Senator Ron Johnson on the Senate showdown over Trump's Big Beautiful Bill | All-In Interview

Power. corrupts. Government is power and it's. been corrupted. Nobody knew in total how. much we spend because we never even talk. about it. The first goal of this. Republican budget reconciliation should. be don't add to the deficit. I voted for. President Trump because I wanted him to. defeat the deep state. You don't defeat. the deep state by continuing to fund it. at Biden's levels. Our base is going to. go, "What? Why did we elect you guys? You're really no better than Democrats.". I don't think President Trump, he's not. focused on reducing spending. This is.

our one opportunity and right now we're. blowing it and I'm going to do. everything I can to make sure we don't. blow it. I can't be pressured by. President Trump. He's willing to sit. down with me, look at the numbers, acknowledge them, working forward in a. reasonable plan forward. That's the only. way he's going to get my support. So, everyone has assumed that the House. passage of the reconciliation bill is. going to go to the Senate with some. minor changes and then make its way to. President Trump's desk for signing. But. that may not be the case. There are.

several hardliners in the US Senate who. have made it very clear that the budget. and the fiscal deficit problems that. arise from this bill are insurmountable. and they're going to take a very hard. stance on voting no on this bill. Taking. the lead on that point of view is. Senator Johnson from Wisconsin, who's. going to join us today for an emergency. pod to talk about what's next with the. Senate review of the reconciliation. bill, what his thoughts are, what's the. future of the republic, and what's. ahead. We're really excited for this. emergency pod. Thank you for joining us.

All right, besties. I think that was. another epic discussion. People love the. interviews. I could hear him talk for. hours. Absolutely. We crush your. questions in a minute. We are giving. people ground truth data to underwrite. your own opinion. What do you guys. think? That was fun. That was great. Senator, thanks for joining Chimathan. for this conversation this morning. Good. morning, guys, and thanks for having me. on. And just by way of background, Senator, you were elected to the US. Senate in 2010. You've had two.

re-elections since then. More recently, we've taken notice, and I gave a shout. out to you for your comments on the. scaling of the deficit and the US. federal debt. And as a Republican. against the stated intention of getting. this bill passed and through the Senate. as is, and we'd love to kind of hear. from you today about your points of view. on the bill that was passed in the House. this week, the reconciliation bill, and. then take a step back and talk a little. bit about the fiscal picture for the. United States and where things are. headed. So, thanks for that and thanks.

for joining us. Maybe we could just. start a little bit with a very basic. primer for our audience, something that. we don't talk about very much on the. show. Can you just tell us what a. reconciliation bill is and how it's used. so folks can understand a little bit. about the process that the House just. undertook and what's ahead? Sure. Let me. start. You talked about when I first ran. for election in 2010, I spray out the. Tea Party. Never had been involved in. politics whatsoever and didn't even. decide to run until the end of April.

announced in May, started a campaign. during the summer, did all those. parades. My what I would shout during. the parades was, "This is a fight for. freedom. We're mortgaging our children's. future. It's wrong. It's immoral. It has. to stop." That was my campaign theme. In. 2010, I still view myself more Tea Party. than Republican party. We we have a lot. of big spenders in Republic Republican. party as well. And I ran again because. of Obamacare, which I knew would not. work. And it's not working. That's, by. the way, that's the problem with.

Medicaid right now is Obamacare is now. called Medicaid expansion. But to answer. your question, uh, budget reconciliation. was set up by the in the budget act, I. think it was. 1974. Um, it doesn't work in terms of. controlling spending. By the way, nothing ever has. We'll get into that in. terms we've never had a process for. actually controlling spending, but it. allows us to pass a budget and then to. reconcile the budget. you're able and. you can pass a budget that's not a law,

but you pass this budget with just 50. votes, 51 votes, majority, and then you. can reconcile to that budget also. avoiding the Senate filibuster. So, that's the main component. What's weird. about it is you pass this budget, but. you can only through budget. reconciliation address mandatory. spending. You can't touch the. discretionary spending accounts, which. is about 25% of our budget. That's one. of the one of the ways the budget's. gotten completely out of control is you. know we put so many things into the.

mandatory category. You know initially. was entitlements social security. Medicare Medicaid but we have I would. say deviously slid all kinds of. discretionary spending into other. mandatory that really exploded during. COVID where I think other mandatory hit. well over$ two trillion dollars. uh last. fiscal year is about $1.3 trillion. This. year it'll be over a trillion. So it. went from about $642 billion in 2019.

Other mandatory again not social. security, Medicare, even Medicaid went. from 642 to last year 1.3. This year. it's going to be over a trillion dollars. and it's going to keep you know pretty. much at that level as far as the eye can. see. So again, that's a trillion dollars. of other non-entitlement spending that. we never looked at. And that's the whole. point about mandatory spending. It's. never looked at. Um so anyway, so we can. address mandatory spending, not social. security, through this reconciliation. process. Uh change programs, do whatever.

we want to do as long as it has a. primarily budgetary impact, not changing. policy. So you can change policy as long. as it has a budgetary impact. I know. that's reasonably complex, but it's an. insane system and it doesn't work. What. is the alternative? Well, right now we don't really have. one. Uh, again, let's just go through. why we've never had a process to control. spending. We don't have a balanced. budget requirement like states do, and.

we have the capability of printing. money, which we're doing, uh, incurring. this enormous debt. So, we don't have a. b balanced budget requirement. I didn't. realize this until just recently. The. appropriation committees were literally. set up because the authorized committees. were big spenders. So, they set up. appropriation committees to control. spending. That didn't work. The budget. act didn't work. Simpson BS didn't work. The budget control act didn't work. It. did restrain discretionary spending for. a couple years until we weasled our way.

around it. So, again, we've never had a. process to control spending. And one of. the things I've been arguing in some. Wall Street Journal columns is let's use. the example of. Doge. I come with the private sector. We. probably spent more time reviewing my. line by line budget for my business. And. I think other private sector businesses. spend more time analyzing what they're. going to spend than Congress spends over. the entire federal budget. So we've got. to develop a process. Do you shown us.

how to do it? Go contract by contract. expose the grotesque waste, fraud, and. abuse. But we got to do that through. thousands of lines through the federal. budget. But nobody's willing to do it. Nobody's willing to take the time to do. the work to do it. They they're doing. what they've always done. They exempt. most spending. They look at a couple. programs. They try and tweak them, try. and get a big score out of CBO so they. can say, "Hey, look at we saved $1.5. trillion." And yet that's completely. divorced from reality. 1.5 trillion sounds like a lot, but over.

