Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 3, 2023 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz

29:58

Episode 127 LIVE: Israel Is Greater Than The IRS – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	You're not taking Matt Gaetz off the board, okay?
	Because Matt Gaetz is an American patriot and Matt Gaetz is an American hero.
	We will not continue to allow the Uniparty to run this town without a fight.
	I want to thank you, Matt Gates, for holding the line.
	Matt Gates is a courageous man.
	If we had hundreds of Matt Gates in D.C., the country turns around.
	It's that simple.
	He's so tough, he's so strong, he's smart, and he loves this country.
	Matt Gates.
	It is the honor of my life to fight alongside each and every one of you.
	We will save America.
	It's choose your fighter time.
	I'm sending the Firebrands.
	Welcome back to Firebrand.
	We're broadcasting live out of room 2021 of the Rayburn House Office Building here in the Capitol Complex in Washington, D.C. And Congress has been up late at night doing work.
	Last night it was around midnight.
	That we ended the debate and discussion on some of the amendments regarding the Department of the Interior's Single Subject Appropriation Bill.
	You see, this is what we've been telling you all along, that when these disparate agencies of government are put together in one up or down vote, that lashing, that log rolling, allows the swampiest and slipperiest of things to evade review.
	And so we had open rules, we had hundreds of amendments, and I told you when Mike Johnson became Speaker, We were done with the French work week.
	We were going to start working bayou hours.
	That means late at night.
	Sorry if some of the folks had to cancel their dinner plans or their other activities.
	Very important we get this work done.
	It could be the best kryptonite we possibly have against a continuing resolution or an omnibus spending bill.
	And you can tell that it is the right strategy by all of the enemies today.
	That are concerned and speaking out against our pursuit of these single subject bills.
	Notably, Democrat Congressman from California, Ted Lieu, is not happy he has to work late at night putting out this tweet under new Republican leadership.
	We are voting late at night on stupid stuff.
	We are about to vote on reducing the salary of the EPA Administrator to one dollar, reducing the salary of the Director of Bureau and Land Management to one dollar, reducing the salary of the Secretary of the Interior to one dollar.
	Now I can tell you that we took those votes on those amendments and that's a consequence of something called the Holman Rule.
	We believe That these nameless, faceless, oftentimes anonymous bureaucrats who are really turning against the American people with governmental powers should be subject to individual review.
	And so one of the concessions we got in House Rules back in January was the ability to reduce their salary to one dollar by a vote.
	Now I wish that some of these folks would have had their salaries reduced to one dollar.
	Certainly everything that they are doing to try to create climate alarmism and to try to limit property rights and to hurt businesses and to stop American production is worthy of sanction and consequence.
	But unfortunately, each of these amendments did not pass.
	Congresswoman Boebert offered a number of them.
	I voted for them.
	But you've got all the Democrats voting to keep the bureaucrats in power.
	And then you've got a certain batch of Republicans that just don't believe in this severe level of accountability.
	But I think the times we are living in are severe.
	I would love to know your perspective on the Holman rule.
	Do you think we should be targeting these individual bureaucrats?
	Enough Democrats and Republicans now think it's mean-spirited or unwarranted or not properly predicated.
	But frankly, in a lot of these Western states where I know we've got a number of listeners who are out West, The federal government plays such a large role in people's lives through the Bureau of Land Management, through the EPA, through all the federal-owned land.
	And I'm hearing more and more reports that cattlemen and grazers are seeing these crazy kind of climate alarmist policies impacting their ability to make a living, live out their day-to-day lives.
	And so, yeah, I supported these amendments.
	Unfortunately, they didn't pass.
	But as I've said before, the great Bobby Bowden teaches us, first you lose by a lot.
	Then you lose by a little, then you end up winning by a little and winning by a lot.
	So we'll hope that the members of Congress who voted to keep the salaries of some of these bureaucrats here from their constituents and perhaps reflect more responsibly on federal spending and federal utilization of authorities that ultimately can do a great deal of harm and really, really impact the quality of people's lives.
	The other big thing that happened yesterday, we passed the Israel support supplemental.
	But we broke the rules of Washington because when the House of Representatives passed the Israel supplemental, we did so by taking the money out of the IRS. To me, that is a win-win.
	The IRS had a $12 billion budget before the Inflation Reduction Act and then...
	We saw their budget balloon to $80 billion.
	So that $14 billion clawback from the IRS was a critical pay for.
	And so if you're in the Senate or if you're sitting over at the White House, take this message from the House of Representatives under Speaker Johnson.
	Stuff you want has to be paid for.
	We are not just going to continue to print money online.
	Over and over again to dilute the earnings of people who are working every day and expect a government that will honor that work by allowing their dollar to be able to meet their needs.
	And right now, you see the very same goods and services costing American families $700 more per month as a consequence of inflation that is directly tied to government spending.
	So building in the ethic of pay-fors For foreign aid, for disaster response, for any of these things we have to do is essential.
	And I think it's a pretty invigorating time to be in Congress to be searching out those pay-fors.
	I've got a few ideas.
	Not just the IRS. But how about we get some pay-fors out of the Green New Deal tax credits that Wall Street is soaking up at such an alarming rate.
	It is impacting how much you pay for heating your home.
	It is how much you pay for your energy bills broadly, how much you're paying for gas.
	It's all market manipulation that is coming through these Green New Deal tax credits.
	I would use that as a pay-for for sure.
	How about the new $300 million plus FBI headquarters?
	That could be an interesting pay-for for something.
	We don't support that.
	On the vote, there was some...
	Crossing of party lines on both sides, and I want to get into that on the Israel supplemental.
	First, there were 12 Democrats who voted with Republicans to take $14 billion out of the IRS and to use that as the pay-for for Israel aid.
	Twelve!
	That is more than I expected, and here's the great part.
	A third of them are from Florida.
	So if you're a Florida Democrat, prioritizing The IRS over Israel is a bad thing.
	That's why Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of Florida, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, Congressman Darren Soto of Florida, and Congressman Jared Moskowitz of Florida all voted to gut the IRS and send that money to Israel.
	They were joined by Juan Vargas of California, a Democrat, Haley Stevens of Michigan, Greg Landsman of Ohio, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Jared Golden of Maine.
	Oh, I'm sorry, there's a fifth Floridian.
	Five of 12. I miss Lois Frankel of Florida.
	Don Davis of North Carolina and Angie Craig of Minnesota.
	Those were the 12 Democrats.
	Five, fully five of them from the state of Florida.
	I think that is quite the message.
	That you don't want to vote to fund the army of IRS agents.
	over the army that is fighting Hamas.
	That is a tough vote.
	It'll be interesting to see how the Democrats from Florida who didn't join Frankel and Moskowitz and Soto and Wasserman Schultz and Wilson think about these things.
	We also had two Republicans that did not vote for the supplemental and they're two friends of mine.
	You've seen them both on Firebrand.
	Thomas Massey of Kentucky, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.
	And I want to play the argument that Marjorie Taylor Greene made in part explaining how her vote against this particular supplemental is not a vote against Israel.
	Take a listen to Congresswoman Greene.
	Today I took a hard vote as a Christian who supports Israel.
	I voted no to the additional funding to Israel's defense.
	This comes after the Republican-controlled House voted for $3.8 billion for Israel's defense, weapons, and replenishment of the Iron Dome.
	This $3.8 billion is sitting on Chuck Schumer's desk, and he and the Democrats in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, the majority, Leader in the Senate for Republicans refused to pass this bill, these bills, $3.8 billion that could go directly to Israel's defense.
	You see, the reason why I voted no today, and not that I'll always be a no for Israel's defense, is because I'm unapologetically America first.
	And today in America, we have an open border-driven national security crisis.
	We are back live.
	Cynthia on Facebook says, good for MTG agreeing with that argument.
	Frederick on Facebook says, brilliant using IRS money for Israel aid.
	And Black Guns on Getter, not a big fan of Anthony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, or John Kirby Blinken.
	The mouthpieces for the failed Biden foreign policy that you see so frequently.
	But I played you that clip from MTG because I want you to understand even though we voted different ways, everything she is saying about money already approved by the House of Representatives, unacted on by the Senate, is true.
	It is entirely true what MTG said that we have Israel on a $3.8 billion auto pay and on top of that we put an additional $3 billion plus into research development and the munition systems and rocket systems necessary for the Iron Dome.
	So it is an intellectually honest and an intellectually consistent argument to say you support Israel through those single subject spending bills in the normal appropriations process as opposed to a supplemental.
	I agreed with the supplemental only because there is a pay-for And I support that pay-for, draining the money out of the IRS. So to me, it was killing two birds with one stone.
	But for Congresswoman Greene, I think it is a nuanced but important position that support for Israel can also exist through the appropriations process, not just by moving the type of legislation that I was very honored to support.
	So difference of agreement between me and MTG, It does not always happen on legislation, but I think walking you through that nuance will tell you a lot about the House strategy of dealing with the upcoming budget fight.
	Because you know that in November 17th, the funding bill that had been approved previously runs out.
	And so are we going to go with the appropriations process staggered out, tailored out, isolating these agencies, or are we going to do what Washington has always done in the past?
	And I do believe that the structure of funding different priorities of the government expressed by Congresswoman Greene is one that would actually lead us to a better place.
	Not lumping everything together.
	So a very important argument there.
