I believe that those countries which now oppose us And President Dwight Eisenhower.
We sense with all our faculties that forces of good and evil are masked and armed and opposed as rarely before in history.
Watch historic inaugural speeches, Saturdays at 7 p .m. Eastern, beginning December 28th, on American History TV on C -SPAN 2.
C -SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
Oh, you think this is just a community center?
No, it's way more than that.
Comcast is partnering with a thousand community centers to create Wi -Fi -enabled lift zones so students from low -income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything.
Comcast supports C -SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front -row seat to democracy.
Our first guest of the morning is California Republican Tom McClintock, a member of the Budget Committee, also the chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, Enforcement.
Representative McClintock, good morning.
Good morning.
A short -term spending package on the table.
What do you think of it?
I don't like it for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that there's no serious work on a long -term budget.
I would support a strict CR.
If we were engaged in the budget process, if we were in negotiations and needed a few more days or even a few more weeks.
But we haven't been engaged in a serious budget process now in years.
And so we continue to go CR by CR down a fiscal road to ruin.
You say strict CR, just the issues at hand, or some of the other things that were added to this CR?
Well, that's the other thing.
They've added so much to it.
Yesterday, Mike Johnson reported it was 1 ,400 pages.
I understand it's now been reported out at 1 ,500 pages.
So 100 pages magically appeared in the last 24 hours.
And I'm looking at some of these numbers, and they're eye -popping.
$100 billion for disaster relief.
Well, no one begrudges disaster relief, but $100 billion, that's $800 taken from every...
And now, as the process works, 72 hours usually to look at these things, or do you think there's going to be an attempt by the Speaker just to take it to the House floor?
Well, I can't read minds and I can't tell fortunes, so I don't know what the speaker's planning on doing.
If that were the option, then how would you vote?
Well, I would vote no for the reason I just stated.
There's no serious budget discussion going on, so a CR is simply kicking the can down the road.
What would you have liked to see instead of its place?
I suppose a resolving of the budget overall.
The budget process!
We have a perfect process to bring spending in line with revenues.
It's the 1974 I think so.
We're good to go.
But it hasn't been used as it was intended.
When it has been used, it's been instrumental in reducing the deficit and I think was instrumental in producing the four balanced budgets that we saw in the 1990s, the last time we saw balanced budgets.
If it goes to the floor, if it passes, and if it goes into the next Congress, how much more difficult will it be to resolve the issue of funding in a new Congress with a new administration in place, do you think?
Well, that depends upon whether they're serious about actually bringing spending in line with revenues.
If they are, we have a budget process that can do that.
It's difficult, and it requires pronouncing the word no, which is something that's very rare in Washington these days, and that's why we're running a historic deficit of over $2 trillion a year,
and a debt of $36 trillion.
Our guests with us, and if you want to ask them questions about these budget -related matters or other things...
Here's how you can call us: At 202 -748 -8003, do you think President Trump will tell Republicans to say no to some of these add -ons and go to a strict budget?
Do you think that's his philosophy or at least his thinking?
Well, that's why he has the doge.
And even though that's not going to be an official body, I think it's going to exert enormous pressure on Congress and give a lot of reluctant representatives permission to pronounce that word no.
And that has got to be done because otherwise market conditions are going to...
If the Doge, as it's known as, makes these recommendations, it's going to be up to you and fellow Republicans in the House and the Senate Yes.
Well, again, I think that's the big question, and so far they haven't been.
But with the moral suasion that I think the Doge will be able to muster, I think that could change the equation, particularly if the president backs it to the hilt.
The answer is yes.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
I think?
How much are those grants and subsidies compared to total spending by the United States?
6 .2 trillion spent in 2023.
If you take a look at that big number compared to the grants and subsidies, is that a small amount?
Is that a drop in the bucket, so to speak?
No.
You're talking about nearly $2 trillion just in total grants and subsidies.
Let's talk about immigration for a second.
I think one of the things that you look at is this chair of the subcommittee.
First of all, tell us what the subcommittee does and your role in it.
The subcommittee has jurisdiction over all immigration law.
We don't do the enforcement side of it, that's Homeland Security, but we do the immigration side.
Most of H .R. 2 came out of the subcommittee on immigration.
