Some Tough Love on the Federal Budget and (Personal) Bloat with Rep. Chip Roy and Rep. Andy Biggs
Republicans are divided over the debt ceiling deal. Reps. Chip Roy and Andy Biggs join the show, taking turns explaining why they are each a "hard no" to the deal, and discussing whether it has any hope of clearing the House with so much hostility. Plus, New York has a brand new law abolishing "weight discrimination," pushed by the "fat acceptance" movement. Charlie responds, explaining why obesity is a personal choice, why "fat shaming" is healthy, and why conservatives should feel a moral obligation to get their health in order. The response is immediate, and Charlie reads emails from both an offended fan, and another who turned his life around after being inspired by Charlie's message on health.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Chip Roy and Fat Acceptance00:02:53
Hey everybody, it's on the Charlie Kirk Show.
Oh, we make some headlines with this episode.
Well, first we have Chip Roy, and then I do a little interlude about the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance.
Now, that's a real organization.
They argue that we need to reaccommodate the rest of our society for them.
It's not a joke.
New York City has now passed some new health measures.
I don't think we should validate people's obesity.
In fact, we received a lot of angry emails when we did this segment.
It's not my heart to try to sow Discord.
People very fired up.
I think that if you are 150 pounds overweight, you should make some changes to try to lose weight.
I think you'll be healthier, you'll be happier, and you'll be a better person.
We should not become a country where being 100 to 150 pounds overweight is considered normal or good.
In fact, even the CDC, which I don't exactly trust all the time, says that it increases high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease.
It is something that you can do to actually improve other health outputs.
But we received plenty of angry emails, people pretty fired up about it, and you can continue to get in line on that.
Email me freedom at charliekirk.com.
We're not going to back away from it.
But equally, we're receiving really promising emails of people that say, Charlie, because you speak truthfully on this, I have lost weight.
I personally know that when I have decided to lose weight, I feel better.
I move better.
I encourage those of you to think and pray about that as well.
And I'm sure I'll be hearing from many of you.
Get involved with Turning PointUSA, tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
Get involved with our young women's leadership summit.
That's tpusa.com slash ywls.
I encourage you to check out.
We have Candace Owens, you have Alabstucke, Alex Clark, Carrie Lake, my wife, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Riley Gaines, and more.
tpusa.com slash ywls.
That is tpusa.com slash ywls.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
Welcome back, everybody.
Let's hear from the members themselves.
Congressman Chip Roy, a great man from Texas, 21st Congressional District, joins us now.
Paying for the $2 Trillion Cuts00:09:06
Congressman Roy, you are against this bill.
Tell our audience why.
Well, first of all, Charlie, great to be on.
Second of all, I just want to say God bless all of the fallen yesterday being Memorial Day and what they fought for.
And I do not believe that they fought for $32 trillion of debt and now an agreement by Republicans to lift that debt another $4 trillion.
Okay, that's my starting place.
I don't believe that's what we're here in Washington to do.
And unfortunately, Republican leadership, who had been doing a good job for the last five months, including all of us in the conversation as part of the sort of power sharing arrangement from January, was yielding good results.
We passed the Really Good Limit Save Grow Act.
We passed HR2 strong border security.
And unfortunately, this weekend, they broke from that.
It was a breach.
They walked away from the structure and the model that was working and instead worked and cut a deal with the White House and then just announced it.
And that deal is unacceptable.
It is effectively a two-year freeze, a two-year freeze in spending.
That is spending that is post-COVID spending, a two-year freeze in post-COVID spending levels in exchange for $4 trillion of debt.
It's actually worse than that.
Uncapped debt that expires on January 1st, 2025 during a lame duck.
Now, keep in mind, that leaves the IRS fully expanded, except for $1.4 billion out of the $80 billion.
It leaves all of the corporate crony tax subsidies to the rich for all their Green New Deal subsidies fully in place, not touched at all.
It does not get rid of the student loan bailouts, leaves it fully in place and only in the hands of the courts to strike down.
It does not do enough, in my opinion, with respect to the regulatory state.
