A Brief Guide To Using ‘Recissions’ And ‘Pocket Recissions’ To Cut Federal Spending
Nearly One-Quarter Of U.S. Public School Enrollment Could Be Anchor Babies
How Two Big School Choice Measures In Federal Budget Bill Would Revive America
A ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ budget reform bill becomes the joke of the decade
Congress is about to pass what was billed as a once-in-a-generation budget reconciliation bill to rein in inflation. Instead, Republicans have delivered more spending, more debt, and a grab bag of random, inefficient tax cuts. After promising to slash the Biden-era debt explosion, GOP leaders have produced a plan with no major reforms and a laughable 0.004% spending cut over 10 years — after increasing spending.
Conservatives reluctantly backed the House reconciliation bill under pressure from President Trump. The bill didn’t promise immediate savings, but it instructed committees to identify between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in mandatory spending cuts over a decade. In exchange, Republicans agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion and handed out $4.5 trillion in tax cuts — largely just an extension of existing tax breaks with a few extras tacked on.
After the most consequential election of our lifetime, conservatives are simply asking for one thing: a reconciliation bill that actually means something.
But there’s no repeal of Obamacare. No serious health care reform. No direct strategy to move people off welfare. Nothing resembling a bold or transformational policy. The top-line number might nudge future welfare reform, but that’s speculative at best. Meanwhile, the bill greenlights $300 billion in new spending for the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security — without meaningful offsets or reforms.
A Senate bait and switch
This was a modest plan — far too modest — given the projected $89 trillion in federal spending over the next decade. That estimate assumes no recessions (despite the fact that we’re likely entering one now) and no major natural disasters, which occur almost annually.
Even under those rosy assumptions, the House budget accepts more than $20 trillion in new deficits over 10 years. And it banks on implausible economic growth, driven not by structural reforms, but by the simple extension of current tax rates and a few marginal changes — such as excluding tips, Social Security benefits, and overtime from taxation and boosting state and local tax deductions. These are hardly the hallmarks of a pro-growth revolution.
Still, conservatives recognized that with their so-called once-in-a-lifetime shot at a “new golden age,” this underwhelming package might be the best they could get.
Then came the Senate with a bait and switch.
The Senate passed a bill that technically allows the House to keep working under its budget instructions, but it directs Senate committees to cut just $4 billion. That’s billion with a “B,” not trillion with a “T.” In a projected $89 trillion budget, $4 billion represents a pathetic 0.004%.
Meanwhile, the same bill raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion — the largest increase in U.S. history — and authorizes $5.3 trillion in tax cuts. Of that, $3.8 trillion is classified as an extension of current rates and therefore magically excluded from being scored as a revenue loss.
Phony cuts
We always knew even the modest $1.5 trillion in proposed spending cuts over 10 years would be too much for tepid Republicans. Still, we expected them to negotiate that number down — maybe to $1 trillion. Instead, Senate Republicans came to the table with an opening bid of just $4 billion. That microscopic figure signals they have no intention of cutting more than a few hundred billion over the next decade — at most.
For perspective, that amounts to about $30 billion in cuts from an annual budget nearing $7 trillion and expected to hit $10 trillion by the end of the 10-year window.
But even those paltry cuts aren’t real.
The Senate bill already authorizes $521 billion in new, immediate spending for defense and the border. Lawmakers would need to find an equal amount in savings just to break even. As it stands, the only firm commitment in the legislation is to pile another $5.8 trillion onto the national debt — beyond Biden’s already bloated baseline.
Even under the most generous dynamic scoring — such as estimates from the Tax Foundation — the bill would still leave us with an additional $5 trillion in red ink after accounting for $710 billion in recouped revenue.
Remember, once the House agrees to adopt the Senate’s budget, it forfeits any leverage. Under budget reconciliation rules, any split in proposed spending cuts between the House and Senate committees defaults to the Senate’s numbers. That means the Senate’s meager $4 billion in cuts — not the House’s higher target — will carry the day.
— (@)
The result? Republicans will effectively codify all of Biden’s spending levels. The only area left to negotiate will be tax policy — a dubious consolation, especially in an inflationary environment that demands deficit reduction.
A gift to blue states
Even that tax policy falls short. These aren’t bold, growth-oriented reforms. They’re narrow, parochial carve-outs for select workers and retirees. Worse still, Republicans plan to burn through revenue by expanding the deduction for state and local taxes.
Their top priority? Giving high earners in blue states a break.
