Amanda Head: Lauren Boebert Election Update!
Pro-Trump superstar Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (CO-3rd) has faced a contentious post-Election Day battle as she fights for another term in Congress.
Watch Amanda explain the ongoing ballot fiasco below.
Biden’s ‘Nixonian’ IRS Sends Agent to Intimidate ‘Twitter Files’ Journalist
ANALYSIS – The Musk ‘Twitter Files’ exposé showing links between the federal government, prominent Democrat politicians and unconstitutional censorship at Twitter, has been mostly ignored or dismissed by the establishment media.
However, the Twitter censorship collusion saga is being pursued on Capitol Hill. And apparently, the issue is getting a bit hot for the increasingly Nixonian Team Biden.
So hot that Joe Biden’s IRS reportedly sent an IRS agent to harass and intimidate the long-time Rolling Stones reporter who has been doggedly pursuing this scandal since Elon Musk gave him access to a boatload of internal Twitter documents.
An IRS agent suspiciously visited Matt Taibbi’s home the same day he was testifying before congress’ Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, according to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan.
Why would Team Biden be worried?
Well, Taibbi found in the Twitter Files that Big Tech has turned “the internet into an instrument of censorship and social control. [And] Unfortunately, our own government appears to be playing a lead role.”
Plus, the timing of the IRS visit couldn’t be more sinister.
Michael Shellenberger tweeted:
While@mtaibbi & I were testifying before Congress on the weaponization of the federal government, an IRS agent showed up at his house. What an amazing coincidence
Musk replied to the tweet, saying simply: “That’s very odd.”
However, as the Blaze reported:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) reckoned it was more than odd, tweeting, “This absolutely stinks to high heaven. The IRS has a troubling history of targeting the political enemies of Democrats. The IRS should NEVER be in the business of harassing the American people.”
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, responded, “Gangster government.”
Jordan is demanding an explanation over the suspiciously timed IRS visit.
It appears Team Biden is weaponizing the IRS to intimidate a witness testifying about how Team Biden is weaponizing the government.
The Blaze continued:
Jordan noted that this interpretation may be apt in light of the “IRS’s history as a tool of government abuse” — citing its hounding of conservatives during the Obama administration” — and the “hostile reaction to Mr. Taibbi’s reporting among left-wing activists.”
A federal agent appeared at Taibbi’s New Jersey home on March 9 and left a note, according to an editorial in The Wall Street Journal.
The note reportedly instructed Taibbi to call the IRS four days later.
When Taibbi did call, an agent told him his 2018 and 2021 tax returns had both been rejected due to identity theft concerns. Yet, Taibbi sees no reason for that visit, nor the alleged rejection which wasn’t communicated before to him or his accountant.
And since when does the IRS send an agent to your house to leave a note over a simple tax return issue?
Jordan called this an apparent executive branch “attempt to intimidate a witness before Congress.” On Monday he sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel and the Department of Treasury on Monday demanding answers.
And he needs answers. As the Wall Street Journal noted:
Mr. Jordan is right to want to see documents and communications relating to the Taibbi visit. The fear of many Americans is that, flush with its new $80 billion in funding from Congress, the IRS will unleash its fearsome power against political opponents. Mr. Taibbi deserves to know why the agency decided to pursue him with a very strange house call.
This type of government harassment should worry all Americans, and its at the heart of why the GOP Congress has created the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.
We all need answers.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
FBI Continues Armed Raids Against Peaceful Americans
ANALYSIS – Following Joe Biden’s new rule restricting feds from investigating or arresting journalists and the ongoing outcry against FBI agents using ‘storm-trooper’ SWAT-style raids against peaceful American pro-life activists, the Bureau goes and does it again.
Most recently, Joerg Arnu, owner of www.Dreamlandresort.com, a popular Area 51 website issued a statement after heavily armed federal agents reportedly raided his homes at gunpoint several weeks ago.
Dreamlandresort.com was founded in 1999 and has long hosted information about the restricted military base widely known as Area 51, but also called Homey Airport or Groom Lake.
The extremely well-guarded Area 51 is classified as a ‘Military Operating Area’ by the Pentagon, but for most in the military, it’s simply known as the Nevada Test and Training Range, part of Edwards Air Force Base.
“The base itself is fairly small, but the restricted area around it is over 90,000 acres — partly to prevent prying eyes and partly because they need to test classified aircraft,” Benjamin Radford, a writer on the subject, told Space.com earlier.
The raid of Arnu’s Nevada home, conducted jointly between the FBI and U.S. Air Force, was first reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
In his statement on Nov. 3, Arnu said that an FBI search warrant was executed and his “laptops, phones, backup drives, camera gear and my drone were seized.”