	And let us use this opportunity to call on the United States Senate to take up our state and foreign ops bill that slashes funding for a lot of the weird stuff that we've been doing with foreign aid and I think focuses it appropriately.
	I think that bill marks all the way back to 2014 spending levels.
	So that shows you the extent to which Republicans want to downscale foreign aid to other countries, particularly when it's going for things like English language classes for transgender entrepreneur makeup artists in the country of Nepal,
	which by the way is an actual government program We're good to go.
	Obama back in the news, this report, go ahead and put it on the screen there.
	Obama quietly tapped, I'm sorry, Biden quietly tapped Obama to help shape his AI strategy.
	So this piece in NBC News explores the role that former President Barack Obama has currently in the Biden White House.
	So if you're one of the people on the live stream, and there are many of you who are frequently commenting on how Former President Obama is the puppet master of this Biden White House.
	Here you have no less than NBC News backing up that position, particularly the issue of technology, AI. You've got Barack Obama literally doing Zoom meetings and staff calls, calling the shots as these critical features of domestic policy are being fine-tuned.
	Think about the position that puts White House staff in.
	Maybe there's the Biden structure with a deputy chief of staff, special advisors to the president, President Biden himself.
	Oh, but then all of a sudden at 2.15 p.m., you've got a Zoom call with Barack Obama.
	And that's your real boss.
	That's who's actually telling you what to do.
	I don't think there's a single major personnel decision made within the White House that Barack Obama and his team do not have some major influence over.
	And how can you even call it his team anymore?
	It's been fused.
	We're living through Barack Obama's third term.
	Maybe with him not as the masthead, he can go make his Netflix money, parade whatever's left of Joe Biden around in front of the country.
	But on these fundamental policy questions, It's Obama weighing in.
	It's him picking the personnel.
	And don't ever forget it.
	It's very critical to note as we move into the time to make our case about policy arguments and who ought to be governing this country and how those choices will impact quality of life.
	One of the things that we also still continue to follow, I am incensed by the lawfare being used against President Trump.
	And it is a multi-vector plan, and it is coordinated.
	And we need to be doing more in the House Judiciary Committee to assert Congress's equities for this election interference.
	But I thought that one of President Trump's lawyers, Alina Habba, gave a blistering and accurate depiction of what's going on just moments ago outside of a New York courthouse.
	Take a listen.
	We are now over a month deep into the biggest waste of New York taxpayer dollars I've ever seen.
	President Trump's statement of financial condition was so undervalued.
	But Letitia James, as you've seen, will show up when it's a press day.
	I said it yesterday on the news.
	She hasn't been here for days.
	But you know when she's going to come?
	When the main event's here, and that is Trump.
	She piggybacked on Trump to get into office.
	She didn't do it well enough to be a governor.
	She was a failed gubernatorial candidate.
	And now she's working on her politics again.
	She shows up, sits in the back when she should be doing real work because the city of New York has fallen If you are a business in New York, pay attention.
	You put your value.
	If President Trump wanted to inflate his net worth on a statement of financial condition, his brand alone could double, triple it.
	It's basic.
	It's basic.
	This is a waste of time.
	We heard testimony from an expert this week.
	Ms. James wasn't here for that day because it wasn't good for her.
	He's been paid by New York taxpayer dollars $450,000 in the past few months to come here and testify.
	That's your money.
	That's not my money.
	It is a crime.
	And now these children are being brought in away from their families for doing nothing wrong.
	It's a great company.
	It has always been a great company.
	It's worth a lot more than the statements say.
	And she just doesn't like it.
	And now her politics don't allow her to back off or back down.
	And it's unfortunate.
	But this case should be done.
	We are wasting our time.
	Thank you.
	We're back live.
	That was Alina Haba laying it down.
	And, of course, the fusion of politics and law is a very dangerous thing because it starts us down a road where the consequences and the outcomes in courtrooms cannot be relied upon or trusted because they're viewed as part of this broader political power struggle.
	It's correct that the Trump Organization is world class and, in fact, has some of the greatest assets in the world.
	When I saw that in this matter, they had valued Mar-a-Lago at like $15 million, I was thinking to myself, I'll take 10 of them.
	Mar-a-Lago is unlike anything else on Palm Beach Island.
	I've had the privilege to go there, and while I haven't been fortunate enough to experience or observe all of the Trump organization's assets globally, at least when it comes to Florida, it's a total joke what they're trying to do.
	But here's why the civil matter in New York is of great consequence, because they can literally use civil remedies to try to steal, to take the The Trump families and the Trump organization's assets.
	I think I even saw Don Jr. commenting that even the hunting cabin that he has is held in an LLC and they're trying to seek the acquisition and dissolution of those assets as well.
	So it's full-scale.
	It's economic.
	It's civil.
	It's criminal.
	And you know what?
	It's not working.
