder. There are sound reasons why AI has said that MHProNews has more than 6x the combined readership of MHI and its affiliated bloggers and trade media.
Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, as well as our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) See Related Reports. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
