Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, here we go.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It is time to uh talk with my friend Ron
Johnson from the great state of Wisconsin.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Ron, you got me? Can you hear me? All right?
All right, let's see hmmm, Uh, I don't see you.
Can you hear me?
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Can you? Can you hear?
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Can you hear me?
Speaker 3 (00:17):
Ron?
Speaker 1 (00:17):
You got me?
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Now?
Speaker 3 (00:18):
All right?
Speaker 1 (00:19):
There we go? All right?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
So I will just note, just for fun, the last
time Ron Johnson and I were texting each other, uh
some months ago, he was telling me that one should
never trust cheese curds.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
That don't squeak.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
So that's the kinds of conversations you have with with
folks from Wisconsin.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
I assume you were standing by that assertion.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Ron, Well, it's not a matter of trusting them, it's
a man of enjoying them. And if they squeak, you're
enjoying them a whole lot more than if they're French fried.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
I means there haven't even been refrigerated.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
It's really a it's really a delicacy, and very few
people have them because you got to get him from
the cheesemaker and never refrigerated.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Eating that day, can't put him in the microwave.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
Brings back the squeak a little bit, but it's not
the same as fresh all.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Right, I'm gonna have to come in to Wisconsin to
try him.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
All Right.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
We had a lot to talk about today.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
One quick question I saw President Trump was just on
the hill. Was that only for the House or were
senators there too?
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Now he's just twisting House arms right now?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Okay, so let's talk about twisting arms a little bit.
I saw headline over in Politico that I have to
say did.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Not surprise me.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Ron Johnson is threatening to tank the GOP megabill.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
He's been here before, and basically it's.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Talking about you being a steadfast fiscal conservative and not
enjoying some stuff in the bill. So I think I
would like to do two things with you. I want
to talk about your take on the bill right now,
and then maybe we'll get to a bigger conversation about
how you see the process going forward.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
So first, let me say I'm a big supporter of
what President Trump is doing.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I want to see him succeed.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
The way he's secured the border, ending wokeism, trying to
achieve peace around the world is abulous. But I have
to say, if there was a goal to this Republican
budget reconciliation. The first goal would be to well, let's
not exacerbate the problem. Let's not increase the deset. Let's
(02:15):
not increase the projected debt in ten years. And right
now is the bill's currently constructed. Because they set the
bar so low on the budget reconciliation, this would actually
add to the desert. This would actually exacerbate the problem.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
So again, one big beautiful bill. That's a slogan.
Speaker 4 (02:33):
It's from my standpoint right now, false advertising ross this
this is our one chance in a lifetime. We've experienced
unprecedented except for World War Two, but unprecedented an expansion
in spending because of the pandemic. We went from four
point four trillion to over seven trillion dollars this year.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
That's a fifty eight per cent increase.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
A reasonable pre pandemic level spending based on other total
outleaves from Clinton, Obama and Trump twenty nineteen, would put
our baseline seven between five point five and six point
five trillion dollars. But there's no justification for being spending
over seven trillion dollars.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
So we have to get serious.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
I've got a good clip on top pinned to my
ex account, starting with President Trump saying we got a
balance of federal budget, and then every Republican leader some
version if we don't have a revenue problem, we have
a spending problem. I end that video with the question,
so are we willing to fix it? And right now
they're not. Again, this is not serious reform. We're going
to spend eighty nine trillion dollars over the next decade.
(03:34):
This bill supposedly cuts. A lot of these cuts are
fake or you know, stretch out to the end where
Democrats probably will cancel them.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
But one point five.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Trillion plusing up defense and border spending by about three
hundred some billion. So it's gonna be one point two
trillion versus eighty nine point three three trillion. It's that's
like one point three percent cut. It's it's a rounding air.
It's not serious when we need to be looking at
more like five to eight trillion dollars in spending reduction
to return to a pre pandemic level spending. That's what
(04:06):
we have to do.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Everybody's heard the probably apocryphal line from Willie Sutton, right,
why do you rob banks?
