There's been analysis already. We'll see what the real number is, but then it might kill up to 70,000 people a year. But the people making above half $1 million a year need another $1.1 trillion. Do they? Do they really need it that much? Get rid of the giant bills. Okay. [00:00:18] The omnibus bills, the continuing resolutions, and even the big beautiful bill. Why not put that on the floor one at a time? I agree. And and then that way you're you can go to your representative or your senators and say, why did you vote for that? [00:00:34] Right now they can say, well, Theo, I had to vote for it. I had a pay raise for soldiers, right? They literally will put a pay raise for soldiers in every freaking bill. Giant bill, so that if you vote against it, you have to go back home and watch TV ads that say he voted against a pay raise for the soldiers, right? [00:00:53] Even though he may have voted. For a for 90 other amazing things on the bill. Right, right. Libertarian Congressman Thomas Massie is already a hard no vote on Trump's so-called big beautiful bill. [00:01:09] That's the tax cut and border funding bill that he is attempting to get passed through Congress. But now that the Senate is drafting their own version of the legislation, Massie might be finding himself in the company of other GOP lawmakers [00:01:25] in the House who intend to vote no. Now, why is that? Well, there are GOP moderates in blue states, for instance, who think that the Senate bill cuts into the social safety net far too much. And then there are the deficit hawks in the House Freedom Caucus. That's the more right wing. [00:01:43] You know, contingent in the Republican Party, that has issues with spending. They claim that they're genuinely worried about the country's debt, even though they are usually okay with the massive tax cuts, which are really the heart of the problem. But nonetheless, the Washington Post Reports that too many House Republicans [00:02:01] for too many House Republicans, the legislation in the Senate looks unrecognizable. Meaning it's too different from what the House passed and no longer adheres to the hard fought compromises lawmakers in the lower chamber secured just a month ago. [00:02:18] Now, the Senate version, by the way, does add even more to our national debt. The Congressional Budget Office found that the House passed legislation would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over ten years, when factoring in interest [00:02:33] costs and effects on the wider economy. The Senate's version could add far more. The upper chamber's tax provisions are hundreds of billions of dollars more expensive, and that's according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Now, it's hard to get into too many specifics because, you know, [00:02:52] in the Senate right now, they're going through the process. And in the Senate, you have someone known as the Senate parliamentarian who will strike down provisions within the bill if the Republicans are attempting to pass it through reconciliation or a simple majority, [00:03:07] meaning only 51 senators would be necessary to pass the legislation. There is a legislative filibuster in the Senate that requires bills to pass with 60 out of 100 votes, but through the reconciliation process, you can do it with a simple majority, a simple majority. You just need the Senate parliamentarian to sign on to the provisions. [00:03:26] But the current version of the Senate bill also includes deeper cuts to Medicaid, which some Republicans in the House argue will negatively impact rural hospitals in their states. So they were trying to find a workaround for that. Now Capitol Police actually ended up. Let's take a look at this video. [00:03:44] Detaining a group of peaceful protesters who were protesting the proposed cuts to Medicaid, including, you know, several people in wheelchairs. They ended up getting arrested, which was not a great sight to see putting people in wheelchairs under arrest. [00:04:01] Kind of lame, to say the least. But nonetheless, I want to give you some more details, including the fact that, as written, the Senate bill would cut Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over a decade. But then the Senate parliamentarian came in and she's like, nah, you can't do that. [00:04:20] I'm going to strike down this provision. Now, Senate Republicans are going to try to find a workaround because they really want to cut into the social safety net. I mean, they jump in it. We'll see if they're able to find a workaround that will sit with the, sit well with the Senate parliamentarian. [00:04:36] But nonetheless, Elizabeth McDonough, the parliamentarian, said several of the measures in the legislation that would provide hundreds of billions of dollars in savings could not be included in the legislation in their current form. [00:04:53] They include one that would crack down on strategies that many states have developed to obtain more federal Medicaid funds. Senators