10 years it's 150 billion against a. $7,000 billion a year budget that only. six years ago was $4,400 billion. And if. I've got one complaint in terms of the. process in the House, it's basically a. devoid of reality. We're not talking. about the numbers we should be talking. about, which is a 10-year deficit. projected by CBO of $22. trillion, averaging $2.2 trillion a. year. We don't talk about we focus all. on 1.5 trillion and then they're patting.

themselves in the back that they they. didn't even achieve 1.5. I just I just. want to make sure senator then that. we're on the same page with respect to. the math. If this bill passes as is, can. the general public take the 33 or 34 odd. trillion that we have in debt? Should we. add 22 and say we'll be at 58 trillion. by 2035? Is that the right math or the. wrong math? Uh that understates it. Uh. now they'll talk about dynamic scoring. and I believe in dynamic scoring as.

well. But in this case, you take a look. at the tax cuts that President Trump is. proposing. That's not they're not going. to generate growth. They're just going. to reduce the deficit. The CBO. projection I'm looking at assumes we're. going to gain another $4 trillion from. increasing taxes. So again, we may not. may not get that $4 trillion, but no. matter what, the CBO projection right. now that is adding another $22 trillion. to our debt, it certainly would add at.

least that. I would argue you'd probably. add another three or four trillion. So. it's not going to be 59 trillion. It's. going to be more like 62 63 trillion. And the CBO scores assume the interest. rate on the federal debt, I believe, is. an average of. 3.6%. And now we're seeing the 30-year. trading above 5%, meaning that if we. trade up to 5% for the cost of debt for. the federal government, we're probably. going to add another $5 trillion of. incremental interest expense over the. period, another half trillion a year on.

average over the next 10 years. Yeah. No, I I I would agree the current CBO. projection, that's what I'm talking. about here. Uh, you know, going from 37. to 59 trillion in debt is a rosy is, you. know, the rosy scenario that that's as. good as we're going to do. So, we're. simply we're simply this does not mean. the moment in terms of what we have to. do. Senator, let me just ask I I think. one point of clarification on your. earlier comment which I think would be. important for the audience. what has.

been put under mandatory that should be. discretionary. It covers the entire. gamut of federal spending, education, you know, welfare, food stamps, uh, uh, veterans benefits. Again, they've just. transferred that into mandatory. spending. So, it's completely out of. sight, out of mind, unaccountable. When. it sits in discretionary, maybe just. help folks understand what does it mean. if it sits in discretionary. Does that. mean that then the administration under. the president has the authority to spend.

up to that amount to administer the law. to administer the statutes but doesn't. necessarily have to and the mandatory. demands that the capital goes out. Just. help us understand for the audience what. the difference is. Well, discretionary. is actually supposedly passed each year. through an appropriation process which. is completely broken. We don't pass. individual appropriation bills. We. generally at best uh which is awful mini. buses or omnibuses. You know these are. these multi,000page.

uh bills that get dropped on our desks. and we have to vote on them literally. within 24 to 48 hours. Nobody reads. them. Nobody knows what's in them. Uh. that process is pretty broken down. Right now we are operating for this. fiscal year under a continuing. resolution which tweaks a few things but. is basically spending at last year's. levels on all those appropriated. accounts. So again, that's about 25% of. our budget. Then 75% is in in the. mandatory accounts, the the. entitlements, and just other mandatory. spending. So the arithmetic indicates.

we're entering into a debt death spiral. in the United States. With the interest. rates climbing, the deficit climbing, and we then need to spend more money to. pay our interest on the existing debt, that increases the deficit. We need to. borrow more. The debt spirals up. uh. interest rates climb and this becomes an. insurmountable hill to climb. As you. have the conversation with members of. the Republican party, what's the point. of view? What is the motivating factor. for business as usual? Why is it so.

difficult to get folks to see the basic. arithmetic in front of them? Well, let. me give you an example from about three. years ago. Uh this was after COVID and. you know on bipartisan basis went on a. massive spending spree in 2020 but then. the bid administration just continued. that. Uh so you know we were in omnibous. spending debate and for the first time. even though the Republican Senate. conference we have a resolution against. eararks. McConnell is negotiating an.

omnibous spending bill and all of a. sudden we're members are are sucking. down ear marks. So I asked my colleagues. at that time I said hey anybody know how. much in total we spent last year in the. federal. government room was dead silent I went. out to Washington press corp asked the. same question I mean hey anybody know. how much we spent last year and one. reporter said it was over a trillion. dollars no that's just discretionary. spending the answer was something like. $6.3 trillion because we had gone from. 4.4 4 trillion 2019 up to 6.5 and we've.

never looked back. Right? And the. analogy I used is no family if they had. an illness borrowed. $50,000 to pay medical bills if they got. well the next year. They would keep. borrowing $50,000 to spend at that. level. But that's exactly what we've. done. But the point of my story was. nobody knew in total how much we spend. because we never even talk about it. Never even talked about. So So that's. out of sight, out of mind. So it's. completely out of control. I mean, I am. the guys, you know, starting with my.

Wall Street Journal column of January. 1st about return to a prepandemic. prepandemic level spending. I mean, I've. been hammering the Senate Republican. conference on a weekly basis and just, you know, Ed Naz quite honestly. What's. the push back? What are they? They just. throw they've thrown the towel. They go, "Well, it's too hard. I mean, that's. unrealistic. You just can't do it." Even. though I lay out Well, these are So, let. me just tell you you how I laid out my. pre- pandemic levels of spending. This. is during between Christmas and New. Year's. I'm trying to figure out how can. I communicate this? You know, how can I.

justify this? What kind of control can. we put on things? So, I I literally went. back in history. I went back to Clinton. in 1998, Obama in 2014, and Trump in. 2019. And I exempted social security, Medicare, and interest. You know, spend. what you needed to spend. But all other. actual outlays in those three years, I. increase them by inflation and. population. You know, reasonable. control, right? It's what we should. have. We don't have a balanced budget. amendment. At least we should have some. reasonable control over outlays.