The GOP’s moderate wing refuses to accept even a proposal to raise the SALT cap from $10,000 to $25,000. Instead, these Republicans want unlimited deductions — a gift to the wealthy in California and New York, disguised as fiscal policy.
Tax cuts aren’t the same as spending increases — they can spur economic growth. But in a time of sustained inflation, reducing the deficit matters more. Most Americans now lose more to inflation than they pay in taxes. And not all tax cuts are equal. Growth-focused policy doesn’t mean carving out special breaks for retirees, tipped workers, or high earners in blue states.
House conservatives have already taken one hit after another. At Trump’s urging, they passed a continuing resolution in December that included $200 billion in supplemental spending with no offsets. Then, they backed another CR in March — again with no cuts. Now, with budget reconciliation on the table, it’s time to make good on all those earlier compromises.
Trump should stop pressuring conservatives and instead focus on Senate Republicans. He needs to demand that Senate moderates adopt the House version of the bill.
He must also make the case — clearly and forcefully — that runaway welfare spending is a major driver of inflation. That means pushing for meaningful reforms: repealing elements of the Green New Deal, overhauling health care and welfare, and delivering tax cuts that benefit a broad base of working Americans and small businesses.
We’re not asking for much. After what was billed as the most consequential election of our lifetime, conservatives are simply asking for one thing: a reconciliation bill that actually means something.
The real reason elites want to destroy Elon Musk
When protests erupt worldwide over an American staffing decision, it’s not outrage — it’s orchestration. And the people behind it don’t want you asking questions.
The recent wave of global protests against Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, defies logic. Demonstrators have gathered outside Tesla showrooms worldwide, setting cars on fire and destroying lithium batteries. But what exactly are they protesting?
The protests are not about environmental concerns but about control.
Policy decisions can spark domestic outrage in the United States, but why are people in Germany, Sweden, or Ireland suddenly mobilizing against Musk? He is not pushing for global war or implementing trade tariffs that would impact European consumers. His involvement in U.S. government affairs concerns federal budgeting waste, fraud, and abuse. Why would anyone overseas care about this?
Historically, large-scale protests have erupted over issues like nuclear weapons, war, and climate change. Yet, no precedent exists for international demonstrations aimed at a domestic U.S. policy decision — particularly one centered on budget efficiency. So who benefits from this manufactured outrage?
Green hypocrisy
Tesla revolutionized the electric vehicle industry, making sustainable transportation mainstream. Musk developed solar panels, battery storage, and charging infrastructure — technologies environmentalists have long championed. Yet now, the same groups that once hailed electric vehicles as essential to combating climate change are actively working to cripple Tesla.
How does burning Tesla vehicles and terrorizing EV owners advance the fight against climate change?
This contradiction reveals a deeper issue. If climate change truly presents an existential crisis, why would activists seek to dismantle a company leading the charge in clean energy? The only logical explanation is that the protests are not about environmental concerns but control.
Musk’s real ‘threat’
Elon Musk faced little controversy when he pioneered electric vehicles or launched reusable rockets. The backlash began when he became a vocal champion of free speech.
His purchase of Twitter, followed by revelations of government-backed censorship, changed how information moves through digital platforms. That shift marked the moment the outrage machine targeted him.
Opponents have resorted to labeling Musk a "fascist." But let’s examine this claim. Traditional fascism is defined by state control, forced conformity, and the suppression of dissent. Musk, on the other hand, advocates open dialogue, transparency, and reduced government interference. Calling him a fascist is not only inaccurate but also a deliberate attempt to stifle debate.
When people misuse the term "fascist," they dilute its meaning. Just as overusing the word "racist" has numbed the public to actual instances of racism, the indiscriminate application of "fascist" shields actual authoritarian behavior from scrutiny. This tactic is not about accurately describing Musk — it is about silencing him.
Who’s behind the protests?
Ordinary citizens do not spontaneously organize coordinated protests across multiple continents in response to a U.S. federal staffing decision. These demonstrations require financial backing, media support, and strategic messaging. So who benefits from damaging Tesla’s brand or silencing Musk?
We live in an era where perception is power. A viral video can ruin a reputation, and a well-crafted narrative can influence elections. If a movement can turn a climate hero into a villain simply for challenging an entrenched system, then it can manipulate almost any public discourse.
Before accepting any narrative at face value, we must ask critical questions: Do these protests help or harm the environment? Are they organic expressions of outrage, or are they carefully orchestrated? Is the term "fascist" being used to expose truth or to suppress dissent? Most importantly, are we sabotaging progress simply because we dislike one of the people leading it?