We had the Reigns Act to pull back the regulations and bring them back to Congress.
And instead, it's administrative PAYGO, which the administration can waive.
What is PAGO?
What is bad?
I keep hearing people, again, some of these acronyms.
What is PAYGO?
Yeah, sorry.
It's swamp speak.
It basically is when the administrative state has a regulation, it is on them, they can waive it, to say, hey, this is expensive.
We're going to have to pay for this as we go.
Meaning, hey, this is a $100 million regulation.
We got to go find spending for it.
The Reigns Act was different.
It said, hey, if this is a $100 million regulation, it's got to go to Congress for approval.
And it would be statutory.
This is a waivable rule that would not do any good.
Look, bottom line is, this bill is bad.
All of the talking heads are out saying, oh, this is great.
It's historic.
It's cut spending.
In the light best for the speaker and those negotiating the bill, it's a $12 billion cut, a $12 billion cut.
That's 0.75% off of the $1.6 trillion.
And frankly, it's probably closer to a wash when you look at the number.
So it's basically a freeze.
Yeah, so help me understand, Congressman, because we just want the truth for our audience.
So Breitbart.com comes out with an article.
You probably saw the article that Breitbart published where they said it was $2 trillion in cuts.
So what am I missing?
And I'm not even questioning what you're saying.
It's just that those are two different universes, right?
How are they getting to that headline or that number?
Because what happens in Washington is that the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, comes in and says, okay, look, if you drop the spending off of its current trajectory, you will save X over 10 years.
What we are saying is that we want upfront cuts in year one that are meaningful, and we want statutory caps to lock in the spending levels.
All we've got right here is two-year statutory caps, two years of statutory caps, which are basically at a freeze.
All that does is flatten the curb off of the already bloated COVID curve.
The CBO is saying, wait, over 10 years, if you keep at that spending level, you can save somewhere between $1.50 to $2 trillion, depending on which study you look at.
And what we're saying is, no, we don't accept out-year savings.
We want near-term savings, and we want to prove it.
That's why our bill had a trillion dollars in year one savings and would have been at $5 trillion over $10.
Big difference.
So then, let's talk about the IRS thing, right?
So there was a call that somebody set up yesterday of kind of, and I dialed in to hear the speaker's team kind of walk through it.
So this IRS thing, the way that the speaker's team is framing it is that this defunded the IRS for this year.
Tell me why that's not true or why it's not correct.
Well, yeah, well, first of all, remember that the IRS has their annual budget, right?
Which I don't have in front of me, but it's like $8 or $9 billion annual appropriations.
It's $9 billion too much.
Last August, they passed the expansion of the IRS, which basically gave them a pot of money, like $80 billion, just sitting over there to be spent over a decade.
All this bill does is say you can't spend $1.4 billion of that this year with respect to the IRS expansion, but it leaves the $78.6 billion sitting there.
Now, they'll say, well, we have an agreement that says we can peel off another $10 billion each of the next two years to then go backfill some of the non-defense discretionary cuts.
That's the bureaucracy.
Well, I don't think that's a win for the American people.
You're going to go take money out of this account from one bureaucrat and go give it to another bureaucrat.
But in any event, it's not even in the statute.
The only thing in the statute is $1.4 billion out of the $80 billion that was given to the IRS to expand.
And their current budget stays most likely the same once you go through appropriations.
So the question is: do you think this can even pass the rules committee, right?
That's kind of where we're at.
And so walk us through that.
I mean, what does this look like?
Because actually, let me take a step back.
Were you surprised as this came forward?
And do you think it can pass rules?
So, first of all, what I'm disappointed in, because look, I get along with Kevin.
I like Kevin, people negotiating, Garrett, Patrick McHenry, Kevin's staff.
We've been talking, but I believed, and I told them last week, that I thought whatever deal you try to go cut, you've got to bring it back to the Republican conference.
And we've got to have a family conversation about whether this passes mustard.
That didn't really happen.
The deal was cut.
It was put out as the deal.
And then we had a basically cheerleading call on Saturday night.
I dialed in.