Population growth inflation would make. sense. Senator, if we take your math and. say that we are headed. to, let's take the midpoint $65 trillion. of debt by. 2035. I think it's fair to say that the. bond market. will have a negative reaction to that. And what Dave just talked about, which. is a 5% borrowing rate for America, could be on the low side. And that's the.

that's the spiral that he's talking. about. On Friday, Secretary Bessant. tried to get in front of this and his. commentary was we will grow our way out. Can you talk to us about what he means. by that and what the boundary conditions. need to be to grow our way out? First of. all, by by my calculation, our average. interest rate over the last 50 years on. government debt is about. 5.8%. So that that's 50 years and we're. we're down here about three somewhere. around 3%. Um those are not exact.

calculations. Uh listen, that is the. hope of all of us. I mean I I will. absolutely agree that the the number one. component of a solution to our enormous. debt investment problem is economic. growth. We have to grow the economy. But. here's the problem is when the. government is sucking out of the private. sector all you know we're the ones. borrowing the money so there's not a. whole lot of money left for businesses. in the private sector not enough capital.

there. Now you can print more money uh. but then that sparks inflation and that. of course erodess everybody's balance. sheet. It also makes our debt debt less. less expensive as well. But because. we're so in debt, that drives up the. interest rates and again it ends up. being a death and debt spiral. So So. nobody can predict this. But I mean. that's just the the wishful thinking of. people putting forward a policy a one. big beautiful bill that doesn't live up.

to its name but actually actually. exacerbates the problem. What are the. tools then in your toolbox? So you get. back in the next week or two and you. talk to your colleagues and now it's on. your desk. How do you start getting your. arms around this? What do you do. starting on Monday or next Monday? So I. try to lay out the basic numbers. That's. what I was talking about. You know my. prepandemic goal of spending Clinton if. you use that process go from 1.7 to 5.5.

trillion. That's how you plus up there. That's been Obama would be 6.2 to. Trump's 2019 6.5. So now now you've got. a a baseline budget. You've always heard. these Republican members of Congress. running for office saying we're going to. go to zerobased budget. They're not even. willing to go to 5.5 to 6.5 level. baseline of budget. So again, go what is. the process that just might work? Doge. has kind of shown it to us, you know, line by line. You have to scrutinize all. this. It takes a lot of work. It takes a.

lot of time. And that's why I've always. argued for a multiple approach here, multiple step. Provide the border. funding. Uh I would just extend current. tax law. I mean, again, I would have. voted for that. If we had been smart. enough to use current policy back then, we wouldn't be even having this. conversation. Extend current tax law. Takes an automatic massive tax increase. off the table. Increase the debt ceiling. enough for a year to keep pressure on. the process to do the work to go line by. line. Expose spending. I've got to.

believe when you've gone from 4,400. billion to $7,000 billion worth of. spending, if you start scrutinizing that. line by line, there would literally be. hundreds of billions of dollars that the. public wouldn't even know we're not. spending. The only people who would know. would be the grifters who are sucking. down the pork. Mhm. So, when you say the. folks in the Republican party that. aren't willing to do the hard work, it's. just so obvious how big of a crisis we. are in and everyone's kind of being.

blind to it. So, I'm just trying to. understand what is it that's keeping the. blindfold on. Is it that there are. donors, that there are constituents? I'll give you an example. A couple years. ago, I went in for the Farm Bill review. with the Senate A Committee 2012, so a. long time ago. And we started talking. about one of the agencies in the USDA. and they have 10,000 employees and said, you know, does why does this make sense. in a digital age? And the answer was it. doesn't. It's like, well, why is the. agency still running and employing all. these people? Well, because the senators.

don't want to lose the jobs in their. state because that's 10,000 jobs split. amongst roughly seven states and it's. really important to those seven states. to keep those jobs. Is that the. motivation that there's economic dollars. flowing into the states that keeps the. representatives and the senators from. making the tough decisions? Is it that. they're getting donor dollars? What's. the real motivation here that's keeping. everyone from tackling reality? Well, again, as I pointed. out, most don't even recognize the full. reality. They don't they don't know the.

numbers. I've I've heard it said, I. didn't hear McConnell say it personally, but I've heard him say, "Show me a. member of Congress who ever lost the. election because they spent too much. money." So, there's no public pressure. not to spend. You know, people love tax. cuts. People love the free money. You. know, we collectively as a society are. whistling by the graveyard. Nobody wants. to say that this is unsustainable. because you to fix it is painful. I mean. you you you are going to have to reduce.

spending and then you're very open to. the the political accusations as you. know coming in we're trying to slash. Medicaid for disabled children. No, we're trying to preserve it for disabled. children, try and get the able-bodied. childless uh working age adults back to. work and and on private sector. healthcare. Uh but again, that's that's. a more difficult argument to make. So it. it's just the way that the process just. plows on. We've never, as I said, there's never been a process to actually.

control spending. So this way we've. always done it. You come up to these. deadlines, you put everything into one. big bill, you give people, you know, things that you have to vote for. You. don't want to default on the debt. You. don't want to increase taxes. So, you. know, those elements you bundle up with. a bunch of crap and you twist people's. arms to pay for it having and keeping. them basically ignorant because you. never talk about the the the massive. numbers the massive problem that we're. really in. I mean, people kind of know. it, but as long as the the press isn't.

reporting on, as long as the press isn't. connecting the dots that the massive. desk is spending is why you can't afford. things, why your dollar you held in 2019. is only worth 80 cents versus the bucket. should be. By the way, a dollar you held. in 1998 is worth 51. cents. Okay? So, we again, we don't. teach people there's no there's no. public pressure in terms of reducing. spending or reducing the deficit. There's just virtually none. I mean, you. know, from conservatives right now, I'm. getting it all the time. Boy, make sure.

that you make no tax on tips permanent. Make sure you make no tax on overtime. permanent. So, well, first of all, we. probably shouldn't even be doing either. of those. By the way, I'm all for no tax. on cash tips. You know, we can't can't. collect it anyway, so don't even try. I'm all for that. But you got to. recognize these other tax cuts. They're. not going to grow the economy. They're. not going to focus on the one component. that Besson's talking about that we have. to grow our economy. I actually am very. supportive of the no tax on tips, no tax. on overtime. The monetary cost of those.

things are relatively not that. meaningful. And so it has a broad-based. positive impact with a lower cost is. actually the reason why we should do it. The thing that I was sort of like. puzzled by when 50 people or 60 people. are constructing something, you get this. bill that comes out of the house which. has the things that the president asked. for, but with all of these other. Christmas tree ornaments hanging from it. and it's impossible to figure out what's. actually going on. Well, I don't even. think it's even 50 and 60 people.

constructing this. I think it's a much. smaller group of people and then you. maybe have 50 or 60 chiming in on one. issue or another. Let me push back on. overtime with you though. You know, I. ran a plastics operation continuous. shift. If you're gonna have you work. 247, you need four shifts. So, part of. the problem with no tax on overtime, first of all, no tax on some overtime. So, that's going to add to the. regulatory burden. I want wouldn't want. to be the accounting clerk having to. keep track of that, but you know, I know. computers, it's easier to do so. But, in.