The manufactured outrage against Musk is not about policy; it is about power. And if we fail to recognize that, we risk allowing those who seek control to redefine reality itself.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
6 Unbelievably Scammy Federal Practices DOGE Staff Reveal In Fox Interview
Why A Continuing Resolution Is The Best Way To Propel Trump’s Agenda Right Now
Restore self-government by handing debt power to states
Donald Trump last week shocked Congress by demanding that the debt limit either be abolished or at least suspended during his presidency — a stance typically championed by Democrats. While the plan, thankfully, has been shelved for now, there might be a way for conservatives to turn this political lemon into lemonade. What if Congress eliminated the debt limit in the much-anticipated budget reconciliation bill but did so in a way that tackled the debt itself rather than the ceiling?
Want to restore relevance to state legislatures and self-government while addressing the debt crisis? Consider putting the states in charge of managing the debt. The idea might not be as far-fetched as it sounds.
As part of the upcoming reconciliation bill, Congress could implement a rule requiring that the debt limit cannot be raised unless two-thirds of state legislatures approve.
We are no longer a self-governing people. Politics today reveals a troubling reality for both the right and the left: Our government no longer operates of, by, for, or in response to the people. The cause lies in the dismantling of the federalist system created by the Constitution. Instead of states representing the people in federal government, the entire arrangement has been turned upside down.
The states have become a joke, a bunch of shleppers doing the bidding of the federal government and groveling for its attention and money. Our founders envisioned the need for localism when America was a relatively homogenous group of just 3 million people. How much more so now with 340 million very diverse individuals and communities?
From a liberal and conservative perspective, restoring the balance of power the founders intended requires flipping the tables. Few solutions achieve this better than devolving debt authority to the states, an idea first proposed by the Goldwater Institute and recently promoted by Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) on my podcast.
Putting the states in the driver’s seat
Empowering the states through this transformational reform will strengthen self-governance. It will make state and local elections more relevant, align state governments with the priorities of their people, and hold the federal government more accountable.
States and local governments have lost influence because they collect only $3.5 trillion in revenue combined, while the federal government collects $5 trillion in one central pot. The federal government then returns about $1.1 trillion to the states, burdened with conditions and distortions that leave state officials unable to control their own destinies.
The federal government collects most of its revenue from the wealthy, leaving half the country indifferent to reining in federal overreach. Meanwhile, the truly wealthy accept their burden, content to pay what amounts to a bribe for maintaining their status. At this point, we might as well hand our money to the King of England. These funds bear no connection to self-governance or the character of our communities and epitomize the “taxation without representation” that sparked the war for independence.
In recent years, much of this revenue hasn’t even come from taxes but from money printing to service the interest on the debt through treasury auctions. This practice has burdened Americans with an even worse tax — long-term, intractable inflation. What if we shifted control of the printing presses to the states, placing them firmly in the driver’s seat?
Empowering grassroots conservatives
As part of the upcoming reconciliation bill, Congress could implement a self-imposed rule requiring that the debt limit cannot be raised unless two-thirds of state legislatures approve. Even a 26-state threshold would demand agreement from several Republican-controlled chambers for every Democratic-controlled chamber to raise the limit. This approach wouldn’t delegate Congress’ appropriations authority to the states but would instead impose a self-restraint, limiting federal spending without state approval to raise the cap.
Currently, Democrats fully control both legislative chambers in only 18 states. Even a simple majority-rule requirement would still need approval from eight GOP-controlled states or chambers to lift the debt ceiling. Shifting this power to state legislatures would bring the debate over the federal government’s scope to a local level, empowering conservative grassroots movements to wield a veto over excessive spending. It would also make state legislators key players in Congress’ most critical decisions, in effect serving as a backdoor repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Over time, this plan would compel states to take control of their own futures and permanently reduce the size of the federal government. Once states take the lead on managing the debt, the conservative vision of states fully overseeing health care, transportation, education, and agriculture could become a reality.
Civil society established the states, and the states established the federal government. Many of today’s public policy problems arise from flipping this governance on its head. Granting states authority over the debt limit could address not only the federal spending crisis but also fix the broader dysfunction of the federal government in a single, systemic move. Now, we need elected officials with the courage to champion this or other bold ideas to promote localism. It’s not too late to include this reform in next year’s most important bill.
Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid Are Cannibalizing The Entire Federal Budget
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories