- The House passes the “big, beautiful bill”…
- ‘I promise, we’ll cut spending later’…
- Revealed: The Rich’s Income Strategy That Stood The Test Of Time
Dear Reader,
In the small hours yesterday, the president’s “big, beautiful bill” earned the imprimatur of the House of Representatives.
It proceeds next to the United States Senate for approval — or disapproval.
My agents report disapproving murmurs among certain members of the upper chamber.
Here The New York Times validates the swirling hearsay:
- GOP senators made clear Thursday that the House bill can’t pass without major changes. Some of the member demands are contradictory, with some fiscal hawks demanding beefed-up spending reductions while others want softening of the House’s Medicaid language and to preserve more green-energy incentives.
The Sausage Factory
Thus the horse-trading, palm-greasing, back-scratching, arm-twisting and — if need be — the skull-cracking, will soon commence.
And as the sausage consumer would be aghast at the process that produced that “meat”… the American people would be aghast at the process that produced the legislation.
Yet as the sausage consumer, the voter does not see it.
Senate Majority Leader Thune aspires to sink all squabbles, and arrive at a vote, by July 4.
I hazard that is precisely what will transpire. I hazard further that the legislation will clear the senatorial obstacle.
The president will seize enough Republican recalcitrants by the ear… and haul them into camp.
That is, with the possible exception of Sen. Ronald Johnson (R-WI):
- Listen, in the House, President Trump can threaten to primary [holdouts], and those guys want to keep their seats. I understand the pressure. Can’t pressure me that way.
We shall see. We shall see.
The No.1 Reason the Bill Will Pass
I will not here dwell upon the bill’s particulars. You may seek them elsewhere if you please.
I note merely that the Congressional Budget Office projects the thing will pile $2.3 trillion upon the federal budget deficit across 10 years.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — do not laugh — estimates it will contribute some $3.3 trillion to the nation’s debt across the same space.
Meantime, the legislation proposes to elevate the debt roof by $4 trillion.
The government of the United States will be depleted of funds sometime this summer — perhaps by August.
Should the debt roof not rise by that dreadful day, Uncle Samuel cannot take on fresh debt.
All calamities would ensue as the old deadbeat begins defaulting upon his financial obligations.
For that reason the legislation will clear all hurdles — depend on it.
They simply will not permit it to occur.
‘Sure, We’ll Cut Spending… Whenever’
All too predictably:
The big, beautiful bill spends more money today while pledging reduced spending tomorrow.
The majority of its theoretical spending reductions transpire in the “out years.”
A budget resolution lacks the authority of law. And future Congresses are under no bonds to cling to them.
Thus Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) was one of two Republican congressmen who refused to bless the legislation.
By way of justification, the defiant one argued that:
- While I love many things in the bill, promising someone else will cut spending in the future does not cut spending. Deficits do matter and this bill grows them now. The only Congress we can control is the one we’re in. Consequently, I cannot support this big deficit plan. NO.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the second Republican congressman to defy the president. Said he:
- I agree with Warren Davidson. If we were serious, we’d be cutting spending now, instead of promising to cut spending years from now.
Yet your mates are not serious, Rep. Massie. Thus they are not cutting spending now.
They instead promise to cut spending years from now.
Politicians and St. Augustine
As always, Republicans assure us they must cede ground today… so that they can stand their ground tomorrow.
As I have argued previously in these pages: St. Augustine’s “Lord, make me chaste, but not yet” is their eternal plea.
When presented with the opportunity to embrace chastity… they succumb instead to promiscuity.
It is never quite time for chastity. Again, we hear, for example, that:
“We have to start thinking about the midterm elections now. We can’t cut spending now because it’ll cost us in the midterms. We’ll do it once the midterms are over.”
The midterm elections pass. Republicans win. They are subsequently free to request chastity of the Lord — chastity today.
Yet the temptations of the flesh seduce them… and they cannot put forth the request.
Additional excuses come issuing:
“Well, we have to think about the next presidential election. Cutting popular spending programs could cost us the election — and THIS is the most important presidential election in history. We can’t chance it. We’ll cut spending once we win the White House.”
On and on the business goes in inevitable yet frustrating succession.
It is eternally chastity tomorrow. It is eternally promiscuity today.
By Shrinking From Nothing, They Shrink From Everything
I have cited the Roman historian Tacitus before. Today I cite him again:
“When a woman has lost her chastity she will shrink from nothing.”
What is true of the woman is true of the politician.
He has abandoned his — or her — chastity.
Thus he shrinks from nothing. Yet as I have also argued before:
By shrinking from nothing — in paradox — he shrinks from everything.
Brian Maher
for Freedom Financial News