public service employee units, they will. they refuse to go to four shifts because. they like the overtime. they should be. forced to go to four shifts because they. burn out. Pay them more. But from my. standpoint, having run a continuous. shift operation, I think there's enough. incentive paying time and a half or. double time on Sunday for people to. work. Uh income is income. I don't want. to segregate. I I don't want to socially. or economically engineer through the tax. code. And that's just part of that. economic engineering through the tax. code. I love the fact we're focusing on.

working men and women. Great. But I. would rather simplify the tax code for. them and and overall lower their tax. burden. But again, lower the rates, broaden the base. But we're not doing. that. We lowered the rates and we made. it more complex. So yeah, we did not. simplify the tax code in 2017. One of. the reasons I actually wanted a two-step. process was to take time to simplify and. rationalize our tax code. Can we talk. about other things that didn't make it. in that we thought were going to get in. there? Another way to generate revenue. would have been to close the carried.

interest loophole. I don't know if you. have any points of view on that. Well, I' I've talked to numerous people who. benefit from carried interest. I always. ask them, can you explain to me why. that's not or ordinary income? And they. can't. It is ordinary income. Uh. speaking to other ones that are pretty. big into it, they do make a pretty. powerful case that, you know, all all. these deals, all these structures, all. these business arrangements are already. structured that way. You can eliminate. that break and it's really not going to. raise any revenue. They make reasonably. convincing case there, too. So that's.

kind of where we at on that. which is sort of like at a at an impass. Yeah. My guess is just not going to. happen, right? And kind of going the. overtime. It's just not that big a. revenue generator one way the other. Might might make you feel good. Could. could screw up the way deals are made. That's is it really worth messing with? One of the things that Elon has been. talking about recently is that we could. be on.

the precipice of an energy deficit. starting next year where we need every. form of power possible to be generating. as many electrons as possible. And so. solar, wind, coal, nat gas, nuclear, there was a bunch of provisions. here that changed the tax incentives. What's your thoughts on all of those. that may change the landscape of. electron availability? Well, I think. it's uh insane that we've been shutting. down coal fired electrical generation.

We need a lot of it. I would really. focus on nuclear myself. I think that. is, you know, if you're concerned about. climate change, and yeah, I'm not. We'll. adapt. Um, but nuclear would be the the. thing we ought to be pushing. Uh, I. really don't want to subsidize energy. production. I I don't want to subsidize. anything. Again, I want a simple and. rational tax code. Uh so my my approach. would always be to simplify those things. and I don't want to pull the rug out. from under people. I mean if we've. subsidized things and people made. investment based on certain things kind.

of respect that the comment that I made. to my colleagues is FK came out with a. report. It said. 81% of the incremental energy that was. generated in the United States were. backed by some form of tax credits. This. is not to judge. It's just meant to say. that financial actors go to where the. incentives are. And if we change them and we take 81% of. this incremental energy offline and you. can't get an act gas turbine, you know, for example, I'm going to announce on. Monday we're building a 1 gawatt data.

center that I'm funding in Arizona. I. can't get an act gas turbine until 2032. I can get nuclear from the state of. Arizona, but that's not broadly. available everywhere. And so there's. these practical investment decisions. that the financial community wants to. make to keep America at the forefront. It's a little murkier today unless the. Senate understands these nuances and. helps us because if we can't make these. investments, then we're just not going. to do it. I say Congress in general. doesn't understand what you're talking. about. Again, I said I don't want to.

pull the rug out from other people. I. understand investment because I was in. business. Um but again, I I want to move. towards a more simple system and and. again, it's insane what government, you. know, all the green new energy thing. It. it misallocates capital. Take a look. what's happening in Europe in Germany. and stuff. They're artificially driving. up the cost of power for what? Okay. I. mean, it's it's a fantasy. It's it's a. self-inflicted wound. It's we spent. something like five or six trillion.

dollars globally on climate change. Again, whether you believe it or not, we. haven't bent the needle. That's just. five or six trillion dollars basically. wasted. So, again, I recognize the fact. we've wasted a lot of money. We've. incentivized people for certain type of. power. The solution would be quit doing. it. long term and let the marketplace. provide as as much energy cheap as. possible. Again, protecting the. environment. I don't want pollution, but. the whole climate change thing is I care. about. electron surplus and having an infinite.

supply of electrons, which is. effectively the threshold issue between. us and whatever form of abundance we're. going to find with robots, with going to. Mars, with building AGI. The threshold. issue is just do we have enough energy. to do it all? And if as long as we have. that, we're going to win. And if we. don't, China's going to win. Where it. comes from, I really don't care. But the. reality with nuclear is, you know, we. can't wait till 2035 for electrons to. turn on. That's just a non-starter. So. as much as we have to pay for the sins.

of the past, and the sins of the past is. we turned all that stuff off idiotically. to your point because of some, you know, crying child, but now we have to pay for. the conditions on the ground. I have a. different question, which is I want to. go back to Dave's question on Doge. Senator, which is there was a $9 billion. recision bill that went to the House and. unfortunately it didn't make a lot of. progress. What is the future of Doge as. you see it? First of. all, it it was beneficial for no other.

reason than it exposed how. oblivious and ignorant Congress was of. all this waste, fraud, and abuse. Okay? I mean, that has value right there. It. should have embarrassed every member of. Congress, all these department heads. that this kind of spending, this kind of. crap was going on and they weren't doing. oversight on it. They weren't taking a. look at it. And but and I I tried. getting Elon's attention quite honestly. about you know, can give me somebody in. Doge that I can work with so that as.

soon as you identify the spending, we. can connect it to an appropriation. account. We can connect it to a. mandatory spending account so we can. actually codify it. He he didn't seem to. have the time and quite honestly in a. personal conversation he said well we. don't have to do that well we do have to. do that and so you know we we've been. hammering Russ vote you know send us a. recision package you know finally he. bundles up $9 billion when on I think. the last time I looked at Doge's website. they were up to 165 I think it's higher. than that now they're kind of they have.

fallen short of the goal listen and I'm. not criticizing for them that for that. at all but the fact of the matter is it. has to be codified just putting on the. website is valuable but we got to bank. the savings and so anything that's. mandatory has got to be done through. reconciliation otherwise got to be done. from recision you you got to get the. public support for this I don't know why. they haven't done it so can you just. explain that to us like what what we see. on the website is that not saved.

it's there's a question they've stopped. contracts they're no longer spending. money that way but the question is. whether the president on his own can. impound those funds. So they may not be. spent, but they're just going to be, you. know, sitting out there as, you know, unallocated uh spending to be spent. sometime in the future unless you resin. them. And again, that's the beauty of. recision reconciliation. We don't need. Democrats to help us there. We can do. that with simple majorities, both the.