from several states that heavily rely on a tax maneuver to finance their Medicaid programs have said they will not vote [00:05:09] for the legislation until it is modified, citing risks to rural hospitals. All states, by the way, but one use this loophole to some degree. By the way, the Senate parliamentarian also struck down other parts of the bill that we don't like, including cuts to snap, meaning, you know, [00:05:25] the the food stamp program for the needy. So it's just just think about the framing by the Republicans here, right? The framing is we want to give tax cuts that, for the most part, disproportionately benefit the wealthy. [00:05:42] Now working class Americans also get an extended tax break. Actually, they want to make the tax breaks for the working class. Dating back to 2017. Permanent. So it's not like the working class gets nothing but the rich disproportionately benefit from the tax cuts. [00:05:57] And then on top of that, in order to partially barely pay for like a minuscule portion of the tax cuts, Republicans are trying to cut from the social safety net. But the parliamentarian came in and basically said, no, you can't do that with the food stamps. No, you can't do that with Medicaid. [00:06:12] We'll see what the Republicans come up with next. But, Jake, you know, you and I are notorious for thinking that the Senate parliamentarian and the legislative filibuster shouldn't exist. Have you changed your mind at all, given this, you know, [00:06:28] strike back from the parliamentarian when it comes to the social safety net? No, I don't believe in the filibuster. I believe that democracy matters. And if you have the majority, you should be able to pass bills and that people should be careful about how they vote. Because if you give the majority to one party in all these branches, [00:06:44] then they will pass their agenda. And so that's voting should matter. So, so I'll come back to the parliamentarian in a second. But look to the heart of the bill. There's two issues here. One is this is the most important fact on the House version of the bill. [00:06:59] Medicaid and Snap get cut by 1.1 trillion. And that is the exact same number that is added in tax cuts for people making above $500,000. So the people making about $500,000 a year, do they really need an extra $1.1 trillion? [00:07:15] Or should we keep 10 million people on Medicaid? So when we take 10 million people off, what's going to happen? A lot of people are going to die. That's not a joke. The reason they're on Medicaid is because they're poor and they can't afford health insurance, and they can't afford health care. So if they can't afford it and they get kicked off Medicaid and they get sick, [00:07:35] that's it, they're going to die. It's not complicated, guys. That's and it's not hyperbole. So you twist your ankle, you go to the emergency room, they'll take your house. Okay, I got it. But if you have cancer or your daughter has cancer and you don't have insurance, You're dead. [00:07:53] So that's what they're doing. Because people making above $500,000 a year need an extra 1.1 trillion. But now, by the way, bloated ego, one of our members, wrote in on Titcomb a bill shouldn't be a potential death sentence. [00:08:09] And this one kind of is. And then and there's not kind of there's been analysis already. We'll see what the real number is. But then it might kill up to 70,000 people a year. But the people making above half $1 million a year need another $1.1 trillion. [00:08:25] Do they do they really need it that much? Come on guys. I mean, this is barbaric. And so. And if you wonder why I wouldn't vote Republican, this is why they always serve the rich above all else. [00:08:40] So now they say no, no, no, no, we have another priority. We got to balance the budget. My ass. You do? They never balance. If you think Republicans balance the budget, you're just. You're a giant. Say it never happened in our lifetime. Last Republican president to leave office with a balanced budget [00:08:56] was Dwight Eisenhower. Okay. So and in this case, the House version adds 3.3 trillion. The Senate version is going to add a lot more than 3.3 trillion. And they're like they keep saying. And it's so comical because mainstream media goes along with it. [00:09:12] And they keep quoting all the congressmen and senators. They're like, I don't know how we could possibly balance it. Where would we ever find the money? And I'm like, the tax cuts, if you just take the tax cuts out, you could actually balance it pretty easily. [00:09:28] But the press is like, I'm flummoxed too. Golly gee, where would we get the money? The tax cuts, that's where you would get the money. So I had Rokana on here last night. Check out that interview on YouTube. He found $12 trillion you can cut without cutting anything [00:09:45] from Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security. Snap. None of that. And oh, it's to oil company subsidies. It's to defense