Hard to pass "Big Beautiful Bill" - like Trump's Obamacare repeal failures in 2017 - ONE extra Republican vote against in the House sinks it - Need to remove ANY measure 1 Republican objects to

Trump’s strategy so far has been to cut funding by executive order. But a president can’t really do that without support of Congress. So now we have the start of crunch time. Can he get Congress to vote to cut funding?

There are two bills he has to pass to continue funding for the next year.

In September (not now): has to pass the discretionary funding bill or bills to fund the government and other agencies through 2025-6 for things that have to be voted for every year. That includes NOAA, NASA, most of the Defence budget etc. Trump wants to do huge cuts but the Democrats can stop them with the filibuster (41 votes can stop it out of 100) - more on that later. That’s the one that can lead to government shutdowns. If it fails to pass in September, most non essential business shuts down until they find a way ahead.

Right now, before mid August, what he wants to pass is the Big Beautiful Bill - or reconciliation bill. The only thing he HAS to pass in this bill is the part which increases the debt limit. That’s because this bill is about mandatory funding. This is money the government pays automatically every year.

The special thing about mandatory funding is that the government can pass a new bill to modify mandatory spending with only a 50 : 50 vote in the Senate with the vice president Vance casting a tie-break vote using a complicated procedure called reconciliation.

If the reconciliation bill fails, funding continues as before, same level of funding as in 2024. Mandatory funding is usually tied to inflation in some way, so the funding will be adequate for 2025-6.

However he does have to raise the debt limit. So if it fails, it is likely then split into three different bills, for the debt limit increase, for funding (e.g. taxation) and for spending.

If it does get split like that, the only bill he HAS to pass there is the bill raising the debt limit.

The bill has passed the Senate - next comes the reconciliation unless the House Republicans think they can pass it “as is”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-debate-trump-one-big-beautiful-bill/

Short summary of the difficulties Trump has with getting this bill passed

The bill has only passed in the Senate as of July 1st, 2025.

They had to strip out a lot of things to pass it already. It now goes to the House and it's highly unlikely the House passes it "as is"

There are 3 firm votes against in the House. Musk supports the votes against which limits Trump's ability to intimidate them by saying he will primary them.

The big dust-ups are likely to be over

• Medicaid, SNAP and the renewable incentives by those who want to keep them

• the Freedom Caucus MAGA Republicans on the other side who say the cuts are not nearly enough with a significant possibility that some of them join the three already to committed to vote against.

If one more votes against, from either side of that debate, the bill is sunk.

That then would lead to amendments in the House to try to win over at least some of the votes against. If the House does pass it but changed, it goes back to the Senate and the game of Pong continues until both have the same text.

I am NOT predicting what will happen. Unlikely things do happen. But it does seem a very difficult bill to pass so this idea many have that it is inevitably going to pass makes no sense.

Trump tried six different reconciliation bills to repeal Obamacare in 2017 before giving up on that idea and instead introducing the 2017 tax cuts (the same ones he wants to renew today). So success is NOT guaranateed.

There is no risk of government shutdown if this bill fails, the funding just continues as before because it is mandatory funding. But Trump DOES have to raise the debt limit, most likely by some time in August. If Trump can’t do that with this bill he will have to do it in a separate bill and will likely need Democrat support and so need to make concessions to the Democrats to raise the debt limit.

What is in the bill if it passes?

The bill

• reduces mandatory funding for things like Medicaid [for younger people] and SNAP [food stamps for low income]

• extends the tax cuts of 2017 set to expire at the end of 2025

• scales back many of the renewables incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act

• increases the debt limit.
  - MUST DO THIS BEFORE THE DEBT X-DATE likely in August

• many other headline catching extra proposals but most of these are likely axed

ALL these things are very polarizing. There are Republicans strongly opposed or strongly in favour of

• changes to Medicaid / SNAP
  [many rural Republicans have constituents who depend on these]

• removing renewables incentives
  [Texas especially is very big on renewables and has 25 Republicans in Congress]

• increasing the debt limit
  [the two votes against so far and the one abstain were all because of this]

  [debt limit rises less if more can be cut from the budget]

For up to date details of what’s in the bill as just passed in the Senate as of writing this, see:

• Text of the bill as passed by HOUSE: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text
  [Sorry this is not yet the Senate version as of writing this]

• Summary of main provisions by CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-in-trump-big-beautiful-bill-senate-version/ - mainstream, balanced, focus on factual reporting

• Conservative leaning summary of main provisions by Fox5 live: https://www.fox5dc.com/news/big-beautiful-bill-pass-senate-whats-next

• Economic effects of the bill by the Tax Foundation: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/big-beautiful-bill-senate-gop-tax-plan/

• Long list of nearly all the provisions still in the bill by NY Times:
  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/30/upshot/senate-republican-megabill.html

For the list of all the provisions REMOVED from the bill see:

• many are already gone . https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/24/upshot/reconciliation-byrd-bath.html

  [can be a bit confusing to read - it is a list of provisions REMOVED but doesn’t say “removed” after each one]

The NY Times list is not quite up to date - they likely will fix that with an update soon.

That includes the ones that were claimed through hyperbole to make Trump a dictator by making it harder for justices to issue injunctions - they wouldn’t have made him a dictator, that’s hyperbole, but anyway they are all gone now.

For that dispute see my:

BLOG: No way Republicans can restrict universal injunctions in a budget bill under reconciliation
— was just a try-out to see what they can get away with
— virtually no budget effects and likely unconstitutional
— UPDATE: removed in Senate

They also removed the moratorium on AI regulation for 10 years - that was removed in a 99 : 1 vote to remove it in the Senate.

https://apnews.com/article/congress-ai-provision-moratorium-states-20beeeb6967057be5fe64678f72f6ab0

What happens next now it has passed in the Senate?

After the Senate passes it, it then to be reconciled between the Senate and the House bills as the two versions are different. The reason is both chambers have to pass a bill in the identical text before it becomes law.

The simplest thing to happen next is the House just agrees that the Senate version is okay. This could perhaps happen.

But if not, then the two chambers need to reconcile the bills. That’s normally done by committees from both chambers first trying to make a bill that both chambers could agree on - this is the “reconciliation” part of the process.

If reconciliation is needed, the reconciled version is certain to be different from the House AND the Senate version as it will have elements of both. If the reconciliation works then it just needs one more vote in the House and one more vote in the Senate.

So it needs a new vote in both chambers.

Either way, it goes to the House next. From the news it looks as if they may skip the reconciliation and try to pass it in the House “as is”.

The House however likely amends it. For example in this case some members of the House will want to remove all the restrictions on renewables incentives and others will want to keep them all. The House will try to find a compromise that doesn't add a single new vote against.

If the Senate compromise is fine that’s it done. But if not then it has to go back to the Senate.

If it passes in the House again, but with amendments, it goes to the Senate but chances are someone in the Senate doesn't agree with the House's compromise so they may need to do an amendment in the Senate too to get it to pass.