House and the Senate. And again, it'll. be pretty depressing. President Trump in. this first administration sent up a $15. billion recision package and has voted. down in the Senate. Two Republican. senators vote against it. And my guess. is they paid no political price for. doing that. Any Republican that voted. would vote against the recision package. ought to pay a pretty huge political. price in voting that thing down. But. it's going to take presidential. leadership. He's got to be f he's got to. be focusing on that. And and I'm sorry, I don't think President Trump, he's.

doing all kinds of great things. He's. not focused on reducing spending. from what why do you think that is? Have. you talked with his staff or him. directly about it? Was this not as. apparent to him and his staff as it is. to you? I I just think they are. overwhelmed. I mean, you see all all the. activity and this just hasn't hit his. radar yet. Uh it's going to hit his. radar here this next the next few weeks. because So again, he he liked the. concept the slogan of one beautiful. bill. I don't think he was overly. concerned or understanding what the.

details were. You know, I'm I'm going to. force him to take a look at the details. I'm I'm going to force a discussion on. stranding. It feels like we're about to. enter some form of like people conclave. where you and your Senate colleagues are. going to go into a room. There's either. going to be white smoke or black smoke. So, can you can you walk us through like. what what is the mechanics now? like. what will it be like when you when. Senator Thun brings you together, you. all caucus or how how does this work now. for you? So, so we've been in finance. committee, we've been working on these.

things, but again, we're all it's all. about scores, right? I've got to point. this out. You hear these scores, right? But they're divorced from they're not. tied to anything. It's like, okay, I got. a score of 65. Well, good. I mean, it's. good if you're golfing. It's awful if. you're bowling. So, you get all these. scores. They're divorced from reality. So again, the the process is. complete. It's it's by and large a. charade. Okay? Somebody else is going to. write this thing and it's going to be. shut down people's throats. I mean, so. what I intend to do is I intend to open.

it up and bring this to the light of. day. I've been doing it since January. 1st, writing about giving, you know, three prepandemic levels, you know, three options on prepandemic levels of. spending. next column. Here's a process, a line by line deep dive forensic audit. You know, I'd love to take the Doge team. right now and just bring them over. Let's focus on this. Let's spend months. doing this, but we'll need time. We'll. need a two-step process, you know, and. then, you know, literally my my last. column just kind of put it all together,

the big numbers, and this is why we have. to do it. But but again, you you were. following the debate in the House. Did. you ever hear $2.2 2 trillion average. deficit being projected. $22 trillion, you know, $59 trillion in debt. Nobody. It's just $1.5 trillion. Oh, like that's. a lot. I mean, it's it's it's it's. almost meaningless. It's a rounding. error. So, I'm going to force this. debate. That's what that's why I'm on. your show here today. That's why I'm. going to be doing Jake Tapper tomorrow. You know, I'm bring the numbers to the. four. Senator, is there a a hard line.

that you'll have that if we don't get. this deficit level to X because that's. the focus, that's the objective, that's. the primary objective rather at this. point in time in this republic that. you'll say I'm a no vote and have you. been that declarative about your. position on this? I've been pretty. upfront. You know, the first goal of. this Republican budget reconciliation. should be don't add to the deficit. because that ought to be the first goal.

Uh beyond that, what I've always said is. I want a commitment to return to a. reasonable prepandemic level spending. and a process to achieve and maintain. it. I'm I'm reasonably open. Yeah, I. recognize we have to get the votes. So, I always say I don't have a hard number, but what I've done is I've laid out. these options. And right now, the hard. number accepted by and expected by a lot. of senators enough to not pass this. until we achieve it is $6.5 trillion of. spending in. 2026. And I can I can you walk through.

how you get to that point, but that's. kind of the number. Right now, we're. expected to spend about 7.3 trillion. next year. So that implies about 8008. trillion in deficit reduction rather. than 1.5 trillion that the House has in. their meager uh House reconciliation. bill. So it's a pretty big delta. What. scoring do you go off of? Is that the. CBO scoring that you would use to make. that estimate? Some of the conversation. that we've heard is that the revenue.

effects of some of the new programs are. not taken into account fully. That there. may be revenue coming in from tariffs. There may be revenue coming in from the. sale of the Trump immigration card at 5. million a pop and there's a limited. effect of the tax cuts on GDP growth. etc. So there's a lot of arguments to be. made to make the line seem a little more. blurry than perhaps the scoring might. indicate. That's why to try and simplify. things. Okay, I'm focusing on spending.

We went from 4.4 to it'll be 7.3 next. year. You know, let's bring it down to a. reasonable prepandemic level 6.5. spending, spending, spending. I voted. for President Trump because I wanted him. to defeat the deep state. You don't. defeat the deep state by continuing to. fund it at Biden's levels. So the the. minute you start bringing revenue, nobody can project that. Nobody knows. exactly what the impact's going to be. And so that starts, you know, muddying. the waters. So I focus on spending. Uh I. don't really want to fund the deep.

state. Okay? I I would like to bring. certainty to the economy. I'd like the. trade wars to end so we can bring that. level of stability. I don't want to. increase taxes. So again, my approach. would be multiple step. Border defense, bank the savings, take whatever good. work the house did, bank that. Extend. current tax law is awful as complex it. is. Just extend that. Increase the debt. ceiling for a year to put pressure on us. to come back and do the work on on the. spending. And then we can bring up. President Trump's taxes as well. I mean,

I would keep this as simple as possible. get it passed and start doing the work. That would be my approach. Do you think. that there's. any upside or legislative resolve to. think about monetizing assets? So, for. example, Secretary Lutnik has talked. about the vast resources. Secretary. Bergam has talked about as well, the. vast resources that America has, whether. it should, you know, we should consider. thinking about monetizing some of those. things, selling federal land, selling. drilling rights, selling royalty rights.

