reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker emphasizes the necessity of a long-term effort to combat waste and fraud, claiming that it will return if vigilance is relaxed, especially if Democrats regain power. The goal is to eliminate funding and grants, making it difficult to restart wasteful and fraudulent activities. The speaker questions whether government employees respect taxpayer money, suggesting a lack of incentive to do so. They assert that incentives determine outcomes and that the payment system is structured such that requests for money are automatically approved.

"This is political theater. I'm gonna call out both sides right here. It's all posturing. It's fake fighting." "We all know where it ends up. This is Groundhog Day." "We always get a c r in September, and then we get an omnibus." "We might get the omnibus before Christmas, but if we're not good, it comes after Christmas." "We should have done 12 separate bills." "But, again, whether Democrats are in control or Republicans are in control, we never do the 12 separate bills." "It's because Democrats wanna grow the welfare state, and republicans wanna grow the military industrial complex." "I guarantee it."

We're getting close to a number on appropriations, but Democrats are trying to add something new that's never been part of this before. They want to limit the executive branch's ability to do its job, which would tie the President's hands on expenditures. This is a gross separation of powers violation and a terrible precedent. It's a nonstarter for us, and the Democrats know that. So it looks like they're making individual appropriations bills almost impossible. There's more discussion to be had as we near the March 14 deadline. I'm hopeful they'll back off those outrageous demands because they're unprecedented and unconstitutional. The Democrats are likely trying to address the unitary theory of the executive, limiting the executive branch's ability to impound or rescind funds. This is a constitutional fight, and you likely won't get any Democrat votes on this CR. Get ready for a potential government shutdown.

The speaker criticizes both parties for engaging in "political theater" with the annual budget process, resulting in a continuing resolution (CR) and omnibus bill instead of 12 separate appropriations bills. Democrats want to grow the welfare state, and Republicans want to grow the military-industrial complex. The speaker highlights exposed lies and unconstitutional actions by various agencies, which will continue to be funded. The speaker points out that a previous debt limit increase included a provision for automatic 1% cuts if a CR extended past April 30th. The current CR is set to expire on March 28th to avoid triggering these cuts. A "bright shiny object," the SAVE Act, is attached to the CR, which is designed to prevent illegals from voting. The speaker predicts the SAVE Act will be removed, and Republicans will ultimately cave and fund the CR without it. The speaker refuses to participate in this "failure theater."

The best-case scenario, given the current situation, would be a clean continuing resolution (CR), but Democrats oppose that, leading to a standoff. The government is set to shut down on Friday, a choice made by Republican leadership. They could have extended funding longer, as Donald Trump suggested, but opted to push the issue to December to advance their own priorities. Now, they find themselves without a plan. It's crucial for Mike Johnson and his team to resolve this situation, as their current approach is problematic and they need to take responsibility for fixing it.

The speaker expresses concern about a potential government shutdown, emphasizing its negative impact on the country. They mention a previous shutdown caused by Republicans, which cost the economy billions of dollars. They question why the president would change his stance on reopening the government and speculate if he wants it to remain closed indefinitely. The speaker suggests that the president lacks belief in and understanding of the risks associated with shutting down the government.

Speaker 0 outlines his first bill, the no shutdown paychecks to politicians act, which would say members of Congress can’t be paid and won’t receive back pay after a shutdown ends. He asks unanimous consent for immediate consideration, reading, and passage of the bill, with the motion to reconsider laid on the table. Speaker 1 asks if there is objection. Speaker 2 argues for an approach that would begin paying those who are working during a shutdown—soldiers, air traffic controllers, and all workers—stating this should become a permanent feature of government. He says paying workers is better than isolating or punishing groups and asks that the Senate modify the request to consider, read, and pass Senator Paul’s alternative. He references Senator Johnson’s shutdown no shutdown act as an alternative and asks to replace the current bill with that. Speaker 0 responds, explaining he will not substitute Senator Paul’s bill for his own. He says he understands Senator Paul’s point as wanting to pay everyone, but explains his bill has a chance to pass the House and be signed by the president, whereas Senator Paul’s bill would not pass the House or be signed by President Trump. He states this is why he cannot substitute Paul’s bill. He then asks for a parliamentary clarification: did Senator Paul object to his bill, and would Paul’s modification substitute his bill? The chair confirms that Paul’s modification would substitute his bill for the original. Speaker 1 asks if there is an objection to the original request. Speaker 2 (from Kentucky) reserves the right to object and argues it is not clear that the president wouldn’t sign a bill to continue paying federal workers. He says it’s confusing that Democrats object to paying traffic controllers and suggests letting Democrats explain why they don’t want to pay workers. He asserts there is a debate over spending levels, but that workers who have contracts should be paid. He mentions his own fiscal conservatism, stating he would not hire new people and would allow government shrink through attrition, but asserts that those who work for the government should be paid. He contends that Democrats' subsidies to higher earners are inconsistent with helping the working class or the poor and argues that the president would sign a bill to pay workers. Speaker 0 disputes, arguing the bill to keep Congress from being paid during a shutdown is different from Paul’s. Speaker 1 clarifies that Senator Paul objected to the bill and that the objection to the unanimous consent request stands. Speaker 0 introduces a second bill, the withhold member pay during shutdowns act, which would withhold lawmakers’ pay during a shutdown but escrow it to be paid after the shutdown ends. He notes there is precedent from Obama in 2013. He seeks unanimous consent for Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to be discharged from further consideration of S. 3057, and asks that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration, with reading, passage, and a tabled motion to reconsider. Speaker 2 objects with the objection noted. Speaker 1 acknowledges the objection from the Kentucky senator. Speaker 0 attempts clarification on the bill to withhold member pay, and Speaker 1 confirms the objection to the unanimous consent request. The scene ends with the discussion in progress on the second bill.

