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’

Congress

Hakeem Jeffries

Medicaid

National Debt

Spending Bill

U.S.

U.S. House of Representatives

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

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Federal Government

Obama Administration

Opinion

President Trump

Tea Party

Trump Administration

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

Donald Trump

Mike Johnson

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

House Republicans

Republicans

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has aims worthy of its mastermind, but plans for the government-slashing commission outlined so far have raised doubts about the project’s efficacy.
Elon Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, originally suggested <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/heres-how-elon-musks-department-of-government-efficiency-will-work" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DOGE</a> during a wide-ranging conversation with President-elect Donald Trump on an X space. With Trump to take office next month, he has tasked Musk alongside entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy with heading DOGE and crafting a report for ways to reduce government size and spending by July 4, 2026.
The DOGE will be set up as an outside adviser group working closely with the White House to identify inefficiency in the federal government and recommend fixes, primarily through cuts, repeals, and reorganization. Musk has set an ambitious goal: cutting federal spending by $2 trillion, roughly a quarter of the federal budget, in addition to major reductions in regulations.
The project has generated excitement among conservatives who have long called for drastic action on the expanding size of government. Some supporters of Musk and Ramaswamy’s goals for the project are nonetheless skeptical that their strategy will create meaningful and lasting savings or efficiency.
“I’ve spent two decades thinking and writing about the administrative state and how I think it presents an enormous constitutional problem,” Hillsdale College politics professor Joseph Postell told The Daily Wire. “The fact that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are talking about the things that I&#8217;ve been talking to my students about for 10 or 20 years, I&#8217;m thrilled about this.”
“I&#8217;m coming from a perspective of somebody who&#8217;s highly sympathetic to what they want to do, but who doesn&#8217;t want to see them waste their opportunity,” he added.
Musk and Ramaswamy in an op-ed in <a href="https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2023/05/opening-up-federal-contracting-jobs-for-more-americans/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a> in November outlined DOGE’s approach.
“The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws,” they wrote.
But for their recommendations to turn into lasting realities, Congress must be involved, according to Postell. And working with Congress, DOGE has the opportunity to rewrite the most expansive laws passed by Congress that have effectively given bureaucrats wide-ranging authority to regulate Americans&#8217; lives.
“I think you need laws passed by Congress that restructure the administrative state and sort of revise the authorities granted to it,” Postell said. “First and foremost, it would be great to have an enormous reform of the Administrative Procedure Act where we very clearly state what agencies can do, what they can&#8217;t do, and how they have to go about doing what it is that they do.”
Postell cited reforming laws such as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, as well. Reforming major legislation would limit its scope while, in effect, repealing massive swaths of regulations crafted under the prior laws.
As the project stands, however, Musk and Ramaswamy seem to prefer executive action rather than working with allies in Congress to battle against an expansive bureaucratic regime. Here’s a breakdown of the DOGE plan to reform the federal government:
<h3>Spending</h3>
Musk has said he can cut the annual federal budget by $2 trillion. Asked about the odds of DOGE being able to accomplish that, Postell placed the likelihood at “less than a percent.”
Part of the problem lies in what DOGE can realistically recommend cuts to. Major entitlements such as Medicaid and Social Security, which Trump has campaigned against cutting, make up 46% of the <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/where-did-tax-dollars-go-federal-budget-breakdown">budget</a>. National defense, unlikely to be cut under Trump, is another 12%. Interest on the national debt is another 8%.
As the options for cuts begin to narrow down, Musk’s $2 trillion target looks increasingly over-optimistic. Musk and Ramaswamy could recommend <a href="https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/agency#:~:text=You%20are%20viewing%20FY%202024,below%20to%20start%20your%20exploration.&amp;text=Department%20of%20Health%20and%20Human,0...&amp;text=Unreported%20Data*:%20Unreported%20amounts,how%20you%20use%20the%20data!" target="_blank" rel="noopener">gutting</a> the departments of Agriculture, Education, and Transportation and not account for half of the goal.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/?_gl=1*12irifn*_gcl_au*MTk0MTMwNzY0LjE3MzUwNjczNzI.*_ga*MjExMDc1MjEyMy4xNzE5NDkwOTk4*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNTMwOTU5OC43NzMuMS4xNzM1MzA5NjI2LjMyLjAuMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener">50% OFF ALL DAILY WIRE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS FOR A LIMITED TIME!</a></h3>
Outside of entitlements and the military, Trump’s administration could still make significant cuts, if not enough to meet Musk’s goal, according to Postell. But of the coalition that put Trump in the White House, only a small portion of that is dedicated to slashing spending, presenting DOGE with a problem of lack of political support for its mission.
“It actually kind of reflects a little bit more of the older Republican party, more of the Reagan side of the Republican party, which was really focused on shrinking government,” Postell said. “Part of what’s made Trump so successful is that he’s moved away from that concept – that kind of conservative, slashing government approach.”
<h3>Regulation</h3>
In its aim to cut regulation and free the American economy from onerous or duplicitous rules, Musk and Ramaswamy cited two Supreme Court rulings they say will provide the basis for their crusade against red tape: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency decided in 2022 and Loper Bright v. Raimondo decided in 2024.
In the EPA case, the court decided the major questions doctrine, ruling that government bureaucrats cannot make regulations over “major” policy areas without explicit approval from Congress. In Raimondo, the court overturned the Chevron doctrine, meaning that courts no longer must defer to bureaucratic interpretations of Congressionally-approved laws and rules.
“Together, these cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law,” Musk and Ramaswamy wrote in WSJ.
It’s doubtful whether those cases will work for DOGE the way Musk and Ramaswamy predict. As far as West Virginia may be concerned, it’s unclear how many regulations could be affected. 
“A lot of the existing rules really have already survived that kind of scrutiny,” Postell said. “So, I&#8217;m not sure how this authorizes a retroactive look back.”
Raimondo may actually cause more headaches for DOGE than Chevron would have. Under Chevron, the Trump administration could use the ruling to assert its own narrow interpretation of a law and roll back regulations. Under Raimondo, courts have authority to interpret laws anew.
“Now, there&#8217;s actually not going to be deference given to the Trump administration when, you know, Greenpeace or the NRDC inevitably sues the EPA over that,” Postell said. “In a strange way, the death of Chevron is going to be a problem for the Trump administration&#8217;s regulatory reform effort. It’s not a tool in their toolbox, it’s actually a tool that’s going to be used against them.”
<h3>Bureaucracy</h3>
Within the sprawling federal bureaucracy, there is undoubtedly much fat that can be cut while maintaining the government’s current level of function. Toward that end, Ramaswamy has suggested some policies that will likely provide substantial results, such as requiring all federal employees to work in office five days a week where appropriate. A recent survey <a href="https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2023/05/opening-up-federal-contracting-jobs-for-more-americans/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> that just 6% of bureaucrats currently hold that schedule.
That said, reductions in the federal workforce is arguably one of the least impactful of DOGE’s aims. Without the cuts to regulations and federal spending, reductions in the federal workforce would result in very little worthwhile change.
“A lot of people don&#8217;t really want governmental efficiency,” Postell said. “You know, tyranny is not easier to swallow simply because it’s efficient.”
While the extent of DOGE’s recommendations for cuts to the federal bureaucracy have yet to be seen, deep cuts could result in a different set of problems if government work is shifted from bureaucrats to private contractors.
Private contractors already make up the majority of the federal government’s workforce. According to one <a href="https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2023/05/opening-up-federal-contracting-jobs-for-more-americans/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">estimate</a>, the number of federal contractors nearly doubles the number of federal employees: 3.7 million contractors to 2 million employees. While a smaller federal footprint would generally be positive, if that reduction resulted in more duties turned over to private contractors, the benefits are more questionable, according to Postell.
“If it starts to move towards a more privatized government, you could have serious concerns that you&#8217;ve actually made a problem worse because that&#8217;s a less accountable government, maybe, even than one where you know which department and which employees are behind whatever is happening,” Postell said.

TOPSHOT-US-GOVERNMENT-POLITICS-MUSK

Breaking Down DOGE: What To Expect From Musk’s Grand Government Overhaul Project

Elon Musk

Hillsdale College

Medicare

Vivek Ramaswamy

I reached a middle-age milestone this year: my oldest child got married and moved out — one down, three to go. My daughter and son-in-law, ages 19 and 21 and both employed, quickly learned about the payroll tax. Like the rest of us, they see 12.6% of every paycheck taken by the government and handed over to people like my upper-middle class parents, who definitely don’t need it.
That’s Social Security for you: a perversion of traditional values about saving, investment, and wealth transfers. Generally speaking, wealth should voluntarily flow from the old, who can’t take it with them, to the young, who could use a financial boost.
Sure, we might want a government program to stabilize incomes for the elderly poor who lacked the wherewithal to save or who risk outliving their own wealth. But a program that pays out based strictly on age, and not need? That’s not “social insurance.” That&#8217;s intergenerational plunder and a looming fiscal train wreck. It has to stop.
Everyone knows Social Security is broke and broken. The program has been paying out more than it takes in since 2021, and the latest projections have the Social Security trust fund depleted by 2033. After that date, it will only pay 79% of scheduled benefits if significant changes aren’t made.
Reform, however, seems politically impossible. Old people are the most reliable voting bloc. No sane politician dares tamper with their precious entitlements, lest he invite the wrath of the AARP — just ask Paul Ryan or George W. Bush. Raising payroll taxes also won’t fly. Unlike the personal income tax, lower earners pay proportionately higher shares of their income to Social Security. Stabilizing the program would require tax hikes on everyone — a political non-starter.
To fix Social Security, we need to <a href="https://inpolicy.org/2024/12/white-paper-the-art-of-the-deal-a-win-win-proposal-to-save-social-security/?mc_cid=a1fb06c6c9&amp;mc_eid=f20cc410a8">think outside the box</a>. Tweaking the retirement age, tax rates, and benefits won’t do. We don’t need “reform” so much as an escape hatch. If we can wean a relatively small number of people off of Social Security, we can preserve the substance of the program for those who truly need it. What we need is a &#8220;buyout.&#8221;
Companies have used buyouts for decades to resolve unfunded pension liabilities. In a buyout, the company lets workers out of the retirement plan in exchange for some kind of payment. This can be either a lump-sum, which the participant gets to invest and manage, or a more reliable alternative annuity contract. The company fixes its finances by offloading its pension obligations. Workers who accept buyouts gain greater security and control over their entitled funds.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/?_gl=1*12irifn*_gcl_au*MTk0MTMwNzY0LjE3MzUwNjczNzI.*_ga*MjExMDc1MjEyMy4xNzE5NDkwOTk4*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNTMwOTU5OC43NzMuMS4xNzM1MzA5NjI2LjMyLjAuMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener">50% OFF ALL DAILY WIRE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS FOR A LIMITED TIME!</a></h3>
Here’s how a Social Security buyout <a href="https://inpolicy.org/2024/12/white-paper-the-art-of-the-deal-a-win-win-proposal-to-save-social-security/?mc_cid=a1fb06c6c9&amp;mc_eid=f20cc410a8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">would work</a>: I renounce the benefits that I’m entitled to when I reach retirement age. In return, the government will give me a modest, gradual reduction of my portion of the payroll tax. I crunched the numbers for a 10-year phased-in reduction of the employee’s share of the Old Age tax, from 5.3% to zero. Both Social Security and I come out ahead, easily. This is because Social Security does not invest tax “contributions.” Instead, it pays them directly over to retirees, in true Ponzi scheme fashion. Its rate of return ranges from pathetically small to negative for all but the oldest and lowest-earning participants — well below the returns available with stock market index funds.
The buyout is calibrated to offer a significantly higher rate of return and gain in net wealth. To ensure success and forestall regret, I will further commit to investing, within my IRA, the amount of my payroll tax reduction. Because I still have decades to invest before retirement, I will come out ahead compared with what Social Security would have provided. There are many like me, probably millions, who similarly aren’t counting on Social Security and are self-funding retirement. They too will voluntarily leave as long as the value of the buyout exceeds their scheduled Social Security benefits. According to initial calculations, a Social Security buyout should be a clear win for workers ages 45 and under in the top half of the income distribution. If a tax-saving buyout were offered continually starting now, Social Security would be stabilized when about 20% of workers opt out, with no changes to benefits, to retirement age, or to tax schedules for those who choose to stick with the program.
If you like your Social Security plan, go ahead and keep it, and good luck to you. But let me (and millions more) out, and save the program. I never wanted Social Security anyway, and I’m better off investing on my own. Most importantly, I can stop plundering my children, increase my investment in America’s future, and feel good about being part of the solution.
* * *
Tyler Watts is a professor of economics at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Social Security Cards with US One Hundred Dollar Bill $100

