Congressman Mark Green on Biden Army Navy No-Show, Tennessee Tornados, and Democrat Thirst for Authoritarianism

Congressman Mark Green on Biden Army Navy No-Show, Tennessee Tornados, and Democrat Thirst for Authoritarianism

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed U.S. (R-TN-07), Rep. Mark Green, to the newsmaker line to discuss Biden’s no show at annual Army-Navy football game, the destruction of tornadoes in Tennessee, and the Democrats quest for authoritarianism.

Leahy: On the newsmaker line, our good friend, Representative Mark Green, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, served in combat in Iraq and decorated. H also left the army, was a major, I think when he left the army. Welcome to The Tennessee Star Report, Congressman Green.

Green: Hey! Thanks for having me on.

Leahy: Did you watch the Army-Navy game? Who won that game? Oh, that would be Navy. 17 to 13. What was your reaction to that?

Green: (Chuckles) Well, I think the Navy wanted it more. I think the Army went in a little too confident. They had a great season so far. And, of course, we had a few of our better players on injured reserve, but we just didn’t look like we wanted it. And Navy did.

Leahy: What’s it like being a cadet going to the Army-Navy game?

Green: Oh, it’s pretty amazing. Of course, you’ve got always in the background the life of being a cadet. So it’s sort of like you’re out of prison for four hours or five hours for the weekend. And you’re there in Philadelphia most of the time. In all my years at West Point, except for one when we went out to Anaheim. But, yeah, it’s a great game. A great American tradition.

Leahy: Well, I noticed that the current President, Joe Biden, broke with tradition. Former President Donald Trump went to every single Army-Navy game.

Joe Biden didn’t go. I don’t know. I mean, if I were a cadet or a Midshipman, I don’t think I would be very pleased with that. What’s your reaction to Biden’s not showing up?

Green: I really don’t know. I didn’t give it much thought. The only thing when I think about Joe Biden, I think about the destruction to the country. I don’t think about whether he goes to the football game or not. But it is a little bit of a slap in the face I suppose.

Leahy: One of your colleagues, Lee Zeldin from New York. I’ll just throw this out there. Said the reason the White House staff didn’t want him to go there was because they were afraid the crowd would break out in chance of Let’s Go Brandon!

Green: I don’t doubt that there’s a reason why Kamala Harris doesn’t go to the border, even though she’s the border czar. It’s because the cameras go there and they see things they don’t want to see. So in that case, they would hear things they don’t want to hear.

Leahy: Well, parts of your district had very, very I think it was parts of your district were affected by these tornadoes late Friday night, early Saturday morning. What’s the status? What can you report on that?

Green: Well, obviously, just like the floods in Waverley, just like the floods in Hardin County. I mean, Tennessee and rally to each other. People are all over the district helping those who’ve lost property damage and things like that.

Our district fared better than David Kustoff’s district. The tornado actually started out there in West Tennessee. The big tornado that ripped through Kentucky. And of course, the images from Kentucky are just grieving everyone.

Leahy: I want to follow up on another question. I call this Build Back Broker bill. What’s the status of that bill?

Green: So it looks like the Senate is going to hold it. I mean, so far Manchin has done what he said he was going to do and pushed back. Now, both he and Kyrsten Sinema have said that they aren’t supportive of the bill.

And I think after Virginia, both of those folks saw what happened there and realized this kind of woke craziness that’s going on and I would even say Marxist stuff that’s going on in the far-left Democrat Party are not going to be a part of it. And they know it’s not very good for their political lifespan.

Leahy: Crom Carmichael has a question for you, Mark.

Carmichael: Congressman, on the Build Back Better, his bill. Whatever you want to call it. I’m of the opinion that there are at least a half dozen other Senate Democrats that do not want it to come to the floor for a vote, but they don’t want to be vocal against the bill.

They just want it to die and never come to the floor. And among those would be Mark Kelly, Hassan in New Hampshire and the Senator from Nevada, and then also Tester who’s not up for reelection this time but still does not want to have to vote for that bill. Your comment on that?

Green: Well, I can only share what our senators say with me or say to me. And Marsha has made it very clear that there are five to six over there who definitely will not vote for it if it comes to the floor. And so that kind of confirms your suspicion. But yeah, Marsha has said that there’s more than just Manchin incentive.