Speaker 1 (04:15):
And his answers, that's where the money is.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
So in the federal government where the money is is
Medicare and so security. But we have a president who
specifically campaigned on not reforming those.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
So do you.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Think is there any prospect for getting even close to
where you and I both want to be without some
kind of even modest stuff like small increases to retirement
age or something.
Speaker 4 (04:45):
Yes, And this I proved sixteen ways on Sunday with
my pre pandemic levels of spending.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
So you go back to Clinton ninety eight, where we
actually had a story.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
Plus you go to Obama twenty fourteen, you go back
to Trump and twenty nineteen.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
You take their actual toilalles.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
You exempt here to medicare an interest, you spend what
you have to spend, leave those alone, plus up all
the other actual alays by population growth and inflation, and
that's where ended up with five point five to six
point five trillion dollars is a baseline. You've heard members
of Commress running at you ought to zero based budget.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Well, I'm not even expecting that.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
I'm saying, how about we start at five point five
to six point five and take a look at you
know why you can't just across the board say we're
not going to spend any more than what we spent
in those years, plused up by inflation and population growth.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
What's the more reasonable control the problem? Rosters.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
We've never had a process to control spending. We don't
have a bunch of balanced budget requirement. I didn't realize this.
Appropriation bills were actually set up because the authorized committees
were big spenders, so they set up the appropriation committee. Well,
that didn't work. The Budget Act didn't work. Simpson Bulls
didn't work. The Budget Control Act didn't work. So what
(05:56):
we've got in front of us those we've got to process.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
This seems to work. If we codify a DOGE. They're
doing the work.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
They're going line by line, contract by contract, exposing all
the spending. We twenty nineteen, we spent four four hundred
million dollars. This year will spend over seven thousand billion.
I have to believe if you did the work, went
through that budget, line by line, thousands of lines, scrutinize this,
put it up against those controls of tol Otley's and Clinton,
(06:27):
Obama and Trump, plus up by inflation, you would be
able to eliminate spending that nobody would even notice except
for the grifters that are standing at the troughs sucking
down the waist for an abuse. But you have to
do the work. You have to go through the process
that takes time. Nobody's willn't take the time. They're doing
it the same old way they always do. Ignore the
vast majority of the seven thousand billion dollars worth of spending.
(06:50):
Focus on a couple programs, tweak them a little bit,
make those tweaks as politically painless as possible. Clap the lands, say, oh,
didn't we do a great, great job. You know, tend
to use big numbers like one point five trillion over
ten years, you know, a one point three percent cut. Again,
So I just happened to be the skunk in the room.
I'm laying out the reality versus the rhetoric. All you're
(07:11):
hearing and one da beautiful bilves rhetoric is false advertising.
You listen, and I love the speaker. You know, I
understand what a tough task he is. I would approach
his task, though. The way I'm doing is lay out
the reality show. How this is unsustainable. CBO says, we will,
we will add twenty two trillion dollars to the NAR
over the next ten years. That means an average defict
of two point two trillion dollars, and that's a Rosie scenario.
(07:35):
We pass this, they'll probably be more like twenty six
trillion dollars add in the federal desta two point six
trillion dollars a year. That's the reality that everybody is ignoring,
is they get down to the weeds and argue, you.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
Know, over the little details of these little programs.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
It seems to me that the way this is going
is very damaging to the Republican brand.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Right.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
One of my concepts that that I think of with
some for Quincy is voters want the real thing. And
if voters are going to get bigger government, they're going
to vote for there. And you tell them we're going
to do bigger government, they're just going to vote for
the experts in bigger government. They're going to vote for
Democrats Republicans. The Republicans have to go in the direction
you are saying, just to save the Republican brand. But
(08:17):
again I come back to that the president, who has
more control over the party than any president I've ever seen,
doesn't seem interested.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Well, let's face it, he's been busy, Yes, Okay, I
love what he did. Okay, there's no doubt about that.
He's got He's had a lot of things out of
his plate. He asked to concentrate on this.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
You know.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Unfortunately, I'm not.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Sure he's dedicated to reducing spending to a pre pandemic level.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
I was in the White House with him twice. I
showed him all my dad. He loved it. So I
love this. The House gotta love this.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
So miss President, why don't we go to the House
and present this.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
You're behind the concept.
