1:05:18 Well, let's talk about some real politics. Oh okay! Let's talk politics... Well we haven't yet No well real politics There has been this Well, a couple of things. There's that they passed this... it wasn't called reconciliation it was something I can't remember the name of. Appropriations bill? The nine billion? Well it wasn't appropriations it was de-appropriation. It was unappropriated. They call that appropriations but in typical fashion it de-appropriated in particular a billion dollars from public media Yeah now which is
1:05:57 which they're still whining about. It was called recision, not appropriation. Well here's the NTD report on it and this is...it turns out I didn't realize it until I listened to Voight the often budget management guy This morning I... Is it vote? Vote? Voet, voet, voet. V-O-U-G-H-T, voot! Yes, voot! That's how you pronounce his name. Until I heard him and I have a clip to which is the bonus clip you got Yeah
1:06:34 But let's listen to this and then you have to listen to the other thing because then I looked it up. I didn't realize that what the heck this was all about really, which one do you want? The rescission bill or vote? No, I went through a session when first was the background here. All right, here we go. Vice President J.D. Vance was the time breaking vote in a procedural hurdle to advance president Trump's decisions package through the Senate The rescissions package is a request from the president to rescind funds that were previously approved by Congress. Our Washington correspondent Luis Eduardo Martinez has more on this story. These recommendations now are an implementation of what DOJ found in areas of the budget they thought we could achieve savings but not undermine the critical mission. By the way, so all that DOJ noise resulted in eight billion dollars worth of permanent cuts?
1:07:22 Actually, more. Okay this would... a lot of people don't understand it was more than that it was 100 and something. Which is not a lot either I agree I'm not gonna argue with that. What happened to trillion? Well there's still more to come but this was a test of the system to see if they could make this happen in the first place. You're taking away money that Congress has appropriated And it turns out, as the Vogue-It guy will mention in the next clip that this is a big deal. It seems like oh whatever you know and then poor PBS they lost their money or they lost a few bucks but anyway does that end of the clip? No no no let's continue. But not undermine the critical mission aspects of what some of these programs do
1:08:14 President Trump has requested Congress rescind some 9.4 billion dollars in funds appropriated last December for USAID, NPR and PBS The clawback would not disrupt the core mission nor rescind total funding from the agencies It's targeting but Democrats have promised to oppose them You know Doge comes along with this chainsaw approaches they just cut cut cut They have no idea what the consequences will be and they don't give a hoot voting bipartisan investments compromising our national security, hurting America's standard throughout the world is not popular. Republican Senators Susan Collins Lisa Murkowski and Mitch McConnell oppose the rescissions package primarily on principle We're lawmakers we should be legislating what we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told this is the priority we want you to execute on it will be back with you with another round
1:09:08 I don't accept that. I'm going to be voting no. The House of Representatives approved the $9.4 billion dollar rescissions package last month. Hmm, alright so everyone thinks this is like okay whatever who cares? This is a major deal and we'll play this bonus clip and he'll...and vo-voget We'll explain exactly why. It's really important that we restore what the founding fathers would have understood to be the proper role of the legislative branch and the proper role of the executive branch, and so it is absolutely crystal clear hallmark constitutional principle that Congress has the power of the purse and governs appropriations setting that level what is that ceiling?