Leahy: Congressman Green, I have a question on a breaking story to see if you can give us some insight into this. So the January 6th ‘select committee’ that is looking into the breach of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, subpoenaed Steve Bannon. He said he wouldn’t comply with the subpoena due to executive privilege.

The committee wanted to hold him in contempt. The House voted yes to hold him in contempt. And now the Justice Department is prosecuting him. Just yesterday, apparently, or Friday, the committee then also said they want to hold former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, also a former congressman in contempt.

That’s going to the House for a vote. Do you think that House vote will have the same result as the recommendation to hold Bannon in contempt, or will it be different because he’s Mark Meadows?

Green: It’s very interesting. Mark Meadows was a member of the Freedom Caucus. He was a very conservative member of Congress, and Democrats liked him. It’s very interesting. He would always get extra courtesy when debated in committee beyond what others would get.

And I think it’s because he just was a very nice person and worked very diligently for compromise at times. And so I think there’ll be some Democrats who do not vote to hold Meadows in contempt. Now we’ll see. Pelosi is the master at whipping her caucus. So we’ll see.

Carmichael: Is that literally or figuratively?

Leahy: She’s got the whip. Boom! (Laughter)

Carmichael: I just want to be clear, because it could be either. (Laughs)

Leahy: When will that vote come up?

Green: That’s a hard question. So we may be voting Tuesday or Wednesday this week and that’s on passage of some budget-related stuff. But if we go for that, they’ll put the Meadows thing on. If not, it’s going to be the first week of January.

Leahy: You had a piece at the Washington Examiner. I think recently talking about the triangle of tyranny. I thought that was quite profound.

In the minute and a half we have, describe the triangle of tyranny and what reaction people have had to that piece that you wrote.

Green: Basically, if you look at the Os Guinness Freedom Triangle or Golden Triangle, where freedom is the objective to get there, you have to have a virtuous society. To get a virtuous society. You have to have a fixed moral right.

And to get faith or a fixed moral right, you have to have freedom. So there’s this circular. And I wondered, what is it that’s driving the Democrats? Not all Democrats, but at least these Marxists.

And instead of freedom, they want authoritarianism with themselves in control, dictating to everybody else. And in order to get everyone to want authoritarianism, you have to have chaos.

So when there are riots in the streets, people will even accept martial law when there are riots. So to get authoritarianism, you have to have chaos. And to get chaos, you have to have moral relativity. And you can see moral relativity and the best example, of course, is their views on abortion.

And of course, once you get moral relativity and morality is relative, the authoritarians can tell you what’s right and wrong. They can tell you what they want to say and what you can say. So that is my vision of what the leftists and the Democrats want.

Leahy: What’s been the reaction to people who have thought about that?

Green: People really go, wow, that’s pretty deep thinking.

Leahy: Something profound from a member of Congress. It rarely happens. Congratulations on getting something profound out there.

Green: I’m a reader. I love to read and to think about these kinds of things.

Leahy: We’re out of time. But thanks so much. We got so much more to talk about. Come in studio sometime, if you would please. We’ll have a full hour. All right?

Green: I will. Absolutely.

Leahy: Congressman Mark Green, always interesting to talk to you.

Carmichael: It sure is. It sure is.

 – – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crom’s Commentary: ‘Democrats Are Trying to Get People Hooked on the Heroin of Government Programs’

Crom’s Commentary: ‘Democrats Are Trying to Get People Hooked on the Heroin of Government Programs’

 

Live from Music Row Friday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio for another edition of Crom’s Commentary.

Leahy: We are joined in studio by the original all-star panelist and my good friend for more than 30 years. We met when we were teenagers, (Laughter) Crom Carmichael, the original all-star panelist. Good morning, Crom.

Carmichael: Michael. Good morning, sir.

Leahy: It is a beautiful fall day. We were talking earlier at 5:45 with Mayor Glenn Jacobs, who’s got a big fall festival going on next Tuesday in Knox County.

I would go up there if it were on a weekend just to see him and see all that kind of fun that they’re having up there. I’m looking forward to the football season. I’m looking forward to some of the games like UT playing Alabama this week. And that should be a lot of fun.

Carmichael: We hope it is. (Chuckles)

Leahy: It’ll be better than it’s been recently. It’s time now, ladies and gentlemen, people wait for this every day. It is time now for Crom’s Commentary. Crom, what do you have for us this morning?