Speaker 4 (08:54):
But when he gets out of the staff level, now
we got this covered. Don't have enough time. And that's
where we're at, right where we're at, right now. So
again that's why I have to dig.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
In my heels.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
That's why I have to keep screaming for the rooftop, saying, guys,
this is not serious. I know the President loves the
concept of one big, beautiful bill, but that's not what
this is. The reality is this actually exacerbates the problem.
And I will also say I think most people the
voter for Donald Trump wanted him to defeat the deep state.
You don't defeat the deep state by continuing to fund it.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
At President Biden's levels, And that's basically what the Big
Beautiful Bill does.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
If you were in charge. And I think you've said
this already, but not on my show. So if you
were in charge, would you have it be more than
one bill?
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (09:37):
I've been saying three bills from day one. Provide the
border of defense by the way bank, and this is
something I got out of our Budget committee.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Bank eight hundred and fifty billion in savings.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Because we're going to spend the three hundred and forty
billion over four years, that's eighty five and a half
billion a year. And I insisted, no, we're going to
pay for that in four years, which means if you
reduce spending in four years ten years, it's eight hundred
and fifty billions, So that's more more than half. With
the House audios, that would have been our first step.
Second step I was just extend the current tax code.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Again. We should have done it.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
We weren't smart enough to use current policy last time
to sow this all permit, so you got you know,
parts have already expired, rest a lot of us going
to expire in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
A massive tax increase.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
I would take that off the table, you know right now,
crunch time, by the way, then the third piece to
be what we're dealing right now, all the complexities of
a bigger, beautiful bill right right now, we probably have
to scrunch that down to two. And this one I'm
proposing now it's border defense, bank use the housework on
spending reduction, use all their spending reductions, put bank all that,
(10:39):
extend current tax law, and now increase the death ceiling
probably too about March next year, which keeps the pressure
on us to come back and address that. The tax
cuts that President Trump wants to do, which by the way,
are not particularly pro growth. I know they're popular, but
they're just going to reduce revenue. And you know, again
take that on a man at tax increase. But I
(11:01):
mean that'd be the second step.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
All right, I've got about a minute left, Ron, what's
your prediction at this point as to how this plays out?
I realize there are a lot of possibilities, but what's
your best guess.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
Well, I hope if the House, you know, if the
Conservatives came in the House, and I understand the pressure
they're under that at a minimum, they don't grant four
tillion dollars in destiny relief.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
You know, they pair that back. So we got to
come and come atter this again. But my guest the
House will pride pass that.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
The President Trump's pretty persuasive and he can threaten primaries
and that's a lot of pressure on House members.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
That's not going to pass through in the Senate.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
I mean, there are enough people kind of from both
sides that that won't pass.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
So again I'm hoping to offer the alternative. Break this up.
Speaker 4 (11:45):
Let's focus on the parts we agree on, and then
let's get to work.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Do the work go line by line.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
You know, take these DOSEE folks, by the way, they've
identified one hundred and sixty five billion dollarsand savings, but
we haven't banked it. We haven't got a decision package
about the only way you can actually codify that.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
We haven't got that from the deministration.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
We haven't seen any dose savings interjected to this reconciliation
of other mandatory spending. So again, let's get serious about this.
Let's set up the process. I'm a manufacturer, right, you
don't have a good product found good process. We need
this process of exposing this waste, fraud, abuse, and graft
to the public, and I don't think people can defend
(12:25):
hundreds of billions of dollars. Again, not Soli, s cuity,
not medicare. We need to reform medicaid because that's Obamacare.
The problem with medicaid right now is a Medicaid expansion
allowing states to gain the system, basically steal it from
the federal government ninety cents on the dollar. I mean,
it's grotesque what Obamacare has done in medicaid, threatening it
for the very people, to disable the kids that has
(12:46):
meant for.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Senator Ron Johnson from the great state of Wisconsin, thank
you so much for spending time with us. And I'm serious.
I want you to come out for the Packers game.
