Ohio’s Tax Burden Inversion

How Two Decades of Income Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Shifted the Load onto Property Owners and Renters

During the most recent reappraisal for property taxes, thousands of Cuyahoga County residents opened their mailboxes to find reappraisal notices that made their stomachs drop. Property values had climbed by an average of 32% county-wide, with East Cleveland residents facing increases of 67% and Maple Heights 59%.

Michael Chambers, Cuyahoga County Auditor, reported that, for 71-year-old Parma resident Agnes Gallo, this meant her home’s value rose by $76,000, pushing her annual tax bill up nearly $950. “This is outrageous,” she said. “People can’t afford to live in their own houses.” He also said that single mother Roni Menefee, facing a 49% valuation hike, admitted she was considering leaving Ohio altogether: “We’re hardly living in Beverly Hills here.”

County officials insist that House Bill 920 prevents taxes from rising dollar-for-dollar with property values. But for seniors on fixed incomes or working families barely hanging on, even modest increases can be destabilizing. More than 20,000 residents filed complaints, with thousands of adjustments granted. Still, the anger lingers—and justifiably so.

The Long-Term Tax Shift

That anger is rooted in two decades of deliberate state policy. Since 2005, Ohio’s Republican lawmakers have steadily cut the personal income tax, reducing rates most sharply at the top. Over time, these cuts drained nearly $13 billion annually from state revenues.

With less money flowing from the state to schools, libraries, and local governments, communities were forced to raise more themselves. And because they are prohibited from taxing investments or capital gains—the kinds of income more common among the wealthy—the primary tool left was the property tax (although many municipalities also increased their local income taxes-Cleveland voters narrowly approved an increase in its income tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent in 2016).

The outcome: in 2024, Ohioans paid $23.9 billion in property taxes—more than they contributed through sales taxes ($13.7 billion) or income taxes ($9.5 billion). The most regressive form of taxation has become the backbone of public services.

Put plainly: the legislature cut income taxes for the wealthy, and forced everyone else—retired, middle-class, working-class, and poor—to make up the difference through higher property taxes.

The Nonprofit Inversion

At the same time, Ohio has allowed exemptions and abatements to balloon. Nearly $90 billion in property value—17% of the state’s total—is exempt from taxation, up from 14% two decades ago.

The largest single category? Abatements, totaling $26.6 billion. These were meant as temporary incentives to spur growth but are now permanent fixtures. Even utilities, which have captive consumers and guaranteed profits, receive abatements for investments they would make anyway.

And then there are the so-called nonprofits. Their tax-exempt status rests on public benefit, yet their leaders are not infrequently paid like corporate executives:

InstitutionLeaderAnnual CompensationTax/Exemption Status
Cleveland ClinicDr. Tomislav Mihaljevic, CEO≈ $7 million (2023)Vast campus tax-exempt as nonprofit hospital
Ohio State UniversityTed Carter Jr., President≈ $1.3 million (2024)University property tax-exempt
Ohio State UniversityRyan Day, Head Football Coach≈ $10–12.5 million (contracted 2025)Public university benefiting from exemptions
Hawken School (Private)D. Scott Looney, Head of School≈ $1.05 million (2023, IRS Form 990)Elite private school, property tax-exempt

These institutions are sheltered from taxes while ordinary citizens—many of whom can barely make ends meet—are expected to pay “full freight.”

Renters Pay Too

The burden does not end with homeowners. Renters also pay indirectly, as landlords pass on property tax hikes through higher rents.

In 2023, Ohio saw some of the steepest rent increases in the nation:

Cincinnati: one-bedroom rents up 17% year-over-year.

Columbus: also up 17%.

Central Ohio: squeezed further by Intel, Amazon, and data center developments.

Statewide: over 700,000 renter households are “severely cost-burdened,” spending more than half their income on housing.

Even those who do not own property are being priced out of Ohio’s communities.

Populist Anger and the Ballot Box

It is no wonder, then, that frustration has spilled into politics. In 2025, an all-volunteer group began gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment to abolish property taxes entirely. Organizers say they are moving forward “no matter what” lawmakers do, because people feel they “no longer have a voice in this government.”

The proposal is extreme. Abolishing property taxes would blow a $23 billion hole in funding for schools, libraries, mental health services, and parks. Replacing it with sales taxes could require rates as high as 20%. Yet the fact that such a movement exists—and is gaining traction—reveals how deeply citizens feel abandoned.