**Speaker 0:** 212 Democrats voted against no tax on tips, Social Security, and overtime. If the government makes money and spends it responsibly, taxes aren't necessary. The new administration is holding the government accountable, and people are mad about it. **Speaker 1:** There's no tax on tips, overtime, or Social Security in the budget resolution. Taxes are normal. This utopia where nobody pays taxes isn't going to work. Read the budget before lecturing people about it.

The speaker criticizes both parties for engaging in "political theater" with the annual budget process, resulting in continuing resolutions (CR) and omnibus bills. They claim that Democrats want to expand the welfare state, while Republicans want to expand the military-industrial complex, leading to increased spending regardless of which party is in power. The speaker highlights alleged lies and overreach by various government agencies, which they claim are consistently funded despite Republican opposition. They point out that a proposed 1% cut to spending, tied to a previous debt limit increase, is avoided by the speaker's choice of a 6-month CR. The speaker also dismisses the "SAVE Act" attached to the CR as a "bright shiny object" designed to excite Republicans, predicting it will be removed and never become law. They urge Republicans to fight for the Act, forcing Democrats to publicly support allowing "illegals to vote," but ultimately believes the CR will pass without it.

Republicans' nihilism has brought the country to the brink of a government shutdown at midnight unless Congress acts. Democrats offered to fund the government for another month, but Republicans rejected this because Donald Trump wants full control over government spending. The choice is between proceeding with the bill or risking a shutdown, which would give Trump more power. While the Republican bill is deeply partisan and doesn't address many needs, allowing Trump to take more power via a shutdown is worse. No one wants a shutdown. Members who oppose the CR want Republicans to take their responsibilities more seriously and negotiate spending bills that address the needs of the American people. The Republican party is the party of Trump, and allowing him to take more power via a shutdown is a worse option than passing the CR.

The speaker emphasizes the necessity of a long-term commitment to preventing waste and fraud, claiming that these issues will resurface if vigilance is relaxed, especially when Democrats regain power. The aim is to eliminate funding and grants to make restarting wasteful practices difficult. The speaker questions whether government employees respect taxpayer money, suggesting a lack of incentive to do so. They assert that incentives determine outcomes and that the current payment system readily provides funds upon request.

Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker McCarthy for taking credit for the single subject appropriations bills, stating that it was not his original plan. They argue against lumping together departments like Education and Labor with the military and border patrol, calling it chaotic. Speaker 0 claims that they forced the change and warns that if Speaker McCarthy continues, the appropriations process will become a sideshow controlled by lobbyists and special interests. They express frustration with how the American people have been mistreated for decades and vow to fight against it.

The discussion centers on the government shutdown, noting it’s the first since 2018 and that House Republicans passed a “clean CER” while Democrats voted for “clean CRs” 13 times under Biden. Trump argues the Democrats won’t vote now because of demands like “illegal aliens to get taken care of with health care,” “open borders,” and “transgender for everybody” including “men and women’s sports.” He recalls a meeting with Hakim Jeffries and Chuck Schumer where they were “total gentlemen” in the room but different outside. He criticizes “fraud, waste, and abuse” and suggests cutting projects the administration favored. He touts the “great big beautiful bill” and says “there is no tax” on tips, overtime, or Social Security, claiming “record growth” and “$17,000,000,000,000” invested. He cites a $15B commitment for Homer City, discusses National Guard in Portland and Chicago, and hints at a possible $1,000–$2,000 dividend to Americans.

"We have to realize the democrats, their whole argument is we are going to shut down the government unless you give a trillion dollars for medical benefits for illegal aliens." "And they're saying that unless you give that money to those legal aliens, unless you give those benefits to those illegal aliens, we are going to shut down the people's government." "It's such a stark contrast between two parties priorities." "We want to put the government to work for the American people first." "We're not gonna be taken hostage by the Democrats' desperate desire to give your tax money to illegal aliens." "We're just not gonna do it."

The speaker believes American people are tired of lies in Washington D.C. and fake fights. They cite a vote on July 10th that now requires voting for a continuing resolution that continues the Biden administration's budget, including the Green New Deal. The speaker believes this is absurd and will frustrate the Republican base, who are tired of being lied to, especially with the November 5th election approaching. Creating a fake fight could cause Republicans to lose the House. The speaker suggests being honest about aligning with Democrats, rather than pretending to fight for spending reduction. They are unlikely to participate in a fake fight but are open to a real one. The speaker believes the Speaker needs to be honest with President Trump about plans for September 30th, which they don't believe has been the case.