I waited for 20 minutes to get in, couldn't get in till late, and then I never could speak.
And that's it.
That's the total ability to have a say on Saturday.
So fast forward to Sunday, like, guys, we're flying back on Monday.
We're going to oppose this thing.
And so now what's going to happen in rules?
I'm not sure.
But if we don't get either votes on amendments that are critical or get amendments that will change the bill, I can promise you I'm not going to agree to a closed rule to send this bill to the floor as is.
It's a bad bill.
I don't do that.
So we'll go have conversations this afternoon and we'll see what happens.
So just kind of taking the temperature of members, if it passes rules, do you think that then this will pass with 100 Republican defections or Democrats?
I mean, where are we at now with the kind of composition?
I know this is speculation, but what can you tell based on the atmospheric so far of the House Republican conference?
Well, I don't know exactly the whip.
I mean, people going out on Twitter and social media can see I think there's 40 or 50 public no's at this point.
I'm not sure.
My read is that there's very much a half or more of the conference that are raising serious questions or saying that they're a no or lean no.
We'll see what happens when the whip and the leaders strong arm and start twisting arms and say, you got to be with us.
Here's the deal.
Stick with me.
We'll do some stuff in a probes in the fall.
But I can promise you there's a lot of us who are a hard no.
And look, the Dems are whipping in favor of it.
Biden put out a SAP that's a statement of administrative policy or whatever, where he basically said, this deal's great.
It preserves all the Green New Deal stuff.
It's a good deal.
I mean, if the Biden administration supports it, and if Mitt Romney supports it, and if Bill Kristol supports it, and if a bunch of Democrats here in the House support it in this environment, how good do you think it is?
Congressman Chiproy, thank you for joining us.
We're going to probably have you on tomorrow, the next day, because last question only like 10 seconds.
When is the vote?
What is the process?
Rules Committee meets at 3 Eastern.
We'll meet late into the night.
And then depending on if it's passed out, it'd be voted on tomorrow.
We'll see what happens.
You're a glutton for punishment, Congressman.
You didn't want to be on the rules committee, but you ended up being leading the charge and you're like, okay, you go on it.
Obesity as Discrimination00:08:07
And there goes your Sunday nights with your family.
Thank you for representing your voters, Congress, and we appreciate it.
Thank you.
God bless, Charlie.
Take care.
Look, I can't believe the dire headlines we're facing in the world today.
Everywhere you look, things are falling apart.
And that's why the smartest investment you can make right now is in your family's food security.
The reality is you might not be able to find food when the next disaster strikes.
Grocery stores will be empty because roads will be closed and trucks won't be able to make deliveries.
When that happens, you need emergency food in full supply.
That's why I urge you to grab a three-month emergency food kit from MyPatriot Supply, the nation's largest preparedness company.
When you order today, you'll save $200 on each kit you need.
Having these kits means your family will stay fed while others stand in food lines.
Do not delay.
Order your three-month emergency food kit and save $200 per kit.
It's easy to order.
Go to preparewithkirk.com.
You'll get fast and free shipping too.
Do this today or you'll regret it tomorrow.
That is preparewithkirk.com.
Preparewithkirk.com.
Order your three-month emergency food kit and save $200 per kit.
That is preparewithkirk.com.
Do this today or you'll regret it tomorrow.
Preparewithkirk.com.
So I couldn't believe it when I was doing the research on this.
The New York City government, with crime going up, arson, carjackings, and all this, led by Eric Adams, they have a new announcement in regards to fat acceptance.
Now, look, America is fatter than ever and gayer than ever.
It's really quite a time to be alive.
We're an overweight nation.
We should never put up with people's obesity.
Okay?
Now, I understand you're a couple pounds overweight.
Some people metabolize food differently than others.
There is no excuse to be 150, 200 pounds overweight.
That is your fault.
You are making those decisions.
Somebody emailed me, Charlie.
I've tried everything I possibly can and I can't lose weight.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Try harder.
Stop eating carbohydrates, intermittent fast.
You are not designed to be 200 pounds overweight.
Listen to this.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams, science has shown the body type is not a connection to if you're healthy or unhealthy.