I'll take you the Packers Broncos game if you want
to come.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Out, well, appreciate the invitation of great day.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
All right, thank you, Ron,
All right, here we go.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It is time to uh talk with my friend Ron
Johnson from the great state of Wisconsin.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Ron, you got me? Can you hear me? All right?
All right, let's see hmmm, Uh, I don't see you.
Can you hear me?
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Can you? Can you hear?
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Can you hear me?
Speaker 3 (00:17):
Ron?
Speaker 1 (00:17):
You got me?
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Now?
Speaker 3 (00:18):
All right?
Speaker 1 (00:19):
There we go? All right?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
So I will just note, just for fun, the last
time Ron Johnson and I were texting each other, uh
some months ago, he was telling me that one should
never trust cheese curds.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
That don't squeak.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
So that's the kinds of conversations you have with with
folks from Wisconsin.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
I assume you were standing by that assertion.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Ron, Well, it's not a matter of trusting them, it's
a man of enjoying them. And if they squeak, you're
enjoying them a whole lot more than if they're French fried.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
I means there haven't even been refrigerated.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
It's really a it's really a delicacy, and very few
people have them because you got to get him from
the cheesemaker and never refrigerated.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Eating that day, can't put him in the microwave.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
Brings back the squeak a little bit, but it's not
the same as fresh all.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Right, I'm gonna have to come in to Wisconsin to
try him.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
All Right.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
We had a lot to talk about today.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
One quick question I saw President Trump was just on
the hill. Was that only for the House or were
senators there too?
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Now he's just twisting House arms right now?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Okay, so let's talk about twisting arms a little bit.
I saw headline over in Politico that I have to
say did.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Not surprise me.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Ron Johnson is threatening to tank the GOP megabill.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
He's been here before, and basically it's.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Talking about you being a steadfast fiscal conservative and not
enjoying some stuff in the bill. So I think I
would like to do two things with you. I want
to talk about your take on the bill right now,
and then maybe we'll get to a bigger conversation about
how you see the process going forward.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
So first, let me say I'm a big supporter of
what President Trump is doing.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I want to see him succeed.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
The way he's secured the border, ending wokeism, trying to
achieve peace around the world is abulous. But I have
to say, if there was a goal to this Republican
budget reconciliation. The first goal would be to well, let's
not exacerbate the problem. Let's not increase the deset. Let's
(02:15):
not increase the projected debt in ten years. And right
now is the bill's currently constructed. Because they set the
bar so low on the budget reconciliation, this would actually
add to the desert. This would actually exacerbate the problem.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
So again, one big beautiful bill. That's a slogan.
Speaker 4 (02:33):
It's from my standpoint right now, false advertising ross this
this is our one chance in a lifetime. We've experienced
unprecedented except for World War Two, but unprecedented an expansion
in spending because of the pandemic. We went from four
point four trillion to over seven trillion dollars this year.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
That's a fifty eight per cent increase.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
A reasonable pre pandemic level spending based on other total
outleaves from Clinton, Obama and Trump twenty nineteen, would put
our baseline seven between five point five and six point
five trillion dollars. But there's no justification for being spending
over seven trillion dollars.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
So we have to get serious.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
I've got a good clip on top pinned to my
ex account, starting with President Trump saying we got a
balance of federal budget, and then every Republican leader some
version if we don't have a revenue problem, we have
a spending problem. I end that video with the question,
so are we willing to fix it? And right now
they're not. Again, this is not serious reform. We're going
to spend eighty nine trillion dollars over the next decade.
(03:34):
This bill supposedly cuts. A lot of these cuts are
fake or you know, stretch out to the end where
Democrats probably will cancel them.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
But one point five.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Trillion plusing up defense and border spending by about three
hundred some billion. So it's gonna be one point two
trillion versus eighty nine point three three trillion. It's that's
like one point three percent cut. It's it's a rounding air.
It's not serious when we need to be looking at
more like five to eight trillion dollars in spending reduction
to return to a pre pandemic level spending. That's what
(04:06):
we have to do.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Everybody's heard the probably apocryphal line from Willie Sutton, right,
why do you rob banks?
