The budget hoax that nearly sank Trump’s biggest win (so far)



Conservatives are celebrating a once-in-a-generation legislative triumph with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4 by President Trump. But the victory almost didn’t happen — thanks to what can only be described as the “budget hawk hoax,” a long-standing tactic used by phony conservatives to block meaningful reforms from becoming law.

The heart of this hoax is that the overriding problem facing America is “the deficit crisis” — and that nothing else on the conservative agenda can ever be moved forward until we deal with it.

Too many conservatives have fallen for the 'budget hawk hoax' for far too long.

But when the conversation turns to cutting wasteful spending, these same so-called budget hawks introduce a poison pill: the notion that the only serious way to reduce the deficit is by gutting Social Security and Medicare — before touching any other government waste.

They know this is a nonstarter — and we all know it’s a nonstarter — because there is no way voters will ever allow Nana’s Social Security to be cut while we’re still using taxpayer money to fund LGBTQ+ programs in Nepal and Botswana.

The impossible dream?

Even worse, the faux-conservative “budget hawks” have generally dismissed any efforts to cut other wasteful government spending, insisting that it would have been a mere insignificant drop in the bucket. Yet when President Trump tried to secure $5 billion in funding for the border wall in his first term, budget hawks protested that we couldn’t afford it.

When the Trump administration began dismantling corrupt NGOs under USAID, legacy “conservative” media scoffed at the effort because it didn’t yield massive dollar savings. Yet if we don’t eliminate such foundational waste first, long-term entitlement reform has no credible path forward.

The truth is, of course, that Conservatism Inc. was just desperately trying to protect the corrupt status quo, keep left-wing spending in place, and deny any spending that advances the conservative agenda.

The same old playbook was rolled out again with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Critics labeled it “budget-busting,” but that claim was misleading. The bill didn’t increase spending. In fact, it prevented a scheduled tax hike that would have rolled back Trump-era tax cuts and restored pre-2017 rates.

RELATED: The reality behind this week’s One Big Beautiful Bill spectacle

BackyardProduction via iStock/Getty Images

To be fair to the bill’s critics, the history of omnibus bills is fraught with corruption. Typically, omnibus bills have been legislative horse trades: Republicans secure pork for their districts, and Democrats secure massive expansions of the welfare state. But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different. It actually slashes major government spending in ways that align with long-standing conservative demands.

For instance, the $7,500 federal incentive for electric vehicle purchases is set to expire almost immediately. Under the old playbook, such a subsidy would have increased in exchange for some infrastructure funding in a red district. Not this time.

By trying to defeat the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, “budget hawks” were actually striving to protect and perpetuate the following left-wing agenda items, all in the name of “fiscal conservatism”:

  • A massive tax increase, restoring Obama-level tax rates.
  • Allowing able-bodied Medicaid recipients to continue taking welfare without being required to work.
  • Maintaining all the federal EV rebates and green energy incentives, which are designed to deny Americans the right to affordable energy and reliable transportation.
  • Blocking border security by denying funding for the border wall, additional detention centers, and additional Border Patrol staffing.

It’s even more obscene when you consider the enormous cost to taxpayers of providing social services for illegal aliens — services the “budget hawks” are trying to save — while also perpetuating open borders because “we can’t afford” measures to seal the border.

Too many conservatives have fallen for the “budget hawk hoax” for far too long, accepting that we cannot have any conservative victories so long as we have a national debt. Perhaps that day has finally ended.

Yes, our country’s fiscal crisis is real, and it will persist. But forsaking any victories over the left because of the deficit is not a matter of high principle. It’s simply surrender.

The “budget hawks” will never be able to fix the deficit. They don’t want to. But given the chance, they would continue to use the issue to prevent real conservatives from ever passing useful legislation.

The hoax failed

They lost this round — and thank heaven for that!

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act stops income tax hikes in their tracks. It strips funding from Planned Parenthood, rogue judges notwithstanding. It shuts down the EV grift. It tightens border security and reins in Medicaid fraud.