They no longer trust lawmakers who, for twenty years, cut income taxes for the rich while pushing costs onto everyone else, especially the working class, seniors, and the poor. They see abatements handed to billion-dollar institutions and “nonprofits” with millionaire executives, while seniors in Parma and renters in Columbus face bills that are unsustainable.

The Choice Ahead

Ohio’s property tax crisis is not an accident. It is the inevitable result of two decades of choices:

Cut income taxes for the wealthy.

Hand abatements to billion-dollar institutions.

Shift the burden onto homeowners, renters, and the poor.

The result is predictable: the young leave by choice, the old leave by necessity, and those who remain are angry enough to contemplate abolishing the system entirely.

Eliminating property taxes outright is likely not the answer—it would devastate schools, libraries, and local services. But for many Ohioans, it may feel like the only way to force state leaders to listen. When lawmakers protect the powerful and ignore the cries of ordinary citizens, radical proposals become the only language that carries weight.[1]

And the cry is not simply to be heard. It is to be relieved—to be lifted out from under a system of taxation that has become oppressive, unfair, and in many instances, unsustainable. Until that relief is real and tangible, until fairness is restored, the ballot box will remain the people’s only instrument. And if the choice is between leaving their homes or leaving the system as it is, more and more Ohioans will choose to abandon the system itself.

The choice is no longer between reform or complacency. It is between reform or rupture.


[1] Some might dismiss the property tax abolition initiative as folly that would devastate local services. But terror concentrates the mind wonderfully. When gerrymandered legislative maps silence voters’ voices in normal governance, when the legislature attempts to eliminate or dilute ballot initiatives entirely, and when even successful citizen initiatives are ignored by lawmakers and courts, extreme measures become rational responses. The terror that grips policy makers, and concentrates their focus if voters eliminate $23 billion in local funding, might finally force the political class that has spent decades redistributing wealth upward to confront the unsustainable system they’ve created. Sometimes breaking a captured system is the only way to build a fair one.

The Art of Praise: Tariff Impact on Economics and Ethics

Recently, I published an essay titled The Certainty of Wealth Redistribution Amid Tariff Chaos, in which I argued that the true function of the current administration’s tariff policies was not economic revival, but the deliberate and predictable transfer of wealth from working households to the uppermost tier of financial elites.

Events of the past several days—culminating in imposition of a market-crashing tariff decree swiftly reversed for maximum opportunistic gain—have confirmed my worst fears. That some now praise this spectacle as “brilliant” only adds insult to economic injury.

In response, I offer the following satirical memo from a fictional Wharton Annex ethics professor—one Professor Basil P. Whisker, Chair of Ethical Opportunism at the Weasel School of Business. His observations regarding the situation and the logic he embodies—even though he is fictional—are uncomfortably real.


Professor Basil P. Whisker

On Ethics, Market Manipulation, and the Power of Praise

Buy the Dip, Praise the Dipper: A Wealth Transfer Playbook

By Professor Basil P. Whisker, PhD, MBA, CFA (Parole Honoré Distinction)
Chair of Ethical Opportunism, Weasel School of Business, Wharton Annex
Formerly of the Federal Correctional Institute for White Collar Refinement
“Our Honor Code is Flexible. Our Returns Are Not.”


Some in Congress have raised the unfashionable concern that the recent tariff saga looks suspiciously like market manipulation.

To which I reply: Of course it is.
But for whom?

Not the little people—they lack both the reflexes and the capital reserves. No, it is for the elite few trained in the disciplines of anticipation, flexibility, and pliable morality.

At the Weasel School of Business, we teach that ethics must be nonlinear and dynamic—responsive to the moment, like high-frequency trading algorithms or a presidential memory when questioned under oath. The recent 90-day tariff “pause” (following a dramatic market collapse) teaches students everywhere that sometimes the most profitable thing to do is to:

  1. Create a crisis
  2. Seize the resulting dip
  3. Declare victory through reversal
  4. Congratulate the disruptor for his “brilliance”
  5. Move on before the subpoenas arrive

The Art of the Non-Deal

When a policy announcement wipes trillions from the markets, only to be reversed days later with a triumphant “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!” post, we must acknowledge we are witnessing not governance but performance art.