When you hear then the president elects plans for so -called mass deportation...
What do you think of the reality of that actually happening?
I think the reality is very high.
In fact, it has to.
If you don't enforce your immigration laws, you don't have immigration laws.
If you don't have immigration laws, you don't have a border.
And if you don't have a border, you don't have a country.
So this is absolutely integral.
We're good to go.
I think?
We're good to go.
That's going to keep everybody busy for quite a while.
Let's tie the work of your chairship then to the work on the budget committee.
Is there an economic cost to mass deportation as far as the United States is concerned?
Is it going to cost?
Well, it's going to cost and it's also going to save.
Yes, it's going to cost because you've got, well, just since this administration took office, some 7 .6 million illegal immigrants who've entered the country, who've been allowed to enter the country.
We're gonna have to buy all that material back.
We're good to go.
I think?
We're good.
The Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee on the Senate side recently put out their estimations of what happens if mass deportations take place economically.
They conclude it could reduce the gross domestic product by 7 .4 % by 2028.
They say the supply of workers for key industries could be reduced.
First of all, I'm highly skeptical of those numbers.
They're coming from an ideologically motivated source.
But more to the point, when you flood the labor market with cheap, illegal labor...
You depress the wages for Americans.
And if you want to know why American wages, real wages, have gone down during this administration, that's one of the principal reasons.
Let's hear from Nicole.
This is from Ed.
Ed joins us from Ohio, Republican line for Representative Tom McClintock.
Ed, you're on with our guest.
Good morning.
Good morning, all of you.
Merry Christmas.
Happy holidays to all of you.
This guy right here, right out of the money.
I feel sorry for him.
He's the best one I've seen for years that's on TV I've finally seen.
I'm from Ohio.
I'm a 30 -year vet.
I still work in the phone business.
Unfortunately, he's in California, our left state.
I mean...
Here's a book I've had since 1993, and it's just as relevant today.
And everybody in Washington amazes me.
You should have this as a manual the first day and memorize it.
I've had this book since 1993 from my father, from my whatever, my whole family.
It's called, by Martin L. Gross, A Call for Revolution, How Washington is Threatening America and How to Stop It.
This was made in 1993.
And this, we're $37 trillion in debt.
The voters in this country, until they get it, we need to, right, we can cut this down.
We have to make cuts across the board and everything.
That's not, and he's talking about all these grants and stuff.
There's no reason we can't cut down at least a million of waste a year, and you have to do that for 30 seconds.
We're 40 % loss of power now.
We're still in high inflation.
It's not going to go down.
I mean, what's that thing in California going for years?
I have a question, Jeff.
Super trade you've been making for 30, 40 years.
How many billions they keep extending it because it's never completed?
That's not a grant.
But that's still going on in your state.
I had a lot of friends who live in California.
Most of them have left.
Your businesses are still going.
It's not your fault.
But this guy...
He's right on the money.
And the rhinos in the Republican, but the voters that are even Democrats, until they realize enough is enough, this book should be mandatory.
Gotcha, gotcha.
Got your point.
Thank you, Representative.
Well, he's absolutely right.
The socialist left has utterly destroyed the prosperity of California with the same policies that they've been using in recent years to destroy the prosperity of America.
That's what socialism produces.
Wherever they take control, you see the same social and economic pathologies.
You see sky -high taxes.
You see failing schools.
You see chronic shortages of basic necessities like fuel, water, electricity.
Sky -high prices for housing.
You see rampant crime, rampant homelessness.
You're seeing that in our greatest cities, San Francisco, Detroit, New York City, Chicago.
You're seeing it in what were once our greatest states like California.
The one consolation Californians have is that if things get bad enough, there's still 49 other states we can move to.
If we allow these policies to destroy our country, where will we all go?
And I think that was...
Good morning.
Good morning, Congressman.
Why is it that Republicans, every time they get into office, they always think about cuts?
And the main cuts that you guys want to do is Social Security.
And Medicare.
It's all the entitlement programs.
But you don't ever think about cutting the subsidies that you give to oil companies.
And Elon Musk, he's getting a whole lot of subsidies from the government.
I wonder if he's going to be trying to cut his subsidies.