This Pong could be very fast but at least a day for House + Senate for each round and in this case the Democrats will do everything they can to slow it down and have lots of power to slow it down by up to a day or so at a time in the Senate each time.

Depending on how that goes, best case for Republicans, a couple of rounds of Pong and it is passed.

But if not then someone might then say "this is no good we have to start the whole process again with a hugely trimmed down bill, this one is just too big". Then the whole process might go on for months.

But it can't do that in in this case because of the debt X-date.

So in this case if that happens, Trump will say he has lost patience with Congress and try to force them all to accept a particular version and say they have to stay in Congress until it is sorted out.

So Pong continues and if the House passes it it goes back to the Senate. If the Senate decides it needs to amend it again it goes back to the House and so on.

This continues until they get an identical bill for both chambers or give up. If they give up this means they have to pass a debt limit raise with help of Democrats but they may do a temporary debt limit raise for a few months if they think they can get it to pass with more work. Even for that the Democrats likely require concessions to raise the debt limit. It could then end up split into three bills, debt limit, income (such as taxes) and expenditure or two bills, debt limit and income + expenditure.

Since this is mandatory funding the government doesn’t shut down and if they can somehow get the debt limit raise enough to last to next year to the next reconciliation bill they could then work on it for months to try to get a version both can pass, slimming it down if needed, as one bill or two or three bills until they are done or give up.

But this path of temporary or longer term debt hikes requires concessions to Democrats as there’s no way that Trump can persuade the 20 or so Republican holdouts for a pure debt limit rise with no way to pay for some of it.

That is why they will do everything they can to try to find a solution without relying on Democrat votes to raise the debt limit.

Trump’s success rate so far is low for reconciliation bills - six attempts to repeal Obamacare all failed - this time the small House majority and the debt X-date deadline make it especially challenging

Trump hasn’t had much success so far with reconciliation. He

• tried to use it five times in 2017 to repeal Obamacare, and all those attempts failed.

Back then, the problem was a Senate majority of 52 : 48.

This time he has one more seat in the Senate which makes it easier to pass in the Senate, but he has a House majority of only 220 : 212. It was 220 : 215 but three Democrats died and the re-election to replace them hasn’t happened yet.

That is a very small majority in the House.

Also this time

• he has a deadline - the debt X-date - he has to get the debt limit passed by some time in August - and he hopes to do that withotu Democrat support by using a single big bill.

In 2017 this led to six different versions of the bill to repeal Obamacare and it still didn't pass. The process continued from March 20th when the AHCA was introduced https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1628. to September 27 when the sixth version of it failed https://www.actforchildren.org/news-and-press/graham-cassidy-amendment-fails-in-senate-september-27-2017/

He hasn’t got the time to do that this time because of the debt X-date.

Trump had a huge barrier to overcome as several dozen Republicans have a history of voting against EVERY debt limit increase - it was remarkable to get only three defections for the first House vote - but that leaves a very narrow margin of one more vote against and it’s sunk - no tie break in the House

This is a huge challenge as there are several dozen Republicans that normally vote against EVERY debt increase. Trump did remarkably well there to persuade all but three of those to vote for the bill when it passed the House the first time. But they knew that wasn’t the final version.

Trump’s bill has two votes against it in the House already and one abstain (votes “present”). Many others let it pass first time around knowing it would be changed in the Senate, doing a “wait and see” to wait for the final version.

That takes it to 217 : 214

One more vote against and one more abstain and it becomes 215 : 215.

Andy Harris who is the abstain vote said he would vote against instead of abstaining because the Senate hasn’t reduced funding enough for him

https://x.com/RepAndyHarrisMD/status/1937540288597152067.

If he does as he said there, just one more vote against and it is 216: 216. That’s a fail because there is no tie-break in the House.

Vance can break the tie in the Senate. But nobody can break a tie in the House.

In short, there are 3 definite Republican votes against it in the House. If Trump can’t change any of those and there is one more definite Republican vote against, it can never pass.

According to Axios, Mike Johnson, speaker of the House is furious about the Senate changes. He faces likely 20 no votes in the House according to one estimate.

One House Republican, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Axios there are "well over 20" GOP lawmakers threatening to vote against the bill.

Trump v. Massie: like the paradox of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable obstacle - but Massie not yielding

This is what led to the news about the battle between Trump and Massie, who is the most forthright holdout in the House.

Trump and Massie are both are strong characters. Also Musk supports Massie and can likely easily outspend Trump’s Super-PAC that would support a contender to Massie in his primary in 2026.

It’s much like the 3rd century BCE story of the impenetrable shield and absolutely penetrative halberd (a sort of axe used in early warfare).

You may hear this paradox referred to as an unstoppable force meeting an immovable obstacle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox

TEXT ON GRAPHIC:

July 1: So far only passed in Senate - needs to pass with same text in both chambers

2 Republicans already have voted against Trump's Big Beautiful Bill and one abstained

Andy Harris says he will vote against this time.

1 more vote against andit fails

Massie is a likely a vital vote against

… Massie is undeterred

Trump wants Masssie to change his vote

If not he wil fund someone to defeat Massie in his primary in 2025.

Massie is undeterred.

Musk supports Massie’s vote against.

Elon Musk will donate to Massie primary.

Tower shield used as barrier by 3rd century BC Chinese soldiers

Halbard - type of axe used in battle in China in 3rd century BC

Massie’s face superimposed on shield

Musk's face next to Massie on left

Trumps face superimposed on halbard

A tough bill to pass - if it does get through, much may be removed

QUOTE:

Once there was a man of Ch`u selling shields and halberds.

In praising his shields he said, "My shields are so solid that nothing can penetrate them."

Again, in praising his halberds, he said, "My halberds are so sharp that they can penetrate anything."

In response to his words somebody asked, "How about using your halberds to pierce through your shields?"

To this the man could not give any reply. Indeed, impenetrable shields and absolutely penetrative halberds cannot stand together at the same time.

Han Feizi Ch. 36, 3rd century BCE China

https://cognitionandculture.net/wp-content/uploads/1939The-Complete-Works-of-Han-Fei-Tzu-A-Classic-of-Chinese-Political-Science-ebook.pdf

Graphics: Trump official photograph https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/

Thomas Massie: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Massie_(53866040236)_(cropped).jpg

Elon Musk from his departure from DOGE in the Oval Office: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Trump_participates_in_a_press_conference_with_departing_DOGE_adviser_Elon_Musk_(cropped).jpg

Screenshot of Musk tweet: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1939920087877919115

One of three Ge (Chinese Halberds) found in China https://www.flickr.com/photos/101561334@N08/9831682953/ image used in Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeng_(state)

Tower Shield from Chinese Warring States period https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warring_States_Lacquered_Shield,_Chu_State_%2810161968595%29.jpg used in Zhou dynasty section of Wikipedia Chinese armour article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_armour#Zhou_dynasty_(c._1046_BC%E2%80%93256_BC)

Trump says he encourages a superPAC to fund a contender for Thomas Massie.

