00:00:00
Power
00:00:01
corrupts. Government is power and it's
00:00:03
been corrupted. Nobody knew in total how
00:00:06
much we spend because we never even talk
00:00:08
about it. The first goal of this
00:00:10
Republican budget reconciliation should
00:00:12
be don't add to the deficit. I voted for
00:00:16
President Trump because I wanted him to
00:00:18
defeat the deep state. You don't defeat
00:00:20
the deep state by continuing to fund it
00:00:22
at Biden's levels. Our base is going to
00:00:24
go, "What? Why did we elect you guys?
00:00:26
You're really no better than Democrats."
00:00:28
I don't think President Trump, he's not
00:00:29
focused on reducing spending. This is
00:00:31
our one opportunity and right now we're
00:00:34
blowing it and I'm going to do
00:00:35
everything I can to make sure we don't
00:00:36
blow it. I can't be pressured by
00:00:38
President Trump. He's willing to sit
00:00:39
down with me, look at the numbers,
00:00:41
acknowledge them, working forward in a
00:00:43
reasonable plan forward. That's the only
00:00:45
way he's going to get my support. So,
00:00:48
everyone has assumed that the House
00:00:50
passage of the reconciliation bill is
00:00:52
going to go to the Senate with some
00:00:54
minor changes and then make its way to
00:00:55
President Trump's desk for signing. But
00:00:58
that may not be the case. There are
00:01:00
several hardliners in the US Senate who
00:01:02
have made it very clear that the budget
00:01:05
and the fiscal deficit problems that
00:01:06
arise from this bill are insurmountable
00:01:09
and they're going to take a very hard
00:01:11
stance on voting no on this bill. Taking
00:01:13
the lead on that point of view is
00:01:15
Senator Johnson from Wisconsin, who's
00:01:17
going to join us today for an emergency
00:01:19
pod to talk about what's next with the
00:01:21
Senate review of the reconciliation
00:01:22
bill, what his thoughts are, what's the
00:01:25
future of the republic, and what's
00:01:26
ahead. We're really excited for this
00:01:28
emergency pod. Thank you for joining us.
00:01:32
All right, besties. I think that was
00:01:34
another epic discussion. People love the
00:01:36
interviews. I could hear him talk for
00:01:38
hours. Absolutely. We crush your
00:01:40
questions in a minute. We are giving
00:01:41
people ground truth data to underwrite
00:01:44
your own opinion. What do you guys
00:01:45
think? That was fun. That was great.
00:01:48
Senator, thanks for joining Chimathan
00:01:51
for this conversation this morning. Good
00:01:53
morning, guys, and thanks for having me
00:01:54
on. And just by way of background,
00:01:56
Senator, you were elected to the US
00:01:59
Senate in 2010. You've had two
00:02:00
re-elections since then. More recently,
00:02:03
we've taken notice, and I gave a shout
00:02:05
out to you for your comments on the
00:02:08
scaling of the deficit and the US
00:02:11
federal debt. And as a Republican
00:02:13
against the stated intention of getting
00:02:15
this bill passed and through the Senate
00:02:18
as is, and we'd love to kind of hear
00:02:19
from you today about your points of view
00:02:21
on the bill that was passed in the House
00:02:23
this week, the reconciliation bill, and
00:02:25
then take a step back and talk a little
00:02:26
bit about the fiscal picture for the
00:02:28
United States and where things are
00:02:29
headed. So, thanks for that and thanks
00:02:31
for joining us. Maybe we could just
00:02:33
start a little bit with a very basic
00:02:35
primer for our audience, something that
00:02:36
we don't talk about very much on the
00:02:38
show. Can you just tell us what a
00:02:40
reconciliation bill is and how it's used
00:02:43
so folks can understand a little bit
00:02:44
about the process that the House just
00:02:46
undertook and what's ahead? Sure. Let me
00:02:48
start. You talked about when I first ran
00:02:50
for election in 2010, I spray out the
00:02:53
Tea Party. Never had been involved in
00:02:55
politics whatsoever and didn't even
00:02:57
decide to run until the end of April.
00:03:00
announced in May, started a campaign
00:03:02
during the summer, did all those
00:03:04
parades. My what I would shout during
00:03:06
the parades was, "This is a fight for
00:03:08
freedom. We're mortgaging our children's
00:03:10
future. It's wrong. It's immoral. It has
00:03:12
to stop." That was my campaign theme. In
00:03:15
2010, I still view myself more Tea Party
00:03:18
than Republican party. We we have a lot
00:03:19
of big spenders in Republic Republican
00:03:21
party as well. And I ran again because
00:03:24
of Obamacare, which I knew would not
00:03:27
work. And it's not working. That's, by
00:03:29
the way, that's the problem with
00:03:30
Medicaid right now is Obamacare is now
00:03:32
called Medicaid expansion. But to answer
00:03:35
your question, uh, budget reconciliation
00:03:38
was set up by the in the budget act, I
00:03:40
think it was
00:03:41
1974. Um, it doesn't work in terms of
00:03:45
controlling spending. By the way,
00:03:46
nothing ever has. We'll get into that in
00:03:48
terms we've never had a process for
00:03:50
actually controlling spending, but it
00:03:51
allows us to pass a budget and then to
00:03:55
reconcile the budget. you're able and
00:03:58
you can pass a budget that's not a law,
00:04:00
but you pass this budget with just 50
00:04:03
votes, 51 votes, majority, and then you
00:04:06
can reconcile to that budget also
00:04:08
avoiding the Senate filibuster. So,
00:04:10
that's the main component. What's weird
00:04:12
about it is you pass this budget, but
00:04:15
you can only through budget
00:04:17
reconciliation address mandatory
00:04:19
spending. You can't touch the
00:04:20
discretionary spending accounts, which
00:04:22
is about 25% of our budget. That's one
00:04:25
of the one of the ways the budget's
00:04:26
gotten completely out of control is you
00:04:29
know we put so many things into the
00:04:31
mandatory category. You know initially
00:04:34
was entitlements social security
00:04:36
Medicare Medicaid but we have I would
00:04:39
say deviously slid all kinds of
00:04:42
discretionary spending into other
00:04:44
mandatory that really exploded during
00:04:46
COVID where I think other mandatory hit
00:04:48
well over$ two trillion dollars. uh last
00:04:51
fiscal year is about $1.3 trillion. This
00:04:54
year it'll be over a trillion. So it
00:04:57
went from about $642 billion in 2019.
00:05:00
Other mandatory again not social
00:05:01
security, Medicare, even Medicaid went
00:05:03
from 642 to last year 1.3. This year
00:05:07
it's going to be over a trillion dollars
00:05:08
and it's going to keep you know pretty
00:05:10
much at that level as far as the eye can
00:05:12
see. So again, that's a trillion dollars
00:05:14
of other non-entitlement spending that
00:05:17
we never looked at. And that's the whole
00:05:19
point about mandatory spending. It's
00:05:21
never looked at. Um so anyway, so we can
00:05:24
address mandatory spending, not social
00:05:26
security, through this reconciliation
00:05:29
process. Uh change programs, do whatever
00:05:32
we want to do as long as it has a
00:05:34
primarily budgetary impact, not changing
00:05:37
policy. So you can change policy as long
00:05:39
as it has a budgetary impact. I know
00:05:41
that's reasonably complex, but it's an
00:05:44
insane system and it doesn't work. What
00:05:47
is the alternative?
00:05:50
Well, right now we don't really have
00:05:51
one. Uh, again, let's just go through
00:05:54
why we've never had a process to control
00:05:56
spending. We don't have a balanced
00:05:58
budget requirement like states do, and
00:06:01
we have the capability of printing
00:06:02
money, which we're doing, uh, incurring
00:06:04
this enormous debt. So, we don't have a
00:06:07
b balanced budget requirement. I didn't
00:06:08
realize this until just recently. The
00:06:11
appropriation committees were literally
00:06:13
set up because the authorized committees
00:06:15
were big spenders. So, they set up
00:06:17
appropriation committees to control
00:06:19
spending. That didn't work. The budget
00:06:22
act didn't work. Simpson BS didn't work.
00:06:24
The budget control act didn't work. It
00:06:26
did restrain discretionary spending for
00:06:28
a couple years until we weasled our way
00:06:30
around it. So, again, we've never had a
00:06:33
process to control spending. And one of
00:06:35
the things I've been arguing in some
00:06:37
Wall Street Journal columns is let's use
00:06:39
the example of
00:06:41
Doge. I come with the private sector. We
00:06:44
probably spent more time reviewing my
00:06:46
line by line budget for my business. And
00:06:49
I think other private sector businesses
00:06:51
spend more time analyzing what they're
00:06:53
going to spend than Congress spends over
00:06:56
the entire federal budget. So we've got
00:06:59
to develop a process. Do you shown us
00:07:00
how to do it? Go contract by contract.
00:07:04
expose the grotesque waste, fraud, and
00:07:07
abuse. But we got to do that through
00:07:09
thousands of lines through the federal
00:07:10
budget. But nobody's willing to do it.
00:07:12
Nobody's willing to take the time to do
00:07:13
the work to do it. They they're doing
00:07:15
what they've always done. They exempt
00:07:16
most spending. They look at a couple
00:07:19
programs. They try and tweak them, try
00:07:21
and get a big score out of CBO so they
00:07:22
can say, "Hey, look at we saved $1.5
00:07:24
trillion." And yet that's completely
00:07:26
divorced from reality.
