October 1, 2025 • 39 mins
Due to the U.S. Senate’s failure to pass a short-term funding bill, the federal government shut down starting just after midnight Wednesday. How might the shutdown impact everyday people, not just federal workers? What does this mean for travel/flights, social security payments, national park visits, or USPS mail delivery? Are you at all worried about delays or disruptions to your everyday life? Kurt Couchman, from the group Americans for Prosperiy joined Dan to discuss.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
He's Night Side with Dan Ray WBS Costin's new Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Well, I think that by now virtually everybody understands that
the federal government is in what's called shutdown. Now we're
going to spend a little bit of time here talking
with a gentleman who knows a lot about the economy.
He he's someone who studied it for a long time
(00:28):
and certainly understands the concept of shutdown. I think the
word is somewhat misleading. Joining us is Kurt Kauschman from
a group called Americans for Prosperity. Kurt, Welcome to Night Side.
How are you tonight, sir?
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Hey Dan, I'm doing well. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Well, yeah, I mean there's I think that shutdowns are
serious when the federal government shuts down, but I think
people need to understand it's you don't need to be
running out of the streets. Will eventually be okay, and
I think the goverm and we'll get back into business.
The question is how quickly give us a sense of historically,
(01:09):
this is not the first time the government has been
shut down and the reason for it, and you know
this better than I do. But the government runs on
a fiscal year that starts on October first, that ends
on September thirtieth. They changed that a few years ago,
so the crisis point always comes in late September, when
the Democrats and the Republicans respond and cont agree on
(01:33):
a budget going forward. Normally they have what's called a
continuing resolution. So let's I'm going to have you break
it down because you'll be able to explain it to
my audience better than I can. We've had a bunch
of shutdowns and they always come at this time of year.
It's almost like when October comes, we know the leaves
will fall and the World Series will start, and it's
(01:55):
a possibility the government will shut down. Is it just
a function of the the calendar, the federal budget, you know,
being renewed every in theory, every October first.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Yeah, there's a lot of different pieces here. First of all, yeah,
I do want to assure your listeners that this is
the lesser of the two brinksmanship budget issues. The other
one is the debt limit, and if the debt limit
weren't raised, then the federal government could actually default and
that could lead to a real cascade of problems.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
We'll talk about that and maybe as the hour goes
on here. But what you're talking about that is that
that sometimes where we have what's it, thirty seven trillion
dollars in national debt accumulative budget deficits that we have run,
and I believe that our GDP is only about twenty
eight trillion dollars.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
So yeah, I just want to reassure everyone that we're
talking about the lesser of the dangerous budget brinksmanship things. So, yeah,
shutdowns actually used to be a thing that happened in
the federal government, and then the Carter administration changed the game.
The Attorney General reinterpreted a law from eighteen eighty four,
(03:10):
you know, almost ninety years later, and yeah, actually, yeah,
ninety six years later. And since then we've had shutdowns.
We've had ten that have resulted in the furloughs of
federal employees. Well, I guess eleven, kind of the one
that started today, and so we're on eleventh shutdown. There
have been a couple of notably long ones. There was
(03:32):
a twenty one day shut down that affected some federal
employees during the Gingrich Clinton battles in the nineties. There
was the sixteen days shut down when Ted Cruz tried
to defund Obamacare in twenty thirteen, I was a congressional staffer.
Then I got furloughed, and then there was the thirty
five day shut down, the longest one ever in twenty
eighteen into twenty nineteen when President Trump wanted more money
(03:56):
for border wall construction and they couldn't get it through Congress.
So there is a shutdown. So this one, who knows
how long it'll lasts. About seventy two percent. Federal workers
are expected to continue working now. They can't get paid
until the new funding legislation is enacted, and a lot
of grants and reimbursements and payments to states, local governments
(04:21):
providers of various services, those can't happen until the funding
legislation is agreed to as well. So there are a
lot of things that are kind of frozen right now.
But there are also a lot of people that are
still working, especially for defense, homeland security and other things
protecting health and law enforcement, other things that this administration
(04:42):
is prioritized as well.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
And the other thing which a lot of people get afraid,
Social Security checks, at least in the short term, will continue.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
The government will still be withholding money. If you get
a paycheck. You know, that's so so that the money
money still goes into the government. Uh, it's not as
if your next paycheck will will not have taxes withheld.
Medicare services will continue. The Democrats are saying that a
(05:18):
lot of this, uh, what they're upset about is draconian
cutbacks in Medicaid and and insurance plans. Can you simplify
that and and give us a fairly objective characterization of
what they're what their objection is, and then what what
(05:39):
the Republicans are claiming the Democrats want to do. I mean,
there's a lot of cross talk here obviously between these
two growth to these two groups, How would you frame
the issue in ways in which my audience can understand?
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Sure, So, Republicans in the House pass a fairly clean
continuing resolution. There's always like little bit of things that
need to be adjusted, and so they did that. It
came over to the Senate and almost all Republicans voted
for it, almost all Democrats voted against it. And Democrats
had their own alternative that is a shorter continuing resolution
(06:14):
into October and which would also repeal a number of
the provisions, the cost saving provisions, from the Reconciliation bill
that was enacted July fourth, And they also are proposing
that the expansion under President Biden's term of the Obamacare
(06:37):
tax credits would continue on permanently. And so there were
tax credits for people that bought insurance on the health
insurance on the exchanges, and then during the pandemic, Democrats
without any Republican votes, massively increased that and then extended
that through two separate bills that had only Democratic votes,
(06:58):
and so they want that to be permanent. It seems
like that's really what they're going after, and they expect
that the proposals to repeal things from you know, President
Trump's major policy priority from a few months ago, they
don't actually expect to get that. And the issue is
that the premiums that individuals who acquire health insurance on
(07:23):
the exchanges would go up pretty decently. It's I mean,
there's some exaggerations going on, but it's kind of like
the student loans, like where people didn't pay student loans
for a number of years and then they went back
to paying student loans, and so you could say, oh,
it's like an infinite increase in your student loan payments.
But it's really a return to normalcy. And even after
these payments, these expanded COVID credit payments would expire, taxpayers
(07:48):
would still be picking up about eighty percent of the
of the subsidy for these plans, and the beneficiaries will
only be paying twenty percent. But it's again, it's a
return to normalcy from a low base. So it seems dramatic,
but that's the situation.
Speaker 4 (08:04):
Now.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
There's one issue that's going back and forth where the
Republicans are claiming that the Democrats want Medicaid made a
value made available to people who are here illegally, and
that's what the Republicans are are saying. The Democrats are saying, no,
(08:28):
we're not in favor of that. So I don't understand
that conflict because they either are or they aren't. Who's
who's being more forthcoming on that issue? I'm sure there's
a couple of interpretations, But in your opinion, which which
is more which group is more forthcoming on that issue?
Is that just a bomb of you know, hand grenade
the Republicans are throwing over that has no basis, or
(08:51):
are the Democrats not telling the truth and there's some
form of assistance for illegals that they want, but it
isn't precisely this Where does the truth lie on that
exchange of charges.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Yeah, my understanding is that there is a provision of
federal law that says that no taxpayer benefits can go
to no federal taxpayer benefits can go to those who
are illegally present in this country. But what happens in
the Medicaid program again is my understanding is that states
are able to they call them the Medicaid money laundering scheme,
(09:30):
where they tax their medical providers in order to boost
the federal match, and then they rebate that to the hospitals.
But then there's another way that they're able to to
pretend that they're using state only money, and so it
is sort of cross upsidized. But my understanding is that
does provide medical insurance benefits for illegal aliens. So let
(09:53):
me see between.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
But let me try to simplify it a little bit.