This is garbage.
There is nothing to support this.
This is the same science that says men can give birth.
And by the way, this is all an outgrowth of a flawed philosophy of be who you are, self-esteem movement.
There's no reason to improve.
There's no reason to respect yourself enough to trim down and eat better.
Play cut six.
I'm a person that believes in health.
So when you talk about not discriminating against someone because of their body type, it's not fighting against obesity.
It's just being fair.
And so I think this is the right thing to do.
We're going to continue to talk about our progressive health agenda.
And science has shown that body type is not a connection to if you're healthy or unhealthy.
And I think that's a misnomer that we are really dispelling.
When it comes to COVID, when it comes to heart disease, when it comes to diabetes, being overweight puts you at risk of dying or having a significant, significantly difficult journey with all of those things.
Here's the real talk.
Shame is one of the best tools we have for promoting health.
You should not feel comfortable if you're hundreds of pounds overweight.
And in research of doing this story, I couldn't believe it.
There is an organization with a website called the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance.
Well, at least they acknowledge they're fat.
And you could donate at giveto naafa.com.
They call it size freedom.
I thought this was a trolling website.
Now, I'd love to learn what their lunch budget is because that would definitely break the bank.
Fat Liberation Month.
No, this is a real website.
One-third of the world's population is fat, yet fat people are discriminated against in all aspects of daily life.
Now, this is a type of discrimination that we shouldn't have any problem with because this is something you can change.
Remember, racial discrimination is inherently evil and bigoted because you're discriminating against something that somebody cannot change.
It's an immutable characteristic.
You are able to lose weight.
You're able to stop eating.
Saturated fat, carbohydrates, eating every two hours.
The human body is not meant to be 200 pounds overweight.
So literally, this is on this website.
Our work towards hashtag equality at every size is changing the world.
Here is cut five, the chair of the National Association of Fat Acceptance, the NAAFA.
This is the new civil rights campaign, everybody.
Yeah, we had the NAACP, we had the Civil Rights Act.
Now we need to reaccommodate society for obese gluttons.
Play cut five.
As the chair of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance and a co-founder of the Campaign for Size Freedom, I am so thrilled at the example that New York City is setting today.
We all know, y'all know, New York is the global city.
And this will ripple across the globe in terms of showing to people all over the world that discrimination against people based on their body size is wrong and is something that we can change.
No, if you are obese, you should have to buy two airplane tickets.
If you are obese, you should be treated differently if you want to buy a ticket, if you want to enter into something where a skinny person or somebody taking care of themselves otherwise will be disenfranchised.
This is the one thing where you have agency and you have free will.
If you are overweight, have enough respect for yourself to do something about it.
Look, you did the tough thing during the Chinese coronavirus.
You paid your people and pulled your business through the pandemic.
And now doing the tough thing could qualify you up to $26,000 per employee at covidtaxrelief.org.
Government funds are available to reward companies with two or more employees who stayed open during COVID.
This is not a loan and you don't have to pay it back.
I know a lot of people that have benefited from this.
I think Congress appropriated way too much money.
This program is complicated, but nobody knows it better than the CPAs and tax experts at covidtaxrelief.org.
That is covidtaxrelief.org.
You pay nothing up front.
They do all the work and share a percentage of the cash they get you.
Businesses of all types, including nonprofits and churches, can qualify, including those who took PPP loans, even if you had an increase in sales.
You did the difficult thing for your employees during the virus.
Let covidtaxrelief.org help you get up to $26,000 per employee.
Visit covidtaxrelief.org.
That is covidtaxrelief.org, covidtaxrelief.org.
As predicted, we got an email here.
Charlie, I'm a longtime supporter.
I'm 145 pounds overweight.
And I'm really disgusted by your tone and your attitude.
Who do you think you are saying that I should not have the same rights as other people?
I'm a Trump supporter, and yes, I'm fat.
Screw you.
Well, I hope you lose some weight.
And I'm sorry that I'm not going to affirm gluttony, which is one of the seven deadly sins.
I think you might be a sweet person, a nice person, but our country is far overweight.
