Judging Freedom - Debt Ceiling Debate w. Rep Andy Biggs

Episode Date: April 21, 2023

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, April 21st, 2023. It's about two o'clock in the afternoon here on the East Coast, 11 o'clock in the morning in Arizona, from which Congressman Andy Biggs happily joins us now. Congressman, we missed you. We know you've been busy, but it's always a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. Well, thanks for having me back, Judge. Yeah, I've missed being with you. We understand that there will soon be a battle either on the floor of the House or behind closed doors. However, you folks do these things over the president's request for an unlimited debt ceiling and the Speaker of the House's

request for a small increase of a trillion and a half, if I have that right. I'll let you correct me. I'll let you take that ball and run with it. Well, Judge, you're right. So let's take Biden first. Joe Biden is refusing to negotiate on anything. He wants what we call a clean debt ceiling. When we say clean debt ceiling, he's talking about no cuts, no rescissions's no callbacks of money no stoppage of fraud you keep going with the same levels uh of spending and you don't get it so he wants as says i've i keep asking how much does he want and i've been told he wants four trillion dollars to get this through the about February after the election.

But theoretically, I say theoretically, because does anybody ever make an argument about the Constitution? He can't spend money unless it's been authorized. Is this for a million to allow him to spend money that's already been appropriated by the Congress, or is this for a million to allow him to spend money for which he's going to ask for appropriations? It's both actually. I said million, I meant trillion. The funny, those terms today. Hey, look, here's the reality. I never thought in my lifetime, I'd be talking about multiple trillion dollars to be spent. Same here. Same here. So the president's request

is really for both. Yeah, because to get his budget proposal, which is, believe it or not, in one year, $7 trillion worth of spending, he's going to need to raise the debt limit to help finance that. And so you need some of it to finance whatever our current level is, and you'll need some of it to finance his new amount. That's the Biden request is that $4 trillion to about early 2025, first quarter calendar year 2025. Right. Yeah, so the proposal now,

and to be frank with you, and I'm always really frank with you, I think it's going to pass. Oh. Is this proposal from McCarthy and leadership and, you know, various members have weighed in on it, of raising it by $1.5 trillion that will get you to probably January or February of 2024. Okay. That's what they're asking for. In exchange to raise that debt ceiling, this is what, these are all conservative requests because there would be nothing if conservatives were

not asking for something. So to eliminate the student loan default, or excuse me, forgiveness and restructuring. And they're scoring that judge, because the about $609 billion. They're scoring this in a first year savings of 400 and some odd billion dollars. Right, Let me go back to something you just said, which I was surprised to hear. There are about 16 Republicans, as I understand it, led by you, who have never, in caps, never voted to raise the debt ceiling. Are you telling me that the majority of those 16 will change their minds

or cave, if you will, in this instance? Yeah, I am telling you that. I'm telling you that I expect right now the way this, if I'm counting correctly, there might be three or four of us that vote no wow and the rest so what happens passes uh the democrats will vote against it not because they don't want to raise the debt ceiling they want to raise it the way the president wants to raise it yeah the house by one or two votes what happens when it goes to the other end of the Capitol. Does Chuck Schumer even consider it? No. No, in fact, that's one of the selling points from leadership is that, hey, well, this just gets us to negotiate. Right now, the Senate and Biden won't even negotiate with the leadership from the House because they think that the House, supposedly the argument is that they don't think the House can pass anything.

So the House passes this. Now, this is apparently is the poker club ante to get to the table to actually play some hands. And I'm like, that doesn't that's not saleable to me. I don't know how I go to my constituents and say, look, I just voted to raise $1.5 trillion. I'm not saying this because you're my friend, but you have intellectual honesty and your colleagues, even those who agree with us, are willing to participate in these sort of tit for tat games that go back and forth, I guess, between Chuck Schumer and Kevin McCarthy. How much, if Joe Biden wants to spend $7 trillion in a fiscal year, how much is paid for by taxes and how much does he have to borrow, roughly? So roughly, you have to borrow $2.2 trillion. We will bring in roughly $4.8 trillion in tax revenue.