I'll ask you this question. My understanding is that anyone
in America who shows up an emergency room at any
hospital America must be treated irrespective of their ability to pay.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Correct, if you're there's not exactly under the emergency medical
treatment an Active Labor Act. Yeah, if you have an
acute injury or you're actively in labor, then you have
to be treated no matter who you are. But that
doesn't necessarily apply to all conditions.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
So you mean, if somebody shows up and let's say
they I don't know, they have a bad chess cold,
and they and and they're they're they're they're concerned that
they might have pneumonia, they have to have a level
of seriousness associated with that condition to be treated. They
they they could be turned away if it doesn't rise
(10:45):
to some level of acuity.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
I don't know the details on that, but that's kind
of generally my understanding.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Okay, my guest is Kurt Couchman. We're going to talk
a little bit more and we're going to entertain your
calls and questions. If you feel that you know all
the answers to what is going on in Washington, you're
lots more than I am. I don't know if you're
smarter than Kurt, But if you'd like to talk about
(11:14):
this stalemate between the two political parties, Democrats and Republicans,
it's always like that and it has resulted in a
government shutdown. I noticed on the local news today that
people who are here in Boston and had come from
far distances to visit the USS Constitution of parks. Parks
have been shut down, federal parks across the country. That
(11:37):
has always been one of the first things that appears.
But mail will still be delivered. So a lot of
your life is going to be very normal. But if
you have any question six one, seven, two, five, four
to ten thirty or six one, seven, nine ten thirty.
That's why I have someone who knows a lot more
about this than I do, Kurt Kauschman, for he is
(11:59):
a senior fellow in fiscal policy for Americans for Prosperity,
and he's given me all the straight answers that I
have hoped for. And I do really appreciate that. We'll
be back on Nightside more with calls and questions and comments,
and Kirk Couchman and you on Nightside right after this.
As I often say, we have great guests, we have
(12:19):
great topics. All we need is great callers or callers
add water and stir.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
It's nice Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
With me is Kirk Couchman. He is a fiscal analyst
for Americans for Prosperity. He's also written a book occurred.
I want to mention the book. If people are interested
in what you have to say, they can, I assume
order the book. It's relatively recently out, if I'm not mistaken, correct.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Yeah, that's right. It just came out in late July
for the e book and a couple of weeks after
that for the physical book. It's called Fiscal Democracy in America,
How a balanced budget amendment can restore sound governance?
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Fiscal Democracy in America, How a balanced budget amendment can
restore sound What was the.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Last part of that, found governance?
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Sound governance? Okay, we will talk about that. The New
York Times has an interesting piece here in terms of furloughs.
For example, the department that has been hit with the
most high percentage of furloughs is the EPA, the Environmental
Protection Agency. The Times reporting nearly ninety percent of their
(13:40):
employees for thirteen thousand, of four hundred and thirty two
out of about fifteen eighty nine percent have been laid
off have been furloughed. Education Department eighty seven percent, Commerce
eighty one percent, Labor seventy six Housing and Urban Development,
seventy one percent. When you get down amongst the major departments,
(14:04):
Office of Personnel Management is ten percent, Homeland Security five percent,
hardly a ripple venters affairs pretty much intact, ninety seven
percent of the employees are still going to be working,
three percent infur a load, and the Treasury Department, which
goes includes the IRS, only two percent have been furloughed.
(14:25):
So it's interesting the emphasis the departments that have the
higher share of furloughed employees. In theory, when the government
reconstitutes itself and it gets back on track, those furloled
employees will receive back pay at least that's been the
tradition in the past. Correct.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Yeah, And actually the first law that was passed in
twenty nineteen, I think it was called the Government Employee
Fair Treatment Act or something like that. It guarantees back
pay for any furloughed federal employee. Does not apply to contractors, however,
and you know, it kind of reflects the fact that
(15:07):
all the percentages you're just talking about with the agencies,
that the practice of shutdowns gives enormous discretion to the
executive branch to determine what is essential, what is non essential.
That was the Carter administration's power grab, and some members
of Congress have been trying to reverse that. But I mean,
(15:27):
all of the laws that Congress has passed set up
all the different activities, including those that the administration is
now deeming non essential. So it's a little bit of
a weird thing to have that distinction against employees that
are all you know, authorized and you know, funded at
least up until the end of the fiscal year by Congress.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Is that what President Trump is referring to. He's saying
that if he said yesterday that if a shutdown occurred,
it would give him great flexibility in permanently dismissing employees,
and that they would be little recourse for those employees.
They would have little recourse that he basically could make,
(16:13):
you know, individual cuts or big cuts in certain departments,
and can do it now on his own without the consent, advice,
or cooperation of Congress.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Yeah, that's a parallel thing. They're talking about what's called
reductions in force, which means we don't need as many employees,
and so there is a different process for that. There's
a certain amount of notice you have to give people,
and you know, there's also a contention, and we don't
have good data to back it up, but there's a
contention that there's an awful lot of appropriations that this
(16:50):
administration has not spent that it was supposed to have
by the end of the fiscal year. And I'm not
sure exactly when we're going to get the data on that.
It might not be until the next president's budget request,
which is due in February but is often late, so
I guess we'll have to see how that plays out
as well.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Yeah, this is the SoundBite that he said this in
the Oval office. A reporter had asked him about it
seemed to be a friendly question, and he then really
didn't answer the question. But the reporter was asking about
the unfavorability rating of the Democrats, and as the President
is his wont he went off and start talking about
(17:30):
these cuts, which would be theoretically potentially irreversible cut number one.
Speaker 5 (17:34):
Please Rob stay up the Democrat Party when they have
a thirty three percent favorability rating on average in recent
months and they're willing to shut down the government over
our healthcare shutting it down.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
We're not shutting it down.
Speaker 6 (17:46):
We don't want it to shut down because we have
the greatest period of time ever. I tell you, we
have seventeen trillion dollars being invested. So the last person
that once they shut down is us. Now, with that
being said, we can do things during the shutdown that
are irreversible, that are bad for them and irreversible by them,
like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that
(18:07):
they like, cutting programs that they like.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
It sounds to me like that there could be a
lot of jobs permanently eliminated. Am I hearing that correctly?
Or am I hearing it incorrectly? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:25):
I mean he was pretty vague in that statement. There's
a limit to the things that can be done, but
there are also things that are going on right now.
I mean, the director of the White House Budget Office,
Russ Vote, was posting on X today about the green
energy projects that are being paused and the New York
(18:45):
City transportation funds that are being frozen. So yeah, there's
a lot that they can do. And part of this
is the negotiation in the posturing game, but some of
it is for real, and it's were a day into this.
We don't know how it's all going to shake out.
At some point, the judges may get involved and who
knows where they'll rule on different things. So you know,
(19:08):
we're going to learn a lot through this process. They're
going to push some boundaries and then we'll understand more
on the other side.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Absolutely make My guest is that Kurt Couchman. We're going
to take a quick break for news. I got some
callers coming in. If you'd like to join the conversation.
Dial now six one seven, two four ten thirty six
one seven nine one ten thirty. As I often have said,
I am now saying we got great guests, we have
great topics. Add callers and stir. We'll be back on
(19:36):
night Side right after this.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
My guest is Kurt Couchman. He is a fiscal analyst
with Fiscal Democracy in America Americans for Prosperity. He wrote
a book, Fiscal Democracy in America. How he balanced budget
Amendment can restore sound governess. Let's get some phone calls
for you, Kurt. Let's start it off with Matt in Franklin, Massachusetts. Matt,
(20:09):
you were first this hour with Kirk Couchman. Right ahead.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
Yeah, So what I'm having a tough time figuring out
with this whole shutdown is the Republicans want a seven
week extension on the budget they've been running for the
past two years that they themselves approved and until recently
had no issue with it until they started nitpicking the
actual funds in the budget. And it's still operating at
(20:36):
a two trillion dollar deficit. But they're like picking and
choosing what the cuts are more on like ideological reasons
more than anything, and the economy is just shedding jobs
all over the place, and then they're talking about laying
off like a million employees and it just like really
turned into the point where how do they expect to
get re elected? It's like there's a whole argument and
(20:58):
to be like, oh, I put your entire civilian support
staff at the base out of work, but I got
that transgender off the high school track team. That's like, well,
that's that's great, that's wonderful. Let me re elect y'all.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Okay, that's fairly cynical view, which is which is fine.
