The most radical thing Washington can do right now is stop spending. President Trump’s proposed $9.4 billion rescissions package won’t accomplish that on its own, but it at least, finally, moves us in the right direction.
For decades, members of both parties have treated spending growth as a measure of success. The assumption has been that government must grow, and that any program, once funded, must be permanent. That mindset has left us with a bloated federal bureaucracy that has replaced free-market policy and individual freedom with centralized control and pushed the country to <a href="https://www.usdebtclock.org/">nearly $37 trillion in debt</a>.
Still, most sitting lawmakers have never voted to cut a single dollar of federal spending. This package gives them that chance. More than that, it gives them an opening to start restoring the habits of a functioning legislature.
It’s also the first time the Department of Government Efficiency has had its work put into legislative form. Elon Musk built and led DOGE under the simple premise to stop wasting taxpayer money. Musk has since returned to the private sector, but he and the president have made clear that the mission remains. The rescissions package, which would codify spending cuts proposed by DOGE, reflects that mission. It targets corrupt USAID programs, taxpayer subsidies for ideologically biased public broadcasters NPR and PBS, and other programs that fail even a basic test of necessity in a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/02/us/trump-budget-2026">$1.7 trillion discretionary budget</a>.
Fiscal conservatives, especially those complaining this package doesn’t go far enough, should not let the perfect be the enemy of the essential. Fiscal discipline, like any discipline, requires a starting point. You don’t run a marathon by starting with 20 miles, you start with one. This bill is that first mile.
Congress should treat it as such: start small, bank the win, and keep cutting wherever the rules allow. That means more rescissions, which require only a simple majority to pass. It also means using the appropriations process and, when necessary, continuing resolutions, to keep pushing the issue. Not every tool requires a supermajority, but even the ones that do are worth using to force the debate. Progress in this fight can come steadily if congressional Republicans stay united and focused.
It also means that if passed, this package should be the first of a longer series of cuts. Each one can go further, targeting programs that stray from constitutional purpose or national interest. Repetition in this case can build momentum and credibility.
It can also build legislative muscle memory. Too many lawmakers now assume the only way forward is through bipartisan overspending. A successful rescission would challenge that assumption. It would remind Congress that not every federal dollar is sacred and that cutting even a fraction of the budget is still possible with political will.
Moreover, follow-through matters just as much as passage. House and Senate Republicans must ensure these cuts aren’t restored elsewhere. Cuts that DOGE has made or proposed shouldn’t be backfilled through continuing resolutions or omnibus bills, especially those that are widely popular across America. What gets cut should stay cut. The goal is a permanent shift in direction.
DOGE’s broader purpose has always been to realign government toward greater efficiency and accountability. That vision reflects a basic expectation of public service – that government should function effectively, that leaders should make responsible decisions rather than defer them, and that taxpayers should have confidence their money is being used with care, not lost to inefficiency or corruption.
Congressional Republicans should also keep in mind that a win here sets the tone for the 2026 midterm elections. It signals that the Trump administration’s second-term agenda, as well as the party’s broader movement, is not just about executive action but real, legislative reform. Therefore, they should view these cuts not as the finish line, but as the starting point.
The stakes are about whether the federal government serves the American people or the other way around; whether Congress retains the capacity to exercise restraint, or whether inertia has become the default; and whether a new generation of lawmakers can relearn the forgotten skill of saying no.
This rescissions bill offers the chance to begin answering those questions. Conservatives should take it, and then keep going.
* * *
Paul Teller is the Executive Vice President of Advancing American Freedom.
John Shelton is a policy director for Advancing American Freedom. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

House Republicans

Why The First Spending Cut Is Worth Making

Congress

DOGE

Elon Musk

National Debt

Opinion

President Trump

Republicans

Spending Bill

Taxes

U.S. House of Representatives

USAID

President Donald Trump singled out Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) for criticism on Tuesday in a dispute over the &#8220;One Big, Beautiful Bill.&#8221;
The scolding took place on Truth Social shortly after Paul made an appearance on TV in which the senator said he would not support the legislation in its current form because it aims to raise the debt ceiling by several trillion dollars.
&#8220;Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming. He loves voting &#8216;NO&#8217; on everything, he thinks it’s good politics, but it’s not. The BBB is a big WINNER!!!&#8221; Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114619628833129608" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in one post.
Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114619648032728687" target="_blank" rel="noopener">declared</a> in another post, &#8220;Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!). The people of Kentucky can’t stand him. This is a BIG GROWTH BILL!&#8221;
On CNBC&#8217;s &#8220;Squawk Box,&#8221; Paul <a href="https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1929908175748088234" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the &#8220;main thing&#8221; he objects to in the massive bill, which contains many provisions in line with Trump&#8217;s second-term agenda, is how it would raise the debt ceiling by another $4-5 trillion. As it stands, the national debt is approaching $37 trillion.
&#8220;That&#8217;s an indication that we&#8217;ll borrow that much. It&#8217;s an indication that we&#8217;ll put the debt on the back burner,&#8221; said Paul, who added that he did not join &#8220;most of the Republicans&#8221; who voted to &#8220;continue the Biden spending levels&#8221; with the six-month continuing resolution Congress passed in March.
Paul said he believes there are three or four Republicans in the Senate who might oppose the bill as it stands. That amount could be enough to stall the legislation&#8217;s progress, given the GOP has only a 53-45 <a href="https://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">majority</a>.
&#8220;If there are four of us who want it to be more fiscally conservative, I think we can really reduce the spending levels and perhaps separate out the debt ceiling as well,&#8221; Paul said.
The senator also noted that he is &#8220;pretty much open to compromise on everything else in the bill,&#8221; specifically expressing support for how it seeks to retain the 2017 tax cuts.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) also defended the legislation from Paul&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rand-paul-warns-big-beautiful-bill-explode-debt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">critique</a> on the debt ceiling in a recent &#8220;Fox News Sunday&#8221; interview. He alluded to how the reconciliation process Republicans are using allows Congress to bypass the Senate&#8217;s 60-vote filibuster threshold.
&#8220;We have to do it,&#8221; Johnson <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/speaker-johnson-rebuts-rand-pauls-debt-warning-big-beautiful-bill" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;We&#8217;re not going to get any Democrats to assist on that. So, to get it through the Senate and make sure we don&#8217;t crash the U.S. economy and default on our debts for the first time in history, it has to be part of the reconciliation package.&#8221;