And then the balance of that would be paid for, obviously, through financing. Okay. I don't want to get personal on this, even though I've disagreed with him on many things. Did Speaker McCarthy vote in the past to raise debt ceiling? Yes. He has always voted to raise the debt ceiling in his time in Congress. Right. And this is one of the things that I raised when I was running against him. I said, look, he has always raised the debt ceiling.

And not only has he always voted to raise the debt ceiling, he has worked with Democrats to put coalitions together to raise the debt ceiling. And not only has he always voted to raise the debt ceiling, he has worked with Democrats to put coalitions together to raise the debt ceiling because he couldn't get enough Republicans to raise the debt ceiling. But now the argument is being made to me is, yeah, but look at what we're doing over here. We're getting a trillion dollars worth of savings in cuts. And I said, yeah, but look at what, right out of the speaker's own office, the impact on debt reduction, debt, national debt growth is you only, so that 1.5 trillion, you're only impacting about 78 billion. So you're still increasing the national

debt for that short period of time by over $1.4 trillion. Wow. So is it fair to say there's no hope here? Well, before we get to hope, what will happen? Hope. We always hope. What will happen if the House and the Senate can't agree? The government will stop borrowing at some point, or does Janet Yellen have some tricks up her sleeve? Two things will happen. Number one, she will continue on with what's called extraordinary measures. And that's where she has to make priorities on what they spend, right? So what will happen is you'll just, typically, you're going to postpone payment of of interest on the bonds that's really what happens because because you pay everything else as it's due and that's too so i actually asked um an individual came in to brief the freedom caucus about this i said so

what happens uh if we don't pay if we don't increase the debt ceiling? He thought about it for two minutes. I guess nobody ever asked him that. He said, well, nothing. And I said, explain that to me because I've been told that it'll be the big cataclysmic thing. He says, well, what happens is the bills get approved through OMB. They get forwarded to the Fed. The Fed pays them. And that's just the way it is. The Fed pays them? That's what he said. That's what he said. I was stunned by that, too.

Through Treasury, I guess. They're authorized by Treasury to pay. So anyway, that's what happens. So nothing really happens. People keep getting their checks. Well, we know how the Fed pays them not with cash but by adding zeros to to bank accounts has this been going on is this even worse than ron paul's wildest nightmares about the fed now the fed has been paying for appropriations when congress hasn't

uh authorized the debt ceiling to go up? That's my understanding. I'm not saying I may misunderstand, but that's what this individual told us, and he had impeccable credentials. But I would just tell you what, to add to your consternation here is, Judge, there are over 1,200. Yeah, you'll know why I don't sleep.

So there are more than 1,200 agencies, departments, and programs that are unauthorized by Congress that are funded to the tune of $500 billion a year. By the Fed? Well, I can only assume because they just keep paying them. We've not appropriated and we've not authorized. If we have appropriated, we're appropriating to agencies that should have been sunsetted

and that Congress is not authorized to actually be in existence. Most people don't realize this. The U.S. Department of State has not been authorized or reauthorized by Congress in something like 30 years. And how does Tony Blinken get a salary? We just keep funding him. We just keep funding him. He shouldn't get a salary, but that's just.

Right, right. So is this debate about a debt ceiling just theoretical and fanciful? Because if the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will just keep spending money that the Fed will, fiat money that the Fed will create. I guess it creates it by adding zeros to a bank account somewhere, whether it's Chase Manhattan or whether it's the Treasury's bank account, some bank account will just add zeros to it. I would guess so. I read a report yesterday that said that Yellen is anticipating that the extraordinary measures will need to be repaid back. And she's anticipating $450 billion. So the extraordinary measures basically are kicking the can down the road. So judge, here's another way to look at it. We spend every month about $100 billion or more than we bring in in revenue. There's only a couple

months that we actually break even or are in the black in revenue. And this is one of them, April, because of tax. And you'll see, I think July and September because also quarterly. So those are the only months where we actually bring in enough to pay our bills. So they just keep adding to this debt and I will just tell you, um, the, the way this is another way of looking at it. Then you'll really get to my consternation. So over 10 years, um, because the, because everybody's talking about, oh, we're going to do this in 10 years. And you and I both know nothing matters after year one, because the next Congress can do

whatever it wants to with year two. So the anticipation, if the debt and the spending continues to grow, you will add $22 to $25 trillion in debt to the national debt. So you go from 31 to somewhere around 52, 53, maybe a little higher. But if you enact all the measures that my colleagues are going to put forward, which I think it's a good place to start, but I told my colleagues, I said, we should be starting far, much more on the reduction side. We need to be doing that. But needless to say, it will impact it by $4 trillion. So instead of being at $52 trillion, you're going to be at $48 trillion if this plan were to work the way it's being proffered. And the interest

on $48 trillion will be borne by generations of taxpayers as yet unborn. Well, if you take the current 5%, you know, the 5%, your interest is going to be two to two and a half trillion dollars a year just for the interest on that going forward. And what that does is it causes inflationary pressure, quite frankly, because the debt to GDP ratio will be astronomical. The war in Ukraine is a disaster for Ukraine. The documents that this young man is accused of releasing indicates senior Pentagon leadership believes Ukraine is getting beaten badly. And by the end of next month, we'll have zero air defenses. They will have been so degraded. What will happen when the president asks for another hundred billion to give away to Ukraine? Will anybody credibly say we don't have it, or will that not even be part of the debate? So for those of us who've been opposed to this

from the beginning, we will continue to sound the siren song. But this president will have all the Democrats. He'll have a significant portion of what I call the neocons in Congress, the war hawks. Yes. Who have said, who have said repeatedly, no matter how much or how long. And I'm like, there's so many rebuttals to that. Our own border, our national debt, whatever. So, Judge, I fear that they're going to impose an additional amount of money on this. And while that happens, our own weapon arsenal will continue to degrade and put us at risk more and more, not just on the financial side, but actually from the material side.

Yes. Yeah. Colonel McGregor has demonstrated that, good friend of yours and mine and of everybody watching us now, has demonstrated that conclusively, the weaponry that Secretary Austin is sending over there is from our substance. It's not from our surplus. God forbid that we need it. Do any of the members of Congress feel concern that we are slowly, a la LBJ in Vietnam, being drawn into a land war and that, in fact, we do have troops on the ground there, whether they're in uniform or not, whether you call them advisors or teachers or managers, whatever. They're special forces. They're highly trained. They're highly trained. They're Americans. They wear boots. They operate equipment. Does that trouble members of Congress

that no authorization for the use of military force, all of which in my view are unconstitutional, another story for another argument for another time, but no declaration of war has come, no authorization for troops whatsoever has come from Congress, and Joe Biden has them there anyway. Judge, I was just in a conversation yesterday morning before I left D.C., and I was like a third wheel just listening as one guy was taking your position, which is my position. And by the way, you and I have said for a long time that we have personnel on the ground in Ukraine. And we knew it. We just knew it.

Right. Right. But this other, the Warhawk, the neocon said in response to that, he said, they're just in the embassy. They're just in the embassy, nothing to worry about. And I have raised the specter. I've actually spoken on the floor about the Vietnamization, I guess, of this Ukraine crisis, where we are now, we've got advisors. So this week, we've got personnel on the ground in Ukraine. We've known that. But we also have people on the ground in all the countries surrounding Ukraine and on the edge of Russia. So we are providing all of that support as well. And it's just remarkable.