Carmichael: Michael, we tried to talk with Neil about the $3.5 trillion deal.

Leahy: Neil McCabe, the best Washington correspondent in the country.

Carmichael: Yes, I think that thing has been deep-sixed. I don’t think there’s a chance that that will pass. But here’s what’s interesting.

Manchin is apparently sticking to his $1.5 trillion, but he’s also saying which entitlement programs will not be included. And it’s virtually all of them.

He’s willing to spend money on some very specific things. But none of it is these long-term entitlements that the Democrats are using trickery to get the amount down. Here’s how the trickery works.

Let’s say that you have a program that you want to spend $500 billion a year. Let’s say you want to spend $100 billion a year to make the math simpler. What you’re supposed to do is you’re supposed to take that $100 billion and multiply it times ten because you’re supposed to provide the amount of spending over a 10 year period.

So that would be a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money. You’re supposed to be able to fund that. The Democrats have a bunch of those types of things in their package. And the total of all of those things if you went the full 10 years is actually closer to $6 trillion.

So the Democrats have already said, well, we’re only going to run those programs for five years. And then what’s going to happen? Well, then they’ll go away. Everybody knows they won’t go away.

And so what the Democrats are doing is they’re trying to get people hooked on the heroin of government programs. And then at the end of five years, then they’ll have to renew them. Well, Manchin will not have any part of that on the other side of the Senate.

Or when I say the other side, I don’t mean really the other side, but Kyrsten Sinema has said that she will not support increases in marginal tax rates on personal income, corporate income, or capital gains. Well, enter Ron Wyden.

Now, this is an interesting article. Ron Wyden is now calling for a capital gains tax on unearned capital gains for people over a certain wealth. Now let me say this. As you and I have discussed, the multi-billionaire class is heavily Democrat.

This tax right here hits the multi-billionaires right where they live. And he has a special tax on the first one because his argument is that people like Zuckerberg and Bezos have been building these unrealized capital gains for many years.

So there will be a special one-time tax on those guys. And to me, this is going to show that the Democrats and especially Bernie Sanders don’t really really want to tax the billionaires as he likes to say.

What he really wants to do is he wants to tax the people making a million dollars. I think that what’s going on in Washington right now is a Kabuki dance that may end up in a colossal mess come December.

Leahy: As always, Crom’s Commentary, on point and very insightful. I think that’s a very interesting point. I think you’re right. I think you’re going to see Bernie Sanders doesn’t want to tax the billionaires. He wants to tax the self-made millionaires.

Listen to the second hour here:

 

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Official Guest Host Grant Henry Weighs in on What the Democrats Are Trying to Push Through in Congress

Official Guest Host Grant Henry Weighs in on What the Democrats Are Trying to Push Through in Congress

 

Live from Music Row Tuesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed official guest host and Grassroots Engagement Director of Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee Grant Henry in studio to discuss the Democrat’s multi-trillion-dollar spending package and how they have connected moral values to products.

Leahy: Joined in studio by the official guest host of The Tennessee Star Report, Grant Henry. Ben Cunningham has passed the baton to Grant. I think the reason is that he doesn’t like getting up at 3:30 am in the morning.

Why would anybody not like doing that? (Henry chuckles) And you are prepared to get up at 3:30 a.m. in the morning.

Henry: That’s God’s time, man. (Leahy laughs) That’s when the real work gets done. I’m telling you.

Leahy: Grant, we were talking during the break, and there may be some fraying going on among the Democrats in Washington, D.C. Tell us about that.

Henry: Yes. Look, I think y’all the pressure is working. The pressure you’re putting on these Democrats, especially in DC, it’s working specifically as it pertains to this boondoggle of a $3.5 trillion spending package.

We already heard that Democrat Senator Joe Manchin last Sunday said he will not support the three $5 trillion package in its current form. Now, Kyrsten Sinema has also come out, and Politico is reporting that she apparently told Joe Biden, they had a private meeting on Wednesday that “If the House delays it scheduled September 27 vote on this spending ing bill or if it fails, she will also not be backing the reconciliation bill.”

Not just her, Michael. Representative Kurt Straighter over in the House, one of approximately ten moderate House Democrat members is playing hardball with leadership over there. He said that several members of their group are on the same page about this.