Arnu told Business Insider (BI) that he had “not been charged with a crime,” adding that since the Nov. 3 search, he has “not heard from the FBI agent in charge at all, despite numerous attempts to reach him to discuss the damages and return of my items.”
In response to an inquiry from BI, Lt. Col. Bryon McGarry, with the U.S. Air Force stated minimally that: “Nellis Air Force Base is aware of the joint-AFOSI (Department of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations), FBI investigation involving Mr. Arnu.”
However, as non-informative as the Air Force was, the FBI declined to comment at all.
The Epoch Times reported further on the seemingly outrageous incident:
Elaborating to news outlets, Arnu said that some 15 to 20 federal agents arrived at his home in “full riot gear.” He said the search pertained to photos that were posted on his website.
“The doors were broken open and I in [sic] Rachel and my girlfriend in our Las Vegas home were detained and treated in the most disrespectful way,” he told Insider. “My girlfriend was led out into the street barefoot and only in her underwear in full view of our neighbors; I was led outside, handcuffed and only in t-shirt and sweats in sub-freezing temperatures.”
Arnu added: “I am not sharing anything on my web site that cannot be found on dozens of other web sites and news outlet publications. Considering how this went down I have no intention of removing any more material unless ordered to do so by a federal judge.”
In his interview with Insider and Fox News, Arnu said he will now pursue legal action against the federal government.
“The federal government has the right to harass and traumatize random citizens that are not accused of any crime,” Arnu told Fox on Saturday. “Kick in their doors, manhandle them and take whatever they want from them. Said citizens have no rights whatsoever to reimbursement of their damages, return of their property or compensation for the trauma they were subjected to.”
Arnu added to Fox that “this is America … land of the free.” But now, it’s “not so much from where I am standing right now. Everyone should know about this injustice. It could be your door that is kicked in next!”
The seizure of Arnu’s aerial video drone may hint at a potential motive for the raid, as there are signs all around the military installation warning that photography in the area is prohibited and that drones cannot be flown in its vicinity.
However, if that is the case, then the FBI and AF-OSI should tell Mr. Arnu this and make a public statement to that effect.
Either way, the storm-trooper-type armed raid used against a well-known, elderly amateur journalist is outrageous and just the latest example of the FBI’s increasingly heavy-handed tactics being employed against peaceful American citizens.
Add this to the long list of FBI abuses the new, GOP-led Congress must investigate in 2023.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Amanda Head: Dodgers Host Christian Faith Event!
We had to see this for ourselves! Los Angeles Dodgers hosted a Christian faith event at the ballpark…
See how the night went:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
How Far-Left Democrats Continue to Collude with Big Tech to Censor Conservatives
ANALYSIS – The Elon Musk ‘Twitter Files’ exposé, much-ignored and maligned by the establishment media, has shown a consistent effort by various U.S. government agencies, and several prominent Democrat lawmakers, to censor or cancel dissenting, mostly conservative views.
Under the guise of combating ‘misinformation,’ a wholly concocted concept to justify censorship, Big Tech slowly at first, but increasingly later, got cozily into bed with Uncle Sam… and Adam Schiff.
Fox News reports that journalist Matt Taibbi joined Joe Rogan’s podcast to break down how the federal government, including the office of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the hyper-partisan former chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, frequently contacted Twitter to have the content removed from the social media platform.
It is important to note that Taibbi is not a right-wing conspiracy theorist. On the contrary, he is a left-leaning former contributing editor for Rolling Stone, and the author of several books, including ‘Insane Clown President,’ an unflattering portrayal of Donald Trump.
According to Taibbi, the relationship between our security agencies like the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and tech companies like Twitter and Facebook was a “little bit less formal” than he originally thought.
Rather than playing an advisory role, the feds and Twitter created a “really intense structure” cultivated over several years.
This structure included regular meetings and a system where the DHS handled censorship requests from the states while the FBI fielded international requests.
Taibbi said he was “especially shocked” by an email from a Schiff staffer who called for the suspension of journalists on Twitter who tweeted critically on the House Intelligence Committee.
Rogan replied that it was “bizarre” for someone in the government to openly call for censorship in unsecured, unclassified emails that could be disseminated publicly.
Taibbi said it represents a Big Government and Big Tech mentality of being “impregnable” without fear of oversight.
It’s not surprising, he added, because, “They’re so comfortable with the idea that the government should be involved in this censorship…”
But that’s not all. Fox News reports:
In a January installment of “The Twitter Files”, Taibbi indicated Schiff’s staff asked Twitter “quite often” to take down certain tweets. A separate batch of Twitter Files that same month revealed similar requests by Schiff’s office.
An example he shared was one sent in November 2020 by Schiff’s office, which contacted Twitter hoping the tech giant would take action regarding “alleged harassment from QAnon conspiracists” against Schiff’s staff, including aide Sean Misko. The latest batch indicates Schiff’s office even fought to have unflattering pictures removed.