QUOTE “I think there’s a real opportunity…they’re going to spend upwards of $30 million to defeat Thomas Massie,”,” said one Kentucky GOP political operative who, like many interviewed for this story, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive intraparty matters.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/25/kentucky-thomas-massie-primary-trump-00422377

But Massie will benefit from the Trump / Musk breakup.

TWEET: An interesting thing just happened:

https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1940014492999405641

Links to: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-indicates-hell-donate-rep-thomas-massie-republican-who-has-been-excoriated-trump

What happened is that just today, Elon Musk responded that he will donate to help Thomas Massie win his primary against the Trump backed candidate whoever it is, so shielding Massie to vote against the bill.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1939920087877919115 6:32 AM · Jul 1, 2025

Here are the X (formerly Twitter) accounts of those three figures I mentioned as near certain votes against already:

Votes against no matter what happens because it raises the debt to much:

• Thomas Massie: https://x.com/repthomasmassie

• Warren Davidson: https://x.com/warrendavidson

• Andy Harris: https://x.com/RepAndyHarrisMD
  [Was an abstain but says he will vote no to the Senate version because the cuts aren’t enough for him]

Trump’s track record: six failed attempts to use reconciliation bills to repeal Obamacare in 2017 - eventually gave up and used it to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs act (with the tax cuts he wants to renew in this bill)

This table shows how Trump tried to repeal Obamacare in 2017 with six different reconciliation bills and they all failed.

Trump eventually used reconciliation to pass his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act instead in 2017 - a very different bill. He used it again in 2021 for the American Rescue Plan after the COVID Pandemic.

For the table itself with clickable links and for those who use screen readers or auto translate, see: https://robertinventor.online/booklets/Reconciliation.htm
[I can’t embed tables like that in a substack as far as I can tell]

This time Trump doesn't get to try six different bills.

He has to try to get the debt limit raised before August when the Senators go back to their states to listen to petitioners there.

So it is a very tough challenge, far tougher than his attempts to repeal Obamacare in 2017 which failed.

Trump is more experienced and much tougher as a president since then and is very intimidating, members of his own party say so.

But he faces formidable obstacles to get it passed at all.

That table shows that Biden also failed with his Build Back Better Act (BBBA) in 2021

- the Big Beautiful Bill has a similar acronym OBBBA (One Big Beautiful Bill Act)

Biden then eventually passed the Inflation Reduction Act the next year in 2022.

It’s tough to pass a reconciliation bill when the margins are narrow in the House or Senate or both.

Mandatory funding gives Trump his biggest opportunity to reduce funding - but also the most difficult items to reduce because it tends to be for items Americans depend on A LOT

Remember nothing happens if the bill fails. The funding just continues as before because this is the mandatory funding.

By far the largest chunk of government funding is Mandatory funding, $4.1 trillion a year out of a total outlay of $6.8 trillion.

The governement gets revenues of $4.9 trillion, and so, a deficit of the difference, $1.9 trillion which adds to the National Debt.

$0.9 trillion of that is paying the interest on the debt. That seems crazy at first - but it’s very different from household debt. The interest on the National Debt is actually used as a source of wealth by Americans and much of that interest is paid to Americans and supports the economy and retirement benefits etc.

TEXT ON GRAPHIC:

Why Trump can make only minor reductions in expenses without Congress:

Trump has some ability to remove funding from programs he doesn't like and can of course eliminate fraud and wastage.

However all the money freed up in this way has to be spent on the same program he freed it from.

He can only reduce funding after doing this with support from Congress

Mandatory funding: Fixed amount set in law
- Can be reduced by simple majority in both chambers (reconciliation) but
- tend to be popular with significant Republican support

Discretionary funding: Must be renewed every year
- Reductions can be stopped by Democrat filibuster in Senate
- Previous year's funding used if filibustered

Net interest: 2/3 of the interest is paid to Americans, e.g. pension funds

By impoundment control act,
- president has to spend all this money
- only $8 billion savings in easy control of the president

Many other ways to balance budget in 2030s:
- raise retirement age
- increase immigration (including young entrepreneurs like Musk was)
- save on budget
- save on tax fraud
- VAT

Graphic: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61182

Discretionary funding is hardest to reduce because of the filibuster - and governement “shuts down” non essential services if they fail to pass it - can then be resolved by just continuing the previous year’s funding

The discretionary funding section, or $1.8 trillion in 2024, is things like the NOAA, NASA, the Defence budget etc. This part of the funding can be blocked by a “filibuster” of 41 Democrats in the Senate and there are 47 of them. It takes 60 out of 100 votes to overcome the filibuster.

These funds are allocated anew every year. So if the government doesn’t pass a bill - that’s when you get a government shutdown until one or the other side budges.

The government doesn’t really shut down. But any non essential services stop while they sort out what they will do.

If the government doesn’t pass a discretionary budget in September then after a lot of posturing and political rhetoric they would have to do a continuing resolution which just repeats the same budget as the previous year.

You may remember the continuing resolution earlier this year and the publicity about the supposedly cowardly Democrats not filibustering it.

However, this didn't reduce the funding hardly at all, was only through to September. Also Musk wanted the government to shut down because it would help justify his firings. So the Democrats under Chuck Schumer decided not to filibuster it because it would make the legal cases going on far more complicated.

But when it comes to September the proposed cuts are massive, and Musk is no longer associated with the government - he was the main one who wanted shutdown, Trump didn’t. The Democrats have used the filibuster for several other occasions e.g. to stop a bill banning trans participation in sports nationally.

So the Democrats won't hesitate to use the filibuster in September to stop massive discreationary cuts.

If they do a continuing resolution through to 2025-6 then it will be a slight reduction because of inflation - same dollar amoutn as in 2024-5. But it’s much less of a reduction than Trump’s proposals.

So - Trump will know this. It’s a much smaller amount anyway $1.8 billion, and the chance he can cut that by much is low though it hits the headlines a lot.

This is also the part that DOGE focused on most, NOAA, USAID etc. Well come September Trump will find he didn’t save any money as he likely has to just repeat the budget for 2024-5 for 2025-6 for NOAA, USAID, etc.

The end result would be spending the same amount as before but with less result than in most years because many employees were paid to do nothing for several months

This bill is his one big chance to reduce spending - but all big bill items have bipartisan support

But - it’s not easy for him to save money in this bill because all the big item expenses have bipartisan Republican support.

Veterans, Retirement and Medicare all affect elderly and are very hard to trim.

Medicaid is the main one he can try to target but it’s expanded hugely in the last few years and is now a very popular program in Republican districts especially rural areas.

For that reason many House Republicans and some Senators are very resistant to significant cuts in Medicaid.

TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Social Security spending can be filibustered

Graphic from : https://www.cato.org/blog/fast-facts-about-mandatory-spending

Many moderate Republicans will want to vote against any major Medicaid cuts because they represent rural districts with voters who rely on it.