I'm not a Putin fan. I think he's not a good guy. But here's the deal. He has restrained himself from, from moving that war into and taking on all these other places where the U.S. is. Exactly. Exactly. Congressman Biggs, the neocons don't understand that. I think the neocons led by Victoria Nuland, she of the first Trump impeachment, really want an invasion of Crimea, really want American troops there because they think either they'll have some, this is one of their last great chances to confine Russia and restrain Russia, or they'll drive Putin from

office. Both of which in my view are fanciful, but I think they think this, don't you? Yeah. I mean, they played hide the ball for a long period of time, but it is obvious that regime change was the goal of this administration from the beginning. And we are doing, this administration is doing such irreparable harm to the U.S. standing and reputation in the world and the world world affairs in the international system. I don't know of any any of our allies. Why would you trust the U.S.? I mean, really. But beyond that, you just can't trust anything out of this White House's mouth. They've emboldened every bad actor in the world. Whatever you think.

Yeah, I was going to say, and that's not to say that I think, because I am not an interventionist. I am more of a Washington friend to all economic influence, and let's benefit America. But here's the deal. When America is strong and military projects power, we don't have to go anywhere. The world is safer and more stable. And you see it crumbling because of this administration's reckless lack of leadership. And the Ukraine war is just one more example of, I think we're on the cusp of a wider regional fighting war. And I do agree with you, get back to that point. These people want regime change and they would like to see us actually,

I believe, have troops on the ground in Ukraine. And they don't have an off-ramp. They can't get out of this mess. I believe, just from watching him, listening to him, but mainly watching and listening to the people around him, that President Biden wants to run for re-election as a wartime president, like his hero FDR. And what the off-ramp is i really don't know you think the

american people would tolerate troops on the ground american boys fighting a shooting at russian boys i happen to think we are already i don't believe it's like no special forces those guys are not staying confined in an embassy no way i also know that some of the equipment according to colon McGregor, that we've sent over there is so sophisticated that only we can operate it. And according to Colonel McGregor, some of it's being operated by American soldiers out of uniform on the ground with American ammunition and American equipment. And the trigger that sets this stuff off is being pulled, so to speak, by American troops on the ground in Poland. Question, are American boys

using American equipment to send American projectiles to kill Russian boys? Answer, yes. What is that? A war with Russia, as Congress declared it. Of course not. That's right. Now, if I said that, if I were with you, if I were representing New Jersey, which would never happen, and said that on the floor of the House, the neocons would boo or turn their backs or not even pay attention to that? Yeah. They would dispute you. They would dispute that. And they would say, no, they're at the embassy.

We're not dispute that. And they would say, no, they're at the embassy. We're not doing that. I said once, if you send these tanks M1s or any of this other late model high-tech weaponry, we have to have everything from training personnel to maintenance personnel because the Ukrainians don't know how to operate us material that, and I was, man, I was castigated and laughed at and mocked, but, but look, we,

I want to give you just another example. We tried, uh, um, you know, gate, Matt Gates and I, and some others,

we did a, we did a, um, bill to remove the 900 us troops from Syria just a month ago. What happened to it? We had more Democrats. I'm sorry? What happened to the bill?

It went down in massive defeat. We got a debate on it, and they were trying to claim that there was an AUMF for us to have troops in Syria. There's no AUMF that authorizes troops in Syria. And by the way, I think the AUMF law, you know, the War Powers Act is dubious constitutionally. That's my own opinion. It's my opinion as well. One last question on this. Where's Tim Kaine on all this? He has taken a leadership role in getting rid of some of the AUMFs, but is he with the Republican neocons? I realize he's on the other side of the Capitol from you, but you guys all talk to each other. Senator Kaine from Virginia. I really don't know where he is, to be honest with you. I do know that

some of the people that are with me on the AUMF bills are still voting to provide funding, but by and large, they're dwindling. They're coming back home. All right. Well, God bless your courage and keep up the good fight. And thank you for coming back and reporting to us from time to time. You have a huge fan base here and an open door whenever you want to come through it at Judging Freedom. Thank you, Congressman Biggs. Thanks, Judge. Have a great weekend. Thanks, you as well. If you like that, like and subscribe. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.