“This important use of taxpayer resources involved an ask about a ‘Peter Douche’ parody photo of Joe Biden. The DNC made the same request,” Taibbi wrote, proving visual evidence.
“To its credit, Twitter refused to remove it, with Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth saying it had obvious ‘humorous intent’ and ‘any reasonable observer’ – apparently, not a Schiff staffer – could see it was doctored,” he added.
Meanwhile, as the New York Post reports, things only appear to be getting worse, with left-leaning Big Tech billionaires like Bill Gates promoting even more frightening ideas to control conservatives.
In a recent chilling interview, Microsoft founder and billionaire Bill Gates called for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to combat not just “digital misinformation” but “political polarization,” as well.
Gates wants to fight this feared “political polarization” by checking “confirmation bias,” the tendency of people to search for information in a way that confirms their own embedded beliefs.
While this can be applied to anyone, left, right, or center, including COVID-19 fear mongers, climate change extremists, or Trump-Russia-collusion fanatics, it is now being used exclusively by our self-appointed tech overlords to dismiss all those who oppose and accepted, established liberal mantras.
And like all Leftist agendas, fear of the end fuels their need for control.
First, it was the fear of the end of the planet due to climate change, now it’s the fear of the end of democracy due to conservative ideas.
To these technocratic leftists, robust, free-wheeling debate in a democracy is now considered “political polarization,” and must be quashed to save us from death.
If we don’t use Gate’s enlightened, benevolent AI to supply the solutions, Gates suggested, we could all die: “Political polarization may bring it all to an end, we’re going to have a hung election and a civil war.”
And many leading left-wing Democrats, including Joe Biden, agree.
As the New York Post explains, the Orwellian Leftist censorship landscape may only get worse, even as they use a book by Aldous Huxley for their metaphor:
Others have suggested a Brave New World where citizens will be carefully guided in what they read and see. Democratic leaders have called for a type of “enlightened algorithm” to frame what citizens access on the internet. In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) objected that people were not listening to the informed views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.”
Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices: “This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.” In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.
Social media responded to such calls and engaged in widespread censorship of those who held opposing views of mask mandates, vaccine safety, school mandates, and the origin of COVID-19. Many of those criticisms and views are now acknowledged as plausible and legitimate, but scientists were banned and censored. There was no “polarization” allowed. The public never was allowed to have that full debate on social media because such views were declared disinformation.
President Biden joined in these calls for censorship, often sounding like a censor-in-chief, denouncing social media companies for “killing people” by not blocking enough. Recently, he expressed doubt that the public can “know the truth” without such censorship by “editors” in Big Tech.
Well, in this case the fear is justified.
But it’s not fear that far-left Democrats and Big Tech billionaires espouse; it’s the fear of losing our constitutional right to free speech, and the platforms to express them.
Not to mention your right to order any book you want from Amazon.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Amanda Head: NPR Now Labeled “State-Affiliated” Propaganda On Twitter!
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Final Bit of Democrat Insanity at End of 2022
ANALYSIS – As we end yet another crazy year, we have a new report on how Democrats continue to be the crazy party.
Despite substantial scientific evidence to the contrary, a majority of Democrats still favor masking toddlers to battle the spread of COVID.
A recent I&I/TIPP Poll showed this mass insanity when 56% of Democrats said they believed masking children under the age of 5 is still a good idea.
In contrast, only 24% of Republicans and 31% of independents believed that masking toddlers is a good idea.
When asked if masking toddlers was a bad idea, as much of the scientific evidence now shows, 58% of Republicans and 38% of independents said they think it is a bad idea.
And only 24% of Democrats thought the same way.
But the divide goes deeper, with ideology, race, and ethnicity playing big roles as well.
The Blaze reported:
When respondents were grouped by ideology rather than party, there was a similar divide: 56% of conservatives thought it was a bad idea; 31% of alleged conservatives supported the initiative. Liberals again majoritively (54%) supported covering children’s faces.
Ideology and party were not the only differentiators.
Only 33% of white Americans said it was a good idea, whereas 48% of black and Hispanic respondents supported masking kids. On the other hand, 44% of white respondents and 28% of black and Hispanic respondents were opposed.
When it came to opposing the idea, 39% of women were opposed — two points higher than their male counterparts.
The Blaze continued:
I&I intimated that what might partially account for the significant ideological split between the right and the left on the matter of masking kids is media and activist suppression of legitimate medical studies putting the efficacy of masking children in doubt.
Numerous studies questioned the effectiveness of masking in protecting from serious COVID effects.
As The Blaze explains, these studies highlight the adverse impact masks have on toddlers’ communication skills and the relative unlikelihood of children becoming severely sick from COVID.