Like all great art, it asks difficult questions:

  • Is it market manipulation if you announce the manipulation in real time?
  • Can one declare “Liberation Day” and then liberate oneself from that declaration?
  • If financial whiplash creates billionaire gratitude, is it still whiplash—or merely strategic spine realignment?

Billionaires praising such tactics is not sycophancy—it is advanced portfolio management by other means.

As we say in Weasel Finance 101:
“Praise is just another form of leverage.”


Looking Ahead: A Curriculum of Chaos

We are entering a new phase of global commerce—what I call the Era of the Glorious Lurch. In this new age, tariffs are not policies but market mood regulators, deployed tactically to evoke loss, recovery, and eventual Stockholm syndrome-like gratitude.

My revised syllabus for the coming semester will include:

  • Advanced Self-Dealing (OPS-526)
  • Narrative Arbitrage: Writing History Before It Happens (OPS-618)
  • Strategic Sycophancy and Influence Leasing (co-listed with Communications)
  • Tariff Whiplash: Creating Wealth Through Vertigo (OPS-750)
  • When Textbooks Fail: The Art of the No-Deal Deal (Senior Seminar)

Applications are open. Scholarships available for those with prior SEC entanglements or experience declaring “everything’s beautiful” while markets burn.


A Word on Timing

Critics who suggest that one should wait until an actual deal is struck before declaring brilliance simply do not understand modern finance.

In today’s economy, praise is a futures contract—you are betting on the perception of success, not success itself.

When a policy costs the average American household thousands in higher prices and market losses, only to be partially reversed with no actual concessions gained, the correct reaction is not analysis but applause. After all, it takes real courage to back down without admitting it.


A Final Toast

To the president, I raise a glass of vintage tax shelter with notes of plausible deniability.

To the billionaires celebrating the “brilliant execution” of a retreat, I offer a velvet-lined echo chamber.

And to my students, past and future, I remind you:
If you cannot time the market, at least time your praise.

Because in today’s economy, there is no such thing as too soon, too blatant, or too obviously beneficial to the 0.01%.

So next time markets plunge on policy chaos, do not ask “who benefits?”
Instead ask, “am I positioned to be among those who do?”

Thank you. And as always—
buy low, tweet high, and declare victory before the facts catch up.

Historical Lessons on Government Efficiency from Otto von Pulpo

Sometimes, a little historical memory delivered with a healthy dose of satire is exactly what the moment calls for. I recently stumbled upon this memorandum—allegedly issued by Herr Obersekretär Otto von Pulpo, our resident officious German octopus—crafted as a sharp response to The Economist’s editorial, “Is Elon Musk remaking government or breaking it?” Unsatisfied with the notion that “some transgressions” might be acceptable if they bring about efficiency, I was inspired to share this fictional but incisive critique. Enjoy Otto’s take on why the path of destruction is never a shortcut to genuine reform, and join the conversation on how we should remember history in light of today’s political challenges.


Memorandum No. 843.3a-b(krill)
From the Desk of Herr Obersekretär Otto von Pulpo
Former Archivist, Department of Tentacular Oversight (Ret.), Abyssal Branch
Current Observer of Surface-Level Folly, Emeritus

To the editorial board of The Economist,
cc: The Directorate for Dangerous Euphemisms, Baltic Division

RE: Concerning Your Recent Enthusiasm for “Some Transgressions” in the Service of Government Efficiency

Esteemed humans,

It is with a firm grip and furrowed brow (of the metaphorical kind—our brows are subdermal) that I write to express my alarm, tinged as it is with a deep familiarity, at your recent editorial on the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Your noble publication—usually known for reasoned analysis and fondness for balanced budgets—has recently dabbled in the genre of historical amnesia.

You write, approvingly if not enthusiastically, that “some transgressions along the way might be worth it” in your editorial “Is Elon Musk remaking government or breaking it?” Permit me, as a creature of long memory and cold water, to remind you: some transgressions are never worth it. History is not made by heroic shortcuts. It is unraveled by them.

When I was a much younger cephalopod, gliding the brackish waters near Wilhelmshaven, I recall hearing the surface-world’s chatter about another figure who spoke boldly of waste and stagnation, who promised national renewal, who performed gestures that were first dismissed as eccentric, and who flirted with “creative destruction” until the destruction ceased to be metaphorical. He too was seen by many as a misunderstood innovator. Until it was too late.

Herr Musk, I understand, now punctuates state occasions with gestures uncannily similar to the Roman salute, and praises parties in your former occupation zone with a fondness that suggests more than economic theory. If these are the traits of a reformer, then perhaps I should consider joining the AfD myself—though I suspect I would not pass their purity tests, being both foreign and soft-bodied.

But it is not Herr Musk who most disturbs me. It is your newsmagazine, with your steady tone and Oxford commas, that murmurs, “Efficiency requires boldness,” and wonders aloud whether the destruction is merely a precursor to some unseen creation. You ask: “Who now remembers the Grace Commission?” And I reply: who now remembers the Enabling Act of 1933, passed under the same logic—that extraordinary conditions justify extralegal actions?

Beware the language of renovation when it requires dismantling the foundation. Beware the hagiography of disruptors who come not to build, but to erase. DOGE does not make government more efficient. It makes obedience more efficient.

If I may say so without rudeness, your editorial reads as if it were penned in a warm bath, insulated from the chill that such reasoning brings to those of us with memory. Down here, in the benthic gloom, we remember what it means when legislative bodies and courts are bypassed, when “wrongthink” is rooted out, when civil servants are mocked as obstacles to destiny.

Do not confuse boldness with wisdom. Do not mistake collapse for reform.

With respectful concern and eight meticulously inked signatures,

Otto von Pulpo
Obersekretär a.D.
Archivist, Rememberer, Cephalopod

P.S. Historical Note from the Abyss:

When tectonic plates shift, they do not ask for parliamentary approval. They simply move—and tsunamis follow. I have observed this firsthand from 4,000 meters below. The surfacelings always call it unprecedented, as if the sea forgets. We do not forget.

Herr von Pulpo’s earlier memoranda (Nos. 842.1–843.1) were dispatched in response to similar enthusiasms for charismatic technocrats in the late Weimar period. These were, at the time, unread by those who most needed to read them.

About the Author
Otto von Pulpo is a retired archivist, amateur historian, and former Vice-Chair of the Commission for Bivalve Misclassification. He resides in a gently collapsing wreck off the Heligoland shelf and writes occasionally on democracy, plankton, and the perils of charismatic overreach.

An Ice-Cold Response: Penguins of Heard Island React to Trumpian Tariff Madness

By Gentoo T. Adelie, Chief Diplomatic Penguin of Heard Island

Macaroni Penguin of Heard Island responding in disbelief to the news of the Trumpian Tariffs of 2025.

An Audio Recitation of “An Ice Cold Response” by Gentoo T. Adelie

It was a clear morning on Heard Island. A gentle drift of cloud played among the slopes of Big Ben, and the Southern Ocean moved against the gravel shores with its slow, eternal breath. Among patches of moss and lichen, our colonies bustled with seasonal purpose—territories reestablished, mates greeted, feathers fluffed against the autumn wind. The eastern rockhoppers had returned to their grassland burrows, the macaronis muttered among the coastal tussock, and the gentoos stood sentinel. Then word arrived—borne by a wandering albatross returning from northern skies.

The Trump administration had imposed tariffs upon us.

Tariffs. Upon penguins.

I summoned the colonies. The emperors listened in regal silence, their gold-ringed heads unmoved. The kings shuffled to attention along the icy moraine. The skuas perched nearby, and even the black-faced sheathbill—normally distracted by refuse—cocked a pale head toward the speaker’s mound.

Our indignation was tempered by confusion.

We are not exporters. We are not manufacturers. Ours is not a civilization of spreadsheets, but of rhythm and return. We recognize no currency but krill, no metric but the molt. We nest in the gullies and commune with the icy winds that polish our shores.

It is true that humans have declared sovereignty over us. Flags have been planted, letters exchanged, and acts of parliament signed in Canberra. Heard and McDonald Islands, they assert, are administered by the Australian Antarctic Division, whose bureaucrats maintain that our affairs fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory—though no court has ever convened upon our shores.

But let it be understood: though we permit their presence, we do not cede authority.

The king penguin does not bow to Hobart. The Heard Island shag files no petitions. And the sheathbill, should it ever stand before the High Court, will surely eat the brief.

So it was with bewilderment that we received news of the 10% tariff levied by the United States upon our territory. An island with no people, no ports, and no exports—accused of an imbalance in trade. A claim founded on mislabeled shipping data: specifically, six containers of semiconductor components manufactured in Taiwan but erroneously coded as “HRD”—Heard Island’s port code, rarely used but technically valid—instead of “HKG” for Hong Kong by an exhausted logistics clerk working the graveyard shift in Singapore.

Naturally, the memes began to circulate—relayed to us by kelp gulls who’ve developed a taste for human refuse and, consequently, smartphones washed ashore from passing vessels. These gulls, perched near research stations to pilfer Wi-Fi signals (and the occasional protein bar), have become our unwitting ambassadors to digital culture. Among their findings: images of penguins queuing at customs, passports in wing. Shags rebuffed at security checkpoints. A sheathbill with a placard reading “TAXATION WITHOUT MIGRATION.”

The images are amusing. Yet beneath the laughter lies a chill deeper than our glaciers.

The absurdity is not that tariffs have been imposed, but that the structures of power are so far removed from reality as to invent us as participants in their theatre. Our colony is not a market. Our rookery is not a trading floor. If humans mistake our ecological presence for economic threat, then it is their world, not ours, that is disordered.

Even the ecosystem watched with bemusement. The mosses clung silently to volcanic stone. The seals slumped across the glacial flats, unmoved. Life persisted as it always has.

We shall not respond in kind. We shall not embargo the sea. We have no ports to close, no envoys to recall. We shall simply continue—diving into the surf, tending our chicks, enduring the westerlies that lash our coast.

The mosses remember.
The sheathbill remembers.
The ice remembers, too.


Confidential Diplomatic Cable

From: Office of the Subantarctic Avian Council (Provisional), Heard Island and McDonald Islands
Domain: commonwealth.penguin.gov.hm
To: Bureau of Global Trade Anomalies, U.S. Department of Commerce
Date: April 8, 2025
Priority: Routine (given prevailing currents)


RE: ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF TRADE TARIFFS TO UNRECOGNIZED BIOLOGICAL POLITY

To Whom It May Confound,

We write with a combination of courteous gravity and ice-bound disbelief upon learning that the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands—comprising an uninhabited archipelago, 80% of which is glacier, and 100% of which is devoid of Walmart, Walgreens, or Whole Foods—has been subjected to a 10% tariff by your esteemed administration.

We presume this action arises from the alleged export of “machinery and electrical goods” originating from our domain. As no such items have been observed here since the disintegration of a scientific balloon payload in 1989, and as neither the king penguins nor the black-faced sheathbills have mastered voltage regulation, we suggest an administrative review.

Indeed, it now appears the source of this confusion lies in a series of clerical misassignments within international shipping records. Several bills of lading reportedly list the shipper’s address as “Vienna, Heard Island and McDonald Islands”—a charming bit of geopolitical fiction that, while expanding our sense of empire, sadly bears no relation to geographic or penguin reality.{1}

For clarity:

  • Our economy is non-monetized and chiefly fish-based.
  • Our primary industries include standing, molting, and collective thermoregulation.
  • Our manufacturing sector is limited to guano, occasionally artistic in form but unfit for commercial use.
  • The .hm domain, while charming, is not associated with logistical throughput. It is managed by a sooty albatross with a rusted antenna.
  • No residents, citizens, or consumers exist here in the human sense.

We therefore formally request the rescission of said tariff and the reclassification of Heard Island and McDonald Islands from “Emerging Trade Threat” to “Uninhabited Geopolitical Curiosity.” Alternatively, we are willing to accept foreign aid in the form of high-calorie fish paste, new tagging rings, or a fully functioning weather station.

For future reference, all customs declarations should be addressed to:
Gentoo T. Adelie, Chief Diplomatic Penguin
C/O The Hollow Behind the Third Basalt Outcrop
Atlas Cove, Heard Island
UTM Coordinates Available Upon Request (or clear skies)

We await your reply, though not urgently.

Warmest regards from the coldest coast,
Subantarctic Avian Council (Provisional)

P.S.
Seal No. 1: Be it known we do not seal mail with actual seals. The three elephant seals consulted regarding this matter expressed their disinterest through prolonged snoring, while the fur seals drafted a dissenting opinion consisting entirely of territorial barks. Their contribution to international diplomacy remains, much like this tariff situation, largely symbolic.


{1} The basis of error was uncovered and reported by multiple news sources, such as the following BBC article ‘Nowhere’s safe’: How an island of penguins ended up on Trump tariff list

The Real Armageddon: Musk’s DOGE and the Dismantling of Public Trust

Photo by Chris F on Pexels.com

“If you read the news, it feels like Armageddon. I can’t walk past a TV without seeing a Tesla on fire,” Elon Musk said recently at a Tesla all-hands meeting. “I understand if you don’t want to buy our product, but you don’t have to burn it down. That’s a bit unreasonable.”1

The quote is evocative—perhaps designed to stir sympathy. Yet it invites a measure of irony. While vandalism against Tesla properties is, of course, deplorable, it is neither as widespread nor as catastrophic as Musk, and biased media reporting, would have the public believe. Fewer than a dozen reported incidents—at Tesla dealerships or Supercharger stations—have resulted in fires, graffiti, or property damage. In nearly all of these cases, suspects have been arrested and charged.2

In a country of over 330 million people, where more than 200,000 vehicle fires and 500,000 structure fires occur annually,3 and where Florida and Texas alone report nearly 3,000 murders each year,4 these incidents—while serious—are statistically insignificant. What Musk decries as “Armageddon” is, in national context, a series of isolated acts that have been swiftly addressed by law enforcement.

Meanwhile, under Musk’s leadership of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), far greater destruction is being wrought—not upon property and government subsidized business interests, but upon the institutions designed to serve the American people.

According to Reuters, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is expected to lose over 80,000 employees under DOGE’s efficiency plan.5 Already, this downsizing is disrupting vital services: clinics are understaffed, appointments are delayed, and mental health services—already under strain—are faltering.6

This is not bureaucratic “streamlining.” The VA currently serves over 18 million veterans,7 many of whom depend on timely and specialized care for physical and mental trauma, service-connected disabilities, and long-term support. Disabling this infrastructure in the name of “efficiency” is not neutral policy—it is institutional abandonment.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has not fared better. Facing mandates to reduce its workforce by up to 50%, the SSA is bracing for a collapse in the timely delivery of services to more than 70 million Americans, including over 50 million seniors.8 Already, SSA field offices in major cities have shortened hours, laid off staff, and seen processing times for benefits skyrocket.

Federal workers have responded with urgency. In San Francisco and other metropolitan areas, SSA and VA employees have staged public protests, warning of the catastrophic impact these cuts will have on their most vulnerable clients.9 Their message is clear: public service cannot survive on ideology alone.

Thus, while Musk’s Teslas may burn in isolated incidents, the real fire is the one now consuming the administrative state (the means by which public servants deliver public services to the citizens they serve pursuant to laws passed by Congress). The irony is sharp. Musk’s complaint—“You don’t have to burn it down”—could just as easily be addressed to himself. If you do not like the structure or scale of government, you do not have to dismantle its capacity to serve. That, too, is a bit unreasonable.

What Musk labels as terrorism when directed at his private enterprise is tolerated—even celebrated—when inflicted upon public institutions. Yet the human cost of the latter is infinitely greater. The quiet collapse of service infrastructure—untelevised and untheatrical—is the more insidious disaster.

In the end, the real “Armageddon” may not be a vandalized Tesla on a TV screen. It may be the veteran denied timely access to urgent medical care. The senior citizen waiting months for a critical in-person meeting at a Social Security office. The single parent lost in a phone queue with no one left to answer.

These are not symbolic gestures. These are lives.


Notes

  1. Pras Subramanian, “Tesla’s Elon Musk Holds Surprise All-Hands Meeting to Assuage Employees and Investors,” MSN Money, March 21, 2025.
  2. New York Post, “Pam Bondi Announces Charges Against 3 in Tesla Attacks,” March 20, 2025.
  3. National Fire Protection Association, “Vehicle Fires,” 2024.
  4. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2021.
  5. Reuters, “US Plans to Fire 80,000 Veterans Affairs Workers,” March 5, 2025.
  6. Reuters, “VA Shake-up Disrupts Mental Health Services,” March 20, 2025.
  7. Pew Research Center, “The Changing Face of America’s Veteran Population,” November 8, 2023; Reuters, “VA Shake-up Disrupts Mental Health Services,” March 20, 2025.
  8. Sara Dorn, “Here’s Where Trump’s Government Layoffs Are,” Forbes, February 21, 2025.
  9. San Francisco Chronicle, “Federal Workers Protest Musk-Led Government Cuts,” March 14, 2025.