Eric Swalwell just had his own 'How do you do, fellow kids?' moment during profanity-laden radio interview



In an attempt to appear off-the-cuff on a hip radio show, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) swore and made inflammatory accusations against Republicans in order to connect with a younger audience.

Swalwell appeared on "The Breakfast Club," one of the biggest radio shows in New York City, which skews to the 18- to 24-year-old audience and has around eight million listeners per month, according to the L.A. Times. Swalwell did his best to relate to the youth, having his own version of the "How do you do, fellow kids?" meme, which included cursing and wearing a trucker hat.

'These motherf**kers are firing cancer doctors.'

Host Lenard McKelvey, aka Charlamagne, performed well, firing off questions that most network anchors dare not ask.

"Why should we ever trust the Democratic Party after they lied to us so long about President Biden?" Charlamagne asked the congressman. He added, "Democrats have tried every strategy except for two things: honesty and courage."

In response to that question, Swalwell seemingly initiated a Gen Z speech protocol to criticize his Republican counterparts.

"Well, there's a lot of people who are courageous right now in the Democratic Party. Our, 'dance with the one that brought you,' is health care," Swalwell claimed. He then made bold assertions about the GOP, accusing Republicans of being "for cancer."

"We're not only going to protect health care because I think protecting health care is not enough. We need to invest in cures, and these motherf**kers are firing cancer doctors."

RELATED: Eric Swalwell calls for escalation after fellow Democrat faces charges for allegedly assaulting ICE officer

The California politician then positioned Democrats as having a contrasting view of wanting cures for the disease, while stating Republicans actually support people having cancer.

"So we have a real clean contrast. We're for cures. They're for cancer. Right? Like, so, like, that's why you should trust us because 40% of Americans are going to get a phone call from a doctor to say, 'I'm sorry. You have cancer.' And so if it doesn't come to you, it's going to come to someone you know."

The 44-year-old added, "And so you want the party that believes in your health care and that you have a right to fight it and not go broke."

RELATED: US bans government employees from having romantic relations with Chinese people in China

House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) (R), June 4, 2024. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Gabriel Victal, an editor for conservative content creators like Bodittle, told Blaze News Swalwell seemingly has no qualms about using "deceptive tactics" to gaslight voters.

"Using cancer against uneducated voters is an insane thing to do. Most Republicans today and most Democrats of past were rightfully skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry, but it seems a lot of liberals of today defend it like it's a religion."

While Victal said Charlamagne has done well in platforming some voices he disagrees with, he has still "proven time and time again that he will also platform people who have terrible takes, like Eric Swalwell."

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

The Senate Can Finally End Medicaid Funding Of The Abortion Giant That Ended My Baby’s Life

With the help of Republicans in the Senate, this will be the year we finally defund Planned Parenthood.

Congress Closer To Defunding Planned Parenthood After House Passes ’Big Beautiful Bill’

The bill states any nonprofit that 'provides for abortions' and received more than $1 million in 2024 is off limits for future funding.

Trump must choose: Medicaid grift or fiscal sanity



No program has done more to drive up health care costs and balloon inflationary debt than Medicaid. Yet the same Republicans who railed against “Bidenflation” on the campaign trail now draw a red line against even modest reductions in Medicaid’s explosive growth — reforms that would merely return spending to projections made at the start of Joe Biden’s presidency.

A dozen House Republicans sent a letter to Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), warning they would oppose any reconciliation bill that trims Medicaid. “We cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations,” wrote Reps. David Valadao (Calif.), Don Bacon (Neb.), Jeff Van Drew (N.J.), Rob Bresnahan (Pa.), Juan Ciscomani (Ariz.), Jen Kiggans (Va.), Young Kim (Calif.), Rob Wittman (Va.), Nicole Malliotakis (N.Y.), Nick LaLota (N.Y.), Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.) and Jeff Hurd (Colo.).

Over the next decade, the program will cost $8.6 trillion under current projections. The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal share to reach $1 trillion annually by 2034.

These lukewarm Republicans object to the House’s reconciliation framework, which directs Guthrie’s committee to identify roughly $80 billion in annual savings — most of which would come from Medicaid. Trump already agreed in principle to these reductions in discussions with the House Freedom Caucus. The plan would save about $1.5 trillion over a decade.

Still, neither President Trump nor Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has shown any appetite for rolling back the Obamacare Medicaid expansion — or the pandemic-era expansion that added yet another category of able-bodied adult males to the eligibility rolls.

So what are these Republicans really opposing? Even work requirements for able-bodied adults. They hide behind mealy-mouthed language, but the message is clear: they won’t support basic accountability measures for a program draining the federal budget at record speed.

Naturally, the RINOs fall back on the same tired line about supporting “targeted reforms to improve program integrity, reduce improper payments, and modernize delivery systems.” This vague bureaucratic jargon helped create today’s bloated Medicaid system — with worse health outcomes to show for it.

In practice, Medicaid drives inflation across the economy and accelerates health care cost growth. Despite the staggering spending, the program has produced little beyond declining life expectancy and growing numbers of doctors refusing to accept Medicaid patients. It’s the health care equivalent of the Department of Education — massive funding, dismal results.

At the end of the Clinton administration, Medicaid enrollment stood at 34.5 million, with annual costs of $117 billion. Today, including the Children’s Health Insurance Program, enrollment has soared to 80 million. In fiscal 2023, total Medicaid spending hit $880 billion. The federal government paid $606 billion (69%), while states covered the remaining $274 billion (31%).

In most states, Medicaid ranks as either the top or second-highest budget item.

The fiscal outlook is even worse. In fiscal year 2025, the federal government alone is projected to spend $656 billion on Medicaid. Over the next decade, the program will cost $8.6 trillion under current projections. The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal share to reach $1 trillion annually by 2034.

This is unsustainable — and yet both parties continue to treat reform as political poison.

If Social Security, Medicare, the military, and the VA remain off-limits — as both parties insist — then Medicaid is the only major program left where Congress can find real savings. Anyone who claims to care about federal spending while blocking Medicaid reform is lying.

And let’s be clear: No one is proposing actual cuts to Medicaid.

The House reconciliation plan simply reins in projected growth, returning it to the levels the Congressional Budget Office forecast in 2021. That’s not austerity — it’s basic fiscal sanity. Under Biden, annual Medicaid costs ballooned by more than $100 billion in just a few years.


Paul Winfree, Trump’s former director of budget policy, noted that in 2024, federal Medicaid spending ran 23% higher than early Biden-era projections. Obamacare spending exceeded projections by 129%. In contrast, Medicare spending rose just 4%.

If Congress held Medicaid growth to the same rate as Medicare, the “savings” would exceed what the Freedom Caucus is currently demanding. That’s not a cut — it’s common sense.

At the very least, Trump should insist on strict work requirements for able-bodied adults receiving Medicaid. According to the Foundation for Government Accountability, more than 60% of able-bodied adult enrollees report no earned income.

That’s indefensible.

Trump has pushed the Freedom Caucus hard to support the reconciliation bill. He owes it to the public to apply just as much pressure on the GOP moderates shielding Medicaid from even modest reforms.

It’s time to overhaul our entire approach to Medicaid. The program keeps growing, yet more doctors refuse to accept it, thanks to low reimbursement rates. Meanwhile, managed care companies rake in billions.

Take Molina Healthcare. Nearly all its revenue comes from government contracts, mostly Medicaid managed care. Its CEO, Joseph Zubretsky, is the highest-paid insurance executive in the country. That’s not health care — that’s grift.

Congress should repeal Obamacare and allow for real choice and competition in the insurance market. With that freedom, the government could directly subsidize health savings accounts for people in need — so they can buy private plans without the stigma, delays, and denial of care that plague Medicaid managed care.

We should also expect modest contributions from most enrollees — just as Medicare does. Exempt the truly destitute, of course. But the idea that anyone just below the income threshold should pay nothing, while those just above it face crushing Obamacare premiums, defies fairness and common sense.

Most Medicaid recipients own smartphones and cars. Many spend hundreds on repairs without government help. No one expects them to cover major medical bills. But asking for a small monthly premium isn’t cruel — it’s responsible.

Earlier this month, Trump rightly noted that in 1870, tariffs funded nearly the entire federal government. But back then, the U.S. didn’t have a welfare state.

If Trump wants to revive 19th-century fiscal discipline, he must let go of this bizarre loyalty to a Medicaid system that mostly enriches managed care executives — and leaves taxpayers and patients holding the bag.

Tariffs Won’t Solve Washington’s Biggest Problem: Overspending

The ructions in financial markets over the past few weeks and Washington’s dependence on foreign entities to keep funding our (over) spending illustrate why lawmakers need to do something to get our fiscal house in order.

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.

Exclusive: Speaker Johnson says reconciliation will remain a 'partisan exercise,' won't rely on Democrats



Despite the GOP's historically narrow majority in the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told Blaze News in an exclusive interview Monday that he is planning to rely solely on Republicans to get reconciliation out the door.

The House is expected to vote on reconciliation tomorrow night, which would establish a budget blueprint for President Donald Trump's America First agenda. Although Johnson's "big, beautiful bill" earned an endorsement from Trump, Republicans can afford to lose only one vote on reconciliation. Even so, Johnson told Blaze News that all his efforts are focused on uniting Republicans behind the budget resolution.

'I'm convinced that, at the end, it's going to work.'

"Reconciliation, unlike everything else that is done in Congress, is always, by definition, a partisan exercise," Johnson told Blaze News. "It's going to reflect all of our red-meat policies, everything we ran on, campaigned on, and everything President Trump ran on. It's the America First agenda."

"We're not going to have any Democrats, which means we are going to have to have every single Republican," Johnson added.

Although Republicans were re-elected with a narrower majority compared to the previous Congress, Trump recruited two members of Congress, shrinking the GOP's margins even further.

Because of the increasingly slim margin, Johnson and the Republican leadership have dedicated nearly a year of negotiations to ensuring that their whole conference can get behind reconciliation.

'It's a lot of work, a lot of heavy work, high stakes, but a great reward when we get it done.'

"We've been working on this, really, since March of last year, when we first got the committee chairs to start talking about what they might be able to do in reconciliation in their areas of jurisdiction," Johnson told Blaze News. "We've had, I mean, almost a year's worth of work. ... All these things are necessary to get everybody to a consensus when you have such a small margin."

Even so, there are some hesitancies within the GOP. On one hand, several moderate Republicans in purple and blue districts say the budget cuts go too far, while fiscal hawks within the GOP say the cuts don't go far enough. But despite the ideologically diverse conference, Johnson is confident that Republicans will eventually get on the same page.

"I'm convinced that, at the end, it's going to work," Johnson told Blaze News. "None of us are going to get everything we want, but we will be able to pass what I think could be one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in many, many years, maybe decades.

"It's a lot of work, a lot of heavy work, high stakes, but a great reward when we get it done," Johnson added.

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