It's not easy to trim off the pounds, but you just admitted you're 145 pounds overweight.
There's probably a lifestyle element that plays into that.
And by the way, I care about you so much, I care about the audience so much that I don't want you to have to have type 2 diabetes or having heart disease.
Having a trim physique is best for all of your health outcomes.
In a moment we have Andy Biggs, but just think about it's an unbelievably obese younger generation.
Think about the standard we are setting where it says you don't have to watch what you eat, you don't have to exercise.
It's bad for everybody.
It's bad for a nation's self-control, for health outcomes, all that.
IRS Agents and Lifestyle Choices00:12:05
Okay, back to the looming debt ceiling debate.
The fabulous, terrific, excellent.
Congressman Andy Biggs joins us now.
Congressman Biggs, I assume I haven't seen it yet.
You're against this bill.
I don't think that's going to be too much of a speculation.
Tell us why and walk us through the details.
Take as much time as you need.
Sounds good, Charlie.
Thanks.
Good to be with you.
And yes, of course, I'm against this plan.
And I'm going to start off with the most glaring aspect of this.
That is, they raise the debt ceilings.
They erase all caps for 19 months.
So that means any authorization, anything that's already been pre-authorized, it will just go ahead and head and add to the debt.
And they've been doing that until January 1st, 2025.
Now, the way to think about that is at the normal CBO rate, you would have approximately $4 to $4.5 trillion added to the national debt.
So you would go from roughly $32 to almost $37 trillion in national debt in just a year and a half.
I mean, that's the reality.
That's sad, but that's true.
Then we move over to a whole series of things.
And I'll go those, and you just stop me if you think I'm not a roller.
Congressman, only interrupt.
Just go through the details.
Our audience is super into the wonky stuff.
So take as much time as you need.
Okay.
All right.
So let's talk about the so-called spending cuts.
So they claim that they've reduced spending, but the spending cut is ostensibly $12 billion vis-a-vis a $4 trillion ceiling increase.
And some analysts have said that it actually looks like it's more like an increase in spending by $19 trillion.
So the biggest aspect of what Kevin McCarthy is touting as a reduction in spending is something called administrative PAYGO.
We've had PAYGO in Congress for literally years, but we keep growing spending because Congress will waive PAYGO.
Well, the administrative PAYGO is actually a weirder deal because it, first of all, it sunsets after one year.
I'm not kidding you.
So before the Biden administration is even out of office, the administrative PAYGO provision, which they keep telling me is transformative, goes away.
But here's the deal.
What administrative PAYGO is supposed to do is any agency, any bureaucracy is supposed to determine how they're going to pay for new programs, et cetera.
Well, it can be waived at any time by the director of Office of Management and Budget, who happens to be a Democrat Biden appointee.
So they don't have to, and it can't be litigated, by the way, because that's the way they've drafted it.
They said you can't litigate it.
So it's going to basically put into the hands of this leftist Democrat the ability on any PAYGO, any agency that seeks a waiver.
They get the waiver.
Now, why is that important?
It's because of the so-called $2 trillion that the CBO is saying that the McCarthy-Biden plan saves.
That's $1.5 trillion of it.
So that's basically a unicorn.
It's a leprechaun.
It doesn't exist.
And so now you throw out the $1.5.
Now, what happens to the rest of it?
Well, let's talk about this notion of the tax IRS agents, the new agents.
That was pre-authorized.
The money's already in place.
And what the Biden-McCarthy or McCaith McCarthy-Biden plan does is it sets aside and says $1.4 billion for this coming year.
You can't spend it to hire agents.
Well, since the money's already allocated, already sitting there, all that does is that it has a back-end effect.
So you take it off the back end of the $71 billion that's there for agents.
And so now you have $69 billion roughly.
And that doesn't prevent them from continuing on with the hiring of the IRS agents for this year.
So that's bogus.
That's ephemeral as well.
You know, let me see.
I got this whole thing here, but Charlie, I've written down so many things here.
No, please.
Okay.
Yes.
Yes.
So they claim that they've frozen the discretionary funding at the 2022 rates.