What do you think about that as an. incremental way of softening the landing. here? I would say the only reason I'm. not in a full-fledged panic is because. people like Art Laugher do point out we. have vast wealth. I mean so our debt our. debt to GDP ratio is probably not the. the most relevant. It is relevant for. inflation that type thing but you know. debt to total assets is probably the. more relevant. So, so we we literally we. can afford this level of debt, but you.

have to you do have to compare it to. income as well and our ability to. service the debt and the debt spiral. So, again, this all ends up being a lot. of different. uh factors coming into what's going to. make it possible for people to live. And. again, inflation is probably the one. metric that we need to avoid. And I. think that's the thing that I'm most. concerned about in terms of death and. spending. I'm I'm not concerned about. America going bankrupt because we have. this vast wealth. Um I'm concerned about. us being insolvent in sparking massive.

inflation and just wiping out people's. savings, making it very impossible for. them to live and retire. What do you. think is the future through these next. 16 months of bills and the impact? To. your point, there's a lot of people that. came together in a coalition to vote for. accountability to defund and to starve. the deep state. And if we continue to. feed it, it seems like a traditionalist. default. We're going back to the way. things were. Can you talk to us about.

that and what your thoughts are about. that? Well, I'm highly concerned about. just the conservative movement. Uh I. think Trump is a completely unique. political figure. I think he definitely. did drive turnout. he's expanded, you. know, certainly our base, which by the. way is one of the reasons I'm I am. sympathetic to what you're talking about. in terms of the tax cuts he's proposed. I mean, we need to focus on the working. men and women of this country that is. really the the Trump coalition. Um, but. I'm concerned about how effective. Democrats are, the coalition they have.

made up of the media, primarily social. media companies, that type of thing. Their relentlessness of letting all. these undocumented people in this. country who are voting, I mean, we're. starting to see that type of fraud. um. that are you know they they are trying. to cheat. I think they do cheat in. voting. I think they we don't have an. real feeling in terms of how you know. the order of magnitude of their. cheating. Uh but a quick example of you. know we had that important Supreme Court. race here. Elon Musk came in here did. some pretty innovative things. Spent a.

lot of money here. Uh the liberal. candidate got 78% of of Kla Harris's. vote. The conservative candidate got 62%. of Donald Trump's score. Even though, you know, we were all out there saying. how important this is. If you don't want. to see President Trump impeached by a. Democratc controlled Congress in the. next Congress, you got to get out and. support President Trump. That didn't. resonate. Again, 78% of Democrats came. out of 62% of Republicans. Do you think.

there's a risk that MAGA becomes a. version of, you know, Tea Party 2.0. where it starts with energy, but then. there's just the gravitational pull of. the establishment is just too strong for. the rebels to fight off. No, I think the. greatest danger of MAGA is it's really. tied toward one individual. You know, Tea Party movement was tied toward the. vision of America, freedom, you know, debt and desolate, not mortgage or kids. future. I think that survived. I mean, they did a pretty good job of. marginalizing Tea Party, but you know,

we're we're alive and well. We're, you. know, we are the the House Freedom. Caucus. You know, we're the the people. that are going to stop this until we. just get a much better bill in the. Senate. So, we're we're still alive and. well, but in terms of voters, I mean, the Tea Party pretty well merged with. Republican party. Uh I'm not sure all. the. mega mega voters are just disgusted by. the whole process as I as am I. And. they're much more likely to sit on the. couch unless their guy is on the ballot. Do you think that our model of.

representative democracy is broken and. has the same sort of inevitable outcome. that others have had in the past that. ultimately people realize they can vote. themselves all the money and they do and. the system breaks? I mean like do like. if you were to go back and be a founding. father, what would you have done. differently here? And or am I off on. this? And I'm No, I'm not sure you uh. you are off at all. No, I think we may. have already passed that hinge point. That's my concern. I mean, people ask. me, are you optimistic? No, I'm I'm a.

pessimist. I'm looking around. That that. is the death nail of a of a de democracy. or Republican. And a majority of the. voters realize, hey, I can vote myself. benefits. Don't don't worry about the. debt and des. We can print money. No, that that's what brings down uh. everything. I mean, this is this is what. I've noticed is Democrats, Republicans, populists or elitists, whatever side of the spectrum on. whatever dimensional category you want. to assess an individual or.

representative on, at the end of the. day, they're just trying to use the. government to deploy capital to their. constituents as best they can. I mean, that's the mechanism of the electorate. at this point. And just hearing your. words resonates with me because I've. made a number of visits to DC in the. last couple of months since the. inauguration and there was a lot of. proclaim about Doge and it's a new day. in Washington and I felt a degree of. optimism and hope that things were. changing in DC but every member of. Congress I sat down with was a a. disappointing conversation that reflects.

the views that you just shared that they. don't really understand what's going on. and they don't really care. It's not a. priority to solve the fiscal crisis that. we're in and they're not willing to. admit it. It's like a stage 4 terminal. patient not willing to admit that. they're sick and they need to to take. some therapy. Well, the the the data. that backs us up is, and I wrote this in. my Wall Street Journal column, 1930, the. federal government spent about 3.5% of. our GDP. 3.5. State and local.

governments were about 9.1. That that. was the foundational premise of America. government close to governed where it's. more effective, more efficient, more. accountable. Now we're spending close to. 24% the federal level. States are. probably somewhere 12 to 15. Haven't. looked that recent. And as Lord Actton. pointed out, you know, power corrupts. Yeah, government is power. That's mean. that is really the definition of. government is power. So it gets. corrupted and it's been corrupted. And I. don't know, we're, you know, I fear. we're past the point of no return. Uh.

why did I run again for a third term? As. disgusted as I am in this process, a I. couldn't turn my back on this country. I. can't give up on it. I'm not overly. optimistic. And again, it's not just the. as government grows, your freedom. recedes. As government grows, you get. more and more people dependent on it. Well, that's right. And they're not. they're not doing things productive. You. don't have a vibrant economy. That's. right. You know, it's just it's a it's. it all all in all is destructive of. society. to the point about your. numbers, Senator, you know, and I've.

talked about this on our show where I've. tried to estimate what percent of. Americans gain their employment through. a government paycheck, a servicing the. government, or a government contractor. And I think it's probably at 50% today. So 50% of Americans are either working. for a public agency, uh, federal, state, or local, or working for the contractor. of a government agency. And that's where. you pass the tipping point where it's no. longer possible to bring down the. spending because at that point everyone.

in a representative democracy has every. incentive to keep it up. Otherwise, they. will individually lose, not just have. something individually to gain. That's. where I worry we're at. I guess the. hardliners like yourself may be the last. line of defense here, but that's where I. was really curious to hear how how far. are you willing to take this in this. particular reconciliation bill process. that's about to hit your desk in the. next couple of weeks. And who who else. is shoulder-to-shoulder with you with. the same point of view in the Senate? Well, I think Rand Paul is pretty much a.

hard no regardless. Um, again, I don't think you could get a. good enough bill where he'd vote yes. Uh. the my other allies for sure in this. thing are Mike Lee and and Rick Scott. You know, each one of us has our own. thoughts. You know, may accept something. different than the others. I'm I'm. pretty well dug in, but I'm but I'm. reasonable. Uh you you give me something. that, like I say, commits to getting to. a pre- pandemic global spending uh and a.

process to achieve and maintain it, I. I'll work with you. Now, one of the. things I did, and we had it pinned to my. top of my ex page, I think it's further. on down now, but I put together a video. about a minute 30 starting with, you. know, President Trump at State of the. Union saying he was going to balance the. federal budget and then the vice. president and everybody on down some. version of we don't have a revenue. problem, we have a spending problem. At. the very end of the video, I I asked, "So, are we willing to fix it?" You. know, right now doesn't appear we are, but I I intend to insist that we do. Uh,

so I'm I'm I'm I'm gonna dig my heels. in. There there's no there's nothing. that President Trump can do to pressure. me other than other than start work with. me. Acknowledge the numbers. You know, I'm I'm texting. They're probably. annoyed with me. Bessent and Hasset and. Russ all the time said here here's. here's my viewpoint. What am I not. getting right? So they know exactly what. I'm thinking. They know exactly my. concerns. They know exactly numbers. You. know, I I had good nice lunch with uh.