1:09:51 For 200 years, up until the 1970s our founding fathers and our presidents exercised the ability to have the president be in charge of the spending of that appropriation. And to spend less than the appropriation at the lowest moment of the presidency they inserted And the Impoundment Control Act, which really caricatured this notion of what the power of the purse meant. It made it so that you had to spend up to that level and kind of use it or lose it for a bureaucracy which by the way caused those bureaucracy not be focused on the president but to be focused on Congress. So you get the beginnings of the imperial congress and all we're doing President Trump ran on this he ran on the impoundment control act being unconstitutional on the notion of impoundments
1:10:36 All the president is doing is restoring our constitutional system to what it was at the founding and not letting a post-Watergate Democratic majority dictate for us the extent to which we have ability to have a say in how things are spent and how they're not spent. What? Interesting he threw in post Watergates, Is that just for timing or was there another reason that he said that? The Empowerment Control Act and the Impoundment Act of 1974 was pushed through by the Republicans just as Nixon was kind of falling apart in the White House. And because it was a Watergate thing, and this is what he said, there's a weak president at that time so they could push this through
1:11:22 change the way we do business in this country. The section two of the Constitution says that the president gets to control these funds, so when Congress says we got a billion dollars for this group over here at Department of Education say 10 billion 100 billion whatever it is it goes to Department of Education which is under the executive branch and it used to be before 1974 the president could say okay well thanks for the hundred billion but we're only gonna spend one We're gonna save some money here. That's how we save money, we don't spend all the money you give us but in 1974 the rule changed to you have to spend all the money
1:12:04 Oh, okay. But it was not a constitutional change? It was through an act? Yes and which makes it possible that could be thrown in the Supreme Court... So is that what this bill did? Did this bill have language in there that says okay this is how we're going to move forward? No but you know the idea of this bill to see if it would get through in the first place and then if there's any kind of pushback that results in a court case, boom! To the Supreme Court it goes. And so then the Democrats know this and they're freaked out about it so they don't know what to do. Well I highly doubt everyone who voted on this or voted against it had any idea this was going on. They're too wrapped up in, oh NPR
1:12:47 I think that they do know what's going on and they're worried about it. We may think that they don't, but I think that they do because the idea was when they took over in 1974 when Congress made this impoundment act and empowerment act there is a couple of them actually and you look into it, they did for the sole purpose of building up the bureaucracy and government workforce because if we say we are gonna give you $100 billion dollars You have to spend it. That's pretty, that's good info John I didn't know that and that's good. I didn't know it either until Vogt came along. And he says Trump tried to pull this stunt back in his first term and was like rebuked and now this is a second test and that's why the number's only nine billion you were bitching about because that's what everybody thinks oh so what?
1:13:40 Because that's because it's a test. This is they're gonna bring in the 10 and 100 and later How about the trillion from show where there's waste they can stop in other words The idea, is that the Congress does control the purse strings But they can't make you spend money. They can take your money away, which is always well the Congress controls the purse strings if they don't like what you're doing they can just pull and plug on the defense department's just say no money for you! They can do that that's true but they can't say here's a bunch of money you have to spend it right
1:14:18 The president, because these are all you know these departments are all under the executive branch. He should be able to spend what they want! That's what the CEO of the country does he determines okay we're gonna spend that on this or will hold some money back for a rainy day and What happened with Nixon was that Nixon was holding back lots of funds on lots of stuff he didn't like And he was weak at the time, so the Democrats pushed through this bull crap which has ruined the country basically. This is why you have it did the idea of oh yeah if you don't spend it you lose it kind of role we came up to spend all our money and
1:14:54 And it just results in squandering money. We've been squandering money like maniacs ever since 1974! This topic is just not as important as the Epstein client list, it's just not this is what the podcast should not be about this is no good So I thought that was a big... Yeah and so this Vogt guy he's no slouch Who, Voigt? Voigt. Yeah. Vogt! Where does he come from? Vogt. I don't know Russell... I'm looking him up. Oh he's kind of nerdy looking. No he is a very nerdy guy. Uh oh! He is a self described Christian nationalist uh-oh
1:15:36 Uh-oh. Oh, that's right he's the one that wrote... He wrote Project 2025! Yeah he was a project 2025 guy How come no one is out there yelling this guy is a project? He wrote it! That's because they don't want to draw attention to what I just described They just don't want people to know that fact of the matter isn't what Trump trying to do here Interesting Yes here it is played a major role in the creation of Project 2025 from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power. No wonder they were all had their panties in a bunch, they saw through the 900 pages of Chad GPT nonsense into the actual mission here." Well that makes sense... So we have to keep an eye on it? Yes! Keep an eye on it.