Senator Rand Paul

Trump Puts Rand Paul On Blast Over ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’

Debt Ceiling

Donald Trump

Executive

Mike Johnson

Politics

Rand Paul

Tax Cuts

U.S. Senate

President Donald Trump&#8217;s budget chief delivered on Sunday a counterargument to Elon Musk&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-disappointed-by-one-big-beautiful-bill" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warning</a> that the House-passed version of the &#8220;One Big, Beautiful Bill&#8221; would further expand the federal deficit.
On CNN&#8217;s &#8220;State of the Union,&#8221; anchor Dana Bash showed Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a clip of Musk telling &#8220;CBS Sunday Morning&#8221; in a recent <a href="https://x.com/CBSSunday/status/1927535075144421527" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> of his concern that the legislation will inflate the federal deficit that has already blown past $1 trillion in recent years. Musk also referred to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative that he oversaw for the past few months.
&#8220;I was like — disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decrease it. And it undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,&#8221; Musk said.
&#8220;I love Elon,&#8221; Vought responded. &#8220;This bill doesn&#8217;t increase the deficit or hurt the debt. In fact, it lowers it by $1.4 trillion. What some of the watchdogs have done is, they have used CBO&#8217;s artificial baseline, which doesn&#8217;t allow and assume that current tax law will be extended because of sunsets that are in the law.&#8221;
Vought added later, &#8220;When you assume the extension of the president&#8217;s tax relief from 2017, this budget or this bill, and it&#8217;s really a reconciliation bill — it&#8217;s not really a budget bill. It is using a budget process. This is a $1.4 trillion over 10 years deficit reduction. It&#8217;s $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings. Obviously, we have a little bit of spending in there as well for border and defense. But that is the biggest mandatory savings package that we have seen since 1997. It&#8217;s very historic.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
The &#8220;One Big, Beautiful Bill,&#8221; which is moving through Congress through the reconciliation process that will allow the Senate to bypass the filibuster threshold, aims to advance Trump’s priorities on border security, energy, and national defense. It also seeks to retain tax cuts from 2017 that are set to expire at the end of this year, raise the debt limit by trillions of dollars, and much more.
Trump has <a href="https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1925548216243703820" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called</a> the bill &#8220;arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History&#8221; of the United States, but has given his <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/05/26/make-changes-they-want-trump-gives-senate-go-ahead-take-red-pen-big-beautiful-bill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blessing</a> to GOP senators, some of whom have also raised <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/speaker-johnson-rebuts-rand-pauls-debt-warning-big-beautiful-bill" target="_blank" rel="noopener">objections</a> to the bill in its current form, to &#8220;make the changes they want.&#8221;
Musk, who just ended his stint as a special government employee, also said in the CBS interview that when the bill came along, he thought &#8220;everything&#8221; accomplished by DOGE would get &#8220;wiped out&#8221; in the first year. He also said, &#8220;I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.&#8221;
Last week, Vought <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-budget-director-confirms-first-targets-for-clawing-back-spending" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the White House planned to send its first rescissions package of the year to Congress on Monday or Tuesday, aiming to claw back spending for U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and NPR — programs that Republicans view as being wasteful and partisan. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has listed rescissions as being one of two actions the House will take based on findings from DOGE, in addition to using the appropriations process to “swiftly implement” Trump’s proposed 2026 budget.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Meet the man behind President Trump&#039;s scorched-earth agenda" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WfFfQJp23kA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

White House OMB Director Russ Vought

Trump’s Budget Chief Responds To Elon’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Critique

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Russ Vought

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is defending the House-<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-passes-one-big-beautiful-bill-in-massive-win-for-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed</a> version of President Donald Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rand-paul-warns-big-beautiful-bill-explode-debt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criticism</a> that it would dangerously inflate the national debt from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
Speaking on &#8220;Fox News Sunday&#8221; with anchor Shannon Bream, moments after Paul’s interview on the same program, Johnson diplomatically rebutted the senator’s claims that the bill features “wimpy and anemic” spending cuts and poses a national security threat by “exploding” the national debt.
&#8220;I agree wholeheartedly with what my dear friend, Rand Paul, said. I love his conviction and I share it. The national debt is &#8230; the greatest threat to our national security and deficits are a serious problem,&#8221; the speaker said. &#8220;What I think Rand is missing on this one is the fact that we are quite serious about this. This is the biggest spending cut, Shannon, in more than 30 years, we&#8217;re going to cut over $1.5 trillion in spending, and it&#8217;s a big leap forward.&#8221;
He continued: &#8220;The last time we had a spending cut was three decades ago, and it was only 800 billion, even adjusted for inflation. This is the biggest spending cut, I think, in the history of government on planet earth. Now, is it enough? Of course not. But we have a very delicate balance and we have to start the process. I liken this to an aircraft carrier. You don&#8217;t turn an aircraft carrier on a dime. It takes a mile of open ocean. And so, it took us decades to get into this situation. This is a big step to begin to turn that aircraft carrier.&#8221;
The speaker also took a moment to address &#8220;one important point&#8221; made by Paul.
&#8220;It sounds like his biggest objection is the fact that we are extending the debt ceiling,&#8221; Johnson said. &#8220;That&#8217;s a critically important thing to do. We have to do it. We&#8217;re not going to get any Democrats to assist on that. So, to get it through the Senate and make sure we don&#8217;t crash the U.S. economy and default on our debts for the first time in history, it has to be part of the reconciliation package. And that&#8217;s why the president, Trump, and all the other Republicans in Congress, House and Senate, understand the necessity of this.&#8221;
He added: &#8220;Real quick, important point here. It does not mean that we&#8217;re going to spend more money. We&#8217;re extending the debt ceiling to show to creditors, the bond markets, the stock market, that the Congress is serious about this. President Trump is dialed in 100%. He is a visionary leader. He does not want to spend more money. And he has the same concern about the national debt that Rand Paul and I do. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;re not going to be spending to that level. We&#8217;re just sending a message to our creditors around the world that we&#8217;re serious about all of this.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Speaker Johnson live with Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sr9NXt9-CZE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Paul, who lamented that the U.S. deficit remains about $2.2 trillion, said he would consider backing the legislation if its proposed $4-5 trillion debt ceiling increase is removed.
&#8220;There&#8217;s got to be someone left in Washington who thinks debt is wrong and deficits are wrong and wants to go in the other direction,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The idea that we&#8217;re going to explode deficits and the projections are now looking at over $3 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. I think it&#8217;s just &#8230; not a serious proposal.&#8221;

Speaker Mike Johnson

Mike Johnson Rebuts Rand Paul’s Debt Warning On ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’

U.S.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) criticized the version of President Donald Trump&#8217;s &#8220;One Big, Beautiful Bill&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-passes-one-big-beautiful-bill-in-massive-win-for-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed</a> by the House last week, warning that it would significantly increase the national debt.
In a Sunday interview with anchor Shannon Bream on &#8220;Fox News Sunday,&#8221; Paul expressed support for the bill&#8217;s tax cuts but described its spending cuts as &#8220;wimpy and anemic.&#8221; Even so, Paul said he could support the bill — if not for concerns about it adding to the nearly $37 trillion national debt.
&#8220;The problem is the math doesn&#8217;t add up,&#8221; Paul said. &#8220;They&#8217;re going to explode the debt by — the House says $4 trillion, the Senate&#8217;s actually been talking about exploding the debt $5 trillion.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Great joining <a href="https://twitter.com/ShannonBream?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShannonBream</a> on <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNewsSunday?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FoxNewsSunday</a> to talk about why I oppose the Big Beautiful Bill. <a href="https://t.co/ylvf4TKXrz">pic.twitter.com/ylvf4TKXrz</a>
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/1926639668960883102?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 25, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Proponents <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-budget-chief-responds-fiscal-hawk-heartburn-over-big-beautiful-bill" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tout</a> how the bill aims to make reforms to rein in spending programs, such as kicking illegal immigrants off Medicaid, and foster economic growth. Yet that may not be enough. Like the House, the Senate has a slim GOP majority, and it&#8217;s not guaranteed the bill will prevail in its current form.
Paul, who lamented that the U.S. deficit remains about $2.2 trillion, said he would consider backing the legislation if its proposed $4-5 trillion debt ceiling increase is removed.
&#8220;There&#8217;s got to be someone left in Washington who thinks debt is wrong and deficits are wrong and wants to go in the other direction,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The idea that we&#8217;re going to explode deficits and the projections are now looking at over $3 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. I think it&#8217;s just &#8230; not a serious proposal.&#8221;
Confronted with the prospect of a coming U.S. default, Paul said he proposed an amendment that would raise the debt ceiling every three months to leverage spending cuts. However, Republicans are adopting the &#8220;same playbook&#8221; as the Democrats and keep avoiding the issue, he said.
Paul cautioned that borrowing to fund &#8220;free stuff&#8221; such as healthcare drives a $3 trillion deficit, triggering inflation that harms beneficiaries, and he bemoaned a failure to advance DOGE-proposed spending cuts or rescission packages.
The national debt, with $7 trillion in spending against $5 trillion in revenue, is the &#8220;greatest threat&#8221; to U.S. national security, Paul said.
&#8220;Conservatives do need to stand up and have their voice heard,&#8221; he declared. &#8220;This is a problem we&#8217;ve been facing for decades now, and if we don&#8217;t stand up on it, I really fear the direction the country is going.&#8221;

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)

Rand Paul Warns ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Will ‘Explode The Debt’

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued on Friday that the country&#8217;s massive debt can be controlled by growing the U.S. economy.
Bessent addressed concerns over President Donald Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill&#8221; adding to the national deficit during a segment with Fox News host Bill Hemmer. A Congressional Budget Office <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> released earlier this week said the Republican bill passed by the House on early Thursday morning will add $3.8 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. The national debt is <a href="https://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rapidly approaching</a> $37 trillion as the federal deficit currently sits at over $2 trillion.
&#8220;We think that we can both grow the economy and control the debt,&#8221; Bessent said. &#8220;And what&#8217;s important, Bill, is that the economy grows faster than the debt.&#8221;
He added that Americans should focus on the debt-to-GDP ratio &#8220;because we can grow our way out of this.&#8221; In December, U.S. debt accounted for <a href="https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/government-debt--of-nominal-gdp#:~:text=United%20States%20Government%20Debt:%20%25%20of%20GDP,-1969%20%2D%202024%20%7C%20Quarterly&amp;text=United%20States%20Government%20debt%20accounted,Mar%201969%20to%20Dec%202024." target="_blank" rel="noopener">124%</a> of the nation&#8217;s nominal GDP, which was down from the all-time high of 130.4% in March of 2021.
&#8220;If we change the growth trajectory of the country, of the economy, then we will stabilize our finances and grow our way out of this,&#8221; Bessent continued.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/SecScottBessent?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecScottBessent</a>: &quot;What&#39;s important is that the economy grows faster than the debt&#8230; If we change the growth trajectory of the country, of the economy, then we will stabilize our finances and grow our way out of this.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/aplXNS5mLP">pic.twitter.com/aplXNS5mLP</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1925907334640865476?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The approach touted by Bessent focuses on reducing taxes, a major part of Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill.&#8221; The idea is that lower taxes and deregulation will create a thriving economy and boost manufacturing, sales, and consumer spending, which will in turn increase tax revenue without raising taxes.
Last year, however, the Congressional Budget Office <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59711" target="_blank" rel="noopener">projected</a> that the deficit would continue to outpace economic growth over the next 30 years.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
&#8220;The deficit increases significantly in relation to gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 30 years, reaching 8.5 percent of GDP in 2054,&#8221; the office stated. &#8220;That growth results from rising interest costs and large and sustained primary deficits, which exclude net outlays for interest.&#8221;
During the 2024 campaign, Bessent said that his goal is to &#8220;cut the deficit to 3% by 2028; achieve 3% real economic growth, largely through deregulation; and then add 3 million new barrels of energy per day.&#8221; He told <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-07/five-questions-for-trump-adviser-and-key-square-group-founder-scott-bessent?sref=17aozLHf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg</a> that Trump is concerned about addressing the national debt and wants to get it under control &#8220;without causing a recession.&#8221;
Some conservative Republicans raised concerns about Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill&#8221; not doing enough to cut back on government spending. Two House Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-holdouts-sound-alarm-36t-debt-crisis-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-passes-house-vote" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voted against</a> the legislation, citing the federal deficit.
&#8220;While I love many things in the bill, promising someone else will cut spending in the future does not cut spending. Deficits do matter and this bill grows them now. The only Congress we can control is the one we’re in. Consequently, I cannot support this big deficit plan. NO,&#8221; Davidson said on Thursday.
The White House called the two GOP congressmen &#8220;grandstanders.&#8221;
&#8220;I don&#8217;t think he likes to see grandstanders in Congress,&#8221; White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said of Trump&#8217;s thoughts on Massie and Davidson. &#8220;What&#8217;s the alternative? I would ask those members of Congress. Did they want to see a tax hike? Did they want to see our country go bankrupt? That&#8217;s the alternative by them trying to vote ‘no.’ The president believes the Republican Party needs to be unified.&#8221;
In the Senate, the bill faces more hurdles as multiple Republicans have raised concerns on numerous topics. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5314189-rand-paul-house-gop-budget-bill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> he will vote against the bill unless they &#8220;take the debt ceiling off of it.&#8221;
“We’ve never, ever voted to raise the debt ceiling this much. It’ll be a historic increase. I think it’s not good for conservatives to be on record supporting a $4 [trillion] or $5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling,” Paul said.