Here’s A Radical Way To Fix Social Security Forever

Here's A Radical Way To Fix Social Security Forever

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)

Pensions

Retirement

Taxes

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/biden-administration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden administration</a> said Friday that it would cancel another $4.28 billion in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/student-loans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">student loan</a> debt for nearly 55,000 people, bringing the total amount of student debt forgiven by the administration to around $180 billion. 
The Department of Education <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/biden-harris-administration-approves-additional-428-billion-student-debt-relief-nearly-55000-public-service-workers-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> that it was canceling the debt of 54,900 borrowers through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program. Although the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-delivers-defeat-to-biden-admin-on-student-loan-forgiveness" target="_blank" rel="noopener">struck down</a> President Joe Biden&#8217;s broad student loan cancellation program last year, Biden has continued to cancel chunks of student loan debt through other programs. 
“Four years ago, the Biden-Harris Administration made a pledge to America’s teachers, service members, nurses, first responders, and other public servants that we would fix the broken Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, and I’m proud to say that we delivered,” said Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. 
The loan cancellation is the latest last minute leftist policy move from Biden as he approaches the final days of his administration. Biden is also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-biden-races-to-sell-off-border-wall-parts-before-trump-takes-office" target="_blank" rel="noopener">racing</a> to sell off border wall materials and move them away from the southern border and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/feds-look-to-hire-up-to-1200-new-dei-bureaucrats-before-trump-takes-office" target="_blank" rel="noopener">looking</a> to hire up to 1,200 employees to work in diversity, equity, and inclusion positions.
The PSLF Program allows borrowers working in education, public health, law enforcement, and emergency response to have their debt canceled after making 120 monthly payments. 
&#8220;The U.S. Department of Education’s successful transformation of the PSLF Program is a testament to what’s possible when you have leaders, like President Biden and Vice President Harris, who are relentlessly and unapologetically focused on making government deliver for everyday working people,&#8221; Cardona added.
Republicans have challenged Biden’s student loan cancellation initiatives, saying they are an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth and a burden on the American taxpayer. 
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
Earlier this month, 23 Republican attorneys general sent a <a href="https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024-12-2-Student-Loan-NPRM-Interested-States-Comment-Letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> to Cardona warning the administration about another proposed<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/17/2024-07726/student-debt-relief-for-the-william-d-ford-federal-direct-loan-program-direct-loans-the-federal"> rule</a> that would expand the Secretary of Education’s authority to “waive” debts to the department. 
“Everyone from the Supreme Court, to President Joe Biden, to former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has publicly acknowledged that you do not have the authority to forgive debt except in the limited ways Congress clearly outlined. You must adhere to these warnings and follow the law,” the attorney generals wrote on December 3. 
In June 2023, the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s attempt to use the COVID-era HEROES Act to unilaterally forgive federally subsidized loans. 
“The Secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not,” the court majority wrote in a 6-3 opinion. “We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the ground up.”