This is what winning looks like — and the self-styled “budget hawks” hate it. Why? Because it derails the left’s agenda and puts the public back in charge.

Credit goes to President Trump and Speaker Johnson for delivering this landmark victory. And to Stephen Miller — relentless as ever — for making sure the truth broke through.

Texas AG victorious after court rules Pelosi-led Congress' $1.7B spending bill was passed unlawfully



Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued President Joe Biden and members of his administration last year over the ratification and implementation of the $1.7 trillion Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2023.

Paxton said the mammoth spending bill — which contains at least one provision affecting the Lone Star State — was unlawful and therefore unenforceable because Congress, using the pandemic for cover, violated the Constitution in order to pass it.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with Paxton in its ruling Tuesday, stating that the former Congress run by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had indeed violated the Constitution, specifically the Quorum Clause contained with Article I, Section 5.

"Congress acted egregiously by passing the largest spending bill in U.S. history with fewer than half the members of the House bothering to do their jobs, show up, and vote in person," Paxton said in a statement.

"Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi abused proxy voting under the pretext of COVID-19 to pass this law, then Biden signed it, knowing they violated the Constitution," added the Republican AG. "This was a stunning violation of the rule of law. I am relieved the Court upheld the Constitution."

The lawsuit

The State of Texas' original complaint noted that on Dec. 23, 2022, only 201 congressional lawmakers were present in the House's chamber — less than half of the members required for a quorum.

The suit stressed that the Constitution defines absent members "as excluded from 'a Quorum to do Business' and therefore unauthorized to vote to enact legislation — by 'proxy' or otherwise."

The Quorum Clause states: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

While only constitutionally empowered at that stage to "adjourn from day to day" and "compel the attendance of absent Members," the Lone Star State's lawsuit indicated the House "nevertheless purported to accept the Senate's amendments to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 on that day" under a novel rule enabling absent members to vote by proxy.

After agreeing to the latest round of Senate amendments in a 225-201 vote, the bill was presented to Biden on Dec. 28 then signed the next day, becoming law.

Not only was the bill's passage unconstitutional, the unlawful bill adversely impacted Texas, according to Paxton's lawsuit. After all, the spending bill imposed new legal obligations on employers in the state via the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and created new programs permitting the release of illegal aliens into the homeland, specifically the Department of Homeland Security's Case Management Pilot Program.

Various Republican congressmen joined the Mountain States Legal Foundation in filing an amicus brief to the district court last year, stressing that the "United States has endured for nearly 250 years because of our commitments to the Constitution and to representative government. The COVID-19 pandemic is no excuse to abandon these commitments."

The ruling

U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix noted in his opinion Tuesday that "[f]or over 235 years, Congress understood the Constitution's Quorum Clause to require a majority of members of the House or Senate to be physically present to constitute the necessary quorum to pass legislation."

Judge Hendrix evidently figured the Constitution trumps the former Democrat-run Congress' 2020 House rule allowing non-present members to be included in the quorum count and deemed the defendants' counterarguments "unpersuasive."

"Given the Constitution's text, original public meaning, and historical practice, the Court concludes that the House cannot count members voting by proxy to constitute a constitutionally compliant quorum," added the judge.

Hendrix underscored that by "including members who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution's Quorum Clause."

While Hendrix indicated Texas had failed to demonstrate its entitlement to a permanent injunction of the Case Management Pilot Program, he noted the Lone Star State had successfully done so with regard to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

The court ultimately enjoined U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and their corresponding officials from enforcing the PWFA.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, which served as co-counsel in the case, stated, "The Court correctly concluded that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 violated the Quorum Clause of the U.S. Constitution because a majority of House members was not physically present when the $1.7 trillion spending bill was passed. Proxy voting is unconstitutional."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Justin Trudeau Shocks Canadians with This Dystopian Bill Amendment | Direct Message | Rubin Report
play icon

Justin Trudeau Shocks Canadians with This Dystopian Bill Amendment | Direct Message | Rubin Report

Crowd Gasps When Senator Shows How Much of a Joke Gov't Has Become | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report
play icon