Some of the lawmakers have convened and say that the message is that it’s up to chain leadership to convince them that they need to keep these two bills together. And saying, if they delay the vote or if it goes down, then I think you can kiss reconciliation goodbye.

Leahy: I’m glad you said that because I thought you were about to say, kiss something else. (Laughter)

Henry: Maybe that’s what some people are feeling. But if this doesn’t make sense to some of y’all, the reason why this whole idea of keeping them together and keeping it up together. What they mean by that is Nancy Pelosi is taking a big gamble in the House.

She’s trying to satisfy the progressives in the House by saying look. If you pass both of these things together, the one $2 trillion in big air quotes here infrastructure package, at the same time as the three $3.5 trillion boondoggle bill, then the progressives will be satisfied.

The moderates in the House are saying, look, I’m not for this nonsensical three $5 trillion spending. The parliamentarian in Senate just said that you can’t include amnesty on the Senate side. So you’re pushing stuff in there that has nothing to do with spending.

Leahy: And from Breitbart News, I’ll read the story. The Senate parliamentarian ruling Sunday effectively kills any chance of illegal alien amnesty through 2024. Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough’s rule that the Democrats plan to slip a massive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens into a bill does not comply with the Byrd rule.

That’s a former majority leader, Robert Byrd, regarding budgetary reconciliation. Democrats hope they could use their $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill to pass an amnesty.

MacDonough said Democrat lawmakers could not use reconciliation, which primarily relates to spending changes to the budget. To make sure such a drastic policy change as granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Henry: Here’s the calculation as far as Politico sees it. They think it’s a progressive think that if they band together and threatened to kill this infrastructure bill, the $1.2 trillion, it will convince moderate members to go along with the larger reconciliation package.

But multiple sources, including a senior Democrat aid and several in the decenters camp are telling Politico that the left is misreading their colleagues. If Nancy Pelosi gambles here it is to keep these two ridiculous things together, $4.7 trillion worth of spending to keep them together to satisfy the progressives, the moderates are saying we’ll kill all of it.

We’re not going to risk our reputation of $4.7 trillion worth of nonsense spending that will hit the people least able to afford it. So here’s how I think we win as Republicans. visit. stopthespendingspree.com. Sign that letter.

I think if we continually push this message that $4.7 trillion is wasted spending with historic tax increases that would lower worker wages and crush small businesses. Massive energy taxes and California-style mandates will add hundreds of dollars to your energy bills and it’ll put the government in more control over your health care.

Michael, this bill has nearly half a trillion dollars in healthcare spending. That’s one and a half times more than it was in the entirety of Obamacare.

These types of messages will force Nancy Pelosi to make a distinction between the two bills, possibly separate them, or have moderates kill the entirety of all of them. It’s encouraging for me. I think we keep the pressure on.

Leahy: Grant, we need encouragement. And I’m glad you’re encouraged because if you’re encouraged, I’m encouraged. And our listening audience, which really needs encouragement, is encouraged as well.

Senator Bill Hagerty from Tennessee was also encouraged. He tweeted this out yesterday. He said the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian has ruled that Democrats’ mass amnesty plan cannot be included in a budget bill.

Their tax and spend spree remains dangerous for our economy. But on immigration, Democrats will now focus hopefully on the massive border crisis they’ve created and ignored. I think hopefully was the active word there Grant.

Henry: Yes. The immigration situation is something that needs a full-on look. Republicans continue to believe that immigration is still good, but our system is broken especially in times of unprecedented economic challenge.

Republicans, we stand behind the idea that we welcome immigrants who are motivated to improve their lives and contribute to society that will enrich American lives.

Many immigrants or entrepreneurs who start businesses create jobs, generate demand for other goods and services, which in turn requires businesses to hire more people. It works out better for all of us!

However, Democrats in this administration need to acknowledge that Americans are feeling unsafe about their health and are feeling anxious about their economic future, and may feel threatened because of that.

They also need to acknowledge that there is an unprecedented crisis going on at the border and we simply cannot afford to kick this issue along extreme party lines anymore.

We’re dealing with real situations here that have real effects on real lives. This is no longer theoretical, Michael. We need to build a better immigration system for the long term.

We also need to focus on fixing the broken system immediately. I feel like what Democrats are doing is trying to cram something in an alleged spending bill that does not do service to what we really need to focus on here in this country.