The speaker presents a conditional scenario directed at the president: if the president said today that he would be happy to meet with the Democrats if they stop holding the government hostage, then Democrats could walk in tonight, pass the continuing resolution (CR), and provide seven weeks. The speaker believes the president could then bring everyone together, and that the Democrats would likely negotiate on a number of issues and reach an agreement. The speaker emphasizes that the president does not want to negotiate under duress. This point is tied to a claim about Democratic sentiment: anonymously, a Democrat senator told the speaker that none of them want to vote to open the government because, in their words, “we’d face the guillotine.” The speaker notes that these words came “from our base,” suggesting this is the view of the president’s political allies or supporters. In summarizing the exchange, the speaker asserts that this line of reasoning reflects a critical dynamic in the current standoff: the possibility that a straightforward, pressure-free offer from the president to engage with Democrats could break the deadlock and lead to a constructive dialogue on policy issues. The implication is that the threat or perception of political duress is a barrier to reaching a resolution, and that a different approach—one that signals openness to negotiation without coercion—might unlock bipartisan progress. The transcript includes the assertion that if the president were to publicly welcome negotiations under a non-duress framework, there would be movement toward a compromise on multiple issues, facilitated by a temporary timeline (seven weeks) and a renewed, inclusive negotiation process. The speaker underscores the idea that such an approach could shift dynamics away from fear of political punishment within the base toward substantive agreement. Towards the end, the speaker remarks, “Look. Think you just made a very important,” indicating that the argument is intended to highlight a potentially pivotal point about how the administration’s stance could influence willingness to engage and resolve the government funding impasse. The transcript ends with this incomplete thought, leaving the broader implications implied but not fully explicit.

Speaker Johnson is renegotiating a spending deal and may withdraw from a $1.7 trillion plan with Chuck Schumer. Conservatives are frustrated with the lack of wins in the new house and want a speaker who will prioritize border security. They argue that Republicans are not fulfilling their promises and are making the issue more complicated than it needs to be. Some Republicans are pushing to oust Johnson for going against his word. The debate centers around strong border security and the consequences of a government shutdown. Democrats are willing to support anything that annoys conservatives, and bills like this one drive conservatives crazy. The speaker urges a change in course with spending cuts and fiscal policy changes to avoid economic collapse.

Republican rejection leads to a Hobson's choice: proceed with the bill or risk a shutdown orchestrated by Donald Trump. While the CR bill is bad, a shutdown would be much worse for America. The Republican bill is a terrible option. It is not a clean CR and is deeply partisan, failing to address many of the country's needs. However, allowing Donald Trump to take more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option. No one on my side of the aisle wants a government shutdown. Members who support this CR do not want a government shutdown, and members who oppose this CR do not want a government shutdown.

Speaker accuses the D Triple C and House Majority Forward of politicizing the potential shutdown with ad campaigns attacking individuals who oppose a shutdown. Speaker claims that the other side wants a shutdown for political gain but fails to address border issues, spending cuts, and long-term debt. Speaker references Eric Adams and Kathy Hochul's concerns about the migrant crisis in New York City but criticizes their lack of action. Accuses opponents of using the issue to win back the majority while claiming willingness to work across the aisle. Urges others to join the Problem Solver CR, which they have already signed onto.

The Republicans are currently voting on amendments for funding bills, and it's crucial that they come to an agreement to avoid a government shutdown. This disagreement is essentially between the hard right and the even harder right within the GOP. Unfortunately, under Kevin McCarthy's leadership, it seems difficult to govern. However, it's important that they find a way to keep the government running because ordinary Americans will suffer if they don't. There's a bipartisan continuing resolution supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, and I hope the House will have the opportunity to vote on it and work together in a bipartisan manner.

Do Democrats wanna prioritize the health care of illegal aliens over a government shutdown? Because if the government does shut down, Americans will be able furlough. We're not prioritizing. What we're doing is saying simply we wanna keep the government open, and we wanna work with the Republicans and have a bipartisan agreement to keep this government open, and health care is at the top of our agenda. But are Democrats demanding health care for illegal aliens? Democrats are demanding health care for everybody. We want to save lives. We wanna make sure that health care is available to those who would die but having the help of their government. So you're good with the government shutdown even if it means giving health care to people who aren't American citizens? We want to save health care for all people.

A speaker addresses Senator Klobuchar, saying they won't discuss personnel decisions, but highlighting a personnel issue. The speaker states that all of their agents and all of their lawyers are working. They claim that their agents are on the street working without a paycheck, attributing this to the shutdown caused by the other party. The speaker asserts, "My agents are on the street working without a paycheck because your party voted to shut down the federal government." This emphasizes perceived consequences of the government shutdown on federal operations and compensation. The message conveys frustration that personnel are continuing to work without pay due to political actions.