Scott Besson in the Treasury Department. I gave him my charts and graphs, all. that kind of stuff. I'm He asked for the. electronic versions of those so he could. distribute those to the Treasury. Department. So, none of this should come. as any surprise to anybody. And again, the the ace I hold is I am going to. force the numbers that we have to look. at out in the public because to this. point, we haven't discussed it. And the. number from your perspective, if you had. to create a hierarchy just in your.

messaging, is the number we should take. away is that we're about to tune the. debt to 60 to 70. So call it 65 at the. midpoint. Is that the number that we. should be focused on? Is I first focus. on focus on spending. Okay. 89.3. trillion. Again, that's again that. represents government, right? That's. that represents that power that's been. corrupted. that that represents the just. unprecedented other than World War II. increase in spending from 2019 of 58 to. 60%. So if if you if you can't deal with.

that in my column I pointed out, you. know, our our forefathers, the greatest. generation, responsible leadership, you. know, entered World War II spending. about. 11.7%. Ramped that up to 41% during the. war. By 1948, they were down to 11.4%. So it's entirely possible, but you need. leadership. I need the president of the. United States. By the way, I've been in. the White House with him. I've shown him. my charts and graphs. He goes, "I love. this. I love this. The house ought to. love this. Have they has this been. presented?" So, no, Mr. President, let's.

go to the house. Let's present this. He. didn't do that. We need President Trump. to. embrace the reality that we are spending. way too much money. He was elected to. defeat the D State. You don't defeat it. spending it by levels. He needs to see. the detail. Again, I think, you know, to. be charitable, I think he's been so busy. doing so many other wonderful things. that I support. He hasn't focused on. this. I'm going to force him to focus on. this. This will be the moment you think. And so, when you speak with Besson, does.

he think he can get the president there. as well? I mean, I always think back to. Bill Clinton with his balanced budget. economic poster boards that he put up, right? the like here's the simple. charts, let me explain it to you and. every American could watch that on. television and understand what he was. talking about, nodded their head and. Congress and the entire populace went. along with it. Do we need that? Do we. get that moment, do you think? Yeah. And. again, I don't think the numbers are. that complicated. Yeah. Point them out. You know, $22 trillion of additional. deficit spending. That's a rosy.

scenario. That's $2.2 trillion per year. You know, Obama his a he averaged about. $900 billion a year deficit. Trump. before the pandemic is about 800. billion. You know, but Biden's up to. almost $ 1.9 trillion average deficit. Clearly unsustainable. We got to get. back to a reasonable level. And by the. way, if we do, I think the bonds would. bond markets would rejoice. We wouldn't. be looking at a ramping up of interest. costs. uh you know we can talk about you. know debt to wealth as opposed to debt.

debt to GDP because we've got that. monkey off our back. You said something. interesting. I just want to come back to. which is you said when the government. absorbs all the dollars in the system, there's fewer and fewer dollars left for. private industry. Just to build on this, one of the things that I brought up at. the beginning of this year, I said the. most important thing that you need is. tail. insurance. The tail risk needs to get. managed at the beginning of this year. And there's a very important market that. is a gauge of that towards private.

industry which is called credit default. which is what is the risk of private. industry not being able to pay back. their obligations. And unfortunately. through the course of this year we've. seen the cost of that insurance ramp. But at the beginning of liberation day, there was some relief there because. people saw a path out of this. And. unfortunately, we're back to almost near. highs. And it is the market signaling. that first we'll go private. industry and then the second will be the.

repricing of the risk for the US. government. And I think that if people. can really understand that that's the. cascade, to your point, that first card. has unfortunately been turned over. Now, we haven't seen the implications on Main. Street of that, but that's what we need. to avoid. We need to get these markets. to understand the bigger picture, but we. need to show them something. And we also. have to focus on economic growth through. the private sector, right? Not fueled by. government deficit spending. I mean, I. don't know what percent of our actual.

growth came from $2 trillion year. deficits. I think a pretty good chunk. So, have we really had real private. sector growth? think we have but not as. not as much as I think the headline. numbers because so much of it has been. fueled by by the government. By the way, that's also true in terms of revenue. coming from from the government. I mean, it is true that we beat the CBO. estimates, but that's because of. trillions of dollars of deficit spending. starting the pandemic years followed. through with with Biden. Prior to the. pandemic, we weren't we really weren't.

matching even the CBO's, you know, downgrade of revenue coming in after the. TCGA. we weren't hitting it. But then. you had COVID hit and again trillions of. dollars in deficit spending that also. boosted revenue. So again, all these. people saying, "Oh, we're going to, you. know, that that tax increase that's. going to be dynamically scored and it's. going to pay for. itself." Listen, I'm all for dynamic. scoring, but let's let's be realistic. And and again, I'll point out the CBO. projection I'm dealing with, $22. trillion, that assumes we go from 17.1.

to 18% of GDP in terms of revenue. So, you know, if if if if we don't. cancel the tax increase, uh, and there's. a dynamic scoring effect, it just means. we don't hit 18.1 and that number is. still lower. Talk to us about the setup. for 2026 and maybe if you want your. thoughts about where the country goes. into 2028. One of the things that Dave. talks about a lot is moments that. galvanize some form of populist. socialism. this idea, as he said very.

articulately, I can just vote myself the. money, so who's going to just give me. the most money? Can you just walk us. through some political forecasting for. us? That's why I'm not an optimist. Um, but you know, I've heard people. rationalize this, and I mean important. people rationalize, you know, just just. go along with this. Get us the P. I. mean, this is what we have to do to win. the majority, maintain the majority in. the House in 2027, right? What good is a majority if you literally. don't solve the problems that you're.

aware of? I mean, what good Oh, oh, oh. So, we when we have the majority in. 2027, then then we're going to actually. spend the, you know, turn the spending. curve down. That's when we're going to. return to prepandemic level spending. I. don't buy it. This is this is our one. opportunity and right now we're blowing. it and I'm going to do everything I can. to make sure we don't blow. it. But again, that is the reality. Listen, I'm not I don't discount the. fact that we may lose the House, we may. lose the Senate, but I would say we do. that because we're not solving these.