Many others that are opposed to raising the debt will want to vote against because it raises the debt by so much. Trump promised very substantial cuts, even more substantial than there are and he still got those two votes against and one abstain.

2 Republicans voted against

• Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky

• Warren Davidson, R-Ohio,

https://x.com/warrendavidson?lang=en

1 Republican voted "present" - i.e. intentionally not voting.

• Andy Harris, R-Maryland

Figures from here:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/22/house-republicans-did-not-vote-for-trump-tax-bill/83786928007/

TWEET:

The currently proposed Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill weakens key House priorities—it doesn’t do enough to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, it backtracks on Green New Scam elimination included in the House bill, and it greatly increases the deficit - taking us even further from a balanced budget.

If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version, I won’t vote “present.” I’ll vote NO.

https://x.com/RepAndyHarrisMD/status/1937540288597152067

The issue is of course that if Medicaid is severely cut or the renewables subsidies are removed this likely leads to not just one but several votes against by moderate Republicans.

So how can Trump get it across the line? Very tough.

There is no tie break in the House so a tie means the bill fails.

If everyone votes along party lines it is

• 220 : 212

because of three Democrats who died since they were elected.

The Senate is likely to vote against major cuts in the bill and return it to the House with less by way of tax cuts. So the votes against and abstaining are likely to remain as it is.

If Thomas Massie, and Warren Davidson vote against andAndy Harris changes his abstain to a vote against as in his tweet, it’s:

• 217 : 215

Then it takes only one more vote against and it's sunk. Or two to abstain.

If Any Harris abstains (votes Present) as before, it’s

• 217 : 214

One more votes against and one more abstain its

215 : 215.

Or if three more abstain it’s

214 : 214

You can work out various other permutations e.g. if Davidson changes his vote instead, but you can see that it is extremely close.

Massie as an immovable obstacle

Trump is trying to pressure Massie to change his vote but that's an "irresistible force meeting an immovable obstacle" type thing. He is not likely to vote against. Trump is threatening to primary him - is willing to pour $40 million to support anyone who goes against Massie if Massie votes against the bill. But Massie is unphased as he has solid support in his district and believes he can get a lot of funding for his bid if he is opposed by Trump funding. He hopes Trump will call off the attempt.

Massie is the main holdout because if he sticks with his vote then his vote to some extent shields others who may also vote against the bill.

Trump tried to repeal Obamacare in 2017 with six different reconciliation bills and they all failed.

https://robertinventor.online/booklets/Reconciliation.htm

This time he doesn't get to try six times, he has to try to get the debt limit raised before August when the Senators go back to their states to listen to petitioners there.

So it is a very tough challenge, far tougher than repealing Obamacare in 2017.

He has got more experienced and much tougher as a president since then and is very intimidating at present. But he faces formidable obstacles to get it passed at all.

Lisa Murkowski, Senator from Alaska about how they are all afraid because “retaliation is real and that is not right” (she doesn’t say specifically about Trump but about how she and others are often anxious about speaking their own mind)

TRANSCRIPT:

Lisa Murkowski (Republican Senator from Alaska) Part of what I have been doing with my team is just trying to listen as carefully as I can to to what is happening and how it is happening and the impacts that it is having on the ground.

And we're honest upfront in saying we don't have all the answers but we're trying to unlock at at different opportunities and in different ways as much as we can.

And it is as hard as anything that I have been engaged in in the 20 plus years I've been in the Senate

Q. What do you have to say to people who are afraid? Or who represent people who are afraid?

We are all afraid. Okay. Honest statement.

But we are in a time and a place where I don't know I have not been here before

And I'll tell you I'm often times very anxious myself about about using my voice because retaliation is real and that's not right.

But that's what you've asked me to do

And so I'm going to use my voice to the best of my ability And sometimes it will be viewed in a way that well that's pretty confrontational.

And other times it's going to be using my mother's charm that I I learned as a young girl and in direct communication with those that I have made relationships with aand able to affect some some change that way.

And I've got to figure out how I can do my best to help the many who are so anxious and are so afraid.

This is not a long term stable situation in a democracy, that is very clear. Right now it’s hard for them to speak up. But it should get easier as they work together and find ways to speak their own mind.

Trump is trying to intimidate them to get them all in line, and with this bill they are resisting. They can be expected to do more of this as time goes on.

Thom Tillis speaking up in support of Medicaid and saying that this bill will betray Trump’s promise to him that they would go after waste fraud and abuse - sees going after provider tax as breaking that promise

Thom Tillis opposed the bill because of cuts to Medicaid - and Trump then threatened to fund a primary challenger to him. Thom Tillis however had been thinking about retiring anyway and announced he would retire in 2026 rather than seek re-election, leaving him free to speak up as he likes against Trump’s decisions.

QUOTE STARTS

“In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,“ Tillis said in a statement announcing his decision.

Tillis added that it was “not a hard choice” between spending time with family or committing to another “six years in the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington.”

“As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven’t exactly been excited about running for another term,” Tillis said.

...

The 64-year-old senator had been privately leaning against running again and had given himself until the end of the coming August recess to make a decision, according to a person close to him granted anonymity to disclose private deliberations. His decision-making included two questions: Would GOP leaders have his back? And would Trump give him space to be independent if he ran?

It became clear to Tillis, the person said, that he wouldn’t be getting either of those things after Senate leaders made only minor changes to the megabill despite Tillis’ warnings and after Trump started publicly attacking him this weekend.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/29/thom-tillis-retires-00432045

Tillis won by only 1.8% in 2020 so they might lose his senate seat if they follow him with a weaker senator.

https://ballotpedia.org/Thom_Tillis_(North_Carolina)#2020

However Tillis himself might well have lost too.

Mr. Tillis was already considered to be one of the two most endangered Senate Republicans, along with Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who has weathered being a top Democratic target before. Now Republicans are likely to have a candidate who has not drawn the anger of the party base like Mr. Tillis, but will also come without his track record of winning and statewide name recognition.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/us/politics/north-carolina-senate-tillis-cooper.html

There’s a perhaps 1 in 3 chance that the Republicans lose the Senate in the mid-terms anyway. This is what RaceToTheWH has it, as of 1st July 2025:

https://www.racetothewh.com/senate/26

So - he is also retiring before a race he might lose anyway. With all that background his response wasn’t a surprise.

QUOTE STARTS

Shortly thereafter, Tillis announced he would retire and not seek reelection after all. That in turn freed Tillis to speak some brutal truths about what a betrayal this budget bill is to the American people:

Republicans are about to make a mistake on health care and betray[ ] a promise. It is inescapable that this bill in its current form will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made in the Oval Office or in the Cabinet Room when I was there with Finance, where he said we can go after waste, fraud and abuse on any programs.

…

What do I tell 663,000 people in two years, three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of medicaid because the funding's not there anymore, guys?

TRANSCRIPT

What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid?

Because the funding's not there anymore.

Yeah.

So when the white House is advising the president, are not telling him that the effect of this bill is to break a promise, Republicans are about to make a mistake on health care and betraying a promise.

It is inescapable that this bill and its current form will betray the very promise that Donald J.

Trump made in the Oval Office or in the Cabinet Room when I was there with finance, where he said, we can go after waste, fraud and abuse on any programs.

Now, those amateurs that are advising him, not Doctor Oz, I'm talking about white House health care experts refused to tell him that those instructions that were to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse all the sudden eliminate a government program that's called the provider tax.

We owe it to the American people.

And I want to the people of North Carolina to withhold my affirmative vote until it's demonstrated to me that we've done our homework.

We're going to make sure that we fulfill the promise, and then we can fill I can feel good about a bill that I'm willing to vote for, but until that time, I will be withholding my vote.

This is about the issue he mentions, provider taxes that support hospitals:

QUOTE The Senate tax bill would lower provider taxes in many states, and that would reduce the amount of federal funding the states could get for their Medicaid programs. Hospital trade groups said provisions placing lower ceilings on provider taxes would end up dealing a body blow to health systems.

https://www.chiefhealthcareexecutive.com/view/as-tax-bill-deadline-looms-advocates-fight-for-medicaid-and-hospitals

This is the provision he objects to as it is now summarized by the NY Times:

Provider taxes

Freeze current state taxes on most providers in states that have not expanded Medicaid and slowly lower the allowed rates in expansion states from 6% to 3.5%

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/30/upshot/senate-republican-megabill.htm

Some of the renewables grants in the Inflation Reducation Act are removed in the Senate draft of the BBB - Republicans very polarized and hard to get agreement of them all to keep or remove - Musk very opposed to removing

The House version of the BBB had several provisions that removed some of the Biden Inflation Reduction Act subsidies. But the Senate version of the bill has already removed some of them.

it is going to be very hard to keep those in when it goes back to the House if the Senate doesn't remove them.

That is because many Republican states such as Texas, and Florida and swing states like Arizona and Nevada that Trump won in 2024 are amongst the top beneficiaries from clean energy grants in the IRA.

Few realize that Texas is HUGE on Renewables - up there with California.

TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Solar power in Texas doubles MORE than doubles EVERY 2 YEARS. SECOND to California on Solar and AHEAD on Wind..

. Momentous changes on the way in ERCOT as Texas renewable transition rolls on

It is actually a very early pioneer in wind energy. It had a wind energy mandate already in 1999, because of oil pioneers who saw the potential of Texas for wind early on. It was introduced by George W. Bush, when he was governor of Texas!

QUOTE STARTS

It is in the sun belt - that means they have LOTS of solar power:

We didn't do it for the cleanliness. We didn't do it for climate change. We did it because it makes us a lot of money for the landowners and saves us a lot of money for the consumers.

…

One study found that all this cheap renewable energy is saving the average Texas household almost $200 a year, though skeptics say that figure may be inflated.

…

It's a big state. There are a lot of areas where it's sunny and it's windy. In the wide open spaces of West Texas and South Texas, there are some wonderful areas for development of renewable resources.

…

In 1999, then-Governor George W. Bush, working with a Democratic legislature, signed a law deregulating Texas' power market to make it more competitive and enshrined a state mandate for wind power.

There were landowners who were willing to lease their land for these new industries.

…

Texas had a mandate before England, before California, before New York. You list all these liberal economies, and Texas had a renewables mandate before them.

…

Today, the Lone Star State generates more megawatts of wind power than any other in the nation. When it comes to solar, Texas trails only California and actually ranks first in utility scale solar projects.

Texas' clean energy boom is also being driven by its ready-made army of workers and entrepreneurs coming directly out of the oil and gas industry.

. Texas goes green: How oil country became the renewable energy leader

This graphic shows which states would have household energy prices most impacted by the BBB cuts on these grants.

With that background it is not surprising that Texas is one of the ones potentially worst affected.

Household energy prices in Texas could increase by 2% to 7% as a result.

Texas as a big state has 38 representatives in the House, and 25 of those are Republican.

Republican (R) Members

1. 1st district: Nathaniel Moran (R) (since 2023)

2. 2nd district: Dan Crenshaw (R) (since 2019)

3. 3rd district: Keith Self (R) (since 2023)

4. 4th district: Pat Fallon (R) (since 2021)

5. 5th district: Lance Gooden (R) (since 2019)

6. 6th district: Jake Ellzey (R) (since 2021)

7. 8th district: Morgan Luttrell (R) (since 2023)

8. 10th district: Michael McCaul (R) (since 2005)

9. 11th district: August Pfluger (R) (since 2021)

10. 12th district: Craig Goldman (R) (since 2025)

11. 13th district: Ronny Jackson (R) (since 2021)

12. 14th district: Randy Weber (R) (since 2013)

13. 15th district: Monica De La Cruz (R) (since 2023)

14. 17th district: Pete Sessions (R) (since 2021)

15. 19th district: Jodey Arrington (R) (since 2017)

16. 21st district: Chip Roy (R) (since 2019)

17. 22nd district: Troy Nehls (R) (since 2021)

18. 23rd district: Tony Gonzales (R) (since 2021)

19. 24th district: Beth Van Duyne (R) (since 2021)

20. 25th district: Roger Williams (R) (since 2013)

21. 26th district: Brandon Gill (R) (since 2025)

22. 27th district: Michael Cloud (R) (since 2018)

23. 31st district: John Carter (R) (since 2003)

24. 36th district: Brian Babin (R) (since 2015)

25. 38th district: Wesley Hunt (R) (since 2023)

Democratic (D) Members

26. 7th district: Lizzie Fletcher (D) (since 2019)

27. 9th district: Al Green (D) (since 2005)

28. 16th district: Veronica Escobar (D) (since 2019)

29. 20th district: Joaquin Castro (D) (since 2013)

30. 28th district: Henry Cuellar (D) (since 2005)

31. 29th district: Sylvia Garcia (D) (since 2019)

32. 30th district: Jasmine Crockett (D) (since 2023)

33. 32nd district: Julie Johnson (D) (since 2025)

34. 33rd district: Marc Veasey (D) (since 2013)

35. 34th district: Vicente Gonzalez (D) (since 2017)

36. 35th district: Greg Casar (D) (since 2023)

37. 37th district: Lloyd Doggett (D) (since 1995)

Vacant
38. 18th district: Vacant (since 2025)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Texas

Some of those may not be too happy at the many measures in the BBB to not only cut renewable support but actively make it harder to produce renewables and make them more expensive.

Prices in Florida could increase by 3% to 6%. Both states are Republican and have a lot of clean energy.

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/ira-tax-credit-repeal-bills

It impacts the manufacturers too of course. Musk is a big critic of these provisions in the BBB. Musk put it like this in a tweet:

TWEET

The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!

Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1939051424995786839.html

This is what he is responding to, you can see how Republicans from districts that benefit from the renewables boom will not like this.

TWEET THREAD STARTS

This is unbelievably bad. I am astonished that the Senate language got WORSE overnight than even the House version. This One Big Horrible Bill will raise energy costs, kill $100s of billions of new investment in energy & manufacturing, make our grid less reliable, increase pollution, and constrain our ability to compete with China for the future or AI. Total loser stuff.

The new Senate draft raises taxes on all wind and solar projects that haven't begun construction today unless they are placed service by end of 2027 and navigate complex, likely unworkable requirements to prove they don't use a drop of Chinese materials. After that, this bill ADDS A NEW tax on wind and solar projects that can't prove the same.

Oh & it does so while killing the tax credits to support domestic manufacturing of wind components at the end of 2027 & adding the same unworkable requirements to the credits supporting US solar & critical minerals. It'll murder our nascent clean energy manufacturing sectors.

Oh and it actually kills the EV tax credits sooner than the House bill: after September 30 this year, rather than the end of 2025 (or 12 months after passage as in the Finance committee draft). This will destroy the battery manufacturing boom taking hold across Republican districts, killing 100s of thousands of good jobs.

Oh, and the cherry on top: this adds a new production tax for metallurgical coal! You read that right: through the end of 2029, met coal producers get a 2.5% PTC. 🤯

This bill kills the industries of the future while subsidizing the industries of the 19th century. It's insanity!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1938974651453186516.html

It only takes one extra vote against and the BBB is sunk in the House. So - even if the Senate leaves these provisions in I expect the House to remove them.

QUOTE STARTS

The BBB has sparked pushback from industry stakeholders, including Elon Musk, who argue that the IRA’s tax credits have spurred historic levels of clean energy investment and domestic manufacturing. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, over $120 billion in new manufacturing investments have been announced since the IRA’s passage. The proposed repeals and restrictions could significantly undercut that momentum.

Although the BBB is unlikely to become law in its current form, its provisions could resurface in future negotiations or budget bills. Industry participants should monitor legislative developments closely and consider how foreign ownership structures, supply chain dependencies, and tax credit planning may need to adapt to an evolving policy landscape.

https://www.lawbc.com/big-beautiful-bill-means-big-cuts-for-clean-energy-manufacturers/

But then if they remove those provisions they lose the votes of other Republicans who call the renewables incentives “Green New Scam” as we saw.

TWEET:

The currently proposed Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill weakens key House priorities—it doesn’t do enough to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, it backtracks on Green New Scam elimination included in the House bill, and it greatly increases the deficit - taking us even further from a balanced budget.

If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version, I won’t vote “present.” I’ll vote NO.

https://x.com/RepAndyHarrisMD/status/1937540288597152067

So - this by itself seems a provision that is so polarizing it’s hard to see how the Republicans can navigate through this without at least one no vote either from those pro renewables or those opposed to it.

This is about how Trump’s presidency will have only the minutest effect on global warming no matter what happens.

AI moratorium blocked by Marjorie Taylor Greene a surprising ally in the House

For anyone worried about the AI moratorium, surprising ally in the House. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she would have voted No to the reconciliation bill if she knew it had the AI measure in it.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-ai-provision-trump-tax-bill/84025853007/

Assuming Andy Harris votes no, then her no is enough to remove it from the bill.

UPDATE: removed by the Senate 99 : 1 against it https://apnews.com/article/congress-ai-provision-moratorium-states-20beeeb6967057be5fe64678f72f6ab0

Trump's dilemma - the bill will increase deficit by $2 trillion over the next 2 years - Republicans are especially wary of deficit increases - Trump wants to increase defence spending, continue tax cuts and keep the deficit low and can't do all three - not enough by way of savings in everything else

The Republicans are between a rock and a hard place. Trump wants to boost spending on defence, continue the tax cuts, he can't get Congress support for major reductions in the mandatory or discretionary funding so he is committed to a big deficit increase which John Thune says is $2 trillion over the next 2 years or $1 trillion a year, and a total of $4 trillion. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5314189-rand-paul-house-gop-budget-bill/

This is an independent study of the deficit increase:

$3,175 billion ($3.2 trillion) over the 10-year budget window. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2025/5/19/house-reconciliation-bill-budget-economic-and-distributional-effects-may-19-2025

Republicans are divided, some want to rapidly reduce spending, others are committed to keep MEDICAID, SNAP and the inflation reduction act incentives - and Democrats may need to vote to get the debt limit raised

So - as we approach August - it will be a dialogue between Republicans that want to rapidly reduce spending and ones that want to keep MEDICAID / SNAP etc - and then if they don't sort it out it may then lead to dialogue with Democrats to find a way to raise the debt limit.

Democrats will require concessions to raise the debt limit if Trump can't do it with Republicans alone

One way forward is to split it into three bills as you can with Reconciliation, revenue, spending and the debt limit.

One would just increase the debt limt. This is what the Senate want as they don't think a single big bill can pass.

The debt limit is the big obstacle for Republicans and would likely need Democrat support.

If they need Democrat support, they will require some concessions from his side - which could be budget concessions or indeed other things. The Democrats could require him to reverse some of his executive orders before they would support the debt limit.

The Democrats are in a far stronger position now than when they let the discretionary budget through in the spring.

Back then their issue was that Musk wanted a government freeze to help justify his staffing cuts. It would also have complicated the legal cases.

But there won't be a government freeze if the US hits the debt limit. And later in September when the Republicans try to pass their discretionary funding for 2025-6 the Democrats will be able to filibuster the bill without those same issues with the freeze as by then it won't benefit the Republicans to have a freeze.

Genuine budget concerns - the US debt projection for the next few years is far worse in 2025 than in 2023 according to the Congressional Budget Office

My blog post here is sadly out of date, it's using the 2023 projection. But in 2025 the projection for the future is much worse so they need to solve it urgently.

BLOG: US doesn't have to control its debt in the 2020s — it's a source of wealth to Americans and speeds recovery from recession — and many ways to do it in the 2030s READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/us-doesnt-have-to-control-its-debt

BLOG: Why the US's national debt overwhelmingly benefits Americans — and the US can never default on its debt — only needs to control it in the 2030s — with many solutions READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/why-the-uss-national-debt-overwhelmingly

I was relying on the 2023 CBO projection in the originals of those blog posts written a couple of years ago or so and just copied them into my substack.

Back then the Congressional Budget Office was giving pluses and minuses of increasing debt and saw it as something that needs to be fixed in the longer term.

This is about pluses of increasing debt:

QUOTE STARTS

Nevertheless, policies that drive up debt by increasing spending or reducing revenues can benefit people and provide support to the economy, especially during challenging times. And federal investment—including investment financed by deficits—can boost private-sector productivity and output (although that increased output would only partially mitigate the adverse fiscal consequences of increased federal borrowing).