Scott Bessent

Bessent Says U.S. Can ‘Grow Our Way Out Of’ National Debt Crisis By Focusing On Economy

spending

Trump Administration

House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX) chided House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) for resorting to &#8220;fear-mongering&#8221; when discussing Medicaid in the GOP budget reconciliation budget plan.
On the latest episode of &#8220;Fox News Sunday,&#8221; anchor Shannon Bream played a clip of Jeffries warning about what Republicans intend to do with Medicaid as the House and Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the program, has been tasked with cutting $850 billion.
&#8220;They want to end Medicaid as we know it,&#8221; Jeffries said. &#8220;They&#8217;re going to hurt children, hurt families, hurt seniors, hurt people with disabilities, close hospitals, shut down nursing homes, and people will die.&#8221;
Arrington dismissed the top House Democrat&#8217;s dire assessment.
&#8220;The question is, will we be susceptible to the fear-mongering and the false rhetoric that you just heard from the Democrat minority leader in the House? And this is the same tired play they run and unfortunately, Republicans haven&#8217;t collectively leaned in and just done the right thing,&#8221; Arrington said.
&#8220;We will be rewarded because we&#8217;re doing this for the sustainability of these programs for the most vulnerable, as well as being fiduciaries for tax dollars,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And this moment will not happen in my political lifetime again, so we have to seize it, do the right thing and go educate and sell what we did to the American people. And the benefits that accrue, I think will come to fruition by the midterms and it will go well for our party.&#8221;
Lawmakers in Congress are working to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-2-0-in-100-days-one-big-beautiful-bill-comes-together" target="_blank" rel="noopener">devise</a> a budget reconciliation bill after passing a blueprint last month. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-2-0-in-100-days-one-big-beautiful-bill-comes-together" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suggested</a> the legislation could be complete by Independence Day.
All the details of the final bill have yet to be ironed out, but President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted he would not touch Medicaid, along with Medicare and Social Security. Trump also has said fraud and illegal immigrants will be rooted out of the system.
The question of whether Republicans will &#8220;surrender the opportunity to actually bend the curve on entitlement spending and enact entitlement reforms&#8221; was one that, according to Arrington, has him using &#8220;if&#8221; conditional language when discussing the prospect of achieving the framework&#8217;s goals.
&#8220;Because there is a tremendous amount of waste and fraud,&#8221; he said. &#8220;In fact, the Government Accountability Office says upwards of $500 billion over the 10-year budget window just in Medicaid, you&#8217;ve got hundreds of billions siphoned out for other purposes than serving the Medicaid beneficiary,&#8221; he said. &#8220;There is no work requirement for able-bodied adults like there is in every other means-tested welfare program.&#8221;
Arrington continued: &#8220;And, in fact, Medicaid — because we give a higher federal match to able-bodied adult population, this is the Obamacare expansion population — we actually hurt access to the pregnant, blind, disabled, the most vulnerable, the poorest and sickest among our fellow Americans as a result of the structure of the program. We can save over $1.5 trillion without touching a dime of the benefit funding.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" title="&#039;THE SAME TIRED PLAY&#039;: Lawmaker rips Dems for &#039;fear mongering&#039; Medicaid cuts" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mPkJL6XeixA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rep. Jodey Arrington

House Budget Chief Slams Hakeem Jeffries For Medicaid ‘Fear-Mongering’

Hakeem Jeffries

Medicaid

This week marks the 16th anniversary of the birth of the modern-day Tea Party, and — at long last — with an ally in the Oval Office and friends throughout his administration and on Capitol Hill helping to carry out our shared mission, we can celebrate not just our birthday, but the fruits of our labor.
President Trump’s second-term priorities on a wide range of issues — the DOGE effort to shrink the size and scope of government; the determination to secure the border; the move to end the weaponization of government; and the commitment to healthcare freedom, among others — is the continuation of what we in the Tea Party have been working for over the last decade and a half.
Across that wide range of issues and others, we are working to support his agenda on the policy and the personnel fronts — because it is our agenda.
<div id="attachment_875665" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-875665" class="size-large wp-image-875665" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-2198391943-864x576.jpg" alt="Elon Musk listens as US President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 11, 2025. Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who has been tapped by President Donald Trump to lead federal cost-cutting efforts, said the United States would go &quot;bankrupt&quot; without budget cuts. Musk leads the efforts under the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and was speaking at the White House with Trump, who has in recent weeks unleashed a flurry of orders aimed at slashing federal spending." width="864" height="576" />JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images</div>
The modern-day Tea Party began in early 2009 as a natural grassroots reaction to the Washington Swamp’s response to the financial crisis of 2007-2008, and to its determination to use that crisis as a cover for expanding the size and scope of government. First, in September of 2008 the Republican-led administration proposed sending $700 billion (a then unheard-of sum) of taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street banks that had made bad decisions. Then, in January of 2009, a Democrat-led administration followed that up by proposing to spend almost $1 trillion in taxpayer funds on what it called a “stimulus” package.
It didn’t take long for grassroots anger to boil over. On February 16, 2009, the day before President Barack Obama signed the so-called “stimulus” bill into law, the first significant protest took place, in Seattle, Washington. Led by Keli Carender — who still works with me, leading grassroots activities today — it was called the “Porkulus Protest.”
Things began picking up speed. Three days later, on February 19, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ranted from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange</a>, asking the assembled traders on live television, “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage, that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” Then he half-jokingly said, “We’re thinking of having a ‘Chicago Tea Party’ in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m going to start organizing.”
We took up his challenge. Precisely one day after Santelli’s rant, we held the first organizing phone call. Led by Michael Patrick Leahy (formerly of PJ Media and Breitbart, now best known for his work with Tennessee Star News), about three dozen activists got on a conference call and strategized. That led, one week later, on February 27, to what we now recognize as the first “official” tea party protests – 48 of them, all across the country, attended by about 35,000 people.
As the news from Washington got worse, the movement continued to pick up strength. Less than two months later, on April 15 (yes, the choice of Tax Day was symbolic, and strategic), FOX News hosts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Neil Cavuto hosted their shows from “Tax Day Tea Parties” in Atlanta, Dallas, and Sacramento, respectively, as an estimated <a href="https://www.npr.org/2009/12/09/121237459/tea-party-activists-harness-anger-to-push-message" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1.2 million people</a> gathered to protest at more than 2,000 local tea parties nationwide.
<div id="attachment_884125" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-884125" class="size-large wp-image-884125" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-170863012-864x576.jpg" alt="UNITED STATES - JUNE 19: Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck attends a Tea Party Patriots rally on the west front of the Capitol to protest the IRS's targeting of conservative political groups. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-170863012-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-170863012-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-170863012-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-170863012.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call</div>
The summers of 2009 and 2010, remembered for the boisterous town hall meetings held by members of Congress during Congress’s regular recesses, saw the movement continue to grow. As it became clearer that the fight to pass ObamaCare would come down to just a few votes one way or the other, our organizing intensified. Democrats held strong majorities in both houses of Congress, though, and partisan politics eventually carried the day. Nevertheless, the Tea Party movement certainly helped many congressional Democrats to early retirement in the <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/democrats-losses-ran-wide-deep-045160" target="_blank" rel="noopener">midterm elections of 2010</a>.
The Tea Party didn’t go away. Instead, we prepared for the next battle. In 2013, Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner revealed that the IRS had been targeting us, demanding to know, among other things, the content of the prayers we prayed and the subject matter of the books we discussed at our meetings. Later that year we were instrumental in defeating a terrible bill establishing a mass amnesty for illegal immigrants that passed the Senate but was blocked in the House. In 2015, we fought Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, and held a protest rally on the West Front Lawn of the Capitol addressed by Donald Trump. In 2016, we fought to prevent Merrick Garland – who later revealed himself to be one of the most radical attorneys general in history – from taking a seat on the Supreme Court. In 2020 and thereafter, we maintained our long-held focus on healthcare freedom by fighting to reopen schools and against vaccine mandates.
Though the political environment in which we’ve operated has changed over the years, our dedication to our original values has not: From the start, we’ve stood for individual liberty, limited and constitutional government, and fiscal responsibility. We’ve fought to reduce the size and scope of the federal government; to secure the border; to defend healthcare freedom; and to stop the weaponization of government. We’ve won some, and we’ve lost some, and we’ve learned how to harness our passion and turn it into meaningful action.
Today, with our champion in the Oval Office, we help him wage political war against the Washington Swamp we’ve been fighting since we first organized ourselves 16 years ago. For the Tea Party, it’s a Sweet Sixteen, indeed.
* * *
Jenny Beth Martin is Honorary Chairman of Tea Party Patriots Action.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Tea Party Activists Hold Tax Day Rally In Washington

