Senator Ron Johnson

So you can change policy as long as it has a budgetary impact. I know that's reasonably complex, but it's an insane system and it doesn't work.

So you can change policy as long as it has a budgetary impact. I know that's reasonably complex, but it's an insane system and it doesn't work.

Well, right now we don't really have them. Again, let's just go through why we've never had a process to control spending. We don't have a balanced budget requirement like states do. And we have the capability of printing money, which we're doing, incurring this enormous debt. So we don't have a balanced budget requirement. I didn't realize this until just recently.

Well, right now we don't really have them. Again, let's just go through why we've never had a process to control spending. We don't have a balanced budget requirement like states do. And we have the capability of printing money, which we're doing, incurring this enormous debt. So we don't have a balanced budget requirement. I didn't realize this until just recently.

The appropriation committees were literally set up because the authorized committees were big spenders. So they set up appropriation committees to control spending. That didn't work. The Budget Act didn't work. Simpson-Bowles didn't work. The Budget Control Act didn't work. It did restrain discretionary spending for a couple of years until we wheezed our way around.

The appropriation committees were literally set up because the authorized committees were big spenders. So they set up appropriation committees to control spending. That didn't work. The Budget Act didn't work. Simpson-Bowles didn't work. The Budget Control Act didn't work. It did restrain discretionary spending for a couple of years until we wheezed our way around.

So again, we've never had a process to control spending. And one of the things I've been arguing in some Wall Street Journal columns is let's use the example of Doge. I come with the private sector. We probably spent more time reviewing my line by line budget for my business.

So again, we've never had a process to control spending. And one of the things I've been arguing in some Wall Street Journal columns is let's use the example of Doge. I come with the private sector. We probably spent more time reviewing my line by line budget for my business.

And I think other private sector businesses spend more time analyzing what they're going to spend than Congress spends over the entire federal budget. So we've got to develop a process. Doge has shown us how to do it. Go contract by contract. Expose the grotesque waste, fraud, and abuse. But we've got to do that through thousands of lines through the federal budget. But nobody's willing to do it.

And I think other private sector businesses spend more time analyzing what they're going to spend than Congress spends over the entire federal budget. So we've got to develop a process. Doge has shown us how to do it. Go contract by contract. Expose the grotesque waste, fraud, and abuse. But we've got to do that through thousands of lines through the federal budget. But nobody's willing to do it.

Nobody's willing to take the time to do the work to do it. They're doing what they've always done. They exempt most spending. They look at a couple of programs, they try and tweak them, try and get a big score out of CBO so they can say, hey, look, we saved $1.5 trillion, and yet that's completely divorced from reality.

Nobody's willing to take the time to do the work to do it. They're doing what they've always done. They exempt most spending. They look at a couple of programs, they try and tweak them, try and get a big score out of CBO so they can say, hey, look, we saved $1.5 trillion, and yet that's completely divorced from reality.

$1.5 trillion sounds like a lot, but over 10 years, it's $150 billion against a $7,000 billion a year budget that only six years ago was $4,400 billion. If I've got one complaint in terms of the process in the House, It's basically a void of reality.

$1.5 trillion sounds like a lot, but over 10 years, it's $150 billion against a $7,000 billion a year budget that only six years ago was $4,400 billion. If I've got one complaint in terms of the process in the House, It's basically a void of reality.

We're not talking about the numbers we should be talking about, which is a 10-year deficit projected by CBO of $22 trillion, averaging $2.2 trillion a year. We don't talk about it. Instead, we focus all on $1.5 trillion, and then they're patting themselves on the back that they didn't even achieve $1.5 trillion.

We're not talking about the numbers we should be talking about, which is a 10-year deficit projected by CBO of $22 trillion, averaging $2.2 trillion a year. We don't talk about it. Instead, we focus all on $1.5 trillion, and then they're patting themselves on the back that they didn't even achieve $1.5 trillion.

That understates it. Now, they'll talk about dynamic scoring, and I believe in dynamic scoring as well. But in this case, if you take a look at the tax cuts that President Trump is proposing, they're not going to generate growth. They're just going to reduce the deficit. The CBO projection I'm looking at assumes we're going to gain another $4 trillion from increasing taxes.

That understates it. Now, they'll talk about dynamic scoring, and I believe in dynamic scoring as well. But in this case, if you take a look at the tax cuts that President Trump is proposing, they're not going to generate growth. They're just going to reduce the deficit. The CBO projection I'm looking at assumes we're going to gain another $4 trillion from increasing taxes.

So again, we may not get that $4 trillion, but no matter what, the CBO projection right now that is adding another $22 trillion to our debt, it certainly would add at least that. I would argue it'd probably add another $3 or $4 trillion. So it's not going to be $59 trillion. It's going to be more like $62, $63 trillion.

So again, we may not get that $4 trillion, but no matter what, the CBO projection right now that is adding another $22 trillion to our debt, it certainly would add at least that. I would argue it'd probably add another $3 or $4 trillion. So it's not going to be $59 trillion. It's going to be more like $62, $63 trillion.