Leahy: Democrats also want to do this, I’d be delighted to hear your reaction to this. They plan a $12,500 tax credit for pricey electric car purchases. This is at The Tennessee Star. Tennesseestar.com. House Republicans are arguing against a Democratic proposal to increase the $7,500 taxpayer-funded credit for electric car purchases to as much as $12,500, arguing that it would disproportionately help wealthy Americans who can afford to buy pricey electric vehicles.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee have proposed increasing the credit as part of their party’s filibuster-proof $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill which includes new social programs and billions for electric vehicle infrastructure. Your thoughts Grant.

Henry: Go some research on the amount of energy it takes to create one of those cars versus the amount of energy that you’re saving out of it. What kind of metals do you need to get those batteries? What is going on?

Leahy: I think it’s Lithium.

Henry: What’s the human cost involved?

Leahy: That’s pretty darn high from what I can tell. It’s interesting because when you look at what the Democrats on the left have done is they have attached moral values to products.

So an electric car is a moral good. A car powered by gasoline is a moral, bad.  That’s the simplicity of it. But the reality of it is if you look at the power and the impact on the environment, to me, I think that the evidence is that electric vehicles have a more destructive impact on the environment.

If you go all the way back to the key factor, which is lithium batteries, the mining of lithium is extraordinarily destructive from what I’ve read.

Henry: No, exactly. There’s a human toll involved as well. There’s child labor, possibly in some of the situations going on to mine some of this stuff out.

Leahy: It comes from third-world countries.

Henry: And I think you hit it on the head when you add a moral component to pushing some of this in the guise of, I don’t know, doing something to say, save the world or carbon tax credits or a Green New Deal or anything that you’re really trying to push through an ulterior motive, you get a problem because you’re pushing something you don’t fully understand.

You’re pushing something to win in PR points but not understanding what the policy might actually be doing to our country.

If we really want to have a conversation about energy, I don’t know why nuclear is not brought up every single time. But no one ever brings that up anymore. I don’t know. Maybe for reasons I don’t fully understand.

Leahy: Nuclear is interesting because it was for a period of time, morally bad. Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas in the China Syndrome movie, morally bad. But now they don’t know what to do because it doesn’t have bad emissions on it.

But, you know, way back when, 40 years ago, the left and Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas and Jack Lemon all said it was bad. Personally, I think the idea of Adam Smith’s idea of the marketplace working, that is a way to go.

We’re moving more towards the government working and telling everybody what’s a good product, what’s a bad product. I say it’s none of their business.

Listen to the third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crom Carmichael: Defining Infrastructure and the Systemic Crushing of the Middle Class

Crom Carmichael: Defining Infrastructure and the Systemic Crushing of the Middle Class

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to discuss the changing definition of infrastructure and the intended destruction of the middle class.

(Joe Manchin clips plays)

Leahy: (Sighs) Joe Manchin, the Democrat Senator from West Virginia. Now, that clip to me, Crom, sounds like he’s cheerleading for this 2,700-page bill. The ‘infrastructure bill’ that was just released late last night by Chuck Schumer. Forced to release it, by the way, because Breitbart got an unauthorized leak of the bill that they released about an hour before.

That’s why it got released. It’s filled with all sorts of special deals and money going to special interest groups. And yet Manchin is presenting it as everybody’s bill. What’s your reaction to that?

Carmichael: Now we’re talking specifically about the so-called physical infrastructure bill, not the human infrastructure bill. We’re talking about the one that’s the $1.2 trillion dollar bill correct?

Leahy: (Chuckles) Well Crom, it says it’s physical infrastructure.

Carmichael: I’m just talking about the other one is ridiculous.

Leahy: This one is equally ridiculous.

Carmichael: I know, but is this the one that actually includes some money for roads and bridges?

Leahy: There is some money for roads and bridges. Some.

Carmichael: Manchin is incorrect when he says a D or an R because the people from New York and the people from California are getting the lion’s share of this money. It’s – not much is coming to the people of Tennessee or any city or state in the South, including West Virginia.

West Virginia will get a little bit. And I suppose Manchin thinks that if he brings home $100 million dollars worth of bacon for West Virginia out of $1.2 trillion, then the people of West Virginia will reward him.