	And we can't go into that too much.
	But we do feel where the energy of the country is, and it cannot and should not politically reward this lawfare.
	That's the end of the national news we're covering, but I have an exciting matter that will be of great interest to my fellow Floridians, to those who vacation in the Destin, Florida, Okaloosa Island area.
	It's a segment we call the Florida Man Spotlight.
	Florida Man Spotlight you Amen.
	Crab Island is a delightful place in northwest Florida and there was an effort by the Department of the Interior to take this jurisdictional sandbar and limit the ability of mom and pop companies to be able to sell hot dogs or peanuts to those who might be enjoying Crab Island recreationally.
	So because we had a single subject spending bill on the Department of the Interior, last night I took to the floor to make the case That our state and local governments were best prepared to manage Crab Island, not the Federal Department of the Interior.
	Here's that amendment debate.
	Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	There is an eclectic attraction in my district in Northwest Florida.
	It's called Crab Island, but it's actually not an island at all.
	It's a sandbar where people go and enjoy swimming, snorkeling, fishing, maybe a refreshment or even a hot dog or boiled peanuts.
	Right now we have a system with our local governments and our state government working in concert to manage Crab Island.
	It's all going really well.
	And my amendment would prohibit the Department of Interior for playing perhaps an excessive role in the management of commercial services.
	It's a wonderful place, and as we say in the South, y'all come.
	I reserve.
	I appreciate my colleague's invitation for us all to come visit.
	I'm sure it is a wonderful place.
	And of course, being from Maine, we like anything that has the word crab in the title.
	But, unfortunately, this amendment blocks the National Park Service from complying with the 1998 Concessions Act, which sets up the framework for evaluating commercial services in parks.
	It stops the Park Service being able to complete its existing process to remain in compliance with the Act.
	The amendment would effectively grandfather in all permit holders from the prior year, regardless of whether the services are necessary and appropriate.
	The amendment also limits the National Park Service's ability to ensure public safety of commercial services.
	Currently, all vendors undergo public health, fire, and permit condition inspections throughout an operating season.
	These inspections have documented significant concerns such as food being cooked, held, or served at temperatures or conditions that do not meet public health standards, refueling processes that place workers and patrons at risk, lack of basic safety and fire protection, and operating in violation of permit conditions.
	The amendment eliminates the ability to manage the issuance of a permit based on current or past performance, which creates conditions that place workers, visitors, and park resources at risk from some commercial services.
	I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and I yield back my time.
	I appreciate the gentlelady's great interest in what's going on in Florida.
	Though we don't know each other well, I can only assume that if there were a small patch of land in Maine, I would be highly deferential as to what a local community in that congressional district might think about it.
	And I would inform the House that I have A resolution from the City of Destin where they speak to some of these concerns but instead reflect on the value of the existing state and local cooperation to achieve those safer objectives.
	and with all due respect to the Concessions Act of 1998, which I'm sure we would never want to violate the sanctity of, the result of what the Department of Interior is trying to do in my community is going to put a lot of mom-and-pop local businesses out of business, and instead it's going to constrain this to a federal the result of what the Department of Interior is trying to do in my community is going to put a lot of mom-and-pop local businesses out of business, and instead it's going to constrain this to a federal contracting requirement that no one in our community believes is going to
	So that's why I would ask for adoption of the amendment, and I would yield back the balance of my time.
	The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida.
	Those in favor say aye.
	Those opposed say no.
	In opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
	The amendment is agreed to.
	We are back live.
	C.G. Miller on YouTube says that these podcasts and video updates are important and that all representatives should do them.
	I agree.
	I think it's nice to have direct interaction without the filter of the media.
	Cynthia on Facebook says keep the federal government out of Florida.
	It's a sentiment I generally strongly agree with.
	But for our military, of course, we love our military in Florida and particularly in Northwest Florida.
	Tanya on Facebook says she loves Crab Island.
	And Ann on Facebook says Says no offense, but there are more important things to be dealing with than Crab Island.
	Maybe so, but to the dozens of small businesses who work there, rent paddle boards and jet skis, means everything.
	Because federal intervention could mean that their family income could dissipate.
	Last time I was out on Crab Island, I bought an ice cream bar from a young man who had used the proceeds from his small business he ran out of a John boat in order to pay for college at the University of Alabama.
	And while we're no fans of Roll Tide, we certainly are fans of entrepreneurism.
	And so often, even though this Crab Highland issue is one little issue in my district, so often we see excessive federal regulations not serve as the goal of enhancing small business, but oftentimes putting barriers in the way of those entrepreneurial endeavors that we want to nurture and enjoy for a great economy, also a great quality of life.
	So thank you all so much for joining us on this episode of Firebrand.
	We'll be here next week.
	Roll the credits.

▲