contractor waste, fraud and abuse. It's tax cuts for the rich for no reason, tax cuts for corporations [00:10:00] for no reason, etc.. So there's a way to do this. They just don't want to do it because they want to give all the money to their donors. That's why you got to look up. That's where the problems are. - The donor class. - Yep. Now, the other points of contention for the House versus the Senate is, you [00:10:17] know, the Republicans in the House wanted to lift or raise the so-called salt tax. That's the federal deduction when it comes to state and local taxes. But the Senate's not buying it. And so now the House Republicans are like, we're not going to vote yes [00:10:35] on the legislation if we don't get an increase on that salt cap. The House, by the way, would raise the cap to $40,000 for taxpayers earning no more than half $1 million a year. The Senate did away with the deal entirely, leaving [00:10:51] the deduction untouched at $10,000. So there is going to be a battle when it comes to these provisions. There's also going to be a battle in regard to what the Senate parliamentarian should be allowed to strike down, provision wise in the final bill. [00:11:08] It's really interesting to hear Republicans go after the parliamentarian accusing her of being woke, which is just like the go to, you know, feedback or insult that Republicans like to jump into [00:11:24] whenever they don't like something that's being done. I don't think this has anything to do with wokeness. I think this has to do with the fact that the Senate is intentionally structured in a way to ensure that it's the place where bills go to die. So, you know, if you want a simple majority, you really need to question [00:11:41] the structure of the Senate and whether or not some reforms need to be made. But look, we don't know what the final bill is going to look like. Republicans wanted to get this bill passed ahead of the July 4th holiday. It seems it seems unlikely to happen at this point, but you never know. [00:11:57] A lot of Republicans end up folding, so we'll see what happens. But we'll keep you updated and posted as this develops. Yeah. So look, no matter where the parliamentarian lands and where they land on how many hundreds of millions of dollars they're going to cut from Medicaid and how much of the Salt deduction [00:12:13] they're going to keep in, etc.. Again, Tom Massie is right. In a different clip, he explained, look, these guys in the Republican Party that pretend to complain, oh, I'm going to vote the moderate Republicans, so-called moderate, they're no moderate Republicans, but the ones that call [00:12:29] themselves moderate in the House, they say, oh, I'm going to vote against it. If you don't put more of a Salt deduction or this or that, he's like, no, they're not. He's like, at the end of the day, all the other Republicans are going to vote for whatever bill is put in front of them. So he's absolutely right. That's exactly what's happened. [00:12:46] It's is fake theater. My whole life covering politics for over 25 years, there's always a fake fight between the Republicans. Oh, I want to cut. I want to cut more. Don't talk about the tax cuts. Don't talk about the tax cuts. Right. So this whole thing plays out, they land on a number. And what is the same in every bill is a giant tax multi multi trillion [00:13:07] dollar tax cut for the rich giant additions to the deficit and the debt. And then the next time around. What drives me crazy Anna is mainstream media will then go. Now the Republicans say they care a lot about the deficit. So I'm like come on, how many times can they do that lie? [00:13:25] Add three, 4 or $5 trillion to the deficit and then you still parrot their talking points as if they care about the deficit when they're the number one party by a landslide in adding to the deficit. Right? I mean, infinite they they will continue doing it. [00:13:41] They will continue to pretend like, you know, Republicans care about the deficit. Their behavior certainly doesn't prove that they want the tax cuts and trying to justify the tax cuts by cutting away at the social, the measly social safety net that we currently have is pretty pathetic. [00:13:58] And I don't know how well that's going to play. Like if I were a Democratic politician, I would just go on the campaign trail and I would repeat incessantly, you know, the Republican Party has no problem spending tens of billions of dollars on [00:14:16] bombs, you know, to to bomb nuclear sites in foreign countries. There's no debate about it, but they want to cut nearly $1 trillion from, you know, the social safety net that we have in this country. So your tax dollars don't actually go to benefit your fellow Americans. [00:14:32] There's always nickel and diming when it comes to that. But when it comes to funding bombs, oh, no problem with that. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets its wings. Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.