Leahy: He may be thinking that – yes.

Carmichael: So this is the problem, by the way. Another thing I did over the weekend, Michael, was I carefully researched every road and bridge in the continental United States and Hawaii and Alaska.

Leahy: You were busy.

Carmichael: Is actually in one of our states.

Leahy: Amazing.

Carmichael: Except for Washington, D.C., except for that little tiny area. We have a great legislature, let me say that. But even back when Democrats were in charge, even back then, there’s no way that Democrats in the Tennessee legislature could have passed a Tennessee ‘infrastructure bill’ on the backs of the taxpayers of just Tennessee, that included this type of ridiculous stuff that’s in a federal infrastructure program.

This is why historically – and I only have to go back to the 1950s when our interstate highway system was passed with a defense appropriation – our Congress did not believe that under the Constitution it had the right to actually spend money on roads or bridges. Didn’t think it even had that right.

Leahy: Had to kind of invent a right.

Carmichael: They had to invent a right by claiming that in a case of a war, we need to be able to move troops and equipment quickly around the country so we needed to have an interstate highway system to move military equipment.

Leahy: That was clever and true, but a very small part of what it’s used for. You do occasionally see some troops going through.

Carmichael: Occasionally you do. But the point is, is that once that happened, then the dam broke, and then anything goes. Now you’ve got the Democrats claiming that infrastructure is infrastructure.

Leahy: Healthcare is infrastructure.

Carmichael: Everything is infrastructure.

Leahy: When everything is infrastructure, Crom, nothing is infrastructure.

Carmichael: That’s right. There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to spend money on infrastructure. It all started where Congress did have the authority to spend money on the military. This is what happens when you start changing the definitions.

And then you get into this three-point-five or five-point-five or seven-point-five, and nobody really, really knows how much this so-called human infrastructure thing will amount to because it is an entitlement.

Leahy: That is exactly right. It’s not an infrastructure hard asset. It’s entitlement to a special privileged group.

Carmichael: No, it’s not. The group is so large that it will become impossible to sustain. Now, I want to be clear about this, because when Medicare was passed in 1960, that was an entitlement.

And they estimated that Medicare by 1988 would cost $8 billion dollars. By 1988, it was $80 billion dollars. It didn’t change the fact on whether or not it passed and whether or not it was there.

Leahy: Let me just interject you for a moment. We’re now in 2021. There are three particular things that happened between 1955 and 1965 that, in essence, have helped destroy the budget.

Number one, the highway spending bill that you just referenced under the Eisenhower administration. Number two, when John F. Kennedy allowed federal government employees to unionize,

Carmichael: He didn’t just allow it, he signed an executive order. And then, then, well, then it became legal. He legalized it with the executive order. And then Congress then passed a bill.

Leahy: And you had the Medicare. This all happened 1955 to 1965.

Carmichael: Well, 1968, because Medicare and Medicaid was great society stuff.

Leahy: No one at the time realized the import of all this.

Carmichael: That’s right. That’s right.

Leahy: And look what happened.

Carmichael: Now here’s what’s interesting. I’ll be very quick about this – in Britain, just on health care, they’re going to increase the payroll tax from 12 percent of employee pay to 13 percent of employee pay. The employer part, this is just for healthcare, is now 13.8 percent. I want to talk about the implications.

Leahy: More regulation, more crushing of small business.

Carmichael: And more taxes on the middle class.

Leahy: There you go. Crushing the middle class.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Crom Carmichael” by Crom Carmichael.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crom’s Commentary: ‘Democrats Are Trying to Get People Hooked on the Heroin of Government Programs’

Grant Henry and Mayor Ogles Weigh in on the ‘Inherently Self-Refuting’ Spending of Democrats

 

Live from Music Row Tuesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed Grassroots Engagement Director of Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee Grant Henry and Maury County Mayor Andy Ogles in studio to discuss the irresponsible and cyclical spending of Democrats in Washington.

(Joe Biden clip plays)

Leahy: We hear that from Sleepy Joe, the legal but not legitimate current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We are here with Grant Henry of the Americans from Prosperity-Tennessee and Maury County Mayor Andy Ogles.

Andy, I saw the eyebrows raised just a bit (Ogles chuckles) on that claim by the somnambulant Joe Biden that, oh yeah, this was expected and temporary. Really?