Crowd Gasps When Senator Shows How Much of a Joke Gov't Has Become | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report

Republican Makes the GOP Look Foolish by Pointing Out This Simple Solution | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report
play icon

Republican Makes the GOP Look Foolish by Pointing Out This Simple Solution | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report

Republican's Stunned by Latest Democrat Plan to Fund Zelenskyy | Direct Message | Rubin Report
play icon

Republican's Stunned by Latest Democrat Plan to Fund Zelenskyy | Direct Message | Rubin Report

'America Last in action': $1.7 trillion omnibus bill to fund border security for Arab nations



U.S. Senate leaders made clear in their new $1.7 trillion federal government funding bill that border security is a priority deserving of American taxpayer dollars, particularly when the borders concerned happen to hem foreign nations thousands of miles away.

According to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill seeks to appropriate $772.5 billion for non-defense discretionary funding and $858 billion for defense funding.

The bill would allocate:

  • $44.9 billion in emergency assistance to Ukraine and NATO allies;
  • $40.6 billion to disaster relief;
  • $47.5 billion to the National Institutes of Health;
  • $575 million for so-called "family planning/reproductive health ... in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity";
  • nearly $7 billion to combat HIV/ AIDS in foreign nations; and
  • hundreds of billions more to a variety of Democrat pet causes, including a "LGBTQ+" museum in New York City and a federal building named after outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The authors of the bill also saw fit to once again bolster the borders of Middle Eastern nations with U.S. tax dollars: $410 million "shall be available to reimburse Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Oman ... for enhanced border security."

At least "$150,000,000 shall be for Jordan," a country whose human rights practices the U.S. State Department has called into question.

"Up to $500,000,000 of funds appropriated by this Act for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency in 'Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' may be used to provide assistance to the Government of Jordan to support the armed forces of Jordan and to enhance security along its borders," said the bill.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) highlighted these planned Middle Eastern border expenditures, noting, "America Last in action."

\u201c...but at the same time, allocates $410 million towards border security for Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Oman. \n\nAmerica Last in action.\u201d
— Rep. Dan Bishop (@Rep. Dan Bishop) 1671557283

These allocations are not unprecedented. Contrariwise, they appear to be reprints from previous appropriations acts, which have had American funds shore up the defenses of Arab nations for years — especially Jordan.

According to the State Department, America has a long-standing commitment to Jordan's security and stability.

While the Biden administration helped "Jordan mitigate the effects of regional crises, including the strain of refugees from Syria and Iraq on Jordan's budget," over 2.3 million criminal noncitizens stole across the southern border and into the U.S. last year, and 1.7 million came over the year before. In the event that the Biden administration gets its way and Title 42 is lifted, millions more will flood in in 2023.

Arab nations may enjoy greater security at Americans' expense; however, some attention was paid to the U.S. southern border in the bill.

The spending bill calls for $1.5 billion to be set aside for "border management requirements of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection," but none of the funds provided in this section can be use to hire permanent federal employees or to "acquire, maintain, or extend border security technology and capabilities, except for technology and capabilities to improve Border Patrol processing."

Sen. Lindsey Graham defends foreign aid to Pakistan in omnibus spending bill



Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday defended foreign aid spending included in the $2.3 trillion spending package Congress passed Monday night, arguing foreign aid is necessary to compete with China for influence abroad.

Appearing on Fox News' "Fox & Friends," Graham faced questions about the massive spending package, which members of Congress were given with fewer than eight hours to read before it was brought up for a vote. Critics have slammed the bill, which was sold to the public as a coronavirus relief package, for containing several provisions seemingly unrelated to the pandemic, including funding for Pakistan's "gender programs" and other bits of foreign aid.

In reality, the $900 billion coronavirus relief package was tied to a $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill Congress needed to pass to keep the government open. The criticized provisions were mostly part of the omnibus bill, not the COVID-19 relief package.

Host Brian Kilmeade asked Graham if he was disappointed with how the vote turned out.