problems. We're going to be looked at as. unserious. You know, our base is going. to go, "What? Wh Why did we Why did we. elect you guys? You didn't take the bull. by the horns. You didn't solve this. problem. You're you're really no better. than Democrats." I think we have to be. concerned about that. If this. reconciliation bill gets done, Senator, in the next couple of weeks, what bill. would you hope to see next to get to. that north star of fiscal. responsibility? Is there a recision bill. that you'd be looking for? Do we need to.

actually have a sit down and talk about. building a budget? What's the right next. step here in creating a northstar that. creates stability for the republic? Again, it's developing a process that. will achieve and maintain a prepandemic. level spending, you know, just a lower. spending level. It's a it's it is I come. from manufacturing base, right? You you. can't have a good product without a good. process. And we've just never had that. process. So, the only one I can think of. is what doge has demonstrated does work. in terms of the public.

supporting us in terms of eliminating. just awful spending. So, you got to. expose it. You got to go line by line. Again, there there are thousands of. lines, just top lines in the federal. budget. Hundreds thousands of lines. under each one of those as well. So, you. have to do the work. And again, I would. love to take that Doge team, you know, those geniuses with all their AI and. their computer skills and get, you know, 100 200 forensic auditors and just go. through this line by line. And again, my.

proposal was uh having this budget. review panel, senators, house members, members of the administration, OM. Uh. then you you basically set up the. process just like you do in a business. You know, here's your budget review. sheet. This is then you bring the. department heads, their financial gurus. in front of this budget review panel. Just justify your spending. But again, I. would be comparing it to outlays under. Clinton plus up, outlays under Obama. plus up, outlays under Trump plus up. go. through every line and go, first of all,

why are you spending more than even. Trump? Why are you spending more than. Obama or Clinton? Plus, why are you. spending any money at all on this? But. you have to go through the work. You So, you need the time. I've been proposing. this now for months. Nobody's put in the. the effort. OM said, "We don't have. enough time." And I realized they're. they're busy. The House said, "No, you. know, we've been working on this for a. year. We're satisfied with our numbers. We didn't have the time." The Senate. really Senate leadership is the only one. that's been fully behind what I'm trying. to do here. But I can't we can't do it.

alone. I mean, I can't do it. I don't. have the budget expertise. So, it really. is it's getting the commitment of the. president that he he is determined to. not keep funding the deep state buying. levels, return to a reasonable. prepandemic level spending, and then get. his OM fully behind this effort. This. got to be every this got to be the. biggest effort on budget ever. and then. set the thing up, show it works, and. then hopefully maintain it over the. years. I I I can't think of anything.

We've tried all this other stuff and. never worked. Well, look, I hope you. find a path towards that goal, Senator. I think it's a critical time. And. speaking as an American, appreciate your. resiliency in the face of what I'm sure. is a lot of political pressure and. tension right now in trying to make sure. that the right thing is done here for. the long term of American prosperity. So, thank you for your service. Thank. you for the work you do. We appreciate. it. I appreciate you having me on. I I. will say one thing that is different.

about me than others. I'd rather go. home. That that's a significant. difference when when you'd rather I'd. rather return to my private sector life. than keep serving here in this total. dysfunction. Uh that that is that is. what again I can't be pressured by. President Trump. I I can't I mean, he's. not going to flip me just by the force. of his argument or any kind of political. pressure. There's there's just no. pressure he can apply to me. He's. willing to sit down with me, look at the. numbers, acknowledge them, working.

forward in a reasonable plan forward. Uh. that's that's the only way he's going to. get my support. Well, I hope that there. are others that get into the same. mindset as you. I've always found it. off-putting that folks choose to be. politicians as a career rather than. rotating in and out of doing this as a. service and then going back into the. private sector where I think that a lot. of the misalignments and conditioning. can be avoided. So yeah, appreciate that.

mindset and and thank you. Thank you. Senator for your cander. Thanks for. having me on transparency. Thank you. I mean my conclusion today is similar to. how I finished the pod yesterday which. is concern that the bond market is not. going to take this well. I do think that. that puts a lot of pressure on America. and I think it's going to put pressure. on private industry and what will happen. as a result is not necessarily that we. go bankrupt or whatever but there is no. clear dividing line between public and.

private industry and I don't think that. that's a great outcome. Not to mention. the value of everyone's assets. They go. to zero. They go to zero. Well, I mean. look like but but as this the senator. made the point a dollar in 2019 is worth. 80 cents today because of the inflation. we've experienced from the rampid. spending since co and if that continues. which is the steady state that we've now. assumed is we're now assuming to. continue emergency spending as if it's. the kind of standard then that same.

level of decline in value of a dollar or. decline in value of any American asset. will continue and it will only. accelerate. And I think the worry is. that in 10 years, you know, a dollar is. worth 30 cents. Yeah. And that makes it. harder for everyone to prosper in. America. The ability to buy a home, the. ability to have greater wealth, the. ability to improve your conditions and. your livelihoods are significantly. diminished. That's the biggest. consequence that we've seen many times. over the last couple of centuries as.

countries have gone through the same. cycle that the American uh republic now. finds itself in. This is kind of one of. those last stands of the Alamo, if you. will, because the arithmetic gets to the. point that it becomes unstoppable. This. train is gone. So anyway, I I thought it. was great to have some time with the. senator to talk about it today. Again, when when we have these conversations, Chimath, obviously, we're not fully. endorsing all the views and points of. view. It's good to hear from people. It's good to understand their point of. view. Let them speak and have the.

conversation. There are things that. we'll agree with, things that we don't. agree with. But I think on the the. fiscal condition of the United States, I've been pretty clear, pretty vocal on. my point of view on this. And on this. particular point, I think the senator is. a very important voice. I think it's. really it's really important for America. to let private citizens have agency and. do the things that they think they. should be doing. And I think that if you. move to a place where we become fiscally. crippled and reliant on the government, that's a horrible outcome. Yeah,

absolutely. Okay. Uh well, I'm glad we. did this. I know uh it was a push to get. it done on a. Saturday, but I thought it was uh really. worthwhile to give the senators a I. already I already made love to Nat twice. this morning, so I'm from All the boxes. have been checked. But what did you do. after those six minutes? Did you have. played with the kids? Played with the. kids for an hour. Yeah. So I've done. everything I need to walk the dogs. Good. Yeah. All right, bro. We'll talk. Love you. [Music].

I'm going all in.