Ogles:  As an economist, I’ll tell you that he’s full of … Do you have a bleep button?

Leahy: He’s full of bleep! Scooter is now saying, oh, no, we can’t do that. (Laughs)

Ogles: You tell me that these home builders that pre-sold lumber packages a year ago who are now building homes at a loss – it was anticipated?

You tell me that these car manufacturers who now have tens of thousands of cars sitting on the lot without chips, that that was expected?

And again, just go through all your commodities, and your base commodities that go into everything else are more expensive today. And to say that it was expected or predictable, it’s almost criminal. I’ll be honest with you.

Leahy: It’s so dishonest. Grant Henry, we were talking a little bit about Fiat economies. Fiat standards. in other words, where there is no actual valuable item for which currency can be converted.

The gold standard, long gone. There were – for many years conservatives were railing about the budget deficit and the increasing debt.

And that’s not been as much on the forefront of late because there have been other battles. But the reality is, if the government just prints money, what is inevitably going to happen is inflation.

Henry: Yes.

Leahy: That’s the bottom line, right?

Henry: I don’t think you need a degree in economics to understand that either. I think even a baseline understanding, I mean, look at what’s happening in world history any time that any country prints money, especially to the extent that we are right now, you see a coupling inflation rate.

Look what our Founding Fathers told us, too. To preserve their independence, we must not let our rules load us with perpetual debt. One of the worst things we can do for future generations is shackle them to the debt of the current generations.

Leahy: It’s reckless and irresponsible. But that is exactly what Chuck Schumer and the Democrats are doing. And, Andy Ogles, not a lot of Republicans have been what you might call budget responsible in Washington.

Ogles: I think you look back to what set up a situation or an environment where someone like Obama could get elected. That was because you had reckless spending. From the “right,” the Republicans, as they controlled three branches of government.

And so the pendulum shifted. And hopefully, there’s a lesson learned.

We’ve got to get this debt and our spending under control because there is a point of no return.

And we’ve labored and we’ve toiled and we’ve done these things and created all this spending with this assumption that, well, our currency is the supreme currency for the world. But that could change and it could change quickly.

Leahy: China wants to change as soon as possible.

Ogles: That’s right. Absolutely.

Leahy: They’re undermining us at every level. Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer has a bill that has no content in it yet. And we’ll come up with all sorts of crazy spending ideas and reckless spending.

That – really that’s all the Democrats can do is spend, spend, spend. There’s no indication that they have any desire to cut the national federal debt. Grant Henry?

Henry: Here’s a headline from Reason, by the way. Magical Thinking of Bounds in New Budget Deal Proposal. Here is the quote from the article:

“Democrats insist that whatever that spending is about, it will be paid for in full.”

That’s dubious at best. The big idea is that the spending itself will generate economic activity which can then be taxed to pay for the already spent or budgeted programs.

Do you understand how circular this logic is? And it’s inherently self-refuting, right?

Leahy: Inherently self-refuting. That’s a great phrase Grant.

Henry: I bring the best here.

Leahy: That’s a very good phrase. We appreciate clever and accurate phrasing. Andy Ogles, so when I’m listening to what Grant says about the fantastic concepts, shall we say, these anti factual ideas of economics from the Democratic political leaders, I think of the exact opposite of this, which is Art Laffer and the Laffer curve and his ideas.

If we were to have him in here how would he respond to these things? Because, you know, you used to work for him.

Ogles: Yeah, I can’t speak for Doctor Laffer. But I think there’s this. If you have a certain rate of growth, you can sustain greater levels of spending or borrowing and spending.

But the flip side of that or how the only way that can be successful is you have policies that are stimulating business growth and stimulating an economy.

Now, I’m not for exuberant spending. But that being said, so you now have Democrats kind of acting under that same premise.

However, they’re anti-business and they’re doing things that restrict business.

Leahy: Here’s my view on that. I think they’re in particular, anti-small business. When you say anti-business, there’s a business that they like and businesses that work with them.

Like, I don’t know, Facebook and Google and that crowd that is the high Fortune 500 companies that have big lobbyists and they have all these compliance of people, and they follow the rules and regulations. They set the rules and regulations.

Ogles: And those large businesses, and because they are so big, because they have so many resources, they can skirt most taxation.

Leahy: Absolutely.

Listen to the third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.