I will tell you that the continuing resolution, which I'm
not sure if it's seven weeks or not, the idea
is that gives them more time to negotiate. Uh, and
it's what called I guess it's called the clean resolution,
meaning they would just extend the budget as has been existed,
(21:33):
has has existed for last year. But let's get let's
get kurt. I think I think you raised some interesting points, Matt. Obviously,
there are cultural issues that the Republicans are fighting the
Democrats on, uh, and then there's some fiscal issues. So
kurt Is, does Matt have a legitimate point here in
your opinion that the Republicans are are fighting one battle
(21:56):
over here and they may lose that and the only
thing they'll come back with is something of a cultural
issue basis.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
Yeah, Matt, thanks for the comment and the question.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
And you know, the.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
The levels of spending that they're continuing with the continuing Resolution,
it's just for seven weeks until November twenty first, and
that actually came out of a twenty twenty four bipartisan
on the Most Appropriations Act. So that's that's when those
levels were set, and that was you might remember what
caused Speaker Kevin McCarthy to face the revolt from some
(22:34):
of the folks and his party that led to mister
Johnson becoming speakers. So there are people that are saying
these are, you know, Biden levels, and that's true in
a nominal, nominal sense, but of course, the economy has
grown over that period of time, and there's a lot
of different things going on, a lot of different issues,
and it does seem like Republicans are banking a lot
(22:56):
for their electoral prospects on avoiding a mass of tax
increase on the American people and streamlining some of the waste,
fraud and abuse and getting that out of the system
in healthcare and some other things that were part of
the reconciliation legislation, along with eliminating a number of tax
preferences for the green energy. So there's still a lot
(23:18):
more to come. There's the regulations the administration is pursuing,
there's other legislative items that they're working on. The goal
after they get through the continuing Resolution is to have
full funding for the federal government for all of fiscal
year twenty twenty six, which began today. And you know,
we just have to see how those things play out.
(23:42):
Do you think they'll probably come to a resolution when
the military misses their checked on the fifteenth, and they'll
probably start trying to wrap it up around the sixteenth
or seventeenth, and hopefully come to a one year continuing
resolution at seven weeks, at two weeks and fight about
it again because I feel like the whole seven week thing.
We get the seven weeks, I'm going to be seven
(24:03):
more weeks and then everything else. So we're gonna keep going.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
Well, that's not the way it's worked in the past, Matt,
to be honest with you, and Kirk can aggress that.
I think the idea is we're gonna go past this
deadline where we have irreconcilable differences. Let's give it seven weeks.
I don't think they're going to extend it for a year.
I don't think that's realistic, but I think a shorter
(24:26):
period of time might force them to, you know, look
down the barrel of a theoretical gun and say, we
really don't want to play political suicide here. Kurt, you
know this better than I do. If you could address
Matt's comment.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Sure, yeah, I mean the House has already passed something,
it's in the Senate's court. I would expect that probably
in the next week or so, plus or minus a
couple of days, the Senate will pass that as well,
and then in November they might do another short term
cr but probably before Christmas they will try to do
and probably will do a full year funding bill. But
(24:59):
here's the thing that's really important to understand and why
we keep having shutdowns, is that Congress doesn't actually do
a budget. Congress does appropriations, and that's important. It's fund
federal agencies, but it's only about a quarter of the spending,
and it's none of the revenues but none of the
tax preferences. And it really only involves one committee in
the House and one committee in the Senate, the appropriations committees.
(25:21):
So there's a fundamental defect in the way that Congress
does budgeting. And in fact, in New England they do
it a lot better. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, each state
has a single budget bill each year. Rhode Island doesn't
even have the possibility of shutdowns. That's great. They've been
doing that for generations. It works really well. Connecticut has
(25:43):
a spending growth limit that ends up balancing the budget
over the medium term. That's a really smart thing to do.
Switzerland and some other places that work really well have
that as well. So there are lessons about the ways
the states and other countries are doing things that Congress
could adopt that would make them be able to budget
far better than they do today. And that's one of
(26:05):
the things that we're working with legislators on. So this
is a mess. It shouldn't be like this, and there
are better ways, and we're trying to make them possible
as well.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
By the way, Matt, earlier this week, I saw an
article that Kurt wrote about is entitled modernizing federal budgets
starts with preventing shutdowns. Here in Massachusetts, we require a
balanced budget. We can't run a deficit in Massachusetts. Either
programs need to be cut or taxes need to be raised.
(26:35):
We can have a rainy day fund and put some
money aside, but we cannot have a deficit in Massachusetts.
The federal deficit is now thirty seven trillion dollars, and
Republicans and Democrats have both contributed to that with you
know when they either r in the legislature or the
White House. It's a huge mess. How concerned. I just
(26:56):
want to get a quick comment from from Kurt and
also from Matt. How concerned are you? Kurt? I'll go
to you first, and then I want to hear from
Matt about a thirty seven trillion dollar debt for a
for a country who runs a GDP of about twenty
seven and twenty eight trillion dollars, our debt is more
than all the money that we spend in our economy
(27:20):
during an entire year. How concerned are you with that, Kurt?
And what are the implications? And then I want to
hear from Matt too.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
Yeah, it's quite concerning. We have a federal debt held
by the public to GDP ratio that's about one hundred percent.
Total debt is about one hundred and twenty percent of
GDP and we can't keep going like this. It is
by definition unsustainable and if we don't get a hold
of it in time, then we could have a debt crisis.
It wouldn't just be economically devastating, but also socially and
(27:52):
for our security purposes as well. Ray Dalio, the famous investor,
has a new book out about Dooundations Go Broke? And
he thinks we have about three years to get serious
about turning this around. So very serious, and that's really
what the book is about about, not only the balanced
budget amendment that could get two thirds in both houses
(28:13):
of Congress, but the implementing legislation as well, and the
fundamental fixes to the budget process, no shutdowns, a comprehensive
budget with everything, and I think it's all the committees
involved and starting on time as well. That's another piece
of the puzzle. So we do still have time to
get this turned around. The legislation has been built, we
(28:36):
just need to build the coalitions around it and get
it to happen.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Matt, you sound like a young guy. I'm not a
young guy. My generation, the baby boomer, is real leaving
a tremendous federal debt to younger generations. How old are you, Matt?
Speaker 3 (28:53):
If I could ask, mid thirties.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Mid thirties, okay, well you probably may. How concerned are
you about the federal dead of thirty seven trillion dollars?
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Well, I just look at it that all the stuff
they just recently did was like we'll address it in
four years, and then it's like the next administration could
deal with it, and just the next administration will come
in and be like, oh, the next administration will deal
with it. So it just seems to keep it up
with these cost savings, and they revise it later and
(29:25):
change it. So it just uh, That's why I have
like no faith in the whole seven weeks thing, because
I think.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
That's a pretty good, pretty good analysis, a shorthand analysis.