You know, Bernie Sanders had a hearing on Social Security about two years ago.
and if you have if you tax the social security the right way and have the billionaires and the millionaires to pay the proper amount of taxes social security will be will survive for 75 more years but you guys refuse And every time you talk about these cuts and watch American people, what they're going to do, they want to privatize Social Security.
They want to privatize the Post Office.
The Post Office don't get taxpayer dollars.
They are self -funded, and they have to pay 75 years of pension, and they want to privatize it because they want to put their hands on that money.
Just like they want to put their hands on Social Security.
Okay.
You made those points, so we'll let our guests respond.
My first response would be that if we do nothing, Social Security will see a 17 % cut across the board in the mid -2030s.
So action has got to be taken, and time's not our friend.
The longer we wait to take action, the more draconian the actions will be.
Either higher taxes or lower benefits, or...
What I would prefer to see, and that is a slight extension in the age for qualification.
That's how we fixed Social Security during the early years of the Reagan administration.
But something has to be done.
But you're absolutely right on the other side.
And that is, it's not just entitlement spending, it's also the corporate welfare that's being handed out.
Hundreds of billions of dollars of grants to green energy companies, for example.
That by itself is an eye -popping number.
So yes, we should be stopping all of the corporate welfare that we're doling out.
You know, the beauty of a free market system.
Is that it's the most democratic possible way to organize an economy.
Think about this.
In a free market, every day, every consumer votes with every dollar they spend on what the economy is going to produce, who's going to produce it, and what price they're willing to pay for it.
Subsidies replace the preferences of consumers with the preferences of politicians.
That diverts the flow of capital for their highest and best use for consumers.
To the highest and best political advantage for politicians.
And those are two very, very different things.
You get rid of the subsidies, people get the accurate price signals they need to make rational decisions in how they're going to spend their dollars, and producers get accurate price signals in what needs they most need to fulfill.
That system works.
Subsidies destroy that, and it costs us hundreds of billions of dollars in the process.
When you hear callers like her saying Republicans want to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, to what degree is that true in your mind?
Well, it's not a question of cutting, it's a question of reforming.
For example, Medicare, which will also go bankrupt very shortly.
There are better ways of organizing it that would assure its long -term stability, and that's the premium support proposal that's been around for years now.
Let's hear from Roger.
Good morning, how are you both?
Let's just take two areas that it seems that the Republicans really seem to stay away from.
The first is our wonderful military budget, and are you aware that our military budget is larger than the top 17 countries in the world?
It's bigger than those 17 countries.
And yet we are paying $600 for hammers, $3 ,300 for toilet seats, and this is all well documented.
So there's one area that I think you could cut without question, and you could use those savings and put it into Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security.
The other thing is, why don't you Republicans want to tax the rich?
I am just floored.
That you let them get away with everything.
And we got all these billionaires right now being asked to be part of a cabinet.
And as we've listened, before they've even gotten in office, with Donald Trump and everything going one way, these guys are getting rich hand over fist.
And they're not really lifting a finger.
I don't understand.
What would you say is a fair rate of taxation for the rich?
Apologies, he's...
Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay, well then, make it a rhetorical question then and put it this way.
The top 1 % make about 20 % of all of the income in this country.
They pay 40 % of the income taxes.
So when people say, well, that rich top 1 % ought to be paying its fair share, what they're actually saying is we should cut their taxes in half.
We already have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world.
And the...
A dirty little secret is there are not enough rich people in the country to make much of a dent in the numbers that we're talking about in terms of federal spending.
That's the middle class that ultimately ends up bearing those burdens.
And I think it's important to note that every trillion dollars we talk about in Washington...
Think of that as $8 ,000 taken from an average family.
Divide the number of families into a trillion dollars, it comes to about $8 ,000 per family.
So a billion dollars is about $8 per family.
So every time you see these prices in Washington being thrown around so loosely, ask yourself, is that worth?
That billion dollar program worth $8 for my family?
Is that...
Back to the CR for a second.
There's two bits of reporting I want to ask you about.
Bloomberg reporting that within the CR, if it were to pass, it would allow the cost of living raises for members of Congress to resume.
Is that something you could support?
Well, I think members of Congress have an obvious conflict of interest in even addressing that question.
I think that it should have been left at the...
Well, when I came in, we were receiving $174 ,000 a year.
That was in 2008.