"So the bottom line is they wanted $3 trillion for the pandemic last year, we wound up with $900 billion," Graham said, referring to congressional Democrats' demands for more spending. "You could've gotten this package in July, Mitch McConnell is right about that. They refused to even talk to us before the election because they thought a relief package would help President Trump."

"If you think this bill is bad, lose Georgia and see what happens," Graham said ominously, referring to the state's upcoming runoff elections for U.S. Senate.

Those Senate races will determine which party has control of the U.S. Senate — for Republicans their only hope to thwart President-elect Joe Biden's agenda and for Democrats their chance to advance long-sought after policies like repealing President Donald Trump's tax cuts and expanding Obamacare.

Graham went on to praise other provisions of the omnibus bill, including military spending and funding for the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

"The foreign aid budget is 1 percent of all American spending," Graham said, responding to critics of foreign aid. He went on to defend the provisions related to Pakistan, which included $15 million toward "democracy programs" and $10 million distributed to "gender programs."

"Pakistan is a place I really worry about. Eighty-five countries a woman can't open up a bank account without her husband's signature, she can't inherit property. If you're a young girl in Pakistan life is pretty tough, so we're trying to make life better for women throughout the world," Graham said.

"One percent of all federal spending is foreign assistance, China is everywhere. We've got to compete," he added.

As for the coronavirus relief, Graham asserted that the $600 stimulus checks assigned to every American will be a boon after months of economic hardship inflicted by state coronavirus restrictions.

"I like the COVID package in the sense that it is targeted. If you're a family of four you get $2,400 bucks out there. If you're about to lose your small business, you can get another round of PPP loan. And there's $38 billion to get the vaccine in a place near you so you can actually take it," Graham said.

To those still skeptical, he encouraged them to vote.

"So this is sausage-making, but the Democrats have a say," Graham said. "They run the House. And if they ever get the House, the Senate, and the White House it will be a financial disaster for this country, so vote in Georgia."

Pakistani 'gender programs,' horse-racing integrity, climate monitoring in Tibet: Just a few of the ridiculous things thrown into the COVID relief omnibus package



On Monday, Congress passed a long-awaited $900 billion coronavirus relief bill as a part of a $2.3 trillion omnibus spending package to fund the the government through next September, and as you might expect, the behemoth piece of legislation included far more than just stimulus checks and pay for government workers.

In fairness to the nation's lawmakers, they were only granted a handful of hours to review the more than 5,000-page document before they were expected to vote for its passage. It's doubtful that anyone outside congressional leadership read it, but nevertheless it received overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats in both chambers.

Now that the legislation has been approved, details about what exactly is in it have started to trickle out — and, needless to say, it's not pretty.

What are the details?

Included in the bill are millions of dollars to fund "gender programs" in Pakistan, fund new cars for federal HIV/AIDS workers, and establish a Climate Security Advisory Council, according to Grabien Media founder Tom Elliott, who posted a lengthy Twitter thread with snapshots of the document Monday night.

Money is even set aside to fund an investigation of the "1908 Springfield Race Riot" and enforce horse-racing integrity.

The Covid relief bill includes a lengthy subsection titled “the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020” https://t.co/zfBtHUnRhE
— Tom Elliott (@Tom Elliott)1608583142.0

Evidently, lawmakers thought it unacceptable not to provide funding for a museum to celebrate "the life, art, history, and culture of women." Oh and they also made sure to appropriate funding for programs to discourage teenagers from drinking under age and engaging in unsafe sex.

The Covid relief bill includes $193 million for federal HIV/AIDS workers stationed abroad to buy new cars https://t.co/y16iyK2aJF
— Tom Elliott (@Tom Elliott)1608587111.0

Townhall reporter Beth Baumann even discovered a section of the bill where millions of dollars are set aside to monitor the climate change taking place in Tibet.

Wait. It looks like it's $1,00,000. And there's a scholarship too. https://t.co/oBLPhNk4N6
— Beth Baumann (@Beth Baumann)1608598109.0

What else?