But yeah, it gets kicked if they call it kicking
the can down the road. At some point, the kids
is going to blow up when you kick it, I guess.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
And it's like, okay, like we cut back in the
taxes to help like shut the boom. But that's like
all right, I like everything's maxed out, so I'm gonna
start working part time. That it's about the size of it.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
I mean, they're not really serious about it, just like
a political infighting and the either side really once I address.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
The issue, well, maybe there's a whole other other ancillary
issues that we could talk about some night. Maybe we
got to get term limits down there so that we
we'd turn over and get new people in and new
blood and younger people in. Uh, and maybe they'll take
this situation more seriously. Matt, great call. I don't know
if you called before, but thank you very much for
(30:24):
taking the time tonight, and I hope you continue to
listen and call. Thank you very much. There it goes okay,
I'd like to say goodbye to folks. We'll be back
my guess, Kurt Kouchman. I do want to talk about
the idea of a balanced budget amendment and how difficult
that would be to get it through Congress. But I
(30:44):
got other callers waiting, if you'd like to join six
one seven, four ten thirty six one seven nine three
one ten thirty. I was bragging to Kurt today how
we have listeners all up and down the East coast
of America. So if you're anywhere outside of New England,
I'll give you some priority if you want to call
in and weigh in on this. Feel free coming back
on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
But guess is Kirk Kaufman. He's a senior fellow on
fiscal policy matters at the Americans for Prosperity. His book
Fiscal Democracy in America, How a balanced budget Amendment can
resource sound to governance. We'll talk about that, but I
don't want to leave my next caller waiting. He's been
holding for a bit. Chuck in Dorchester, Chuck, you were
on with Kirk Kauschman.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
Goright ahead, Chucky, I just have a couple of questions
may not pertain to the book. But the government just
shut down, and are there any things put in place
that there's a wage freeze for our Congress, because basically
(31:52):
they seem to be the big problem. They're out there
fighting everything, claiming to be for the people, but they
never seen the w when the government shuts down. You know,
the people that are keeping the government running are losing
money except for them. Is there any the vision and
the laws or anything like that where they don't vote
their raises in because their raisers are a big part
(32:13):
of this debt.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
Well, and yeah, Chuck, their raises are when you talk
about thirty seven trillion dollars, the raises are significant, no doubt.
They can't even get a law passed in Congress to
limit in effect inside or trading by members of Congress.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
But that oh yes, yes, yeah, Hey, that's a steward.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
For another day. Let's get cut in here real quickly, could.
I think Chuck makes a pretty good point. What's your
thought on his point?
Speaker 3 (32:41):
Yeah, the Constitution in the twenty seventh Amendment doesn't allow
their compensation to be altered without an intervening election. There
was actually part of the Bill of Rights Package, but
it didn't get ratified until nineteen ninety one or something
like that, And so member of Congress is considered to
be mandatory spending, and so it's not affected by this
(33:04):
lapse and appropriations. I certainly agree that there are problems
with Congress. They're not doing the job that we need
them to do. But yeah, this is not something that
under the Constitution can be messed with.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
I could read you real quickly here, Chuck Court enterving
to interrupt you. But the twenty seventh Amendment was passed.
You're pretty good in nineteen ninety two. No law varying
the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives shall
take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened.
(33:39):
So but you pass a law or and inside of
stock trading, go ahead?
Speaker 4 (33:47):
Oh yeah, guess. But just like the city council up here,
they vote for raises and they give these people lots
of money for doing nothing.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
But the other thing I want to do.
Speaker 4 (33:56):
The other thing I wanted to touch on is you said,
basically the seven week extension. If I do my math correctly,
the seventh week extension basically would expire after the midterm elections.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
Correct, there are no midterm elections this year.
Speaker 3 (34:14):
There are a couple of off your elections like in Virginia.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Nonatorial elections, but congressional elections next year through Yeah, it
would It wouldn't have an impact on on the on
the congressional elections. But uh, it's it certainly is not
a bad thought, Chuck, that's for sure. Okay.
Speaker 4 (34:35):
And the other thing to kick the can thing. Okay,
so this is basically kicking the can started when Trump
was in office. People understand how politics work. The plans
that the current president puts into play doesn't come into
play four to five years after that president is gone.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
That's not true. That's not true, Chuck.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
Of the things something longer than others.
Speaker 4 (35:02):
Yeah, the most of the financial stuff, Okay, Obama left
Trump a good, good piece of money. Trump pissed that away.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
No, no, let me let me help you if I can, Chuck. Okay.
When Bill Clinton left office, we had a federal debt
of five trillion dollars. When George Bush left office, we
had a federal debt doubled of ten trillion dollars when president.
When President Obama left office in twenty sixteen, it had
(35:34):
not troubled but had not doubled, but it had grown
to eighteen trillion dollars. It has grown with every president,
Republican and Democrat, you know, I mean Gagrish and Clinton,
thank you. Gingrish and Clinton actually got together and had
some progress on the stuff we're talking about tonight, a
(35:55):
Democrat and a Republican. But ever since atle bit no
gored it.
Speaker 3 (35:59):
Go ahead, right, Yeah. I mean we often talk about
things in terms of presidents because everybody knows what the
president was, but it probably actually matters more who's in
control of the House of Representatives because all revenue measures
have to start in the House of Representatives. Appropriations bills
tend to start in the House of Representatives, and so
(36:20):
like when you think about the end of the Clinton presidency,
you know New gingrichra speaker, at the end of the
Obama administration, you know Republicans. At the end of the
Trump administration was Democrats. So I think that might actually
be more fruitful to be looking at who's controlling the
House of Representatives than the president, because at the end
of the day, the president's really just supposed to sign
(36:42):
our veto legislation and then execute it, and it's really
Congress that cooks up what the laws are.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
But then they're intervening, I mean they're intervening factors. We
had nine to eleven with George Bush, and we ended
up with the warring Iraq and Afghanistan, which you know
was a combination of the presscidence and the president in
Congress a President uh Biden was dealing and and and
President Trump was dealing with the COVID crisis. So but
(37:10):
no one ever turns around and says, hey, we got
we're gonna owe a lot of money. And Chuck, you
sound to me like you're a young guy too. I'm not.
Speaker 4 (37:19):
You know, it's I'm over fifty five.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
Well that I consider that young, Chuck, remember on TV?
You got it? Got it all right? Jack? Hey man,
thanks for calling. Have you called before? This is your
first time I've called before. Well keep calling. Okay, it
was a very thoughtful call.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
I got one thing I want to end this with.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
Go ahead. You gotta be quick though, because I'm running
out of time up.
Speaker 4 (37:44):
Here in Massachusetts. Died with tip O'Neil. That's when it
all with the hell up here?
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Okay, all right, yeah, that's it, all right? Thanks, thanks,
thank you, guys, have a good night, you too, Krekkausman
again the book Fiscal Democracy in America, How a balanced
budget amendment can restore sound governance. Here's the most important
question tonight. Is that the sort of book that you
got to be an economist to read. Can an average
American read your book? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (38:14):
I think it's the kind of book that anybody can read.
I had a friend read the manuscript before, you know,
went to the publisher's final typesetting and all that, and
he said, Wow, this is like super readable, and he
was kind of surprised because of what it's about. But
you know, these these ideas don't have to be difficult
to understand. I think people make it too complicated sometimes.
(38:36):
So my mission is to take all this stuff and
make it so that anybody you can just pick it
up and understand what the problems are, what the solutions are.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
Sounds great, and you did a great job tonight, Kurt.
I really appreciate your time tonight. And you did such
a great job, we're going to invite you back at
some point, Okay, so I hope you'll be willing to
come back. Thanks.
Speaker 3 (38:57):
It's way past my bedtime, but it's worth it.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Thank you. Thanks very much. Kurt couchman of Americans for
Prosperity his book Fiscal Democracy in America, How a balanced
Budget Amendment can restore sound governance. Thanks so much, Kurt.
We'll talk again. We'll be back right after the eleven
o'clock news for a fourth and final hour here on
Nightside
He's Night Side with Dan Ray WBS Costin's new Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Well, I think that by now virtually everybody understands that
the federal government is in what's called shutdown. Now we're
going to spend a little bit of time here talking
with a gentleman who knows a lot about the economy.
He he's someone who studied it for a long time
(00:28):
and certainly understands the concept of shutdown. I think the
word is somewhat misleading. Joining us is Kurt Kauschman from
a group called Americans for Prosperity. Kurt, Welcome to Night Side.
How are you tonight, sir?
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Hey Dan, I'm doing well. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Well, yeah, I mean there's I think that shutdowns are
serious when the federal government shuts down, but I think
people need to understand it's you don't need to be
running out of the streets. Will eventually be okay, and
I think the goverm and we'll get back into business.
The question is how quickly give us a sense of historically,
(01:09):
this is not the first time the government has been
shut down and the reason for it, and you know
this better than I do. But the government runs on
a fiscal year that starts on October first, that ends
on September thirtieth. They changed that a few years ago,
so the crisis point always comes in late September, when
the Democrats and the Republicans respond and cont agree on
(01:33):
a budget going forward. Normally they have what's called a
continuing resolution. So let's I'm going to have you break
it down because you'll be able to explain it to
my audience better than I can. We've had a bunch
of shutdowns and they always come at this time of year.
It's almost like when October comes, we know the leaves
will fall and the World Series will start, and it's
(01:55):
a possibility the government will shut down. Is it just
a function of the the calendar, the federal budget, you know,
being renewed every in theory, every October first.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Yeah, there's a lot of different pieces here. First of all, yeah,
I do want to assure your listeners that this is
the lesser of the two brinksmanship budget issues. The other
one is the debt limit, and if the debt limit
weren't raised, then the federal government could actually default and
that could lead to a real cascade of problems.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
We'll talk about that and maybe as the hour goes
on here. But what you're talking about that is that
that sometimes where we have what's it, thirty seven trillion
dollars in national debt accumulative budget deficits that we have run,
and I believe that our GDP is only about twenty
eight trillion dollars.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
So yeah, I just want to reassure everyone that we're
talking about the lesser of the dangerous budget brinksmanship things. So, yeah,
shutdowns actually used to be a thing that happened in
the federal government, and then the Carter administration changed the game.
The Attorney General reinterpreted a law from eighteen eighty four,
(03:10):
you know, almost ninety years later, and yeah, actually, yeah,
ninety six years later. And since then we've had shutdowns.
We've had ten that have resulted in the furloughs of
federal employees. Well, I guess eleven, kind of the one
that started today, and so we're on eleventh shutdown. There
have been a couple of notably long ones. There was
(03:32):
a twenty one day shut down that affected some federal
employees during the Gingrich Clinton battles in the nineties. There
was the sixteen days shut down when Ted Cruz tried
to defund Obamacare in twenty thirteen, I was a congressional staffer.
Then I got furloughed, and then there was the thirty
five day shut down, the longest one ever in twenty
eighteen into twenty nineteen when President Trump wanted more money
(03:56):
for border wall construction and they couldn't get it through Congress.
So there is a shutdown. So this one, who knows
how long it'll lasts. About seventy two percent. Federal workers
are expected to continue working now. They can't get paid
until the new funding legislation is enacted, and a lot
of grants and reimbursements and payments to states, local governments
(04:21):
providers of various services, those can't happen until the funding
legislation is agreed to as well. So there are a
lot of things that are kind of frozen right now.
But there are also a lot of people that are
still working, especially for defense, homeland security and other things
protecting health and law enforcement, other things that this administration
(04:42):
is prioritized as well.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
And the other thing which a lot of people get afraid,
Social Security checks, at least in the short term, will continue.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
The government will still be withholding money. If you get
a paycheck. You know, that's so so that the money
money still goes into the government. Uh, it's not as
if your next paycheck will will not have taxes withheld.
Medicare services will continue. The Democrats are saying that a
(05:18):
lot of this, uh, what they're upset about is draconian
cutbacks in Medicaid and and insurance plans. Can you simplify
that and and give us a fairly objective characterization of
what they're what their objection is, and then what what
(05:39):
the Republicans are claiming the Democrats want to do. I mean,
there's a lot of cross talk here obviously between these
two growth to these two groups, How would you frame
the issue in ways in which my audience can understand?
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Sure, So, Republicans in the House pass a fairly clean
continuing resolution. There's always like little bit of things that
need to be adjusted, and so they did that. It
came over to the Senate and almost all Republicans voted
for it, almost all Democrats voted against it. And Democrats
had their own alternative that is a shorter continuing resolution
(06:14):
into October and which would also repeal a number of
the provisions, the cost saving provisions, from the Reconciliation bill
that was enacted July fourth, And they also are proposing
that the expansion under President Biden's term of the Obamacare
(06:37):
tax credits would continue on permanently. And so there were
tax credits for people that bought insurance on the health
insurance on the exchanges, and then during the pandemic, Democrats
without any Republican votes, massively increased that and then extended
that through two separate bills that had only Democratic votes,
(06:58):
and so they want that to be permanent. It seems
like that's really what they're going after, and they expect
that the proposals to repeal things from you know, President
Trump's major policy priority from a few months ago, they
don't actually expect to get that. And the issue is
that the premiums that individuals who acquire health insurance on
(07:23):
the exchanges would go up pretty decently. It's I mean,
there's some exaggerations going on, but it's kind of like
the student loans, like where people didn't pay student loans
for a number of years and then they went back
to paying student loans, and so you could say, oh,
it's like an infinite increase in your student loan payments.
But it's really a return to normalcy. And even after
these payments, these expanded COVID credit payments would expire, taxpayers
(07:48):
would still be picking up about eighty percent of the
of the subsidy for these plans, and the beneficiaries will
only be paying twenty percent. But it's again, it's a
return to normalcy from a low base. So it seems dramatic,
but that's the situation.
Speaker 4 (08:04):
Now.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
There's one issue that's going back and forth where the
Republicans are claiming that the Democrats want Medicaid made a
value made available to people who are here illegally, and
that's what the Republicans are are saying. The Democrats are saying, no,
(08:28):
we're not in favor of that. So I don't understand
that conflict because they either are or they aren't. Who's
who's being more forthcoming on that issue? I'm sure there's
a couple of interpretations, But in your opinion, which which
is more which group is more forthcoming on that issue?
Is that just a bomb of you know, hand grenade
the Republicans are throwing over that has no basis, or
(08:51):
are the Democrats not telling the truth and there's some
form of assistance for illegals that they want, but it
isn't precisely this Where does the truth lie on that
exchange of charges.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Yeah, my understanding is that there is a provision of
federal law that says that no taxpayer benefits can go
to no federal taxpayer benefits can go to those who
are illegally present in this country. But what happens in
the Medicaid program again is my understanding is that states
are able to they call them the Medicaid money laundering scheme,
(09:30):
where they tax their medical providers in order to boost
the federal match, and then they rebate that to the hospitals.
But then there's another way that they're able to to
pretend that they're using state only money, and so it
is sort of cross upsidized. But my understanding is that
does provide medical insurance benefits for illegal aliens. So let
(09:53):
me see between.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
But let me try to simplify it a little bit.
I'll ask you this question. My understanding is that anyone
in America who shows up an emergency room at any
hospital America must be treated irrespective of their ability to pay.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Correct, if you're there's not exactly under the emergency medical
treatment an Active Labor Act. Yeah, if you have an
acute injury or you're actively in labor, then you have
to be treated no matter who you are. But that
doesn't necessarily apply to all conditions.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
So you mean, if somebody shows up and let's say
they I don't know, they have a bad chess cold,
and they and and they're they're they're they're concerned that
they might have pneumonia, they have to have a level
of seriousness associated with that condition to be treated. They
they they could be turned away if it doesn't rise
(10:45):
to some level of acuity.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
I don't know the details on that, but that's kind
of generally my understanding.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Okay, my guest is Kurt Couchman. We're going to talk
a little bit more and we're going to entertain your
calls and questions. If you feel that you know all
the answers to what is going on in Washington, you're
lots more than I am. I don't know if you're
smarter than Kurt, But if you'd like to talk about
(11:14):
this stalemate between the two political parties, Democrats and Republicans,
it's always like that and it has resulted in a
government shutdown. I noticed on the local news today that
people who are here in Boston and had come from
far distances to visit the USS Constitution of parks. Parks
have been shut down, federal parks across the country. That
(11:37):
has always been one of the first things that appears.
But mail will still be delivered. So a lot of
your life is going to be very normal. But if
you have any question six one, seven, two, five, four
to ten thirty or six one, seven, nine ten thirty.
That's why I have someone who knows a lot more
about this than I do, Kurt Kauschman, for he is
(11:59):
a senior fellow in fiscal policy for Americans for Prosperity,
and he's given me all the straight answers that I
have hoped for. And I do really appreciate that. We'll
be back on Nightside more with calls and questions and comments,
and Kirk Couchman and you on Nightside right after this.
As I often say, we have great guests, we have
(12:19):
great topics. All we need is great callers or callers
add water and stir.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
It's nice Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
With me is Kirk Couchman. He is a fiscal analyst
for Americans for Prosperity. He's also written a book occurred.
I want to mention the book. If people are interested
in what you have to say, they can, I assume
order the book. It's relatively recently out, if I'm not mistaken, correct.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Yeah, that's right. It just came out in late July
for the e book and a couple of weeks after
that for the physical book. It's called Fiscal Democracy in America,
How a balanced budget amendment can restore sound governance?
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Fiscal Democracy in America, How a balanced budget amendment can
restore sound What was the.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Last part of that, found governance?
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Sound governance? Okay, we will talk about that. The New
York Times has an interesting piece here in terms of furloughs.
For example, the department that has been hit with the
most high percentage of furloughs is the EPA, the Environmental
Protection Agency. The Times reporting nearly ninety percent of their
(13:40):
employees for thirteen thousand, of four hundred and thirty two
out of about fifteen eighty nine percent have been laid
off have been furloughed. Education Department eighty seven percent, Commerce
eighty one percent, Labor seventy six Housing and Urban Development,
seventy one percent. When you get down amongst the major departments,
(14:04):
Office of Personnel Management is ten percent, Homeland Security five percent,
hardly a ripple venters affairs pretty much intact, ninety seven
percent of the employees are still going to be working,
three percent infur a load, and the Treasury Department, which
goes includes the IRS, only two percent have been furloughed.
(14:25):
So it's interesting the emphasis the departments that have the
higher share of furloughed employees. In theory, when the government
reconstitutes itself and it gets back on track, those furloled
employees will receive back pay at least that's been the
tradition in the past. Correct.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Yeah, And actually the first law that was passed in
twenty nineteen, I think it was called the Government Employee
Fair Treatment Act or something like that. It guarantees back
pay for any furloughed federal employee. Does not apply to contractors, however,
and you know, it kind of reflects the fact that
(15:07):
all the percentages you're just talking about with the agencies,
that the practice of shutdowns gives enormous discretion to the
executive branch to determine what is essential, what is non essential.
That was the Carter administration's power grab, and some members
of Congress have been trying to reverse that. But I mean,
(15:27):
all of the laws that Congress has passed set up
all the different activities, including those that the administration is
now deeming non essential. So it's a little bit of
a weird thing to have that distinction against employees that
are all you know, authorized and you know, funded at
least up until the end of the fiscal year by Congress.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Is that what President Trump is referring to. He's saying
that if he said yesterday that if a shutdown occurred,
it would give him great flexibility in permanently dismissing employees,
and that they would be little recourse for those employees.
They would have little recourse that he basically could make,
(16:13):
you know, individual cuts or big cuts in certain departments,
and can do it now on his own without the consent, advice,
or cooperation of Congress.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Yeah, that's a parallel thing. They're talking about what's called
reductions in force, which means we don't need as many employees,
and so there is a different process for that. There's
a certain amount of notice you have to give people,
and you know, there's also a contention, and we don't
have good data to back it up, but there's a
contention that there's an awful lot of appropriations that this
(16:50):
administration has not spent that it was supposed to have
by the end of the fiscal year. And I'm not
sure exactly when we're going to get the data on that.
It might not be until the next president's budget request,
which is due in February but is often late, so
I guess we'll have to see how that plays out
as well.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Yeah, this is the SoundBite that he said this in
the Oval office. A reporter had asked him about it
seemed to be a friendly question, and he then really
didn't answer the question. But the reporter was asking about
the unfavorability rating of the Democrats, and as the President
is his wont he went off and start talking about
(17:30):
these cuts, which would be theoretically potentially irreversible cut number one.
Speaker 5 (17:34):
Please Rob stay up the Democrat Party when they have
a thirty three percent favorability rating on average in recent
months and they're willing to shut down the government over
our healthcare shutting it down.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
We're not shutting it down.
Speaker 6 (17:46):
We don't want it to shut down because we have
the greatest period of time ever. I tell you, we
have seventeen trillion dollars being invested. So the last person
that once they shut down is us. Now, with that
being said, we can do things during the shutdown that
are irreversible, that are bad for them and irreversible by them,
like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that
(18:07):
they like, cutting programs that they like.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
It sounds to me like that there could be a
lot of jobs permanently eliminated. Am I hearing that correctly?
Or am I hearing it incorrectly? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:25):
I mean he was pretty vague in that statement. There's
a limit to the things that can be done, but
there are also things that are going on right now.
I mean, the director of the White House Budget Office,
Russ Vote, was posting on X today about the green
energy projects that are being paused and the New York
(18:45):
City transportation funds that are being frozen. So yeah, there's
a lot that they can do. And part of this
is the negotiation in the posturing game, but some of
it is for real, and it's were a day into this.
We don't know how it's all going to shake out.
At some point, the judges may get involved and who
knows where they'll rule on different things. So you know,
(19:08):
we're going to learn a lot through this process. They're
going to push some boundaries and then we'll understand more
on the other side.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Absolutely make My guest is that Kurt Couchman. We're going
to take a quick break for news. I got some
callers coming in. If you'd like to join the conversation.
Dial now six one seven, two four ten thirty six
one seven nine one ten thirty. As I often have said,
I am now saying we got great guests, we have
great topics. Add callers and stir. We'll be back on
(19:36):
night Side right after this.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
My guest is Kurt Couchman. He is a fiscal analyst
with Fiscal Democracy in America Americans for Prosperity. He wrote
a book, Fiscal Democracy in America. How he balanced budget
Amendment can restore sound governess. Let's get some phone calls
for you, Kurt. Let's start it off with Matt in Franklin, Massachusetts. Matt,
(20:09):
you were first this hour with Kirk Couchman. Right ahead.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
Yeah, So what I'm having a tough time figuring out
with this whole shutdown is the Republicans want a seven
week extension on the budget they've been running for the
past two years that they themselves approved and until recently
had no issue with it until they started nitpicking the
actual funds in the budget. And it's still operating at
(20:36):
a two trillion dollar deficit. But they're like picking and
choosing what the cuts are more on like ideological reasons
more than anything, and the economy is just shedding jobs
all over the place, and then they're talking about laying
off like a million employees and it just like really
turned into the point where how do they expect to
get re elected? It's like there's a whole argument and
(20:58):
to be like, oh, I put your entire civilian support
staff at the base out of work, but I got
that transgender off the high school track team. That's like, well,
that's that's great, that's wonderful. Let me re elect y'all.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Okay, that's fairly cynical view, which is which is fine.
I will tell you that the continuing resolution, which I'm
not sure if it's seven weeks or not, the idea
is that gives them more time to negotiate. Uh, and
it's what called I guess it's called the clean resolution,
meaning they would just extend the budget as has been existed,
(21:33):
has has existed for last year. But let's get let's
get kurt. I think I think you raised some interesting points, Matt. Obviously,
there are cultural issues that the Republicans are fighting the
Democrats on, uh, and then there's some fiscal issues. So
kurt Is, does Matt have a legitimate point here in
your opinion that the Republicans are are fighting one battle
(21:56):
over here and they may lose that and the only
thing they'll come back with is something of a cultural
issue basis.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
Yeah, Matt, thanks for the comment and the question.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
And you know, the.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
The levels of spending that they're continuing with the continuing Resolution,
it's just for seven weeks until November twenty first, and
that actually came out of a twenty twenty four bipartisan
on the Most Appropriations Act. So that's that's when those
levels were set, and that was you might remember what
caused Speaker Kevin McCarthy to face the revolt from some
(22:34):
of the folks and his party that led to mister
Johnson becoming speakers. So there are people that are saying
these are, you know, Biden levels, and that's true in
a nominal, nominal sense, but of course, the economy has
grown over that period of time, and there's a lot
of different things going on, a lot of different issues,
and it does seem like Republicans are banking a lot
(22:56):
for their electoral prospects on avoiding a mass of tax
increase on the American people and streamlining some of the waste,
fraud and abuse and getting that out of the system
in healthcare and some other things that were part of
the reconciliation legislation, along with eliminating a number of tax
preferences for the green energy. So there's still a lot
(23:18):
more to come. There's the regulations the administration is pursuing,
there's other legislative items that they're working on. The goal
after they get through the continuing Resolution is to have
full funding for the federal government for all of fiscal
year twenty twenty six, which began today. And you know,
we just have to see how those things play out.
(23:42):
Do you think they'll probably come to a resolution when
the military misses their checked on the fifteenth, and they'll
probably start trying to wrap it up around the sixteenth
or seventeenth, and hopefully come to a one year continuing
resolution at seven weeks, at two weeks and fight about
it again because I feel like the whole seven week thing.
We get the seven weeks, I'm going to be seven
(24:03):
more weeks and then everything else. So we're gonna keep going.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
Well, that's not the way it's worked in the past, Matt,
to be honest with you, and Kirk can aggress that.
I think the idea is we're gonna go past this
deadline where we have irreconcilable differences. Let's give it seven weeks.
I don't think they're going to extend it for a year.
I don't think that's realistic, but I think a shorter
(24:26):
period of time might force them to, you know, look
down the barrel of a theoretical gun and say, we
really don't want to play political suicide here. Kurt, you
know this better than I do. If you could address
Matt's comment.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Sure, yeah, I mean the House has already passed something,
it's in the Senate's court. I would expect that probably
in the next week or so, plus or minus a
couple of days, the Senate will pass that as well,
and then in November they might do another short term
cr but probably before Christmas they will try to do
and probably will do a full year funding bill. But
(24:59):
here's the thing that's really important to understand and why
we keep having shutdowns, is that Congress doesn't actually do
a budget. Congress does appropriations, and that's important. It's fund
federal agencies, but it's only about a quarter of the spending,
and it's none of the revenues but none of the
tax preferences. And it really only involves one committee in
the House and one committee in the Senate, the appropriations committees.
(25:21):
So there's a fundamental defect in the way that Congress
does budgeting. And in fact, in New England they do
it a lot better. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, each state
has a single budget bill each year. Rhode Island doesn't
even have the possibility of shutdowns. That's great. They've been
doing that for generations. It works really well. Connecticut has
(25:43):
a spending growth limit that ends up balancing the budget
over the medium term. That's a really smart thing to do.
Switzerland and some other places that work really well have
that as well. So there are lessons about the ways
the states and other countries are doing things that Congress
could adopt that would make them be able to budget
far better than they do today. And that's one of
(26:05):
the things that we're working with legislators on. So this
is a mess. It shouldn't be like this, and there
are better ways, and we're trying to make them possible
as well.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
By the way, Matt, earlier this week, I saw an
article that Kurt wrote about is entitled modernizing federal budgets
starts with preventing shutdowns. Here in Massachusetts, we require a
balanced budget. We can't run a deficit in Massachusetts. Either
programs need to be cut or taxes need to be raised.
(26:35):
We can have a rainy day fund and put some
money aside, but we cannot have a deficit in Massachusetts.
The federal deficit is now thirty seven trillion dollars, and
Republicans and Democrats have both contributed to that with you
know when they either r in the legislature or the
White House. It's a huge mess. How concerned. I just
(26:56):
want to get a quick comment from from Kurt and
also from Matt. How concerned are you? Kurt? I'll go
to you first, and then I want to hear from
Matt about a thirty seven trillion dollar debt for a
for a country who runs a GDP of about twenty
seven and twenty eight trillion dollars, our debt is more
than all the money that we spend in our economy
(27:20):
during an entire year. How concerned are you with that, Kurt?
And what are the implications? And then I want to
hear from Matt too.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
Yeah, it's quite concerning. We have a federal debt held
by the public to GDP ratio that's about one hundred percent.
Total debt is about one hundred and twenty percent of
GDP and we can't keep going like this. It is
by definition unsustainable and if we don't get a hold
of it in time, then we could have a debt crisis.
It wouldn't just be economically devastating, but also socially and
(27:52):
for our security purposes as well. Ray Dalio, the famous investor,
has a new book out about Dooundations Go Broke? And
he thinks we have about three years to get serious
about turning this around. So very serious, and that's really
what the book is about about, not only the balanced
budget amendment that could get two thirds in both houses
(28:13):
of Congress, but the implementing legislation as well, and the
fundamental fixes to the budget process, no shutdowns, a comprehensive
budget with everything, and I think it's all the committees
involved and starting on time as well. That's another piece
of the puzzle. So we do still have time to
get this turned around. The legislation has been built, we
(28:36):
just need to build the coalitions around it and get
it to happen.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Matt, you sound like a young guy. I'm not a
young guy. My generation, the baby boomer, is real leaving
a tremendous federal debt to younger generations. How old are you, Matt?
Speaker 3 (28:53):
If I could ask, mid thirties.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Mid thirties, okay, well you probably may. How concerned are
you about the federal dead of thirty seven trillion dollars?
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Well, I just look at it that all the stuff
they just recently did was like we'll address it in
four years, and then it's like the next administration could
deal with it, and just the next administration will come
in and be like, oh, the next administration will deal
with it. So it just seems to keep it up
with these cost savings, and they revise it later and
(29:25):
change it. So it just uh, That's why I have
like no faith in the whole seven weeks thing, because
I think.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
That's a pretty good, pretty good analysis, a shorthand analysis.