It’s A Sweet Sixteen For The Tea Party

Federal Government

Obama Administration

Tea Party

While President Trump&#8217;s winning streak continues, it doesn&#8217;t just continue because of President Trump.
It is also continuing because Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is doing an extraordinary job in the House, where he has an unbelievably slim margin. His margin is somewhere between one and three votes, depending on who actually shows up for the vote.
Yet, somehow, he was capable of pushing through a gigantic House budget bill on Tuesday night.
Now, there are all sorts of problems with these gigantic bills. The biggest problem, of course, is that no one in power ever has any interest in serious cuts to what matters in American government. Instead, they sort of shovel those cuts off down the road.
They make commitments to commit.
All of that has just been a regular feature of American government from Republicans and Democrats for as long as I&#8217;ve been alive, which is why the line in terms of national debt keeps going up and to the right.
However, this budget bill enshrines the Trump tax cuts of 2017 and provides additional funding to defense, which is absolutely necessary. It provides additional funding to the border, which is necessary, and it pledges to actually take a look at cuts that will offset some of the loss of tax revenue theoretically to be achieved by the Trump tax cuts.
Last night, there was all sorts of consternation about whether House Republicans would be able to get it together. Originally, it seemed as though there were some House Republicans who were going to object to the House budget bill and not get on board with it because they believed that it didn&#8217;t cut enough.
A lot of these people were fiscal conservatives. I agree with them on principle, but I also understand that the only way a bill gets done, with Republicans in purple districts and an incredibly slim margin, is with more spending than is wanted.
This was Mike Johnson&#8217;s entire proposal as speaker of the House. The reason he pursued one “big, beautiful bill” is because he figured that if all of these issues were separated, they would become separate bills that would never pass because of the many purists and many issues who would be able to sink the boats.
Instead, he wrapped it up in one big ballot to make people vote up or vote down. That was the strategy.
If you don&#8217;t like it, then you need to elect more Republicans to Congress. The GOP has a very slim majority. Thus, any bill that comes out is likely to be more “moderate” in its approach than if you had a much larger majority where you could lose a few moderates in the vote and still maintain a majority.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2146-more-winning-house-gop-passes-big-beautiful-budget-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Republicans were very split on this. Democrats were already celebrating the prospective loss of this bill. But somehow Johnson cobbled everyone together.
For all the talk about how Johnson is “inexperienced” at this position and simply a “stand-in” for Trump, Johnson is actually quite good at this. He&#8217;s very good at this.
The reality is that Johnson is also significantly more conservative on pretty much every policy issue that any Speaker of the House has been since Newt Gingrich.
Originally on Tuesday night, it appeared that the vote was going to go down to defeat, and Democrats were preemptively celebrating.
But Johnson made it happen. He put out a statement after the passage of the budget. His statement, along with Steve Scalise and the House GOP chairwoman, Lisa McClain, <a href="https://scalise.house.gov/press-releases/House-Republican-Leadership-Statement-on-Passage-of-House-Budget-Resolution">said</a>:
<blockquote>Today House Republicans move Congress closer, delivering on President Trump&#8217;s America first agenda, not just parts of it. This momentum will grow as we work with our committee chairs and Senate Republicans to determine the best policies within their respective jurisdictions to meet budgetary targets. We have full confidence in their ability to chart the best path forward. While there is still much more to do, we are determined to send a bill to President Trump&#8217;s desk that secures our border, keeps taxes low for families and job creators, restores American energy dominance, strengthens America&#8217;s standing on the world stage, and makes government work more effectively for all Americans.</blockquote>
Speaker Johnson&#8217;s job is exceptionally difficult. There is no American consensus on restructuring the entitlement programs that are the systemic drivers of our national debt.
I wish reality were not what it is, but that is the case. It is a fundamental reality that Trump understands, which is why he and JD Vance ran on the prospect of never touching Social Security and Medicare, among other gigantic entitlement programs.
Those are systemic drivers of the national debt. They&#8217;re not touching them because they understand the American people don&#8217;t want them touched.
Let&#8217;s be clear about what&#8217;s going to happen to America fiscally over the course of the next 10 years. America is going to lurch toward precisely the same sorts of austerity measures that Europe had to put in place because the United States is heading toward national bankruptcy.
We are. That&#8217;s just where we are at.
Here’s what you can do about that. You can push outsized growth. You can try to outgrow the debt. You can essentially grow the economy so fast that as a percentage of GDP, the national debt shrinks.
Or you can radically increase taxes, which is going to sink the American economy and probably won&#8217;t solve the national debt. You can&#8217;t really tax your way out of a $37 trillion national debt right now. And it&#8217;s going to get much larger over the coming years.
Or you could restructure the entitlements. The American people and their elected congresspeople always forever prefer to kick that can down the road.
This budget is probably the best thing that can be done with what people are willing to do.
Now it goes to the Senate. The Senate has already voted for a couple of different bills that cover much of this area. There&#8217;s going to be a plan to reconcile the Senate with the House bills, try and come up with some sort of workable compromise, and then go back to the Houses, the respective Houses, for a revote.
For all the talk about how there was going to be an ineffective Republican majority in the House, Speaker Johnson has proved that wrong. He&#8217;s played this about as well as you can possibly play an incredibly difficult hand.
And in the Senate, I believe that the majority leader, Senator John Thune, is going to do a good job of working with Speaker Johnson to come up with a bill that Trump will sign and that is going to provide some quiescence to the markets.
It is going to make people feel as though the tax regime is not going to change any time in the near future, which is a good way of getting people to feel comfortable in their investments.
It is a triumph for Johnson and for Trump to get this budget passed through such a narrowly divided Congress.
Give credit where credit is due: Against heavy odds, Johnson pulled it off.