President Biden Hosts Hanukkah Holiday Reception At The White House

Biden Announces Cancellation Of Another $4 Billion In Student Loans

Biden Administration

Department of Education

Executive

Joe Biden

Miguel Cardona

Politics

Student Loan Cancellation

Student Loans

Supreme Court

With the collapse on Wednesday of a bloated stopgap bill to avert a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/government-shutdown" target="_blank" rel="noopener">government shutdown</a> by the end of the week, there has been a push among Republican members of Congress to pass a &#8220;clean&#8221; continuing resolution (CR) without all the add-ons that doomed the initial measure. But the final product may yet have some, albeit fewer additions than what critics derided as the <a href="https://x.com/JohnCornyn/status/1869467103021121631" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;cramnibus.&#8221;</a>
After President-elect <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a> came out against the bloated CR negotiated by leaders in the GOP-led House and Democrat-controlled Senate, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) <a href="https://x.com/SenMikeLee/status/1869489204415348851" target="_blank" rel="noopener">declared</a>: &#8220;Well, that’s that. Time to pass a real CLEAN CR. Next time we can save a few trees and leave the 1547 page monstrosities in the drafts folder.&#8221;
By advocating for a &#8220;clean&#8221; CR, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are pushing for a bill that would temporarily fund the federal government without being filled with the pork often packed into massive spending bills. As Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) pointed out, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/118/plaws/publ83/PLAW-118publ83.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">last CR</a> in September was <a href="https://x.com/RepNancyMace/status/1869458107828736197" target="_blank" rel="noopener">just 21 pages</a>.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
The <a href="https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20241216/CR.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CR</a> introduced by congressional leaders on Tuesday night sought <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/congress-reveals-another-stopgap-bill-to-avert-government-shutdown" target="_blank" rel="noopener">to provide</a> funds to the federal government through March 14, 2025, allocate more than <a href="https://x.com/cami_mondeaux/status/1869167167071236572" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$100 billion in disaster aid</a>, boost farmers, implement some healthcare reforms, finance the <a href="https://x.com/bresreports/status/1869180846101447119" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rebuilding</a> of Maryland&#8217;s devastated Francis Scott Key Bridge, create a <a href="https://x.com/jamiedupree/status/1869363001092091966" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pay raise</a> for Congress, and much more.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/elon-musk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Elon Musk</a>, who has been tasked with helping to lead the new <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/department-of-government-efficiency-doge" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)</a>, and Trump condemned the legislation. Emboldened by their opposition, many Republicans said they would not vote for the CR, signaling that it would not be able to pass without bipartisan support in the House. Amid the firestorm, the House leaders began work on a Plan B.
In a joint <a href="https://x.com/JDVance/status/1869495076604227726" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> with Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), the vice president-elect, Trump said Congress should pass a temporary funding bill only if it includes a debt ceiling increase and no &#8220;DEMOCRAT GIVEAWAYS.&#8221; On Wednesday night, after leaving House Speaker Mike Johnson&#8217;s (R-LA) office, Vance <a href="https://x.com/cristina_corujo/status/1869509292778463694" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told reporters</a> they had a <a href="https://x.com/AnnieGrayerCNN/status/1869575481072533661" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;productive conversation&#8221;</a> and noted that Trump supports &#8220;a clean CR so long as it contains a debt limit increase.&#8221;
Congress last passed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-passes-debt-ceiling-bill-to-avert-default-ahead-of-x-date" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legislation</a> to address the debt ceiling in the late spring of 2023. That measure, negotiated under then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), suspended the debt limit until January 2025, staving off a U.S. debt default, and sought to implement various restraints on spending that would be able to reduce budget deficits by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next decade.
On Thursday, POLITICO <a href="https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/12/19/congress/johnson-trump-discuss-new-stopgap-plan-00195312" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cited</a> GOP sources who said that Johnson and Trump&#8217;s team were discussing a new plan to avert a shutdown, including a CR, disaster aid, pushing off the debt limit fight for two years, and a one-year farm bill extension. Democrat leaders have <a href="https://x.com/bresreports/status/1869542348650344750" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> indicated they <a href="https://x.com/thehill/status/1869786286560542948" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prefer</a> the original plan.

Speaker Mike Johnson

Where The Spending Fight In Congress Stands After ‘Cramnibus’ Implodes

Debt Ceiling

Government Shutdown

We are about to see a market explosion in the Western world — if capitalism is re-embraced.
It looks as though this is about to happen. The reality is that in the United States, as in most Western countries, the debt levels are reaching the unsustainable — or have already surpassed the unsustainable. The amount of national debt currently carried by the United States is verging on $37 trillion. That means the interest we pay on the national debt will soon — if it has not already — exceed the defense budget every single year into the foreseeable future.
Most of that debt is driven by welfare programs, means-tested welfare programs, badly structured welfare programs, and entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. All of those programs are the systemic drivers of debt in the Western world.
There are only two possible solutions to this problem, and both have to be applied at once.
First: serious restructuring and cuts to spending programs in the United States. 
Second: unleashing the power of the market to increase the size of the economy, because increasing the size of the pie means larger tax revenue intake and being able to afford more, on a governmental level.
The reason I call attention to this is because what we were set for under Joe Biden and his possible successors was a period of sustained economic stagnation in the United States — before inflation set in. Biden and his team put out a prospectus on what American GDP growth would look like over the course of the next decade, and they essentially forecasted it would come in at lower than 2% from here until as far as the eye can see. That is not enough growth to sustain the sort of spending programs the United States has been undertaking for decades.
At this point, something serious needs to change.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2093-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
A look back through history shows that, quite often, ideological precursors to shifts in the United States happen elsewhere. Possibly the most famous economic example occurred in the 1970s when Chile was run by a dictator named Augusto Pinochet.
Pinochet called in several supply-side economists from the so-called Chicago School of Economics called ”The Chicago Boys.” They were devotees of Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist, and advised Pinochet. Chile subsequently outsized rates of growth after private property rights were reestablished, tax rates were lowered, and a system of law was put in place that eventually led to the downfall of Pinochet himself and the rise of the democratic state in Chile.
Milton Friedman was later asked about what happened in Chile. He <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhujtDulmlg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said:</a>
<blockquote>The real miracle in Chile was not that those economic reforms worked so well. Chile is, by all odds, the best success story in Latin America today. The real miracle is not that those economic arrangements worked so well, because that&#8217;s what Adam Smith said. The real miracle is that a military junta was willing to let them do it. See, as I said to begin with, the principles of the military [are] from the top down; the principle of a market is from the bottom up. Now, it&#8217;s a real miracle that a military group was willing to let a bottom-up approach take over. … But I will say that that process led to a situation in which you were able to get [an] election which ended the military junta, and you now have a democratic government. You cannot cite any similar example from the world of entirely socialist states.</blockquote>
So what exactly happened in Chile? There were effectively three main pillars to what the Chicago boys did there. Economic liberalization, meaning fewer trade barriers; an easing of regulation; and an easier capacity to make economic arrangements. Privatization of state-owned companies, gigantic ownership of state-owned companies, was then devolved upon private citizens. And finally, stabilization of inflation took place, which meant a stop to spending money and printing money in order to keep up with inflation.
The same thing is currently happening in Argentina. Javier Milei has undertaken one of the greatest economic reform efforts in modern history — and it is absolutely working. He has brought inflation rates down from the insane to the manageable, and he has done this over the course of just a few months.
The Washington Post has reported on his efforts, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/11/25/trump-javier-milei/">writing</a>:
<blockquote>Inflation is tumbling, just as he promised, from a peak of almost 300 percent; a long-running budget deficit has turned into a surplus; government bonds, once seen as almost certain to sink back into default, are rallying; and the long-moribund economy is finally starting to rebound,” Bloomberg News reported this month. “Not bad for an outsider with an agenda so radical that people were speculating openly a year ago on how many months he’d last before having to surrender power.</blockquote>
Milei himself has <a href="https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2024/11/20/argentina-the-making-of-an-economic-miracle">said</a>, “What lies ahead in 2025 is more of what we’ve already done: strict fiscal balance, no money growth and deregulation. Argentina has suffered from an overdose of deficits, money-printing and useless regulations. All that needs to go.”
People on the Left are very upset because when this type of action is taken — if you throw people off the welfare dole, for example, because there&#8217;s too much spending on welfare or if you stabilize the currency — what that means quite often is that poverty rates in the very near-term increase. But then, they begin to decline radically, which is exactly what happened with Chile.
Milei remains incredibly popular in Argentina.
The success in Chile was the precursor to the economic revolution that spread across the Western world. The Chilean success was seen as a model by the Reagan administration; it&#8217;s why they pursued tax-cutting. It&#8217;s why they pursued deregulation and privatization of state-owned industries. The same occurred in Margaret Thatcher&#8217;s Britain.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>
The lessons that Milei is pushing in Argentina are being applied to the rest of the Western world. That doesn&#8217;t mean President-elect Trump wouldn&#8217;t have pursued it in the absence of Milei. It does mean, however, a wave of economies are beginning to recognize the stagnating pseudo-socialistic policies that are pushed by so many members of the Left actually end in economic ruin for nations. That is now being disowned.
That’s why the business market is reacting so positively to President Trump&#8217;s election. We are witnessing a working model that has been applied in Argentina, where it was in crisis mode, succeeding. That means crisis efforts have to be undertaken here as well.
If those efforts are applied even on a medium scale in the United States, we are about to see a boom unlocked in the United States, unlike any in modern American history.