00:07:29
1.5 trillion sounds like a lot, but over
00:07:31
10 years it's 150 billion against a
00:07:34
$7,000 billion a year budget that only
00:07:36
six years ago was $4,400 billion. And if
00:07:40
I've got one complaint in terms of the
00:07:42
process in the House, it's basically a
00:07:44
devoid of reality. We're not talking
00:07:47
about the numbers we should be talking
00:07:49
about, which is a 10-year deficit
00:07:51
projected by CBO of $22
00:07:54
trillion, averaging $2.2 trillion a
00:07:57
year. We don't talk about we focus all
00:07:59
on 1.5 trillion and then they're patting
00:08:01
themselves in the back that they they
00:08:04
didn't even achieve 1.5. I just I just
00:08:06
want to make sure senator then that
00:08:08
we're on the same page with respect to
00:08:09
the math. If this bill passes as is, can
00:08:13
the general public take the 33 or 34 odd
00:08:17
trillion that we have in debt? Should we
00:08:19
add 22 and say we'll be at 58 trillion
00:08:22
by 2035? Is that the right math or the
00:08:24
wrong math? Uh that understates it. Uh
00:08:27
now they'll talk about dynamic scoring
00:08:29
and I believe in dynamic scoring as
00:08:31
well. But in this case, you take a look
00:08:32
at the tax cuts that President Trump is
00:08:35
proposing. That's not they're not going
00:08:37
to generate growth. They're just going
00:08:38
to reduce the deficit. The CBO
00:08:41
projection I'm looking at assumes we're
00:08:44
going to gain another $4 trillion from
00:08:46
increasing taxes. So again, we may not
00:08:50
may not get that $4 trillion, but no
00:08:52
matter what, the CBO projection right
00:08:55
now that is adding another $22 trillion
00:08:57
to our debt, it certainly would add at
00:09:00
least that. I would argue you'd probably
00:09:01
add another three or four trillion. So
00:09:03
it's not going to be 59 trillion. It's
00:09:04
going to be more like 62 63 trillion.
00:09:07
And the CBO scores assume the interest
00:09:10
rate on the federal debt, I believe, is
00:09:12
an average of
00:09:14
3.6%. And now we're seeing the 30-year
00:09:17
trading above 5%, meaning that if we
00:09:20
trade up to 5% for the cost of debt for
00:09:22
the federal government, we're probably
00:09:24
going to add another $5 trillion of
00:09:27
incremental interest expense over the
00:09:29
period, another half trillion a year on
00:09:31
average over the next 10 years. Yeah.
00:09:33
No, I I I would agree the current CBO
00:09:35
projection, that's what I'm talking
00:09:36
about here. Uh, you know, going from 37
00:09:39
to 59 trillion in debt is a rosy is, you
00:09:43
know, the rosy scenario that that's as
00:09:45
good as we're going to do. So, we're
00:09:47
simply we're simply this does not mean
00:09:50
the moment in terms of what we have to
00:09:52
do. Senator, let me just ask I I think
00:09:55
one point of clarification on your
00:09:56
earlier comment which I think would be
00:09:58
important for the audience. what has
00:10:00
been put under mandatory that should be
00:10:03
discretionary. It covers the entire
00:10:05
gamut of federal spending, education,
00:10:08
you know, welfare, food stamps, uh, uh,
00:10:11
veterans benefits. Again, they've just
00:10:14
transferred that into mandatory
00:10:15
spending. So, it's completely out of
00:10:18
sight, out of mind, unaccountable. When
00:10:20
it sits in discretionary, maybe just
00:10:22
help folks understand what does it mean
00:10:23
if it sits in discretionary. Does that
00:10:25
mean that then the administration under
00:10:27
the president has the authority to spend
00:10:30
up to that amount to administer the law
00:10:33
to administer the statutes but doesn't
00:10:35
necessarily have to and the mandatory
00:10:37
demands that the capital goes out. Just
00:10:39
help us understand for the audience what
00:10:40
the difference is. Well, discretionary
00:10:42
is actually supposedly passed each year
00:10:45
through an appropriation process which
00:10:48
is completely broken. We don't pass
00:10:50
individual appropriation bills. We
00:10:52
generally at best uh which is awful mini
00:10:56
buses or omnibuses. You know these are
00:10:58
these multi,000page
00:11:00
uh bills that get dropped on our desks
00:11:02
and we have to vote on them literally
00:11:03
within 24 to 48 hours. Nobody reads
00:11:05
them. Nobody knows what's in them. Uh
00:11:07
that process is pretty broken down.
00:11:09
Right now we are operating for this
00:11:11
fiscal year under a continuing
00:11:13
resolution which tweaks a few things but
00:11:16
is basically spending at last year's
00:11:18
levels on all those appropriated
00:11:19
accounts. So again, that's about 25% of
00:11:22
our budget. Then 75% is in in the
00:11:25
mandatory accounts, the the
00:11:26
entitlements, and just other mandatory
00:11:28
spending. So the arithmetic indicates
00:11:30
we're entering into a debt death spiral
00:11:32
in the United States. With the interest
00:11:35
rates climbing, the deficit climbing,
00:11:38
and we then need to spend more money to
00:11:41
pay our interest on the existing debt,
00:11:43
that increases the deficit. We need to
00:11:45
borrow more. The debt spirals up. uh
00:11:47
interest rates climb and this becomes an
00:11:50
insurmountable hill to climb. As you
00:11:53
have the conversation with members of
00:11:55
the Republican party, what's the point
00:11:57
of view? What is the motivating factor
00:11:59
for business as usual? Why is it so
00:12:02
difficult to get folks to see the basic
00:12:04
arithmetic in front of them? Well, let
00:12:06
me give you an example from about three
00:12:08
years ago. Uh this was after COVID and
00:12:11
you know on bipartisan basis went on a
00:12:13
massive spending spree in 2020 but then
00:12:15
the bid administration just continued
00:12:17
that. Uh so you know we were in omnibous
00:12:21
spending debate and for the first time
00:12:24
even though the Republican Senate
00:12:26
conference we have a resolution against
00:12:28
eararks. McConnell is negotiating an
00:12:31
omnibous spending bill and all of a
00:12:33
sudden we're members are are sucking
00:12:35
down ear marks. So I asked my colleagues
00:12:38
at that time I said hey anybody know how
00:12:39
much in total we spent last year in the
00:12:41
federal
00:12:43
government room was dead silent I went
00:12:46
out to Washington press corp asked the
00:12:48
same question I mean hey anybody know
00:12:49
how much we spent last year and one
00:12:51
reporter said it was over a trillion
00:12:52
dollars no that's just discretionary
00:12:54
spending the answer was something like
00:12:56
$6.3 trillion because we had gone from
00:12:59
4.4 4 trillion 2019 up to 6.5 and we've
00:13:03
never looked back. Right? And the
00:13:05
analogy I used is no family if they had
00:13:07
an illness borrowed
00:13:09
$50,000 to pay medical bills if they got
00:13:12
well the next year. They would keep
00:13:13
borrowing $50,000 to spend at that
00:13:15
level. But that's exactly what we've
00:13:16
done. But the point of my story was
00:13:19
nobody knew in total how much we spend
00:13:21
because we never even talk about it.
00:13:24
Never even talked about. So So that's
00:13:26
out of sight, out of mind. So it's
00:13:27
completely out of control. I mean, I am
00:13:29
the guys, you know, starting with my
00:13:30
Wall Street Journal column of January
00:13:32
1st about return to a prepandemic
00:13:35
prepandemic level spending. I mean, I've
00:13:36
been hammering the Senate Republican
00:13:39
conference on a weekly basis and just,
00:13:41
you know, Ed Naz quite honestly. What's
00:13:44
the push back? What are they? They just
00:13:45
throw they've thrown the towel. They go,
00:13:47
"Well, it's too hard. I mean, that's
00:13:49
unrealistic. You just can't do it." Even
00:13:50
though I lay out Well, these are So, let
00:13:53
me just tell you you how I laid out my
00:13:54
pre- pandemic levels of spending. This
00:13:56
is during between Christmas and New
00:13:57
Year's. I'm trying to figure out how can
00:13:59
I communicate this? You know, how can I
00:14:01
justify this? What kind of control can
00:14:03
we put on things? So, I I literally went
00:14:04
back in history. I went back to Clinton
00:14:07
in 1998, Obama in 2014, and Trump in
00:14:11
2019. And I exempted social security,
00:14:13
Medicare, and interest. You know, spend
00:14:15
what you needed to spend. But all other
00:14:18
actual outlays in those three years, I
00:14:20
increase them by inflation and
00:14:22
population. You know, reasonable
00:14:24
control, right? It's what we should
00:14:25
have. We don't have a balanced budget
00:14:27
amendment. At least we should have some
00:14:28
reasonable control over outlays.
00:14:31
Population growth inflation would make
00:14:33
sense. Senator, if we take your math and
00:14:36
say that we are headed
00:14:38
to, let's take the midpoint $65 trillion
00:14:42
of debt by
00:14:45
2035. I think it's fair to say that the
00:14:47
bond market
00:14:49
will have a negative reaction to that.
00:14:52
And what Dave just talked about, which
00:14:54
is a 5% borrowing rate for America,
00:14:58
could be on the low side. And that's the
00:15:00
that's the spiral that he's talking
00:15:01
about. On Friday, Secretary Bessant
00:15:05
tried to get in front of this and his
00:15:07
commentary was we will grow our way out.