We're still receiving $174 ,000, what, 16, 17 years later.
I think that the fair thing to do is simply to set it at the rate it was at in 2008 and then provide an automatic cost of living adjustment beyond the control of the Congress to increase or decrease and then just let it be.
Members of Congress should not be setting their own salaries.
That should go without saying.
Put it on autopilot and then leave it alone.
There's also provision if it were passed, it would allow members of Congress to opt out of Obamacare and then rejoin the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.
What do you think of that proposal?
I haven't given any thought one way or the other.
Like I said, I'm a Kaiser patient, so that's where my attention is.
What other members do is up to them.
I also want to ask you about a standout feature of you.
There were attempts to release the House Ethics Report about Matt Gaetz.
You were the only Republican to vote for that to happen.
Why is that?
Well, it was a public report.
Prepared with public funds regarding the public conduct of a public official.
Of course the public has a right to see that report.
Do you think it will happen?
And why does it matter now, do you think, even though he's left Congress?
Well, as Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best of disinfectants.
The truth will out, I think.
People already have a general idea of what is in that report simply from the public reporting.
But ultimately, I think the public has a right to see it and then let the chips fall where they may.
Have you seen any elements of the report?
No.
Okay.
Let's hear from Tim.
Tim in Wisconsin, Democrats line.
Yes, good morning.
I think Mr. Representative McClintock seems like a pretty straight shooter.
But I'd like to ask him a couple questions.
I know, I mean, they want to cut the buzz and everything, but...
In a lot of ways, there's a lot of hypocrisy on the Republican Party when nine of the ten poorest states in the country are red states, and they get heavily subsidized because the simple fact is that people make very low wages,
so they don't pay much into the federal government per capita compared to a lot of states.
For instance, Arkansas gets four to one back, Mississippi and Alabama two, three to one back.
Tim, thank you.
Oh, I think that's a very good point.
I would dispute that the red states are the poorest states.
Quite the contrary.
The fastest economic growth we're seeing is in the red states.
We're good to go.
I think?
I do believe, you're absolutely right, that we should not be, you know, Pocatello should not be paying for sidewalks in Poughkeepsie, New York.
Local projects that exclusively benefit local taxpayers should be paid for by those local taxpayers.
Among other things, that gives them the freedom to set their own priorities.
One of the things I've noticed in these huge amounts of local project grants, and therefore everything from transportation to homeless shelters to sidewalks to local schools,
those are all projects that benefit the local taxpayers.
But when they come to Washington for grants, what they're really telling us is these particular projects don't make our cut.
They don't make sense for us to pay for them with our own revenues.
They're lower priority items.
But we don't mind if we can stick somebody else with the tab.
So we end up funding lower priority projects with other people's money.
It's not fair.
And it also distorts, again, the priorities that we should be setting at the local level for projects that exclusively benefit our local communities.
One more call.
This will be from Ann in Florida, Independent Line.
Good morning.
You had made a comment earlier about you being a Medicare Advantage patient.
You say you're Kaiser.
You're using Kaiser Medicare, correct?
Yes.
That's an advantage plan.
Right.
The rumor I have heard is, and you indicated this might happen, was to revamp Medicare by turning everything into an advantage plan.
Is that correct?
Yes, that's the proposal for premium support.
Okay.
What safeguards are you going to put in for the public?
Because the current advantage plans do not adequately always meet everything.
Ann, thank you.
Well, Will and Ariel Durant asked a question in their history of civilization.
What makes Ford a good car?
Chevrolet.
Competition.
And the idea behind the premium support plan is that Medicare negotiates a wide range of plans meeting a wide range of needs and then allows individual consumers to choose among hundreds of competing plans for the one that best meets their own needs and circumstances and then the federal government,
through Medicare, would underwrite the cost of those, again, based upon how old, how sick, and how poor they are.
To me, that makes perfect sense.
And it restores to individuals the freedom to select their own plans according to their own needs and assures them a wide range of choices from which to exercise their judgment.
When it comes back to the CR, one more time, what are you expecting from the week as we progress as far as whether we'll pass in the House or not?
Again, sadly, I was born without the power of prophecy.
I can't predict.
I can tell you what my vote's going to be right now, and it's no, and it's based on the fact that we're not in any kind of serious budget negotiations.