Speaker Johnson Addresses The Media After Budget Resolution Vote

More Winning: House GOP Passes Big, Beautiful Budget

Ben Shapiro

Budget

Nature is healing. 
Nowhere is it more healing than right now at MSNBC. 
Joy Reid is apparently losing her show at MSNBC and leaving the network completely.
But MSNBC insists they are going to continue with their leftist views. They are not going to move toward the center. Genius-level ideas from the leadership over at MSNBC.
They are reportedly going to move Jen Psaki, former White House press secretary to Joe Biden, to anchor one of the primetime hours during the week. She could be named anchor of MSNBC&#8217;s 9 p.m. hour, where Rachel Maddow is currently holding court. Joy Reid is apparently going to be replaced by Symone Sanders-Townsend, who was a press secretary for Bernie Sanders before being a press secretary for Kamala Harris; Michael Steele, the former RNC chairman who has moved far to the Left; and Alicia Menendez. The leadership over at MSNBC suggests they are going to add Politico&#8217;s Eugene Daniels and NYU law professor Melissa Murray to the network&#8217;s lineup as well.
So they are continuing to move over to the Left. This reflects a serious problem in the Democratic Party: They do not know which way to move. They are stuck because of identity politics and, largely, because of immigration. They are now stuck in a rut of their own making, and it is very difficult to break out of that rut.
As a result, Democrats are thrashing against the box of reality. Former Bill Clinton pollster Mark Penn points out the Democratic Party is more unpopular than they&#8217;ve been any time in his lifetime, <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-clinton-pollster-tells-fox-news-democratic-party-support-is-at-record-low-and-falling-off-a-cliff/">saying</a>, “I have never seen anything like this. This is a record low for the Democratic Party in terms of favorability.”
Democrats are trying to figure out exactly to whom they should turn in the wake of Donald Trump&#8217;s victory and the fact that he&#8217;s now steamrolling through his agenda. Do they turn back to the supposedly moderate types, the Joe Biden types? Or should they double down on Kamala Harris, who is still wandering the landscape.
Democrats themselves are torn as to how to approach the Trump administration. On the one hand, they want to go back to resistance-style anger. They want to just scream at the wind — a lot. The problem for them is that they can&#8217;t find a point of consolidation because much of what Trump is doing right now is quite popular.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2144-more-trump-wins-joy-reid-gone-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
So, they&#8217;re stuck in a weird in-between. On the one hand, they want to preach that Trump is non-empathetic and more empathy is needed.
But people don&#8217;t see the Democrats as empathetic.
At a town hall event in Roswell, Georgia, a Democrat woman went on a rant over the weekend that got a lot of attention from the Left. She <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/news/town-hall-erupts-at-blistering-anti-trump-rant-torching-tyranny-gets-standing-ovation-in-trump-district/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blustered</a>:
<blockquote>It&#8217;s clear from all the writings of our founding fathers that our great republic was never meant to be ruled by a dictator nor a king. It’s clear from all the writings of our Founding Fathers that our great Republic was never meant to be ruled by a dictator, nor a king. … So you can imagine my shock and pure horror when I woke up to find that our president had given himself unprecedented executive powers, and then, within a few days, named himself King to his followers. … Tyranny is rising in the white House, and a man has declared himself our king. So I would like to know. Rather the people would like to know what you, congressman, and your fellow congressman are going to do to rein in the megalomaniac in the White House.</blockquote>
All of this rings hollow. It is sound and fury signifying almost nothing at this point because the Democratic Party does not know what it stands for. On the one hand, they want to say they are for everyone. On the other hand, they want to push identity politics. On the one hand, they want to talk about no dictatorship. On the other hand, they want government to control every part of Americans’ lives. On the one hand, they want to rave that Trump is breaking down foreign policy. On the other hand, they want to surrender almost everywhere.
So which is it?
In the end, the answer is that, for Democrats, their future hinges on one thing: Trump&#8217;s failure. If Trump fails, they win.
It&#8217;s that simple. They don&#8217;t have anything else. Their only point of consolidation is if Trump and his administration fail at making America succeed. That is the only way that they have a pathway back to power.
Democrats are betting that it&#8217;s all going to fall apart for President Trump. And massive collapse doesn&#8217;t appear to be on the horizon — unless there is some sort of serious economic problem. And that is why the central focus of the Trump administration right now must be on bringing down inflation; it must be on economic growth. That&#8217;s what the central focus has to be.
Yes, we want to see President Trump keep all of his promises — and he will with regard to immigration. Sure, we would like to see President Trump bring an end to the war in Ukraine in a reasonable fashion.
But the thing that Americans care most about — and this is always true — is their economic well-being. We have a real estate bubble because fewer people are selling their homes and demand has remained. We have a stock market bubble which is likely to break at some point. These are the worries the Trump administration has to deal with.
Inflation is driving both of those things because the currency was wildly inflated over the course of Biden&#8217;s tenure. Inflation remains at 3% right now, which is 50% higher than the Federal Reserve generally prefers. That means interest rates are unlikely to come down, which means it will be tough to get a loan. At the same time, someone who has a loan will not want to spend their money on inflated assets.
This is a bit of a sticky patch for the American economy. Productivity gains will help; more competition, less regulation, more investment in newer things will help.
But DOGE alone is not going to solve these fiscal problems.
It&#8217;s very good to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse, but those three elements amount to a negligible percentage of actual federal spending.
To unshackle the economy and see productivity gains, business growth, and an economic boom, the kinds of programs that no one is politically willing to target must be targeted.
The single most important op-ed of the last five years was <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/welfare-is-whats-eating-the-budget-10c9d093?mod=e2two" target="_blank" rel="noopener">penned</a> by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington and former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm in September of last year. In it, they discussed what is actually driving America&#8217;s systemic national debt. The actual systemic drivers of the debt, as Arrington and Phil Gramm pointed out, are in the means-tested social welfare spending programs — precisely the things that neither party actually wants to touch, such as Medicaid, food stamps, refundable tax credits, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, federal housing subsidies, and almost 100 other programs.
What&#8217;s actually to bring long-lasting success is not going to be cutting around the edges. It&#8217;s not going to be posturing. What&#8217;s actually to bring long-lasting success is what is most politically difficult.
But if nobody&#8217;s willing to do it, then basically we&#8217;re just going to end up in a leftist populist horseshoe where, despite all the talk about innovation, government just continues to grow and gobble up an increasing portion of Americans’ earnings and savings where a smaller and smaller percentage of the population is actually working while the government continues to spiral out of control in terms of growth. And productivity does not actually outpace all of the spending of government and the taxation of government.
That is the problem President Trump is facing.
The easy route for Democrats to take when things fall down because of all these giant programs that they themselves have enshrined is just to claim that capitalism failed.
At some point, Congress, particularly, is going to have to stand up and President Trump is going to have to start pushing for some real systemic change on the regulatory side.
He&#8217;s going to have to push for some real systemic change when it comes to these means-tested welfare programs.
If the premise of the current American political moment is that we are in a moment of scarcity with scarce resources, that we are in danger of being out-produced by countries like China, that the American budget is too large, that our tax burden is too high, and that we&#8217;re spending too much money, then we have to look at the right places. Looking at the wrong places does not lead to solving the problem, and then things will go from bad to worse.
And that’s the only hope Democrats have.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP-GOVERNORS

Democrats Are Flailing. They Only Have One Hope.