But yeah, it gets kicked if they call it kicking
the can down the road. At some point, the kids
is going to blow up when you kick it, I guess.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
And it's like, okay, like we cut back in the
taxes to help like shut the boom. But that's like
all right, I like everything's maxed out, so I'm gonna
start working part time. That it's about the size of it.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
I mean, they're not really serious about it, just like
a political infighting and the either side really once I address.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
The issue, well, maybe there's a whole other other ancillary
issues that we could talk about some night. Maybe we
got to get term limits down there so that we
we'd turn over and get new people in and new
blood and younger people in. Uh, and maybe they'll take
this situation more seriously. Matt, great call. I don't know
if you called before, but thank you very much for
(30:24):
taking the time tonight, and I hope you continue to
listen and call. Thank you very much. There it goes okay,
I'd like to say goodbye to folks. We'll be back
my guess, Kurt Kouchman. I do want to talk about
the idea of a balanced budget amendment and how difficult
that would be to get it through Congress. But I
(30:44):
got other callers waiting, if you'd like to join six
one seven, four ten thirty six one seven nine three
one ten thirty. I was bragging to Kurt today how
we have listeners all up and down the East coast
of America. So if you're anywhere outside of New England,
I'll give you some priority if you want to call
in and weigh in on this. Feel free coming back
on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
But guess is Kirk Kaufman. He's a senior fellow on
fiscal policy matters at the Americans for Prosperity. His book
Fiscal Democracy in America, How a balanced budget Amendment can
resource sound to governance. We'll talk about that, but I
don't want to leave my next caller waiting. He's been
holding for a bit. Chuck in Dorchester, Chuck, you were
on with Kirk Kauschman.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
Goright ahead, Chucky, I just have a couple of questions
may not pertain to the book. But the government just
shut down, and are there any things put in place
that there's a wage freeze for our Congress, because basically
(31:52):
they seem to be the big problem. They're out there
fighting everything, claiming to be for the people, but they
never seen the w when the government shuts down. You know,
the people that are keeping the government running are losing
money except for them. Is there any the vision and
the laws or anything like that where they don't vote
their raises in because their raisers are a big part
(32:13):
of this debt.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
Well, and yeah, Chuck, their raises are when you talk
about thirty seven trillion dollars, the raises are significant, no doubt.
They can't even get a law passed in Congress to
limit in effect inside or trading by members of Congress.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
But that oh yes, yes, yeah, Hey, that's a steward.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
For another day. Let's get cut in here real quickly, could.
I think Chuck makes a pretty good point. What's your
thought on his point?
Speaker 3 (32:41):
Yeah, the Constitution in the twenty seventh Amendment doesn't allow
their compensation to be altered without an intervening election. There
was actually part of the Bill of Rights Package, but
it didn't get ratified until nineteen ninety one or something
like that, And so member of Congress is considered to
be mandatory spending, and so it's not affected by this
(33:04):
lapse and appropriations. I certainly agree that there are problems
with Congress. They're not doing the job that we need
them to do. But yeah, this is not something that
under the Constitution can be messed with.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
I could read you real quickly here, Chuck Court enterving
to interrupt you. But the twenty seventh Amendment was passed.
You're pretty good in nineteen ninety two. No law varying
the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives shall
take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened.
(33:39):
So but you pass a law or and inside of
stock trading, go ahead?
Speaker 4 (33:47):
Oh yeah, guess. But just like the city council up here,
they vote for raises and they give these people lots
of money for doing nothing.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
But the other thing I want to do.
Speaker 4 (33:56):
The other thing I wanted to touch on is you said,
basically the seven week extension. If I do my math correctly,
the seventh week extension basically would expire after the midterm elections.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
Correct, there are no midterm elections this year.
Speaker 3 (34:14):
There are a couple of off your elections like in Virginia.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Nonatorial elections, but congressional elections next year through Yeah, it
would It wouldn't have an impact on on the on
the congressional elections. But uh, it's it certainly is not
a bad thought, Chuck, that's for sure. Okay.
Speaker 4 (34:35):
And the other thing to kick the can thing. Okay,
so this is basically kicking the can started when Trump
was in office. People understand how politics work. The plans
that the current president puts into play doesn't come into
play four to five years after that president is gone.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
That's not true. That's not true, Chuck.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
Of the things something longer than others.
Speaker 4 (35:02):
Yeah, the most of the financial stuff, Okay, Obama left
Trump a good, good piece of money. Trump pissed that away.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
No, no, let me let me help you if I can, Chuck. Okay.
When Bill Clinton left office, we had a federal debt
of five trillion dollars. When George Bush left office, we
had a federal debt doubled of ten trillion dollars when president.
When President Obama left office in twenty sixteen, it had
(35:34):
not troubled but had not doubled, but it had grown
to eighteen trillion dollars. It has grown with every president,
Republican and Democrat, you know, I mean Gagrish and Clinton,
thank you. Gingrish and Clinton actually got together and had
some progress on the stuff we're talking about tonight, a
(35:55):
Democrat and a Republican. But ever since atle bit no
gored it.
Speaker 3 (35:59):
Go ahead, right, Yeah. I mean we often talk about
things in terms of presidents because everybody knows what the
president was, but it probably actually matters more who's in
control of the House of Representatives because all revenue measures
have to start in the House of Representatives. Appropriations bills
tend to start in the House of Representatives, and so
(36:20):
like when you think about the end of the Clinton presidency,
you know New gingrichra speaker, at the end of the
Obama administration, you know Republicans. At the end of the
Trump administration was Democrats. So I think that might actually
be more fruitful to be looking at who's controlling the
House of Representatives than the president, because at the end
of the day, the president's really just supposed to sign
(36:42):
our veto legislation and then execute it, and it's really
Congress that cooks up what the laws are.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
But then they're intervening, I mean they're intervening factors. We
had nine to eleven with George Bush, and we ended
up with the warring Iraq and Afghanistan, which you know
was a combination of the presscidence and the president in
Congress a President uh Biden was dealing and and and
President Trump was dealing with the COVID crisis. So but
(37:10):
no one ever turns around and says, hey, we got
we're gonna owe a lot of money. And Chuck, you
sound to me like you're a young guy too. I'm not.
Speaker 4 (37:19):
You know, it's I'm over fifty five.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
Well that I consider that young, Chuck, remember on TV?
You got it? Got it all right? Jack? Hey man,
thanks for calling. Have you called before? This is your
first time I've called before. Well keep calling. Okay, it
was a very thoughtful call.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
I got one thing I want to end this with.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
Go ahead. You gotta be quick though, because I'm running
out of time up.
Speaker 4 (37:44):
Here in Massachusetts. Died with tip O'Neil. That's when it
all with the hell up here?
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Okay, all right, yeah, that's it, all right? Thanks, thanks,
thank you, guys, have a good night, you too, Krekkausman
again the book Fiscal Democracy in America, How a balanced
budget amendment can restore sound governance. Here's the most important
question tonight. Is that the sort of book that you
got to be an economist to read. Can an average
American read your book? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (38:14):
I think it's the kind of book that anybody can read.
I had a friend read the manuscript before, you know,
went to the publisher's final typesetting and all that, and
he said, Wow, this is like super readable, and he
was kind of surprised because of what it's about. But
you know, these these ideas don't have to be difficult
to understand. I think people make it too complicated sometimes.
(38:36):
So my mission is to take all this stuff and
make it so that anybody you can just pick it
up and understand what the problems are, what the solutions are.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
Sounds great, and you did a great job tonight, Kurt.
I really appreciate your time tonight. And you did such
a great job, we're going to invite you back at
some point, Okay, so I hope you'll be willing to
come back. Thanks.
Speaker 3 (38:57):
It's way past my bedtime, but it's worth it.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Thank you. Thanks very much. Kurt couchman of Americans for
Prosperity his book Fiscal Democracy in America, How a balanced
Budget Amendment can restore sound governance. Thanks so much, Kurt.
We'll talk again. We'll be back right after the eleven
o'clock news for a fourth and final hour here on
Nightside
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.