And actually, that's where they get their $12 billion because it's actually $12 billion below the 2023 rates.
But what they've done, though, is those caps are artificial and they sit between 22 and 23 numbers.
So I know this is hard to fathom how this works, but they're placing those ostensible caps in there for two years.
By the way, anybody can you can always waive those caps.
And then they say for four years, this is where the CBO says you get another four or $600 billion in savings, is that there'll be four years more of optional caps.
Notice how I said the word optional?
Charlie, those aren't mandatory because you can't legally mandate and bind the next legislative legislature.
So that's ephemeral.
So all of that $2.1 trillion that they say that they're cutting out, that doesn't exist.
It's all make-believe.
It's all make-believe.
So let's see what else I got here.
Yeah, let me just interrupt because, you know, and you addressed this, but I just want to make sure that, you know, I was on this briefing call yesterday.
I decided to call in from the speaker's office.
I'm sure you've heard the talking points, right?
And the IRS one in particular, again, I'm not in the wonkiness of the weeds here, but you are.
They say it deprives them of this, but you're saying that's not true, right?
They say that because there's this money off the psychic.
So can you just clarify that?
Because we're getting a lot of emails about that.
And there's like these two competing universes.
Please walk us through that.
Yeah.
So in Biden's IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, they included $80 billion for IRS.
$71 billion was to hire these new 87,000 IRS agents.
What this bill does is it says, okay, we're going to, by the way, that's pre-authorized.
That money's out the door and will be used for the next 10 years.
McCarthy's plan comes out and says, well, wait, we're going to stop you at 1.4.
You can't spend the 1.4.
Okay.
That 1.4 doesn't apply up front necessarily.
It can be at the end.
And they can use it any way they want because money is fungible and money can be supplanted.
So the point is, you haven't stopped them from hiring agents in this year.
What McCarthy should have done is taken the first bill we passed out of here that did repeal all of that spending, took it away, and proscribed or prohibited the hiring of agents.
That's not in this bill.
That's not in the bill.
So that's the reality of it.
Yeah.
So Breitbart.com, who I have respect for, says that this is a $2 trillion spent.
I'm sure you saw the headline.
$2 trillion getting cut.
Why is that headline misleading?
Oh, because the $2 trillion is based on what I was talking about.
The first one being this, well, let's just take this $600 billion in the spending caps.
So they're ostensibly freezing them at a certain level with a very small growth.
So you can't spend more than this amount of money.
And that's only hard for two years, fiscal year 23 and 24.
When you get to fiscal year 25 and for the next four years, it's optional.
It's optional.
But CBO scored it as if it was mandatory.
So you follow me there?
So that's $600 billion.
So is it then cuts or slowdowns in the rates of growth?
I mean, it's...
Slowdowns in the rates of growth.
Yeah.
This is Orwellian newspeak stuff, right?
Because it's called a cut, but it's not really a cut.
Exactly.
Right?
Yeah, right.
And so that's that one.
And that's why you get there.
The $1.5 trillion deal, what that is, that's the admin pay go.
So the admin pay go, so the way that works, that's what I was telling you to begin with.
They scored that as a $1.5 trillion savings over 10 years.
But here's the deal.
The director of OMB, who is a leftist Democrat appointed by the Biden administration, can waive the PAYGO requirements for any reason at any time.
And I'm just going to tell you this because I've had this from Democrat sources.
The White House is absolutely unconcerned with this provision.
And why would they be?
Because their person is the one that determines whether the bureaucracy has to find a way to pay for whatever rules, programs, et cetera, that they go to.
And their person can say they're waiving it at any time.
And they're going to waive it.
That's the other $1.5 trillion.
So that's $2.1 trillion.
And that's where Breitbart and the Kevins of this world are saying, see, we're saving $2.1 trillion.
That's not true.
That is the unicorn.
That is the leprechaun.
That's the pot of gold that doesn't exist at the end of the rainbow.
Congressman Biggs, you're going to talk about rescissions.
Floor is yours.
Yeah, thanks.
I want to cover two or three areas with rescissions.