Higher debt itself can also have beneficial consequences. Higher interest rates on Treasury securities can help workers save for retirement by increasing the return they can earn on those assets. Similarly, higher interest rates on Treasury securities can help businesses by increasing their return on a liquid asset that can be used to cover payroll and other expenses (though their borrowing costs would be higher, and an increase in the rate of return on newly issued Treasury securities would reduce the value of existing securities of the same maturity).

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59331

The 2025 projection is rather different with a picture of some urgency to fix it in some way.

The 2025 projection ends

QUOTE STARTS

Ultimately, high debt and deficits carry significant risks and threats to the economy and the nation. They hinder economic growth by crowding out investments, pushing up interest rates, straining the federal budget through rising interest payments, creating geopolitical challenges and risks, making the response to new emergencies more challenging, imposing burdens on future generations, and increasing the risk of a fiscal crisis.

To address the nation’s long-term budgetary challenges, policymakers should restore solvency to Social Security and other trust funds, lower health care costs, reduce spending, cut tax breaks and raise revenue, promote stronger economic growth, and offset any new initiatives. They should not add further to the debt by enacting or extending tax cuts and spending without offsets. Doing so could spark a debt spiral and impose significant costs on current and future generations. https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-cbos-march-2025-long-term-budget-outlook

The deficit issues are longer term and don't need to be solved immediately as in within weeks. On the timescale of the next few years but not by the end of this year.

But the artificial debt ceiling has to be increased before the summer recess in August unless they postpone the recess to sort out the debt ceiling rise.

Need to deal with the increasing debt within a few years - but most ways of doing that are not acceptable to Republicans

Of course Trump could solve a lot of his problems by just not extending the tax cuts any more which would save $4 trillion in the next decade. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/the-new-cost-for-2025-tax-cut-extensions-4-trillion/ these tax cuts mainly affect higher income people in the USA.

There are many other ways to sort out the debt issue. Trump's problem is that none of them are acceptable to the Republicans.

Trump could increase income if he:

• increase taxes,

• increase retirement age

• add in VAT

• encourage immigration (which increases revenue as they tend to be young and pay more in tax than the state spends on looking after them)

Or he can

• reduce defence spending [Defence spending is discretionary so that's not in this bill]

• increase the debt as needed and punt the problem down for another year or two

None of those are things he wants to do.

Some progressives in the Democrat party such as Bernie Sanders want to solve the debt deficit by reducing US defence spending - not acceptable to Republicans or moderate Democrats

The idea of reducing defence spending is one that some progressives propose.

Bernie Sanders said he'd invest $16 trillion in renewables and that it would more than pay for itself and one of the ways it would do that is by reducing defence spending because it would reduce US oil imports leading to less need to use the military to defend the oil imports..

That was his election pitch for Democrat candidate when he was competing with Biden, who is much more centrist, in 2020.

I go inoto his idea here

https://www.science20.com/robert_walker/does_bernie_sanders_16_trillion_green_new_deal_pay_for_itself-242038 Does Bernie Sanders $16 Trillion Green New Deal Pay For Itself?

But there is no way Trump wants that.

I am just mentioning it for completeness and it also helps see that the US is in a very strong position financially.

It could solve its financial problems by reducing the amount it spends on defence, but it doesn't want to do that because it wants to retain a strong military presence around the world.

Even with Trump's plans to withdraw from the rest of the world miltiarily the US still has 750 overseas bases, far more than any other country in the world. There is no sign of that changing any time soon.

From: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive

CC by SA Aljazeera https://www.aljazeera.com/terms-and-conditions

For more about US bases see: SECTION: US has by far the largest global reach of any country by way of force projection - 750 bases throughout the world https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/why-we-do-not-risk-a-world-war-from#%C2%A7us-has-by-far-the-largest-global-reach-of-any-country-by-way-of-force-projection-bases-throughout-the-world

But right now that isn't even up for consideration, to reduce those to solve the deficit issues.

There is no risk of the US becoming a low or middle income country. It will remain one of the wealthiest countries in the world. It has many ways to solve its deficit issues and it's about finding a way to do it that is politically acceptable.

Nothing to worry about downgrading of US credit rating from Moody's aaa to aa1

It is a downgrading but it is still very high.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/which-countries-have-aaa-ratin-Qh7D5fYqRTeijhNDTIhSEg#3

The two other major credit rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) and Fitch Ratings, have both already downgraded the nation’s rating — S&P in 2011 and Fitch in August 2023.

With all of them the US outlook is stable.

https://www.pgpf.org/article/moodys-downgraded-its-us-credit-rating-and-warns-that-recent-policy-decisions-will-worsen-fiscal-outlook/

If the US doesn’t solve its debt problem - it doesn’t turn into a low or even middle income country - stays high income, high standard of living

First if the US was unable to control its debt and it continued to rise, eventually a significant amount of the budget would be used just to pay off the debt interest.

This would gradually over several decades:

• reduce GDP

• increase unemployment

• reduce wages

• increase mortgage rates

• reduce the available investment for new businesses as investors favour buying Federal debt instead of business debt (called "Crowding out".

Although the effects would be gradual, the more it continues the harder to reverse. That’s why it’s better to reverse it sooner rather than later.

Details see:

https://www.pgpf.org/article/new-report-rising-national-debt-will-cause-significant-damage-to-the-u-s-economy/ New Report: Rising National Debt Will Cause Significant Damage to the U.S. Economy

Nothing would happen suddenly. It wouldn't turn the US into a middle or low income country, it would remain high income but ordinary Americans would notice wages not rising so fast, fewer job opportunities, higher interest rates and more difficult to get loans from the bank.

Then if there was an economic crisis like the pandemic the government would be somewhat more limited in what it can do. It would have to take on more debt but with more difficulty.

If it went on for long enough foreign investors might lose confidence in the US as an investment.

But not going to lead to hyperinflation or something like that.

I asked Perplexity AI which then found that page by the Peterson institute which I know is a reliable source came across it before.

It found many other sources. This is its summary https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-would-be-the-effect-on-th-k2oV8noeS8e6lGCXlzzUtg#0

But don’t rely on its summary, it’s just a chatbot completing a pattern of words and though greatly improved from a year ago they often make the most dumb mistakes!

But Perplexity AI almost always links to genuine sources - so it’s great for fact checking - to go to is sources and see what they say, as I did.

I could expand this section into a larger article at some point.

But there are many ways to solve this problem. The main issue is politics not economics.

The simplest method of all, though politically difficult for both Republicans AND Democrats to support, is to encourage legal immigration make it easier for people in other countries to immigrate into the US. They tend to be young, hard working, entrpreneurs (like Musk), lower health care expenses, feed more into the tconomy by way of taxes.

The other simple method is to raise retirement age. And then those other ways of doing it already mentioned, taxes, VAT, reduce defence spending.

If Hans Blix is right, then by the second half of this century we may have moved to a world with far less by way of warfare, scrap nukes and even scrap missiles.

In such a world we’d have a huge peace bonanza and the US could scrap most of its defence budget. It’s debt would then be easy to manage.