Democrats

James Carville

Joy Reid

MSNBC

Social Security

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said over the weekend that America&#8217;s ballooning national debt was becoming a serious threat to U.S. national security.
Mullin made the remarks during a Sunday interview on ABC News&#8217; &#8220;This Week&#8221; with Jonathan Karl when asked about Elon Musk&#8217;s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cutting wasteful spending in other agencies and departments.
&#8220;We hate that anybody&#8217;s losing their job, but at the same time, we know that the debt that we have in this country is not manageable, and it&#8217;s becoming a national security risk, and we&#8217;re spending nearly a trillion dollars a year just in servicing the debt,&#8221; Mullin said. &#8220;That is scary. We&#8217;re spending more on interest payments than we are in our Defense Department now.&#8221;
&#8220;Anybody will tell you that is a road for disaster,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;So any time you take over a situation like Elon Musk has had many opportunities and many experiences with taking over businesses, you had to start cutting some of the fat.&#8221;
&#8220;And unfortunately, the number one expense we have in the United States government right now is payroll, and when you start cutting departments, some people&#8217;s jobs are lost,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And it hurts us because we don&#8217;t want anybody to lose their job. But at the same time, we have to get it under control because if we don&#8217;t get our debt underneath control, it becomes a national security — can you imagine if we get downgraded?&#8221;
He said that if the U.S. gets its credit rating downgraded and the dollar starts losing its value that it could lead to disastrous economic outcomes for the country.
&#8220;Our buying power, the ability to invest into the country, the ability to invest in our military starts shrinking, and then we start losing the strength part when we start wanting to be at the negotiating table from peace through strength,&#8221; he continued.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
When asked about Elon Musk’s efforts to layoff federal employees, GOP Sen. Mullin tells <a href="https://twitter.com/jonkarl?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JonKarl</a> the move is necessary to control debt.
“It hurts us because we don&#8217;t want anybody to lose their job. But at the same time, we have to get it under control.” <a href="https://t.co/MbYZfpYm86">https://t.co/MbYZfpYm86</a> <a href="https://t.co/hzC1q8umzS">pic.twitter.com/hzC1q8umzS</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1891179764926369894?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2025</a></blockquote>

I Am Vanessa Guillén Act

Senator Mullin: America’s National Debt A ‘National Security Risk’

Markwayne Mullin

Two major issues are going to come up in the Congress of the United States this year because Republicans do not actually have a supermajority in the Senate, which means they have to use a process that is called reconciliation. 
Reconciliation can only be used on budgetary bills and matters, which means it can only be used once, or possibly twice at the most, inside of a year.
The big question for Republicans in the House and the Senate is whether they are going to create two bills and vote on them separately over the course of the year.
One is going to be a border bill that&#8217;s going to attempt to increase border security and complete the building of the border wall, to change the law where necessary in order to make it easier to deport illegal immigrants. That would be bill number one.
Bill number two would be making the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent.
There are basically two possible strategies here. One strategy would be to separate those two bills. In some ways that might be better, and in some ways it might be worse. 
The other strategy would be to wrap them up into one giant bill. This method would cause more compromises to be cut than might be cut if the bill was separated into two. That’s because piling everything into one bill on border matters and tax matters and having an up or down vote creates more crap in the crap sandwich.
It&#8217;s like an omnibus package that includes tax matters and border matters.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2110-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Many conservatives are concerned about this. The House Freedom Caucus is upset because it will take additional spending on the border in order to secure the border. The Trump tax cuts may lead to short-term lowering of federal revenue into the tax coffers, so their question is how to offset that in terms of spending.
Meanwhile, Republicans would also like to increase the defense budget in the face of a vastly aggressive China.
If all of this gets wrapped in one bill and Trump says to the American body politic and to the constituents of all these Republicans, “Listen, the bill has a lot of stuff I don&#8217;t like, but it has a lot of stuff I do like. I&#8217;m ‘yes,’ on the bill. Everybody else should be ‘yes’ on the bill,” Republicans will be pressured to go ‘yes’ on the bill, even if there&#8217;s more crap included in the crap sandwich.
The alternative, which is to separate the two bills — the border bill and the tax bill — is that neither may pass. It may be an opportunity for people to signal their discontent on matters regarding Trump&#8217;s approach to the border. If you&#8217;re on the left wing of the Republican Party on tax matters, there&#8217;s going to be some pretty serious battles inside the Republican Party with regard to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction that allows taxpayers to subtract a portion of their state and local taxes from their federal taxable income.
The 2017 tax cuts asserted that if you paid taxes in California or New York, that didn&#8217;t mean you could deduct the taxes you paid on the state level against your federal taxable income. That would have been a sort of affirmative action program on taxes for blue states. That got removed.
But there are a lot of people, Republicans from New York and California, who would like to restore the SALT deductions in the tax code, and that&#8217;s going to be an open battle.
So strategically speaking, the question is, do you go for two purer and smaller bills, or do you go for one less pure, bigger, beautiful bill?
Because Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is working with such a slim majority, he would prefer one bill because he wants to get everything that Trump wants. His choices are: get less of what Trump wants and less bad stuff, or get more of what Trump wants and more bad stuff.
That&#8217;s the nature of the bargain here. There is no third choice where you get all the great things that you want and none of the bad things that you don&#8217;t want. That’s not how it works with a majority this slim in the House and a pretty slim majority in the Senate as well.
This is a matter of strategy. It&#8217;s not a matter of principle. Johnson is very conservative. So too, for example, is House Ways and Means chair Jason Smith, a Republican from Missouri and a very conservative member of Congress. He&#8217;s also calling for one big bill. The idea would be get this bill rammed through by April — and do it fast. Do it quickly, because as we all know, the midterms are going to come up in a couple of years, which means Trump has two years to get everything he wants done.
And that really means he has one year to get it done. By the time he hits his second year, everybody will already be running for reelection, and they will have their eyes on their next race.
Smith pointed out that practically no parties have succeeded in passing two reconciliation bills in the same year in decades.
The bottom line is: Johnson is, in fact, a very good strategist. So is John Thune (R-SD), the Senate Majority Leader.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN &#8217;25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a></h3>
When Republican congresspeople talk about how we are not solving our national debt with these bills, they are damn right: We&#8217;re not solving our national debt with these bills. There is no need in pretending that anything being proposed is going to solve the national debt. The reality is that the national debt is never going to get solved until the entitlement programs that no one is going to touch are, indeed, touched. Until you touch Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, you are not going to be able to tackle the national debt.
So what does that mean? Those tax cuts better be made permanent because otherwise Democrats are going to reverse those at the first available opportunity, thus destroying the possibility of economic growth that could help facilitate solutions to issues like the national debt.
The border bill better be passed now because Democrats sure as hell aren&#8217;t going to pass a good border bill if they are in charge or if they gain control of the House of Representatives.
So, understand what Johnson has to do.
And he will get it done.

Opening Day Of The 119th Congress On Capitol Hill

The Urgency Of Time: Why Mike Johnson Must Do What He Has To Do

Menu