Speaker 1 (04:15):
And his answers, that's where the money is.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
So in the federal government where the money is is
Medicare and so security. But we have a president who
specifically campaigned on not reforming those.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
So do you.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Think is there any prospect for getting even close to
where you and I both want to be without some
kind of even modest stuff like small increases to retirement
age or something.
Speaker 4 (04:45):
Yes, And this I proved sixteen ways on Sunday with
my pre pandemic levels of spending.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
So you go back to Clinton ninety eight, where we
actually had a story.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
Plus you go to Obama twenty fourteen, you go back
to Trump and twenty nineteen.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
You take their actual toilalles.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
You exempt here to medicare an interest, you spend what
you have to spend, leave those alone, plus up all
the other actual alays by population growth and inflation, and
that's where ended up with five point five to six
point five trillion dollars is a baseline. You've heard members
of Commress running at you ought to zero based budget.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Well, I'm not even expecting that.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
I'm saying, how about we start at five point five
to six point five and take a look at you
know why you can't just across the board say we're
not going to spend any more than what we spent
in those years, plused up by inflation and population growth.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
What's the more reasonable control the problem? Rosters.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
We've never had a process to control spending. We don't
have a bunch of balanced budget requirement. I didn't realize this.
Appropriation bills were actually set up because the authorized committees
were big spenders, so they set up the appropriation committee. Well,
that didn't work. The Budget Act didn't work. Simpson Bulls
didn't work. The Budget Control Act didn't work. So what
(05:56):
we've got in front of us those we've got to process.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
This seems to work. If we codify a DOGE. They're
doing the work.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
They're going line by line, contract by contract, exposing all
the spending. We twenty nineteen, we spent four four hundred
million dollars. This year will spend over seven thousand billion.
I have to believe if you did the work, went
through that budget, line by line, thousands of lines, scrutinize this,
put it up against those controls of tol Otley's and Clinton,
(06:27):
Obama and Trump, plus up by inflation, you would be
able to eliminate spending that nobody would even notice except
for the grifters that are standing at the troughs sucking
down the waist for an abuse. But you have to
do the work. You have to go through the process
that takes time. Nobody's willn't take the time. They're doing
it the same old way they always do. Ignore the
vast majority of the seven thousand billion dollars worth of spending.
(06:50):
Focus on a couple programs, tweak them a little bit,
make those tweaks as politically painless as possible. Clap the lands, say, oh,
didn't we do a great, great job. You know, tend
to use big numbers like one point five trillion over
ten years, you know, a one point three percent cut. Again,
So I just happened to be the skunk in the room.
I'm laying out the reality versus the rhetoric. All you're
(07:11):
hearing and one da beautiful bilves rhetoric is false advertising.
You listen, and I love the speaker. You know, I
understand what a tough task he is. I would approach
his task, though. The way I'm doing is lay out
the reality show. How this is unsustainable. CBO says, we will,
we will add twenty two trillion dollars to the NAR
over the next ten years. That means an average defict
of two point two trillion dollars, and that's a Rosie scenario.
(07:35):
We pass this, they'll probably be more like twenty six
trillion dollars add in the federal desta two point six
trillion dollars a year. That's the reality that everybody is ignoring,
is they get down to the weeds and argue, you.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
Know, over the little details of these little programs.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
It seems to me that the way this is going
is very damaging to the Republican brand.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Right.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
One of my concepts that that I think of with
some for Quincy is voters want the real thing. And
if voters are going to get bigger government, they're going
to vote for there. And you tell them we're going
to do bigger government, they're just going to vote for
the experts in bigger government. They're going to vote for
Democrats Republicans. The Republicans have to go in the direction
you are saying, just to save the Republican brand. But
(08:17):
again I come back to that the president, who has
more control over the party than any president I've ever seen,
doesn't seem interested.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Well, let's face it, he's been busy, Yes, Okay, I
love what he did. Okay, there's no doubt about that.
He's got He's had a lot of things out of
his plate. He asked to concentrate on this.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
You know.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Unfortunately, I'm not.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Sure he's dedicated to reducing spending to a pre pandemic level.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
I was in the White House with him twice. I
showed him all my dad. He loved it. So I
love this. The House gotta love this.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
So miss President, why don't we go to the House
and present this.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
You're behind the concept.