I proposed a long time ago, and it was adopted in the last bill, about $900 billion in rescissions, taking back student loan money, taking back IRS money, taking back COVID relief money, taking back Green New Deal subsidies.
This particular bill, instead of having $900 billion in rescissions, is at claimed to be $29 billion.
So they got rid of any of the Green New Deal subsidies and tax credits.
They're letting those stay in.
Those are going to stay active, by the way.
That's the point.
The Biden administration negotiated, apparently, those out.
Then the second thing is they got rid of all the other subsidies except for the COVID relief.
And they're going to rescind that.
But they've acknowledged it's $29 billion.
But they're going to set aside $22 billion, Charlie, off to the side, and those are going to be used to go around these putative debt ceiling or these spending caps.
So when they say they've got spending caps, they've got some programs that they're going to need more money for.
So they're going to move that $22 billion from the rescissions around and put it in for that.
So the actual rescission amount drops down to about $6 billion.
And the team of McCarthy Biden are telling everybody that this is the highest rescissions ever in the history of America.
The highest rescissions would have been if they would have stuck with the $900 billion.
And if you want to know how bad this plan is, the economic advisor for Joe Biden just tweeted out that the deal with McCarthy helps cement in the progressive agenda.
So what do you think is the legislative future of this bill?
I think right now we're getting more and more Republicans on board.
I hope that the only critical mass that really matters if we can get more than 113 or more than half of the Republicans to vote no, because ostensibly Kevin's not going to bring it to the floor.
McCarthy Biden Rescissions Explained00:02:28
But I believe you're going to have 150 or so Democrats that vote for this.
And I think you're going to have right now, you might have a similar number of Republicans who vote for it in the House.
Then it goes to the Senate.
You will certainly get your usual gang of 10 to 12 goofy Republicans who vote with the Democrats for it.
And then it goes to Biden and gets signed.
Is that for depressing?
That's just the way we go.
Can you just walk through the timeline, though?
When did you first hear about this bill and how were you notified?
Reporting says that you heard about it Saturday evening on like kind of a conference call because you were a little bit, were you kept in the dark?
Just walk us through that.
Well, I would be lying if I didn't say I'd heard rumors about various aspects of this for weeks, but they were just that.
They were rumors and I couldn't verify with anyone.
So we were told late last week that we had to stay within 24 hours of Washington, D.C.
And so I want to say while I was driving down to Maricopa to speak on Saturday, I think they notified us that that's when I think they told us that we would have a conference that evening, Saturday evening, where they would kind of brief us on this.
And that's when we got briefed and they said that they'd have language for us Sunday.
So got language, I want to say Sunday evening, about 9 o'clock Eastern time.
And then I flew back here yesterday and been reading the bill, looking at analyses of the bill, talking to people about the bill.
And the rules committee, Charlie, and this is important, the rules committee will meet, I think, in about an hour, 3 o'clock Eastern Time.
They will meet and consider this bill.
I believe Chip Roy and Ralph Norman are going to vote no on the rule on this, which means that I don't know what Mastie's going to do, and I don't know what anybody else is going to do, but I suspect the Democrats are going to help this bill get out of rules.
And then the question is, will they allow amendments or potential amendments on the floor?
I don't know.
Congressman Biggs, thank you for your leadership.
Come back soon, and we'll be watching closely.
Meeting Time and Voting Outlook00:00:54
Thank you.
All right.
Thanks, Charlie.
I want to just share an email here because people are definitely fired up.
Charlie, I'm from Chicagoland.
Yes, people can do something about obesity.
I found a way, and you can too.
I went from 420 pounds to 190 pounds.
Yes, it was on me.
But I decided to be big enough to be threatened, and not to be big enough to be threatened by my zip code or excuses.
Life is great.
Now all I need to do is find a conservative lady.
So I don't have to argue.
Be well, keep fighting him in your corner.
Paul, I totally support you.
You have free will agency.
I have too much respect for you, the audience, and compassion for you to say that you should stay where you are if you are chronically overweight.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
As always, I want to hear from you, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening, and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.