The Blaze also notes that neither the World Health Organization (WHO) nor the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control recommends masking little kids.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Poll Shows Americans Evenly Split On Sending Trump To Prison. Do You Agree?
A new Associated Press poll finds Americans are almost evenly split on whether former President Donald Trump should be sentenced to prison after being found guilty of falsifying business records in New York.
“The public is divided over whether Donald Trump should be sentenced to prison for his felony conviction for falsifying business records in the hush money case,” the AP reports. “Opinions on the conviction itself have remained stable in the weeks since the decision was announced on May 30 with nearly half approving of the jury’s decision and about a quarter disapproving. The public is also divided on whether Trump has received fair treatment from the legal system.”
Trump, convicted in June, is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 18, just weeks ahead of the November election. Experts predict Trump will likely receive probation and a fine, but a prison sentence is a distinct possibility.
The AP/NORC poll, conducted June 20-24, finds 48 percent believe Trump should receive a prison sentence, while 50 percent disagree. That gap is within the poll’s margin of error, meaning Americans are essentially evenly split.
Among independent voters, who will decide the election, 50 percent believe Trump should be imprisoned while 46 percent disagree.
While Americans are split on whether Trump should go to prison, the number who support Trump’s conviction outnumber those who oppose it by nearly a two-to-one margin.
The poll finds 46 percent of Americans support the jury’s decision to convict Trump, while 27 percent disapprove and 25 percent are unsure.
Among independents, 32 percent agree with the conviction, 21 percent disagree and 47 percent are unsure.
The nationwide poll was conducted June 20-24, 2024 using the AmeriSpeak® Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago.
The poll, using online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell phones, was conducted with 1,088 adults. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.0 percentage points.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates
In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.
The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.
Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.
Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.
To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”
In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.
And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.
To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.
This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.
There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”
Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.
What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.
Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.
None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.
The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.
What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.
This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
.
House Conservative Explains Why Big Beautiful Bill Was Big Ugly Spending Spree
A leading House conservative and member of the Budget Committee used his time in a committee hearing on the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” spending package to explain that the bill does little to reform spending and the supposed spending cuts are pushed to future years, giving future congresses and the next president time to repeal them.
Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy explained that while the bill does deliver tax relief it dramatically increases budget deficits by putting off spending reform:
“I appreciate my friend from Texas, the chairman, and you know, my Democratic colleagues keep telling things that are not true. The vast majority of Americans will get tax benefits under this bill. It’s just simply false to say that that’s not true. Hardworking Americans who will benefit from the standard deduction increase, hardworking Americans who will benefit from child tax credits and lower tax rates—stop saying things that aren’t true. Those things are true. The fact is, we have money in here for the border to undo the damage of Joe Biden. We have more money in here for defense to undo the damage of Joe Biden, but we also address Medicaid and Medicaid spending goes up. Stop lying. Medicaid spending goes up. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are profoundly unserious when it comes to being real about what’s happening with the numbers. I applaud Chairman Arrington. I applaud my colleagues on this side of the aisle for taking a step forward in dealing with the spending problem in this town.
But I have to now admonish my colleagues on this side of the aisle: this bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits. The fact of the matter is, on the spending, what we’re dealing with here is tax cuts and spending a massive front-loaded deficit increase. That’s the truth. That’s the truth. Deficits will go up in the first half of the 10-year budget window. And we all know it’s true, and we shouldn’t do that. We shouldn’t say that we’re doing something we’re not doing.
The fact of the matter is, this bill has back-loaded savings and front-loaded spending, nowhere near the Senate Budget top line, by the way. The Senate Budget top line of six and a half trillion dollars, which, by the way, is what we were pre-COVID, inflation-adjusted, on interest, on Medicare and Social Security. And if we would reform Medicaid, we could actually get to the core of the problem, but we refuse to do it. And I’m not going to sit here and say that everything is hunky-dory when this is the Budget Committee. This is the Budget Committee. We are supposed to do something to actually result in balanced budgets, but we’re not doing it. Look at what happens under deficits… Only in Washington are we expected to bet on the come that in five years, everything will work, then we will solve the problem.
We have got to change the direction of this town, and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: yes, that means touching Medicaid. It went from $400 billion in 2019 to $600 billion this year. It’ll be over a trillion in the 2030s. We are making promises that we cannot keep. We do need to reform it. We need to stop giving seven times as much money to the able-bodied over the vulnerable. Why are we sticking it to the vulnerable population, the disabled and the sick, to give money to single able-bodied male adults? We shouldn’t do that. We should reform it. But guess what? That message needs to be delivered to my colleagues on this side of the aisle too.
We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are going to pay the price. So I am a no on this bill unless serious reforms are made today, tomorrow, Sunday. We’re having conversations as we speak, but something needs to change, or you’re not going to get my support.”