Speaker 4 (08:54):
But when he gets out of the staff level, now
we got this covered. Don't have enough time. And that's
where we're at, right where we're at, right now. So
again that's why I have to dig.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
In my heels.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
That's why I have to keep screaming for the rooftop, saying, guys,
this is not serious. I know the President loves the
concept of one big, beautiful bill, but that's not what
this is. The reality is this actually exacerbates the problem.
And I will also say I think most people the
voter for Donald Trump wanted him to defeat the deep state.
You don't defeat the deep state by continuing to fund it.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
At President Biden's levels, And that's basically what the Big
Beautiful Bill does.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
If you were in charge. And I think you've said
this already, but not on my show. So if you
were in charge, would you have it be more than
one bill?
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (09:37):
I've been saying three bills from day one. Provide the
border of defense by the way bank, and this is
something I got out of our Budget committee.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Bank eight hundred and fifty billion in savings.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Because we're going to spend the three hundred and forty
billion over four years, that's eighty five and a half
billion a year. And I insisted, no, we're going to
pay for that in four years, which means if you
reduce spending in four years ten years, it's eight hundred
and fifty billions, So that's more more than half. With
the House audios, that would have been our first step.
Second step I was just extend the current tax code.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Again. We should have done it.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
We weren't smart enough to use current policy last time
to sow this all permit, so you got you know,
parts have already expired, rest a lot of us going
to expire in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
A massive tax increase.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
I would take that off the table, you know right now,
crunch time, by the way, then the third piece to
be what we're dealing right now, all the complexities of
a bigger, beautiful bill right right now, we probably have
to scrunch that down to two. And this one I'm
proposing now it's border defense, bank use the housework on
spending reduction, use all their spending reductions, put bank all that,
(10:39):
extend current tax law, and now increase the death ceiling
probably too about March next year, which keeps the pressure
on us to come back and address that. The tax
cuts that President Trump wants to do, which by the way,
are not particularly pro growth. I know they're popular, but
they're just going to reduce revenue. And you know, again
take that on a man at tax increase. But I
(11:01):
mean that'd be the second step.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
All right, I've got about a minute left, Ron, what's
your prediction at this point as to how this plays out?
I realize there are a lot of possibilities, but what's
your best guess.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
Well, I hope if the House, you know, if the
Conservatives came in the House, and I understand the pressure
they're under that at a minimum, they don't grant four
tillion dollars in destiny relief.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
You know, they pair that back. So we got to
come and come atter this again. But my guest the
House will pride pass that.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
The President Trump's pretty persuasive and he can threaten primaries
and that's a lot of pressure on House members.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
That's not going to pass through in the Senate.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
I mean, there are enough people kind of from both
sides that that won't pass.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
So again I'm hoping to offer the alternative. Break this up.
Speaker 4 (11:45):
Let's focus on the parts we agree on, and then
let's get to work.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Do the work go line by line.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
You know, take these DOSEE folks, by the way, they've
identified one hundred and sixty five billion dollarsand savings, but
we haven't banked it. We haven't got a decision package
about the only way you can actually codify that.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
We haven't got that from the deministration.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
We haven't seen any dose savings interjected to this reconciliation
of other mandatory spending. So again, let's get serious about this.
Let's set up the process. I'm a manufacturer, right, you
don't have a good product found good process. We need
this process of exposing this waste, fraud, abuse, and graft
to the public, and I don't think people can defend
(12:25):
hundreds of billions of dollars. Again, not Soli, s cuity,
not medicare. We need to reform medicaid because that's Obamacare.
The problem with medicaid right now is a Medicaid expansion
allowing states to gain the system, basically steal it from
the federal government ninety cents on the dollar. I mean,
it's grotesque what Obamacare has done in medicaid, threatening it
for the very people, to disable the kids that has
(12:46):
meant for.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Senator Ron Johnson from the great state of Wisconsin, thank
you so much for spending time with us. And I'm serious.
I want you to come out for the Packers game.
I'll take you the Packers Broncos game if you want
to come.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Out, well, appreciate the invitation of great day.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
All right, thank you, Ron,
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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
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.