I cover that here:

Short term this may seem very implausible. Trump wanting to boost defence spending and levering NATO partners in Europe to do the same.

But the end result of that would be to keep NATO impregnable. Once other countries realize that, and they also are develop their own resilience to attack.

In a world with renewables there is far less need for defence spending to protect oil fleets as we no longer depend on oil for energy.

Then we can colectively start to work together to reduce not just nukes but also defence spending.

I think myself that that is when we become a true civilization. When we can resolve our disputes with other forms of competition without killing each other.

Why are so many more Democrats dying in the House than Republicans - the last 8 to die were all Democrats? It’s because though the average is the same for both parties there are FAR more elderly Democrats and FAR MORE youthful Democrats

Let’s just look at the most elderly members of the House of Representatives. Two thirds of Representatives over 70 are Democrats and 80% of those over 80 are Democrats.

Democrats (Ages 70 and Above):

1. Grace F. Napolitano – 86 (CA-31)

2. Eleanor Holmes Norton – 85 (DC-AL)

3. Bill Pascrell Jr. – 85 (NJ-09)

4. Maxine Waters – 84 (CA-43)

5. Steny H. Hoyer – 83 (MD-05)

6. James E. Clyburn – 82 (SC-06)

7. Nancy Pelosi – 82 (CA-11)

8. Danny K. Davis – 81 (IL-07)

9. Anna G. Eshoo – 80 (CA-16)

10. Frederica S. Wilson – 80 (FL-24)

11. Rosa DeLauro – 79 (CT-03)

12. Doris Matsui – 78 (CA-07)

13. Jan Schakowsky – 78 (IL-09)

14. Emanuel Cleaver II – 78 (MO-05)

15. David Scott – 77 (GA-13)

16. Bonnie Watson Coleman – 77 (NJ-12)

17. John Garamendi – 77 (CA-08)

18. Marcy Kaptur – 76 (OH-09)

19. Lloyd Doggett – 76 (TX-37)

20. Barbara Lee – 76 (CA-12)

21. Alma Adams – 76 (NC-12)

22. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger – 76 (MD-02)

23. Al Green – 75 (TX-09)

24. Robert C. Scott – 75 (VA-03)

25. Sanford D. Bishop Jr. – 75 (GA-02)

26. Jerrold Nadler – 75 (NY-12)

27. Zoe Lofgren – 75 (CA-18)

28. Lois Frankel – 74 (FL-22)

29. Bennie Thompson – 74 (MS-02)

30. Earl Blumenauer – 74 (OR-03)

31. John B. Larson – 74 (CT-01)

32. Raul M. Grijalva – 74 (AZ-07)

33. Kweisi Mfume – 74 (MD-07)

34. Paul Tonko – 73 (NY-20)

35. Steve Cohen – 73 (TN-09)

36. Richard E. Neal – 73 (MA-01)

37. Sylvia R. Garcia – 72 (TX-29)

38. Dina Titus – 72 (NV-01)

39. Joyce Beatty – 72 (OH-03)

40. Gerald E. Connolly – 72 (VA-11)

41. Sheila Jackson Lee – 72 (TX-18)

42. Donald S. Beyer Jr. – 72 (VA-08)

43. Mike Thompson – 71 (CA-04)

44. Frank Pallone Jr. – 71 (NJ-06)

45. Gwen Moore – 71 (WI-04)

46. Jim Costa – 70 (CA-21)

47. William Keating – 70 (MA-09)

48. Julia Brownley – 70 (CA-26)

49. Mark DeSaulnier – 70 (CA-10)

50. Ed Case – 70 (HI-01)

Republicans (Ages 70 and Above):

1. Harold Rogers – 85 (KY-05)

2. John Carter – 81 (TX-31)

3. Virginia Foxx – 79 (NC-05)

4. Kay Granger – 79 (TX-12)

5. Jim Baird – 77 (IN-04)

6. Bill Posey – 75 (FL-08)

7. Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen – 75 (AS-AL)

8. Joe Wilson – 75 (SC-02)

9. Jack Bergman – 75 (MI-01)

10. Mike Kelly – 74 (PA-16)

11. Brian Babin – 74 (TX-36)

12. Tom Cole – 73 (OK-04)

13. Roger Williams – 73 (TX-25)

14. Daniel Webster – 73 (FL-11)

15. Mike Simpson – 72 (ID-02)

16. Carol Miller – 72 (WV-01)

17. Michael C. Burgess – 72 (TX-26)

18. Vern Buchanan – 71 (FL-16)

19. Tim Walberg – 71 (MI-05)

20. Rick W. Allen – 71 (GA-12)

21. Burgess Owens – 71 (UT-04)

22. John Rutherford – 70 (FL-05)

23. Cliff Bentz – 70 (OR-02)

24. Blaine Luetkemeyer – 70 (MO-03)

Summary:

• Democrats over 70: 50

• Republicans over 70: 24

From Fiscal Note

https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-118th-congress

The Democrats are slightly older in both chambers which is part of it, 58 in the House for Democrat and 56 for Republicans:

https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-118th-congress

But the spread is far more important than the average age.

I got Perplexity AI to turn the data into this graphic - you can see clearly that the Democrat distribution has a broader spread which explains why so many Democrats rather than Republicans die.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/order-this-list-with-all-the-o-lThL.yX1TYySLS14Fcpc.A#19

The Democrats have both the oldest and the youngest members of the House. The bottom three and top four bins are all dominated by Democrats while Republicans dominate most of the other bins or are roughly equally numbered.

See list of Representatives who died in office here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congress_members_who_died_in_office_(2000%E2%80%93present)

It’s not because of any difference in health care - all members of Congress have automatic high levels of health care. It’s not that Democrats are more risk taking, if anything they were more careful during the pandemic, more likely to wear masks for instance.

It’s just because Democrats have a wider spread of ages and so there are more elderly Democrats.

So we can expect this trend to continue that more Democrats than Republcans die in office.

There are many Republican vacancies too but they are more likely to resign for instance to take up another job.

CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL

You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com

Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.

FOR MORE HELP

To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks

Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly

• Facebook group Doomsday Debunked

Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.

SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS

You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.

CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date

NEW SHORT DEBUNKS

I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.

I often write them up as “short debunks”

See Latest short debunks for new short debunks

I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:

. doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social

I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.

I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.

TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS

If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:

BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal

If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.

They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.

Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.

Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.

I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.

There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:

BLOG: Doing what matters at times of stress
— new WHO booklet to help with mental health during COVID19 pandemic

BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack

BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties

PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD COMMENT ON POST SET UP FOR IT

PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:

INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT HERE:

Post to comment on, with off topic potentially scary comments - or send me a private message - or use our group on Facebook

The reason is I often can’t respond to comments for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else

Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.

It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.

It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here.

This is specifically about anything that might scare people on a different topic.

PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE

This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.

We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.

If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.

But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.

If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.

It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.