In a blistering speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) denounced the bill and called out the so-called conservatives who abandoned their "soul" and their "fiscal integrity" to vote for it.

"If free money was the answer ... if money really did grow on trees, why not give more free money? Why not give it out all the time?" the senator asked.

"Why stop at $600 a person? Why not $1,000? Why not $2,000?" he said in reference to the forthcoming stimulus checks set to be distributed to every American. "Maybe these new Free-Money Republicans should join the Everybody-Gets-A-Guaranteed-Income Caucus? Why not $20,000 a year for everybody, why not $30,000? If we can print out money with impunity, why not do it?"

The legislation passed in the Senate by a vote of 91-6. Five Republicans — Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Mike Lee (Utah), and Ron Johnson (Wis.) — joined Paul to vote against the bill. Prior to that, the bill passed in the House by a vote of 359-53, with only 53 members — 50 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and 1 independent — disapproving.

Rand Paul savages Republican colleagues who voted for COVID relief bill with fiery floor speech



In a blistering speech on the floor of the Senate, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul condemned his fellow Republican senators who voted for the multitrillion-dollar coronavirus relief package and omnibus spending bills, accusing them of abandoning their "soul" and their "fiscal integrity" for the sake of political expediency.

Paul condemned the bill as an example of "modern monetary theory" that suggests that "government can spend whatever it wants without the need to tax." Paul said that his colleagues "rightly lampoon this quackery — that is, when they're not practicing the quackery themselves."

Senator Paul: Stop Piling Debt on Future Generations, Open the Economy, and Cut Waste in the Budget www.youtube.com

Continuing, Paul claimed, "To so-called conservatives who are quick to identify the socialism of Democrats: If you vote for this spending monstrosity, you are no better."

Pointing out that the government had no plan to raise revenue to pay for the bill Congress was about to pass, Paul went on to argue, "If free money was the answer ... if money really did grow on trees, why not give more free money? Why not give it out all the time? Why stop at $600 a person? Why not $1,000? Why not $2,000? Maybe these new Free-Money Republicans should join the Everybody-Gets-A-Guaranteed-Income Caucus? Why not $20,000 a year for everybody, why not $30,000? If we can print out money with impunity, why not do it?"

The spending bill ultimately passed the Senate by a vote of 91-6, with only five Republicans joining Paul to vote against the bill: Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Mike Lee (Utah), and Ron Johnson (Wis.). The vote in the House was likewise overwhelming, with only 53 members — 50 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and 1 independent — voting "nay" on the final vote.

In addition to the sheer size of the spending bill, many Republicans strenuously objected to the fact that they were not even given the text of the bill with ample time to read it before voting on it. Reportedly due to delays with printers and technology, members of Congress were not provided with either a paper or a digital copy of the bill until almost literally the last minute. Among the "nay" votes in the Senate, Lee and Cruz specifically highlighted their inability to read the bill as a reason for voting against it.

1/4 This is the spending bill under consideration in Congress today. I received it just moments ago, and will like… https://t.co/kMIMC2fUng
— Mike Lee (@Mike Lee)1608585993.0

After noting the absurdity of being asked to vote on a bill that he hasn't been given time to read, Lee also noted that the process by which the bill was passed did not allow for any amendments or opportunities to improve the bill. In a thread on Twitter, Lee said, "This process, by which members of Congress are asked to defer blindly to legislation negotiated entirely in secret by four of their colleagues, must come to an end. It won't come to an end until no longer works for those empowered by it. That can happen, but only when most members of both houses and both political parties stop voting for bills they haven't read — and, by design, cannot read until after it's too late."

Cruz agreed, even specifically noting his agreement with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the issue:

.@AOC is right.It’s ABSURD to have a $2.5 trillion spending bill negotiated in secret and then—hours later—demand… https://t.co/14djAdirth
— Ted Cruz (@Ted Cruz)1608577004.0

"AOC is right. It's ABSURD to have a $2.5 trillion spending bill negotiated in secret and then — hours later — demand an up-or-down vote on a bill nobody has had time to read. #CongressIsBroken," Cruz tweeted.