00:15:10
Can you talk to us about what he means
00:15:12
by that and what the boundary conditions
00:15:16
need to be to grow our way out? First of
00:15:18
all, by by my calculation, our average
00:15:20
interest rate over the last 50 years on
00:15:23
government debt is about
00:15:25
5.8%. So that that's 50 years and we're
00:15:27
we're down here about three somewhere
00:15:29
around 3%. Um those are not exact
00:15:32
calculations. Uh listen, that is the
00:15:35
hope of all of us. I mean I I will
00:15:37
absolutely agree that the the number one
00:15:40
component of a solution to our enormous
00:15:43
debt investment problem is economic
00:15:44
growth. We have to grow the economy. But
00:15:47
here's the problem is when the
00:15:49
government is sucking out of the private
00:15:52
sector all you know we're the ones
00:15:55
borrowing the money so there's not a
00:15:56
whole lot of money left for businesses
00:15:59
in the private sector not enough capital
00:16:02
there. Now you can print more money uh
00:16:06
but then that sparks inflation and that
00:16:08
of course erodess everybody's balance
00:16:10
sheet. It also makes our debt debt less
00:16:13
less expensive as well. But because
00:16:15
we're so in debt, that drives up the
00:16:17
interest rates and again it ends up
00:16:19
being a death and debt spiral. So So
00:16:21
nobody can predict this. But I mean
00:16:23
that's just the the wishful thinking of
00:16:26
people putting forward a policy a one
00:16:28
big beautiful bill that doesn't live up
00:16:30
to its name but actually actually
00:16:32
exacerbates the problem. What are the
00:16:34
tools then in your toolbox? So you get
00:16:39
back in the next week or two and you
00:16:42
talk to your colleagues and now it's on
00:16:44
your desk. How do you start getting your
00:16:46
arms around this? What do you do
00:16:48
starting on Monday or next Monday? So I
00:16:51
try to lay out the basic numbers. That's
00:16:53
what I was talking about. You know my
00:16:54
prepandemic goal of spending Clinton if
00:16:57
you use that process go from 1.7 to 5.5
00:17:00
trillion. That's how you plus up there.
00:17:02
That's been Obama would be 6.2 to
00:17:05
Trump's 2019 6.5. So now now you've got
00:17:08
a a baseline budget. You've always heard
00:17:11
these Republican members of Congress
00:17:13
running for office saying we're going to
00:17:14
go to zerobased budget. They're not even
00:17:16
willing to go to 5.5 to 6.5 level
00:17:19
baseline of budget. So again, go what is
00:17:22
the process that just might work? Doge
00:17:25
has kind of shown it to us, you know,
00:17:27
line by line. You have to scrutinize all
00:17:29
this. It takes a lot of work. It takes a
00:17:31
lot of time. And that's why I've always
00:17:33
argued for a multiple approach here,
00:17:35
multiple step. Provide the border
00:17:37
funding. Uh I would just extend current
00:17:40
tax law. I mean, again, I would have
00:17:42
voted for that. If we had been smart
00:17:44
enough to use current policy back then,
00:17:46
we wouldn't be even having this
00:17:47
conversation. Extend current tax law.
00:17:49
Takes an automatic massive tax increase
00:17:51
off the table. Increase the debt ceiling
00:17:54
enough for a year to keep pressure on
00:17:56
the process to do the work to go line by
00:17:59
line. Expose spending. I've got to
00:18:01
believe when you've gone from 4,400
00:18:03
billion to $7,000 billion worth of
00:18:06
spending, if you start scrutinizing that
00:18:08
line by line, there would literally be
00:18:10
hundreds of billions of dollars that the
00:18:12
public wouldn't even know we're not
00:18:15
spending. The only people who would know
00:18:17
would be the grifters who are sucking
00:18:18
down the pork. Mhm. So, when you say the
00:18:21
folks in the Republican party that
00:18:23
aren't willing to do the hard work, it's
00:18:24
just so obvious how big of a crisis we
00:18:28
are in and everyone's kind of being
00:18:30
blind to it. So, I'm just trying to
00:18:31
understand what is it that's keeping the
00:18:32
blindfold on. Is it that there are
00:18:35
donors, that there are constituents?
00:18:37
I'll give you an example. A couple years
00:18:39
ago, I went in for the Farm Bill review
00:18:42
with the Senate A Committee 2012, so a
00:18:44
long time ago. And we started talking
00:18:46
about one of the agencies in the USDA
00:18:48
and they have 10,000 employees and said,
00:18:52
you know, does why does this make sense
00:18:54
in a digital age? And the answer was it
00:18:55
doesn't. It's like, well, why is the
00:18:56
agency still running and employing all
00:18:58
these people? Well, because the senators
00:19:00
don't want to lose the jobs in their
00:19:02
state because that's 10,000 jobs split
00:19:04
amongst roughly seven states and it's
00:19:06
really important to those seven states
00:19:07
to keep those jobs. Is that the
00:19:09
motivation that there's economic dollars
00:19:12
flowing into the states that keeps the
00:19:14
representatives and the senators from
00:19:16
making the tough decisions? Is it that
00:19:18
they're getting donor dollars? What's
00:19:19
the real motivation here that's keeping
00:19:22
everyone from tackling reality?
00:19:24
Well, again, as I pointed
00:19:26
out, most don't even recognize the full
00:19:29
reality. They don't they don't know the
00:19:31
numbers. I've I've heard it said, I
00:19:33
didn't hear McConnell say it personally,
00:19:35
but I've heard him say, "Show me a
00:19:37
member of Congress who ever lost the
00:19:38
election because they spent too much
00:19:40
money." So, there's no public pressure
00:19:42
not to spend. You know, people love tax
00:19:45
cuts. People love the free money. You
00:19:48
know, we collectively as a society are
00:19:50
whistling by the graveyard. Nobody wants
00:19:53
to say that this is unsustainable
00:19:55
because you to fix it is painful. I mean
00:19:59
you you you are going to have to reduce
00:20:02
spending and then you're very open to
00:20:04
the the political accusations as you
00:20:06
know coming in we're trying to slash
00:20:08
Medicaid for disabled children. No,
00:20:10
we're trying to preserve it for disabled
00:20:12
children, try and get the able-bodied
00:20:15
childless uh working age adults back to
00:20:18
work and and on private sector
00:20:20
healthcare. Uh but again, that's that's
00:20:22
a more difficult argument to make. So it
00:20:25
it's just the way that the process just
00:20:26
plows on. We've never, as I said,
00:20:29
there's never been a process to actually
00:20:30
control spending. So this way we've
00:20:33
always done it. You come up to these
00:20:34
deadlines, you put everything into one
00:20:36
big bill, you give people, you know,
00:20:38
things that you have to vote for. You
00:20:40
don't want to default on the debt. You
00:20:41
don't want to increase taxes. So, you
00:20:43
know, those elements you bundle up with
00:20:45
a bunch of crap and you twist people's
00:20:48
arms to pay for it having and keeping
00:20:50
them basically ignorant because you
00:20:52
never talk about the the the massive
00:20:55
numbers the massive problem that we're
00:20:56
really in. I mean, people kind of know
00:20:58
it, but as long as the the press isn't
00:21:01
reporting on, as long as the press isn't
00:21:03
connecting the dots that the massive
00:21:05
desk is spending is why you can't afford
00:21:07
things, why your dollar you held in 2019
00:21:09
is only worth 80 cents versus the bucket
00:21:11
should be. By the way, a dollar you held
00:21:13
in 1998 is worth 51
00:21:16
cents. Okay? So, we again, we don't
00:21:20
teach people there's no there's no
00:21:21
public pressure in terms of reducing
00:21:24
spending or reducing the deficit.
00:21:25
There's just virtually none. I mean, you
00:21:27
know, from conservatives right now, I'm
00:21:29
getting it all the time. Boy, make sure
00:21:30
that you make no tax on tips permanent.
00:21:32
Make sure you make no tax on overtime
00:21:34
permanent. So, well, first of all, we
00:21:37
probably shouldn't even be doing either
00:21:38
of those. By the way, I'm all for no tax
00:21:40
on cash tips. You know, we can't can't
00:21:43
collect it anyway, so don't even try.
00:21:46
I'm all for that. But you got to
00:21:47
recognize these other tax cuts. They're
00:21:49
not going to grow the economy. They're
00:21:50
not going to focus on the one component
00:21:52
that Besson's talking about that we have
00:21:55
to grow our economy. I actually am very
00:21:57
supportive of the no tax on tips, no tax
00:21:59
on overtime. The monetary cost of those
00:22:02
things are relatively not that
00:22:04
meaningful. And so it has a broad-based
00:22:06
positive impact with a lower cost is
00:22:09
actually the reason why we should do it.
00:22:11
The thing that I was sort of like
00:22:13
puzzled by when 50 people or 60 people
00:22:16
are constructing something, you get this
00:22:18
bill that comes out of the house which
00:22:20
has the things that the president asked
00:22:22
for, but with all of these other
00:22:23
Christmas tree ornaments hanging from it
00:22:25
and it's impossible to figure out what's
00:22:27
actually going on. Well, I don't even
00:22:29
think it's even 50 and 60 people
00:22:30
constructing this. I think it's a much
00:22:31
smaller group of people and then you
00:22:33
maybe have 50 or 60 chiming in on one
00:22:36
issue or another. Let me push back on
00:22:38
overtime with you though. You know, I
00:22:40
ran a plastics operation continuous
00:22:42
shift. If you're gonna have you work
00:22:45
247, you need four shifts. So, part of
00:22:48
the problem with no tax on overtime,
00:22:50
first of all, no tax on some overtime.
00:22:52
So, that's going to add to the
00:22:53
regulatory burden. I want wouldn't want
00:22:54
to be the accounting clerk having to
00:22:56
keep track of that, but you know, I know
00:22:57
computers, it's easier to do so. But, in
00:23:00
public service employee units, they will
00:23:03
they refuse to go to four shifts because
00:23:05
they like the overtime. they should be
00:23:07
forced to go to four shifts because they
00:23:09
burn out. Pay them more. But from my
00:23:12
standpoint, having run a continuous
00:23:14
shift operation, I think there's enough
00:23:15
incentive paying time and a half or
00:23:17
double time on Sunday for people to
00:23:18
work. Uh income is income. I don't want
00:23:21
to segregate. I I don't want to socially
00:23:23
or economically engineer through the tax
00:23:25
code. And that's just part of that
00:23:27
economic engineering through the tax
00:23:28
code. I love the fact we're focusing on
00:23:30
working men and women. Great. But I
00:23:33
would rather simplify the tax code for
00:23:35
them and and overall lower their tax
00:23:37
burden. But again, lower the rates,
00:23:39
broaden the base. But we're not doing
00:23:40
that. We lowered the rates and we made
00:23:41
it more complex. So yeah, we did not
00:23:43
simplify the tax code in 2017. One of
00:23:46
the reasons I actually wanted a two-step
00:23:47
process was to take time to simplify and
00:23:51
rationalize our tax code. Can we talk
00:23:53
about other things that didn't make it
00:23:55
in that we thought were going to get in
00:23:56
there? Another way to generate revenue
00:23:58
would have been to close the carried
00:24:00
interest loophole. I don't know if you
00:24:02
have any points of view on that. Well,
00:24:04
I' I've talked to numerous people who
00:24:06
benefit from carried interest. I always
00:24:07
ask them, can you explain to me why
00:24:10
that's not or ordinary income? And they
00:24:13
can't. It is ordinary income. Uh
00:24:16
speaking to other ones that are pretty
00:24:17
big into it, they do make a pretty
00:24:19
powerful case that, you know, all all
00:24:21
these deals, all these structures, all
00:24:22
these business arrangements are already
00:24:24
structured that way. You can eliminate
00:24:26
that break and it's really not going to
00:24:27
raise any revenue. They make reasonably
00:24:29
convincing case there, too. So that's
00:24:32
kind of where we at on that
00:24:34
which is sort of like at a at an impass.
00:24:37
Yeah. My guess is just not going to
00:24:39
happen, right? And kind of going the
00:24:42
overtime. It's just not that big a
00:24:44
revenue generator one way the other.
00:24:46
Might might make you feel good. Could
00:24:48
could screw up the way deals are made.
00:24:50
That's is it really worth messing with?
00:24:53
One of the things that Elon has been
00:24:55
talking about recently is that we could
00:24:59
be on
00:25:00
the precipice of an energy deficit
00:25:03
starting next year where we need every
00:25:06
form of power possible to be generating
00:25:08
as many electrons as possible. And so
00:25:12
solar, wind, coal, nat gas,
00:25:17
nuclear, there was a bunch of provisions
00:25:19
here that changed the tax incentives.
00:25:21
What's your thoughts on all of those
00:25:22
that may change the landscape of
00:25:24
electron availability? Well, I think
00:25:26
it's uh insane that we've been shutting
00:25:28
down coal fired electrical generation.
00:25:30
We need a lot of it. I would really
00:25:32
focus on nuclear myself. I think that
00:25:35
is, you know, if you're concerned about
00:25:37
climate change, and yeah, I'm not. We'll
00:25:39
adapt. Um, but nuclear would be the the
00:25:42
thing we ought to be pushing. Uh, I
00:25:44
really don't want to subsidize energy
00:25:46
production. I I don't want to subsidize
00:25:47
anything. Again, I want a simple and
00:25:49
rational tax code. Uh so my my approach
00:25:52
would always be to simplify those things
00:25:54
and I don't want to pull the rug out
00:25:55
from under people. I mean if we've
00:25:57
subsidized things and people made
00:25:58
investment based on certain things kind
00:26:00
of respect that the comment that I made
00:26:02
to my colleagues is FK came out with a
00:26:05
report. It said
00:26:07
81% of the incremental energy that was
00:26:09
generated in the United States were
00:26:12
backed by some form of tax credits. This
00:26:15
is not to judge. It's just meant to say
00:26:17
that financial actors go to where the
00:26:18
incentives are.
00:26:20
And if we change them and we take 81% of
00:26:24
this incremental energy offline and you
00:26:26
can't get an act gas turbine, you know,
00:26:28
for example, I'm going to announce on
00:26:29
Monday we're building a 1 gawatt data
00:26:31
center that I'm funding in Arizona. I
00:26:34
can't get an act gas turbine until 2032.
00:26:36
I can get nuclear from the state of
00:26:38
Arizona, but that's not broadly
00:26:39
available everywhere. And so there's
00:26:40
these practical investment decisions
00:26:42
that the financial community wants to
00:26:44
make to keep America at the forefront.
00:26:47
It's a little murkier today unless the
00:26:49
Senate understands these nuances and
00:26:51
helps us because if we can't make these
00:26:53
investments, then we're just not going
00:26:54
to do it. I say Congress in general
00:26:57
doesn't understand what you're talking
00:26:58
about. Again, I said I don't want to
00:27:01
pull the rug out from other people. I
00:27:03
understand investment because I was in
00:27:05
business. Um but again, I I want to move
00:27:08
towards a more simple system and and
00:27:11
again, it's insane what government, you
00:27:14
know, all the green new energy thing. It
00:27:16
it misallocates capital. Take a look
00:27:18
what's happening in Europe in Germany
00:27:19
and stuff. They're artificially driving
00:27:21
up the cost of power for what? Okay. I
00:27:25
mean, it's it's a fantasy. It's it's a
00:27:27
self-inflicted wound. It's we spent
00:27:29
something like five or six trillion
00:27:30
dollars globally on climate change.
00:27:32
Again, whether you believe it or not, we
00:27:33
haven't bent the needle. That's just
00:27:35
five or six trillion dollars basically
00:27:37
wasted. So, again, I recognize the fact
00:27:39
we've wasted a lot of money. We've
00:27:40
incentivized people for certain type of
00:27:42
power. The solution would be quit doing
00:27:45
it. long term and let the marketplace
00:27:48
provide as as much energy cheap as
00:27:52
possible. Again, protecting the
00:27:53
environment. I don't want pollution, but
00:27:55
the whole climate change thing is I care
00:27:58
about
00:27:59
electron surplus and having an infinite
00:28:02
supply of electrons, which is
00:28:04
effectively the threshold issue between
00:28:06
us and whatever form of abundance we're
00:28:09
going to find with robots, with going to
00:28:11
Mars, with building AGI. The threshold
00:28:14
issue is just do we have enough energy
00:28:16
to do it all? And if as long as we have
00:28:17
that, we're going to win. And if we
00:28:19
don't, China's going to win. Where it
00:28:22
comes from, I really don't care. But the
00:28:23
reality with nuclear is, you know, we
00:28:24
can't wait till 2035 for electrons to
00:28:26
turn on. That's just a non-starter. So
00:28:28
as much as we have to pay for the sins
00:28:30
of the past, and the sins of the past is
00:28:32
we turned all that stuff off idiotically
00:28:34
to your point because of some, you know,
00:28:36
crying child, but now we have to pay for
00:28:38
the conditions on the ground. I have a
00:28:40
different question, which is I want to
00:28:41
go back to Dave's question on Doge.
00:28:43
Senator, which is there was a $9 billion
00:28:46
recision bill that went to the House and
00:28:49
unfortunately it didn't make a lot of
00:28:51
progress. What is the future of Doge as
00:28:54
you see it?
00:28:56
First of
00:28:58
all, it it was beneficial for no other
00:29:01
reason than it exposed how
00:29:04
oblivious and ignorant Congress was of
00:29:07
all this waste, fraud, and abuse. Okay?
00:29:09
I mean, that has value right there. It
00:29:11
should have embarrassed every member of
00:29:13
Congress, all these department heads
00:29:14
that this kind of spending, this kind of
00:29:16
crap was going on and they weren't doing
00:29:18
oversight on it. They weren't taking a
00:29:20
look at it. And but and I I tried
00:29:24
getting Elon's attention quite honestly
00:29:25
about you know, can give me somebody in
00:29:28
Doge that I can work with so that as
00:29:30
soon as you identify the spending, we
00:29:32
can connect it to an appropriation
00:29:33
account. We can connect it to a
00:29:36
mandatory spending account so we can
00:29:38
actually codify it. He he didn't seem to
00:29:40
have the time and quite honestly in a
00:29:42
personal conversation he said well we
00:29:43
don't have to do that well we do have to
00:29:45
do that and so you know we we've been
00:29:47
hammering Russ vote you know send us a
00:29:49
recision package you know finally he
00:29:51
bundles up $9 billion when on I think
00:29:55
the last time I looked at Doge's website
00:29:56
they were up to 165 I think it's higher
00:29:58
than that now they're kind of they have
00:30:00
fallen short of the goal listen and I'm
00:30:02
not criticizing for them that for that
00:30:05
at all but the fact of the matter is it
00:30:07
has to be codified just putting on the
00:30:09
website is valuable but we got to bank
00:30:12
the savings and so anything that's
00:30:14
mandatory has got to be done through
00:30:16
reconciliation otherwise got to be done
00:30:18
from recision you you got to get the
00:30:20
public support for this I don't know why
00:30:22
they haven't done it so can you just
00:30:23
explain that to us like what what we see
00:30:25
on the website is that not saved
00:30:31
it's there's a question they've stopped
00:30:33
contracts they're no longer spending
00:30:35
money that way but the question is
00:30:38
whether the president on his own can
00:30:40
impound those funds. So they may not be
00:30:42
spent, but they're just going to be, you
00:30:44
know, sitting out there as, you know,
00:30:45
unallocated uh spending to be spent
00:30:48
sometime in the future unless you resin
00:30:51
them. And again, that's the beauty of
00:30:52
recision reconciliation. We don't need
00:30:54
Democrats to help us there. We can do
00:30:58
that with simple majorities, both the
00:31:00
House and the Senate. And again, it'll
00:31:02
be pretty depressing. President Trump in
00:31:04
this first administration sent up a $15
00:31:06
billion recision package and has voted
00:31:08
down in the Senate. Two Republican
00:31:10
senators vote against it. And my guess
00:31:12
is they paid no political price for
00:31:14
doing that. Any Republican that voted
00:31:16
would vote against the recision package
00:31:18
ought to pay a pretty huge political
00:31:19
price in voting that thing down. But
00:31:22
it's going to take presidential
00:31:23
leadership. He's got to be f he's got to
00:31:25
be focusing on that. And and I'm sorry,
00:31:28
I don't think President Trump, he's
00:31:30
doing all kinds of great things. He's
00:31:31
not focused on reducing spending
00:31:34
from what why do you think that is? Have
00:31:36
you talked with his staff or him
00:31:38
directly about it? Was this not as
00:31:40
apparent to him and his staff as it is
00:31:43
to you? I I just think they are
00:31:45
overwhelmed. I mean, you see all all the
00:31:48
activity and this just hasn't hit his
00:31:49
radar yet. Uh it's going to hit his
00:31:51
radar here this next the next few weeks
00:31:53
because So again, he he liked the
00:31:55
concept the slogan of one beautiful
00:31:57
bill. I don't think he was overly
00:31:59
concerned or understanding what the
00:32:01
details were. You know, I'm I'm going to
00:32:03
force him to take a look at the details.
00:32:06
I'm I'm going to force a discussion on
00:32:08
stranding. It feels like we're about to
00:32:10
enter some form of like people conclave
00:32:12
where you and your Senate colleagues are
00:32:14
going to go into a room. There's either
00:32:15
going to be white smoke or black smoke.
00:32:17
So, can you can you walk us through like
00:32:19
what what is the mechanics now? like
00:32:21
what will it be like when you when
00:32:22
Senator Thun brings you together, you
00:32:24
all caucus or how how does this work now
00:32:26
for you? So, so we've been in finance
00:32:29
committee, we've been working on these
00:32:30
things, but again, we're all it's all
00:32:31
about scores, right? I've got to point
00:32:33
this out. You hear these scores, right?
00:32:35
But they're divorced from they're not
00:32:37
tied to anything. It's like, okay, I got
00:32:39
a score of 65. Well, good. I mean, it's
00:32:42
good if you're golfing. It's awful if
00:32:44
you're bowling. So, you get all these
00:32:46
scores. They're divorced from reality.
00:32:47
So again, the the process is
00:32:51
complete. It's it's by and large a
00:32:53
charade. Okay? Somebody else is going to
00:32:55
write this thing and it's going to be
00:32:56
shut down people's throats. I mean, so
00:32:59
what I intend to do is I intend to open
00:33:02
it up and bring this to the light of
00:33:04
day. I've been doing it since January
00:33:05
1st, writing about giving, you know,
00:33:08
three prepandemic levels, you know,
00:33:10
three options on prepandemic levels of
00:33:12
spending. next column. Here's a process,
00:33:14
a line by line deep dive forensic audit.
00:33:17
You know, I'd love to take the Doge team
00:33:19
right now and just bring them over.
00:33:21
Let's focus on this. Let's spend months
00:33:23
doing this, but we'll need time. We'll
00:33:25
need a two-step process, you know, and
00:33:27
then, you know, literally my my last
00:33:29
column just kind of put it all together,
00:33:31
the big numbers, and this is why we have
00:33:32
to do it. But but again, you you were
00:33:35
following the debate in the House. Did
00:33:36
you ever hear $2.2 2 trillion average
00:33:39
deficit being projected. $22 trillion,
00:33:42
you know, $59 trillion in debt. Nobody.
00:33:44
It's just $1.5 trillion. Oh, like that's
00:33:46
a lot. I mean, it's it's it's it's
00:33:48
almost meaningless. It's a rounding
00:33:50
error. So, I'm going to force this
00:33:52
debate. That's what that's why I'm on
00:33:53
your show here today. That's why I'm
00:33:55
going to be doing Jake Tapper tomorrow.
00:33:57
You know, I'm bring the numbers to the
00:33:59
four. Senator, is there a a hard line
00:34:02
that you'll have that if we don't get
00:34:06
this deficit level to X because that's
00:34:08
the focus, that's the objective, that's
00:34:10
the primary objective rather at this
00:34:12
point in time in this republic that
00:34:15
you'll say I'm a no vote and have you
00:34:17
been that declarative about your
00:34:19
position on this? I've been pretty
00:34:21
upfront. You know, the first goal of
00:34:23
this Republican budget reconciliation
00:34:25
should be don't add to the deficit
00:34:28
because that ought to be the first goal.
00:34:30
Uh beyond that, what I've always said is
00:34:32
I want a commitment to return to a
00:34:35
reasonable prepandemic level spending
00:34:36
and a process to achieve and maintain
00:34:40
it. I'm I'm reasonably open. Yeah, I
00:34:43
recognize we have to get the votes. So,
00:34:45
I always say I don't have a hard number,
00:34:46
but what I've done is I've laid out
00:34:49
these options. And right now, the hard
00:34:50
number accepted by and expected by a lot
00:34:53
of senators enough to not pass this
00:34:56
until we achieve it is $6.5 trillion of
00:34:58
spending in
00:34:59
2026. And I can I can you walk through
00:35:02
how you get to that point, but that's
00:35:04
kind of the number. Right now, we're
00:35:06
expected to spend about 7.3 trillion
00:35:08
next year. So that implies about 8008
00:35:12
trillion in deficit reduction rather
00:35:15
than 1.5 trillion that the House has in
00:35:17
their meager uh House reconciliation
00:35:20
bill. So it's a pretty big delta. What
00:35:23
scoring do you go off of? Is that the
00:35:25
CBO scoring that you would use to make
00:35:27
that estimate? Some of the conversation
00:35:29
that we've heard is that the revenue
00:35:33
effects of some of the new programs are
00:35:35
not taken into account fully. That there
00:35:37
may be revenue coming in from tariffs.
00:35:38
There may be revenue coming in from the
00:35:40
sale of the Trump immigration card at 5
00:35:43
million a pop and there's a limited
00:35:46
effect of the tax cuts on GDP growth
00:35:49
etc. So there's a lot of arguments to be
00:35:52
made to make the line seem a little more
00:35:54
blurry than perhaps the scoring might
00:35:56
indicate. That's why to try and simplify
00:35:57
things. Okay, I'm focusing on spending.
00:36:00
We went from 4.4 to it'll be 7.3 next
00:36:02
year. You know, let's bring it down to a
00:36:05
reasonable prepandemic level 6.5.
00:36:07
spending, spending, spending. I voted
00:36:09
for President Trump because I wanted him
00:36:11
to defeat the deep state. You don't
00:36:13
defeat the deep state by continuing to
00:36:15
fund it at Biden's levels. So the the
00:36:17
minute you start bringing revenue,
00:36:19
nobody can project that. Nobody knows
00:36:21
exactly what the impact's going to be.
00:36:24
And so that starts, you know, muddying
00:36:25
the waters. So I focus on spending. Uh I
00:36:29
don't really want to fund the deep
00:36:30
state. Okay? I I would like to bring
00:36:32
certainty to the economy. I'd like the
00:36:34
trade wars to end so we can bring that
00:36:37
level of stability. I don't want to
00:36:38
increase taxes. So again, my approach
00:36:40
would be multiple step. Border defense,
00:36:43
bank the savings, take whatever good
00:36:45
work the house did, bank that. Extend
00:36:48
current tax law is awful as complex it
00:36:50
is. Just extend that. Increase the debt
00:36:52
ceiling for a year to put pressure on us
00:36:55
to come back and do the work on on the
00:36:57
spending. And then we can bring up
00:36:59
President Trump's taxes as well. I mean,
00:37:01
I would keep this as simple as possible.
00:37:03
get it passed and start doing the work.
00:37:05
That would be my approach. Do you think
00:37:07
that there's
00:37:09
any upside or legislative resolve to
00:37:12
think about monetizing assets? So, for
00:37:14
example, Secretary Lutnik has talked
00:37:17
about the vast resources. Secretary
00:37:19
Bergam has talked about as well, the
00:37:20
vast resources that America has, whether
00:37:23
it should, you know, we should consider
00:37:25
thinking about monetizing some of those
00:37:26
things, selling federal land, selling
00:37:28
drilling rights, selling royalty rights.
00:37:30
What do you think about that as an
00:37:31
incremental way of softening the landing
00:37:34
here? I would say the only reason I'm
00:37:36
not in a full-fledged panic is because
00:37:39
people like Art Laugher do point out we
00:37:42
have vast wealth. I mean so our debt our
00:37:46
debt to GDP ratio is probably not the
00:37:48
the most relevant. It is relevant for
00:37:50
inflation that type thing but you know
00:37:52
debt to total assets is probably the
00:37:55
more relevant. So, so we we literally we
00:37:57
can afford this level of debt, but you
00:38:00
have to you do have to compare it to
00:38:01
income as well and our ability to
00:38:03
service the debt and the debt spiral.
00:38:04
So, again, this all ends up being a lot
00:38:06
of different
00:38:08
uh factors coming into what's going to
00:38:11
make it possible for people to live. And
00:38:14
again, inflation is probably the one
00:38:17
metric that we need to avoid. And I
00:38:19
think that's the thing that I'm most
00:38:21
concerned about in terms of death and
00:38:22
spending. I'm I'm not concerned about
00:38:23
America going bankrupt because we have
00:38:25
this vast wealth. Um I'm concerned about
00:38:29
us being insolvent in sparking massive
00:38:31
inflation and just wiping out people's
00:38:33
savings, making it very impossible for
00:38:35
them to live and retire. What do you
00:38:37
think is the future through these next
00:38:40
16 months of bills and the impact? To
00:38:43
your point, there's a lot of people that
00:38:45
came together in a coalition to vote for
00:38:48
accountability to defund and to starve
00:38:51
the deep state. And if we continue to
00:38:53
feed it, it seems like a traditionalist
00:38:56
default. We're going back to the way
00:38:58
things were. Can you talk to us about
00:39:01
that and what your thoughts are about
00:39:02
that? Well, I'm highly concerned about
00:39:04
just the conservative movement. Uh I
00:39:06
think Trump is a completely unique
00:39:09
political figure. I think he definitely
00:39:11
did drive turnout. he's expanded, you
00:39:13
know, certainly our base, which by the
00:39:15
way is one of the reasons I'm I am
00:39:16
sympathetic to what you're talking about
00:39:18
in terms of the tax cuts he's proposed.
00:39:19
I mean, we need to focus on the working
00:39:21
men and women of this country that is
00:39:22
really the the Trump coalition. Um, but
00:39:26
I'm concerned about how effective
00:39:27
Democrats are, the coalition they have
00:39:30
made up of the media, primarily social
00:39:32
media companies, that type of thing.
00:39:34
Their relentlessness of letting all
00:39:35
these undocumented people in this
00:39:37
country who are voting, I mean, we're
00:39:40
starting to see that type of fraud. um
00:39:42
that are you know they they are trying
00:39:45
to cheat. I think they do cheat in
00:39:47
voting. I think they we don't have an
00:39:49
real feeling in terms of how you know
00:39:51
the order of magnitude of their
00:39:53
cheating. Uh but a quick example of you
00:39:56
know we had that important Supreme Court
00:39:57
race here. Elon Musk came in here did
00:39:59
some pretty innovative things. Spent a
00:40:01
lot of money here. Uh the liberal
00:40:05
candidate got 78% of of Kla Harris's
00:40:09
vote. The conservative candidate got 62%
00:40:11
of Donald Trump's score. Even though,
00:40:13
you know, we were all out there saying
00:40:15
how important this is. If you don't want
00:40:16
to see President Trump impeached by a
00:40:18
Democratc controlled Congress in the
00:40:20
next Congress, you got to get out and
00:40:21
support President Trump. That didn't
00:40:23
resonate. Again, 78% of Democrats came
00:40:26
out of 62% of Republicans. Do you think
00:40:30
there's a risk that MAGA becomes a
00:40:32
version of, you know, Tea Party 2.0
00:40:33
where it starts with energy, but then
00:40:36
there's just the gravitational pull of
00:40:39
the establishment is just too strong for
00:40:41
the rebels to fight off. No, I think the
00:40:43
greatest danger of MAGA is it's really
00:40:45
tied toward one individual. You know,
00:40:48
Tea Party movement was tied toward the
00:40:50
vision of America, freedom, you know,
00:40:54
debt and desolate, not mortgage or kids
00:40:56
future. I think that survived. I mean,
00:40:57
they did a pretty good job of
00:40:58
marginalizing Tea Party, but you know,
00:41:00
we're we're alive and well. We're, you
00:41:02
know, we are the the House Freedom
00:41:03
Caucus. You know, we're the the people
00:41:04
that are going to stop this until we
00:41:07
just get a much better bill in the
00:41:09
Senate. So, we're we're still alive and
00:41:11
well, but in terms of voters, I mean,
00:41:13
the Tea Party pretty well merged with
00:41:15
Republican party. Uh I'm not sure all
00:41:18
the
00:41:19
mega mega voters are just disgusted by
00:41:21
the whole process as I as am I. And
00:41:24
they're much more likely to sit on the
00:41:26
couch unless their guy is on the ballot.
00:41:28
Do you think that our model of
00:41:31
representative democracy is broken and
00:41:34
has the same sort of inevitable outcome
00:41:36
that others have had in the past that
00:41:38
ultimately people realize they can vote
00:41:40
themselves all the money and they do and
00:41:43
the system breaks? I mean like do like
00:41:46
if you were to go back and be a founding
00:41:48
father, what would you have done
00:41:49
differently here? And or am I off on
00:41:50
this? And I'm No, I'm not sure you uh
00:41:53
you are off at all. No, I think we may
00:41:55
have already passed that hinge point.
00:41:57
That's my concern. I mean, people ask
00:41:58
me, are you optimistic? No, I'm I'm a
00:42:00
pessimist. I'm looking around. That that
00:42:03
is the death nail of a of a de democracy
00:42:05
or Republican. And a majority of the
00:42:07
voters realize, hey, I can vote myself
00:42:09
benefits. Don't don't worry about the
00:42:10
debt and des. We can print money. No,
00:42:12
that that's what brings down uh
00:42:15
everything. I mean, this is this is what
00:42:17
I've noticed is Democrats,
00:42:20
Republicans, populists or elitists,
00:42:24
whatever side of the spectrum on
00:42:26
whatever dimensional category you want
00:42:28
to assess an individual or
00:42:30
representative on, at the end of the
00:42:32
day, they're just trying to use the
00:42:34
government to deploy capital to their
00:42:36
constituents as best they can. I mean,
00:42:37
that's the mechanism of the electorate
00:42:39
at this point. And just hearing your
00:42:41
words resonates with me because I've
00:42:42
made a number of visits to DC in the
00:42:44
last couple of months since the
00:42:46
inauguration and there was a lot of
00:42:48
proclaim about Doge and it's a new day
00:42:50
in Washington and I felt a degree of
00:42:52
optimism and hope that things were
00:42:54
changing in DC but every member of
00:42:56
Congress I sat down with was a a
00:42:58
disappointing conversation that reflects
00:43:01
the views that you just shared that they
00:43:03
don't really understand what's going on
00:43:04
and they don't really care. It's not a
00:43:06
priority to solve the fiscal crisis that
00:43:10
we're in and they're not willing to
00:43:11
admit it. It's like a stage 4 terminal
00:43:13
patient not willing to admit that
00:43:15
they're sick and they need to to take
00:43:17
some therapy. Well, the the the data
00:43:19
that backs us up is, and I wrote this in
00:43:22
my Wall Street Journal column, 1930, the
00:43:24
federal government spent about 3.5% of
00:43:27
our GDP. 3.5. State and local
00:43:30
governments were about 9.1. That that
00:43:32
was the foundational premise of America.
00:43:34
government close to governed where it's
00:43:36
more effective, more efficient, more
00:43:37
accountable. Now we're spending close to
00:43:40
24% the federal level. States are
00:43:42
probably somewhere 12 to 15. Haven't
00:43:44
looked that recent. And as Lord Actton
00:43:45
pointed out, you know, power corrupts.
00:43:49
Yeah, government is power. That's mean
00:43:51
that is really the definition of
00:43:52
government is power. So it gets
00:43:55
corrupted and it's been corrupted. And I
00:43:57
don't know, we're, you know, I fear
00:43:59
we're past the point of no return. Uh
00:44:01
why did I run again for a third term? As
00:44:03
disgusted as I am in this process, a I
00:44:05
couldn't turn my back on this country. I
00:44:07
can't give up on it. I'm not overly
00:44:09
optimistic. And again, it's not just the
00:44:12
as government grows, your freedom
00:44:13
recedes. As government grows, you get
00:44:16
more and more people dependent on it.
00:44:18
Well, that's right. And they're not
00:44:20
they're not doing things productive. You
00:44:22
don't have a vibrant economy. That's
00:44:23
right. You know, it's just it's a it's
00:44:26
it all all in all is destructive of
00:44:28
society. to the point about your
00:44:29
numbers, Senator, you know, and I've
00:44:32
talked about this on our show where I've
00:44:33
tried to estimate what percent of
00:44:35
Americans gain their employment through
00:44:37
a government paycheck, a servicing the
00:44:39
government, or a government contractor.
00:44:41
And I think it's probably at 50% today.
00:44:44
So 50% of Americans are either working
00:44:47
for a public agency, uh, federal, state,
00:44:49
or local, or working for the contractor
00:44:52
of a government agency. And that's where
00:44:55
you pass the tipping point where it's no
00:44:57
longer possible to bring down the
00:44:59
spending because at that point everyone
00:45:01
in a representative democracy has every
00:45:03
incentive to keep it up. Otherwise, they
00:45:06
will individually lose, not just have
00:45:08
something individually to gain. That's
00:45:09
where I worry we're at. I guess the
00:45:11
hardliners like yourself may be the last
00:45:13
line of defense here, but that's where I
00:45:16
was really curious to hear how how far
00:45:17
are you willing to take this in this
00:45:19
particular reconciliation bill process
00:45:21
that's about to hit your desk in the
00:45:23
next couple of weeks. And who who else
00:45:25
is shoulder-to-shoulder with you with
00:45:27
the same point of view in the Senate?
00:45:29
Well, I think Rand Paul is pretty much a
00:45:30
hard no regardless. Um,
00:45:34
again, I don't think you could get a
00:45:36
good enough bill where he'd vote yes. Uh
00:45:39
the my other allies for sure in this
00:45:40
thing are Mike Lee and and Rick Scott.
00:45:43
You know, each one of us has our own
00:45:44
thoughts. You know, may accept something
00:45:48
different than the others. I'm I'm
00:45:50
pretty well dug in, but I'm but I'm
00:45:51
reasonable. Uh you you give me something
00:45:54
that, like I say, commits to getting to
00:45:57
a pre- pandemic global spending uh and a
00:46:00
process to achieve and maintain it, I
00:46:02
I'll work with you. Now, one of the
00:46:04
things I did, and we had it pinned to my
00:46:07
top of my ex page, I think it's further
00:46:08
on down now, but I put together a video
00:46:11
about a minute 30 starting with, you
00:46:13
know, President Trump at State of the
00:46:14
Union saying he was going to balance the
00:46:15
federal budget and then the vice
00:46:17
president and everybody on down some
00:46:19
version of we don't have a revenue
00:46:21
problem, we have a spending problem. At
00:46:24
the very end of the video, I I asked,
00:46:25
"So, are we willing to fix it?" You
00:46:27
know, right now doesn't appear we are,
00:46:29
but I I intend to insist that we do. Uh,
00:46:33
so I'm I'm I'm I'm gonna dig my heels
00:46:35
in. There there's no there's nothing
00:46:37
that President Trump can do to pressure
00:46:39
me other than other than start work with
00:46:42
me. Acknowledge the numbers. You know,
00:46:45
I'm I'm texting. They're probably
00:46:47
annoyed with me. Bessent and Hasset and
00:46:49
Russ all the time said here here's
00:46:51
here's my viewpoint. What am I not
00:46:53
getting right? So they know exactly what
00:46:55
I'm thinking. They know exactly my
00:46:57
concerns. They know exactly numbers. You
00:46:59
know, I I had good nice lunch with uh
00:47:01
Scott Besson in the Treasury Department.
00:47:03
I gave him my charts and graphs, all
00:47:05
that kind of stuff. I'm He asked for the
00:47:07
electronic versions of those so he could
00:47:09
distribute those to the Treasury
00:47:10
Department. So, none of this should come
00:47:12
as any surprise to anybody. And again,
00:47:15
the the ace I hold is I am going to
00:47:18
force the numbers that we have to look
00:47:22
at out in the public because to this
00:47:25
point, we haven't discussed it. And the
00:47:26
number from your perspective, if you had
00:47:28
to create a hierarchy just in your
00:47:30
messaging, is the number we should take
00:47:32
away is that we're about to tune the
00:47:35
debt to 60 to 70. So call it 65 at the
00:47:38
midpoint. Is that the number that we
00:47:40
should be focused on? Is I first focus
00:47:43
on focus on spending. Okay. 89.3
00:47:46
trillion. Again, that's again that
00:47:48
represents government, right? That's
00:47:49
that represents that power that's been
00:47:51
corrupted. that that represents the just
00:47:53
unprecedented other than World War II
00:47:56
increase in spending from 2019 of 58 to
00:47:58
60%. So if if you if you can't deal with
00:48:01
that in my column I pointed out, you
00:48:04
know, our our forefathers, the greatest
00:48:05
generation, responsible leadership, you
00:48:08
know, entered World War II spending
00:48:09
about
00:48:10
11.7%. Ramped that up to 41% during the
00:48:12
war. By 1948, they were down to 11.4%.
00:48:16
So it's entirely possible, but you need
00:48:18
leadership. I need the president of the
00:48:19
United States. By the way, I've been in
00:48:21
the White House with him. I've shown him
00:48:22
my charts and graphs. He goes, "I love
00:48:24
this. I love this. The house ought to
00:48:26
love this. Have they has this been
00:48:28
presented?" So, no, Mr. President, let's
00:48:30
go to the house. Let's present this. He
00:48:32
didn't do that. We need President Trump
00:48:34
to
00:48:35
embrace the reality that we are spending
00:48:38
way too much money. He was elected to
00:48:40
defeat the D State. You don't defeat it
00:48:42
spending it by levels. He needs to see
00:48:44
the detail. Again, I think, you know, to
00:48:46
be charitable, I think he's been so busy
00:48:48
doing so many other wonderful things
00:48:50
that I support. He hasn't focused on
00:48:52
this. I'm going to force him to focus on
00:48:56
this. This will be the moment you think.
00:48:59
And so, when you speak with Besson, does
00:49:00
he think he can get the president there
00:49:01
as well? I mean, I always think back to
00:49:03
Bill Clinton with his balanced budget
00:49:05
economic poster boards that he put up,
00:49:08
right? the like here's the simple
00:49:09
charts, let me explain it to you and
00:49:11
every American could watch that on
00:49:13
television and understand what he was
00:49:14
talking about, nodded their head and
00:49:17
Congress and the entire populace went
00:49:20
along with it. Do we need that? Do we
00:49:22
get that moment, do you think? Yeah. And
00:49:23
again, I don't think the numbers are
00:49:25
that complicated. Yeah. Point them out.
00:49:27
You know, $22 trillion of additional
00:49:29
deficit spending. That's a rosy
00:49:31
scenario. That's $2.2 trillion per year.
00:49:35
You know, Obama his a he averaged about
00:49:37
$900 billion a year deficit. Trump
00:49:39
before the pandemic is about 800
00:49:41
billion. You know, but Biden's up to
00:49:43
almost $ 1.9 trillion average deficit.
00:49:46
Clearly unsustainable. We got to get
00:49:48
back to a reasonable level. And by the
00:49:50
way, if we do, I think the bonds would
00:49:52
bond markets would rejoice. We wouldn't
00:49:55
be looking at a ramping up of interest
00:49:56
costs. uh you know we can talk about you
00:49:59
know debt to wealth as opposed to debt
00:50:02
debt to GDP because we've got that
00:50:04
monkey off our back. You said something
00:50:06
interesting. I just want to come back to
00:50:07
which is you said when the government
00:50:09
absorbs all the dollars in the system,
00:50:11
there's fewer and fewer dollars left for
00:50:13
private industry. Just to build on this,
00:50:15
one of the things that I brought up at
00:50:17
the beginning of this year, I said the
00:50:19
most important thing that you need is
00:50:20
tail
00:50:21
insurance. The tail risk needs to get
00:50:24
managed at the beginning of this year.
00:50:25
And there's a very important market that
00:50:28
is a gauge of that towards private
00:50:30
industry which is called credit default.
00:50:32
which is what is the risk of private
00:50:34
industry not being able to pay back
00:50:36
their obligations. And unfortunately
00:50:39
through the course of this year we've
00:50:41
seen the cost of that insurance ramp.
00:50:44
But at the beginning of liberation day,
00:50:45
there was some relief there because
00:50:47
people saw a path out of this. And
00:50:50
unfortunately, we're back to almost near
00:50:53
highs. And it is the market signaling
00:50:58
that first we'll go private
00:50:59
industry and then the second will be the
00:51:02
repricing of the risk for the US
00:51:04
government. And I think that if people
00:51:06
can really understand that that's the
00:51:08
cascade, to your point, that first card
00:51:10
has unfortunately been turned over. Now,
00:51:12
we haven't seen the implications on Main
00:51:14
Street of that, but that's what we need
00:51:16
to avoid. We need to get these markets
00:51:18
to understand the bigger picture, but we
00:51:20
need to show them something. And we also
00:51:21
have to focus on economic growth through
00:51:23
the private sector, right? Not fueled by
00:51:26
government deficit spending. I mean, I
00:51:28
don't know what percent of our actual
00:51:30
growth came from $2 trillion year
00:51:32
deficits. I think a pretty good chunk.
00:51:35
So, have we really had real private
00:51:37
sector growth? think we have but not as
00:51:39
not as much as I think the headline
00:51:41
numbers because so much of it has been
00:51:42
fueled by by the government. By the way,
00:51:44
that's also true in terms of revenue
00:51:46
coming from from the government. I mean,
00:51:47
it is true that we beat the CBO
00:51:49
estimates, but that's because of
00:51:52
trillions of dollars of deficit spending
00:51:54
starting the pandemic years followed
00:51:55
through with with Biden. Prior to the
00:51:58
pandemic, we weren't we really weren't
00:52:00
matching even the CBO's, you know,
00:52:03
downgrade of revenue coming in after the
00:52:05
TCGA. we weren't hitting it. But then
00:52:08
you had COVID hit and again trillions of
00:52:11
dollars in deficit spending that also
00:52:13
boosted revenue. So again, all these
00:52:14
people saying, "Oh, we're going to, you
00:52:16
know, that that tax increase that's
00:52:17
going to be dynamically scored and it's
00:52:19
going to pay for
00:52:20
itself." Listen, I'm all for dynamic
00:52:22
scoring, but let's let's be realistic.
00:52:24
And and again, I'll point out the CBO
00:52:26
projection I'm dealing with, $22
00:52:28
trillion, that assumes we go from 17.1
00:52:31
to 18% of GDP in terms of revenue.
00:52:35
So, you know, if if if if we don't
00:52:40
cancel the tax increase, uh, and there's
00:52:43
a dynamic scoring effect, it just means
00:52:45
we don't hit 18.1 and that number is
00:52:47
still lower. Talk to us about the setup
00:52:48
for 2026 and maybe if you want your
00:52:52
thoughts about where the country goes
00:52:54
into 2028. One of the things that Dave
00:52:56
talks about a lot is moments that
00:52:58
galvanize some form of populist
00:52:59
socialism. this idea, as he said very
00:53:02
articulately, I can just vote myself the
00:53:04
money, so who's going to just give me
00:53:06
the most money? Can you just walk us
00:53:08
through some political forecasting for
00:53:10
us? That's why I'm not an optimist. Um,
00:53:13
but you know, I've heard people
00:53:15
rationalize this, and I mean important
00:53:17
people rationalize, you know, just just
00:53:19
go along with this. Get us the P. I
00:53:21
mean, this is what we have to do to win
00:53:22
the majority, maintain the majority in
00:53:23
the House in 2027, right?
00:53:26
What good is a majority if you literally
00:53:29
don't solve the problems that you're
00:53:30
aware of? I mean, what good Oh, oh, oh.
00:53:33
So, we when we have the majority in
00:53:36
2027, then then we're going to actually
00:53:38
spend the, you know, turn the spending
00:53:40
curve down. That's when we're going to
00:53:41
return to prepandemic level spending. I
00:53:42
don't buy it. This is this is our one
00:53:45
opportunity and right now we're blowing
00:53:47
it and I'm going to do everything I can
00:53:49
to make sure we don't blow
00:53:50
it. But again, that is the reality.
00:53:52
Listen, I'm not I don't discount the
00:53:54
fact that we may lose the House, we may
00:53:57
lose the Senate, but I would say we do
00:53:59
that because we're not solving these
00:54:00
problems. We're going to be looked at as
00:54:02
unserious. You know, our base is going
00:54:04
to go, "What? Wh Why did we Why did we
00:54:06
elect you guys? You didn't take the bull
00:54:08
by the horns. You didn't solve this
00:54:10
problem. You're you're really no better
00:54:12
than Democrats." I think we have to be
00:54:14
concerned about that. If this
00:54:16
reconciliation bill gets done, Senator,
00:54:19
in the next couple of weeks, what bill
00:54:22
would you hope to see next to get to
00:54:24
that north star of fiscal
00:54:26
responsibility? Is there a recision bill
00:54:29
that you'd be looking for? Do we need to
00:54:31
actually have a sit down and talk about
00:54:32
building a budget? What's the right next
00:54:34
step here in creating a northstar that
00:54:36
creates stability for the republic?
00:54:39
Again, it's developing a process that
00:54:42
will achieve and maintain a prepandemic
00:54:45
level spending, you know, just a lower
00:54:46
spending level. It's a it's it is I come
00:54:49
from manufacturing base, right? You you
00:54:51
can't have a good product without a good
00:54:52
process. And we've just never had that
00:54:54
process. So, the only one I can think of
00:54:56
is what doge has demonstrated does work
00:54:59
in terms of the public
00:55:02
supporting us in terms of eliminating
00:55:04
just awful spending. So, you got to
00:55:06
expose it. You got to go line by line.
00:55:08
Again, there there are thousands of
00:55:09
lines, just top lines in the federal
00:55:11
budget. Hundreds thousands of lines
00:55:13
under each one of those as well. So, you
00:55:15
have to do the work. And again, I would
00:55:18
love to take that Doge team, you know,
00:55:20
those geniuses with all their AI and
00:55:22
their computer skills and get, you know,
00:55:25
100 200 forensic auditors and just go
00:55:27
through this line by line. And again, my
00:55:30
proposal was uh having this budget
00:55:32
review panel, senators, house members,
00:55:35
members of the administration, OM. Uh
00:55:38
then you you basically set up the
00:55:39
process just like you do in a business.
00:55:41
You know, here's your budget review
00:55:42
sheet. This is then you bring the
00:55:44
department heads, their financial gurus
00:55:46
in front of this budget review panel.
00:55:49
Just justify your spending. But again, I
00:55:51
would be comparing it to outlays under
00:55:53
Clinton plus up, outlays under Obama
00:55:56
plus up, outlays under Trump plus up. go
00:55:58
through every line and go, first of all,
00:56:00
why are you spending more than even
00:56:02
Trump? Why are you spending more than
00:56:04
Obama or Clinton? Plus, why are you
00:56:06
spending any money at all on this? But
00:56:08
you have to go through the work. You So,
00:56:10
you need the time. I've been proposing
00:56:13
this now for months. Nobody's put in the
00:56:15
the effort. OM said, "We don't have
00:56:18
enough time." And I realized they're
00:56:19
they're busy. The House said, "No, you
00:56:22
know, we've been working on this for a
00:56:23
year. We're satisfied with our numbers.
00:56:24
We didn't have the time." The Senate
00:56:26
really Senate leadership is the only one
00:56:28
that's been fully behind what I'm trying
00:56:29
to do here. But I can't we can't do it
00:56:31
alone. I mean, I can't do it. I don't
00:56:33
have the budget expertise. So, it really
00:56:35
is it's getting the commitment of the
00:56:36
president that he he is determined to
00:56:40
not keep funding the deep state buying
00:56:42
levels, return to a reasonable
00:56:43
prepandemic level spending, and then get
00:56:46
his OM fully behind this effort. This
00:56:50
got to be every this got to be the
00:56:52
biggest effort on budget ever. and then
00:56:54
set the thing up, show it works, and
00:56:56
then hopefully maintain it over the
00:56:57
years. I I I can't think of anything.
00:57:00
We've tried all this other stuff and
00:57:01
never worked. Well, look, I hope you
00:57:03
find a path towards that goal, Senator.
00:57:06
I think it's a critical time. And
00:57:08
speaking as an American, appreciate your
00:57:12
resiliency in the face of what I'm sure
00:57:14
is a lot of political pressure and
00:57:16
tension right now in trying to make sure
00:57:18
that the right thing is done here for
00:57:20
the long term of American prosperity.
00:57:23
So, thank you for your service. Thank
00:57:25
you for the work you do. We appreciate
00:57:26
it. I appreciate you having me on. I I
00:57:28
will say one thing that is different
00:57:30
about me than others. I'd rather go
00:57:32
home. That that's a significant
00:57:34
difference when when you'd rather I'd
00:57:36
rather return to my private sector life
00:57:39
than keep serving here in this total
00:57:42
dysfunction. Uh that that is that is
00:57:45
what again I can't be pressured by
00:57:47
President Trump. I I can't I mean, he's
00:57:50
not going to flip me just by the force
00:57:52
of his argument or any kind of political
00:57:54
pressure. There's there's just no
00:57:55
pressure he can apply to me. He's
00:57:57
willing to sit down with me, look at the
00:57:59
numbers, acknowledge them, working
00:58:01
forward in a reasonable plan forward. Uh
00:58:03
that's that's the only way he's going to
00:58:05
get my support. Well, I hope that there
00:58:07
are others that get into the same
00:58:09
mindset as you. I've always found it
00:58:13
off-putting that folks choose to be
00:58:16
politicians as a career rather than
00:58:18
rotating in and out of doing this as a
00:58:21
service and then going back into the
00:58:23
private sector where I think that a lot
00:58:25
of the misalignments and conditioning
00:58:26
can be avoided. So yeah, appreciate that
00:58:30
mindset and and thank you. Thank you
00:58:32
Senator for your cander. Thanks for
00:58:33
having me on transparency. Thank you.
00:58:36
I mean my conclusion today is similar to
00:58:38
how I finished the pod yesterday which
00:58:40
is concern that the bond market is not
00:58:44
going to take this well. I do think that
00:58:46
that puts a lot of pressure on America
00:58:48
and I think it's going to put pressure
00:58:49
on private industry and what will happen
00:58:52
as a result is not necessarily that we
00:58:55
go bankrupt or whatever but there is no
00:58:58
clear dividing line between public and
00:59:00
private industry and I don't think that
00:59:01
that's a great outcome. Not to mention
00:59:03
the value of everyone's assets. They go
00:59:05
to zero. They go to zero. Well, I mean
00:59:08
look like but but as this the senator
00:59:10
made the point a dollar in 2019 is worth
00:59:14
80 cents today because of the inflation
00:59:16
we've experienced from the rampid
00:59:19
spending since co and if that continues
00:59:22
which is the steady state that we've now
00:59:24
assumed is we're now assuming to
00:59:26
continue emergency spending as if it's
00:59:28
the kind of standard then that same
00:59:31
level of decline in value of a dollar or
00:59:33
decline in value of any American asset
00:59:35
will continue and it will only
00:59:37
accelerate. And I think the worry is
00:59:39
that in 10 years, you know, a dollar is
00:59:42
worth 30 cents. Yeah. And that makes it
00:59:44
harder for everyone to prosper in
00:59:47
America. The ability to buy a home, the
00:59:49
ability to have greater wealth, the
00:59:51
ability to improve your conditions and
00:59:53
your livelihoods are significantly
00:59:55
diminished. That's the biggest
00:59:56
consequence that we've seen many times
00:59:59
over the last couple of centuries as
01:00:01
countries have gone through the same
01:00:02
cycle that the American uh republic now
01:00:05
finds itself in. This is kind of one of
01:00:07
those last stands of the Alamo, if you
01:00:09
will, because the arithmetic gets to the
01:00:12
point that it becomes unstoppable. This
01:00:14
train is gone. So anyway, I I thought it
01:00:16
was great to have some time with the
01:00:18
senator to talk about it today. Again,
01:00:21
when when we have these conversations,
01:00:22
Chimath, obviously, we're not fully
01:00:24
endorsing all the views and points of
01:00:26
view. It's good to hear from people.
01:00:27
It's good to understand their point of
01:00:29
view. Let them speak and have the
01:00:31
conversation. There are things that
01:00:32
we'll agree with, things that we don't
01:00:34
agree with. But I think on the the
01:00:35
fiscal condition of the United States,
01:00:37
I've been pretty clear, pretty vocal on
01:00:38
my point of view on this. And on this
01:00:40
particular point, I think the senator is
01:00:42
a very important voice. I think it's
01:00:44
really it's really important for America
01:00:47
to let private citizens have agency and
01:00:50
do the things that they think they
01:00:52
should be doing. And I think that if you
01:00:54
move to a place where we become fiscally
01:00:56
crippled and reliant on the government,
01:00:59
that's a horrible outcome. Yeah,
01:01:00
absolutely. Okay. Uh well, I'm glad we
01:01:03
did this. I know uh it was a push to get
01:01:05
it done on a
01:01:06
Saturday, but I thought it was uh really
01:01:09
worthwhile to give the senators a I
01:01:11
already I already made love to Nat twice
01:01:13
this morning, so I'm from All the boxes
01:01:15
have been checked. But what did you do
01:01:16
after those six minutes? Did you have
01:01:18
played with the kids? Played with the
01:01:19
kids for an hour. Yeah. So I've done
01:01:21
everything I need to walk the dogs.
01:01:23
Good. Yeah. All right, bro. We'll talk.
01:01:26
Love you.
01:01:29
[Music]
01:01:34
I'm going all in.