Javier Milei Leads Event To Launch ‘La Libertad Avanza’

The Axis Of Capitalism

Economy

Javier Milei

Milton Friedman

Money

spending

Just one day before her debate with President Donald Trump, Vice President Kamala Harris finally released her <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/kamalaharris.com/issues/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!yx33iqbf6C22e-g6ks3Y-C38HoAU7tYV8nGCENr387qlvpztWxZrY5ZINNpuAZwRP_lDvGdiPRTtHqTx6e7hbrSZ$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">policy platform</a> to the American public — and it’s just as progressive as you would expect.
The website touts the platform as a “New Way Forward,” a framing that echoes her frequent refrain “We&#8217;re not going back.” But in the few areas where her platform actually proposes specific policy positions, one thing is crystal clear: with Kamala Harris as president, we will indeed be going back – to an even more extreme version of President Biden’s failed leftist agenda.
From her foreign policy and border plan, to her economic policies, to her social agenda, Harris espouses an extreme progressive ideology far more radical than her boss. Her platform would mean disaster for the economic stability, national security, and moral fabric of this country.
Given rising international tensions, Harris’ foreign policy views warrant particular scrutiny. The Biden-Harris approach has led to the first major land war in Europe since World War II, the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, an inflamed Middle East, and a growing threat from totalitarian regimes in China and North Korea. Her platform to address these threats only perpetuates the misguided leftist approach: appeasing adversaries and avoiding escalation at all costs. This strategy has failed to deter aggression and severely damaged U.S. national security. 
But the most urgent foreign attack is the one happening at the southern border. Harris’ platform claims she knows the border is a breeding ground for crime and violence, but she and Biden failed to take any action addressing the crisis until a few months <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/04/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-secure-the-border/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!yx33iqbf6C22e-g6ks3Y-C38HoAU7tYV8nGCENr387qlvpztWxZrY5ZINNpuAZwRP_lDvGdiPRTtHqTx6T1DlNHA$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">before the election</a>. Border entries remain at historically high levels — <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/homeland.house.gov/2024/05/22/startling-stats-factsheet-biden-administration-on-track-to-reach-10-million-encounters-nationwide-before-end-of-fiscal-year/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!yx33iqbf6C22e-g6ks3Y-C38HoAU7tYV8nGCENr387qlvpztWxZrY5ZINNpuAZwRP_lDvGdiPRTtHqTx6Z_-HauM$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">over 10 million </a>illegal migrants have been encountered since Biden took office in 2021 – and illicit fentanyl seizures are up <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/immigrationforum.org/article/illicit-fentanyl-and-drug-smuggling-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-an-overview/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!yx33iqbf6C22e-g6ks3Y-C38HoAU7tYV8nGCENr387qlvpztWxZrY5ZINNpuAZwRP_lDvGdiPRTtHqTx6Qz4Ov0-$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">480%</a> from 2020’s interceptions. 
The influx of illegal migrants into sanctuary cities has created an overflow of chaos and crime into surrounding suburbs, displayed most recently by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/sanctuary-citys-policies-push-violent-migrant-gang-suburbs-nationwide-problem" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Venezuelan prison gang violence</a> in Denver’s Aurora suburb. Every state is a border state under <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/advancingamericanfreedom.com/aaf-kamala-harris-border-czar-record/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!yx33iqbf6C22e-g6ks3Y-C38HoAU7tYV8nGCENr387qlvpztWxZrY5ZINNpuAZwRP_lDvGdiPRTtHqTx6fvjyIjL$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Harris’ philosophy</a>, which leaves communities reeling from the mounting violence, crime, and economic burden of mass migration. Enough is enough — <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.fairus.org/issue/examples-serious-crimes-illegal-aliens__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!yx33iqbf6C22e-g6ks3Y-C38HoAU7tYV8nGCENr387qlvpztWxZrY5ZINNpuAZwRP_lDvGdiPRTtHqTx6S6hw9xh$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">too many Americans</a> have been attacked, assaulted, and killed by illegal migrants in crimes that could have been prevented by sound policy and strong borders. 
Harris’ reckless immigration and foreign policy positions bleed into misinformed economic policies. In the name of “building an opportunity economy,” Harris’ platform proposes communist style price controls, continues Biden’s massive federal regulations that are projected to cost the American economy <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.americanactionforum.org/insight/harris-vs-trump-assessing-the-potential-regulatory-policy-paths-in-the-2024-election/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!yx33iqbf6C22e-g6ks3Y-C38HoAU7tYV8nGCENr387qlvpztWxZrY5ZINNpuAZwRP_lDvGdiPRTtHqTx6eQzNqsy$">$1.69 trillion</a>, and increases the corporate tax burden. Her proposals are likely to send the country spiraling into recession, sending jobs overseas, increasing the deficit, and worsening the economic pain Americans are feeling from four years of the Biden-Harris administration. The U.S. economy will only flourish when we eliminate burdensome regulation, reduce spending, encourage investment here at home, and lower taxes as we did through the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This is the path toward prosperity for all.
On social policy and abortion, Harris’ leftist agenda is in full force. Harris voted to <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/10/fact-checking-claims-made-in-trump-harris-debate/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!yx33iqbf6C22e-g6ks3Y-C38HoAU7tYV8nGCENr387qlvpztWxZrY5ZINNpuAZwRP_lDvGdiPRTtHqTx6e42OTSy$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">block a 2019 bill</a> that would require medical care for babies born during failed abortions, and during the debate, she refused to answer whether she supports abortions up until the moment of birth. As President, she would seek to reinstate Roe v. Wade, which, contrary to the impression left by the debate moderators, allowed individual states to sanction abortion at any time.
Harris’ alarmingly progressive social platform also includes expanding and normalizing the transgender agenda, pushing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies, and targeting faith-based institutions. These policies will decay our moral fabric, undermine civil society, incite division, and cause unimaginable harm to the next generation of Americans.
<h4><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!</a></h4>
In light of her extreme positions across the board, it&#8217;s no surprise that nearly half of respondents to a recent <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/08/us/politics/times-siena-poll-likely-electorate-crosstabs.html__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!yx33iqbf6C22e-g6ks3Y-C38HoAU7tYV8nGCENr387qlvpztWxZrY5ZINNpuAZwRP_lDvGdiPRTtHqTx6YeEUzIT$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Times and Siena College poll</a> think Harris is “too liberal or progressive.” Her <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/advancingamericanfreedom.com/democrats-say-theyre-for-freedom-not-so-fast/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!yx33iqbf6C22e-g6ks3Y-C38HoAU7tYV8nGCENr387qlvpztWxZrY5ZINNpuAZwRP_lDvGdiPRTtHqTx6WzSZqce$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">progressive vision of freedom</a> can only emerge by sacrificing our fundamental rights and privileges. Her “freedom to reproductive healthcare” means trampling the rights of the faithful. “Freedom from fear of gun violence” means revoking Second Amendment rights. The “freedom not just to get by, but to get ahead” means tax hikes and higher welfare spending.
What America needs now more than ever are policies that reflect the country’s traditional values and meet the urgent needs of Americans suffering under crippling inflation, crime, the opioid epidemic, and significant international unrest. The Harris agenda is not, in fact, “A New Way Forward,” but a far more extreme version of the well-known failed policies of the current Biden-Harris administration. The Vice President is right, America will not go back.
* * *
Tim Chapman is the President at Advancing American Freedom, a public policy advocacy organization founded by Vice President Mike Pence. Chapman has more than two decades of service in the conservative movement and as an advocate for public policy.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Vice President Harris Addresses The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 47th Annual Leadership Conference In D.C.

Menu