Budget Swamp Trump Truth

Another Budget, Another Load Of Boulders On Our Children’s Backs

Rod Thomson

We should not be sleeping well at night, but not for the reasons you are thinking. 

Yes, there is the threat of socialism and open borders and unnecessarily fanned racial strife amongst other general insanities. But there is the reality that every single year we are binding our children as indentured servants. Right now. It’s happening. And it is shameful.

You may not have seen it, but D.C. is entering into another irresponsible and immoral budget agreement where the politicians, the bureaucrats and the D.C. establishment get what they want — and future Americans get the shaft.  

I warned that “draining the swamp” was going to be far, far bigger than a single president or a single election. It will take a change of who we send to Washington on an ongoing basis, which means that Americans need to think differently than we’ve been trending. That’s a tall order and it’s a challenge to be optimistic about it. 

Even after promising last year to never again bust the budget in a compromise agreement that piles on the debt, President Trump appears ready to do just that with the support of both Republicans and Democrats. When everyone agrees on spending, you know that the American taxpayer is about to get nailed — or more specifically, future taxpayers. But hey, it’s for two years, which pushes it past the next election as per the normal arrangement, so the hacks get to skate on the issue.

Yet it appears that by all polls, the national debt barely ever even shows up even at the bottom, and probably the number of views this article will likely get, that no one really gives a rat’s hiney about the budget and the debt. It’s just not all sexy and loud and Us versus Them. Too bad. Because eventually it’s fatal. And it’s immediately immoral.

I keep using that word. It does mean what I think it means.

In 2018, the per capita debt for Americans was $65,600 — about 50 percent more the national average income for a year. So if you took all of everyone’s income for an entire year, you wouldn’t come close to erasing the debt — plus you wouldn’t fund the government that year. And everyone would die.

But worse, it was $62,100 in 2017. For every trillion-dollar annual deficit, the per capita debt load increases about $3,400 per year. That actually does come due, and it won’t be Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell paying it. So by the end of this budget deal, the debt per capita will be $72,400 — $10,000 more per person than in 2017.

Yes. That’s immoral.

Of course this comes about because of the decades of irresponsible spending and spending and spending, and the constant brinkmanship of the Continuing Resolutions that allow for larded up pork projects and no cuts because of the threat of a government shutdown. The GOP should have figured out by now that the shutdown issue is a media creation that virtually no Americans outside of some government employees and contractors notice even with the incessant media coverage.

And there is the deadline for the U.S. missing debt payments in September because of the spending cap, which is obviously not worth the piece of paper it was scribbled on in crayon as they just lift it every year, or in this case, every other year. The budget is not about spending or taxing, it’s about whether we use the “crisis” of a government shutdown or the “crisis” of not making a debt payment that requires whatever spending free-for-all we have to swallow.

Here’s the gist of yet another horrible deal.

The spending increase that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin agreed to would raise current budget caps by $320 billion over two years. The increase is a paltry $30 billion less than Democrats sought. They got 90 percent of what they wanted.

Further, Noah Rothman wrote on Bloomberg: “If split evenly over two years, that would equal a $17 billion increase for defense and $17 billion increase for domestic programs in 2020 over 2019 levels, giving Democrats the parity they sought for increases in both categories of spending.”

The Trump team wanted to partially offset the increases with savings from entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid that are not subject to annual budget caps. But of course, that did not happen. And don’t be fooled by the $320 billion number. That is the budget cap issue. The deficit is expected to be about $1 trillion each year. Because the Swamp always wins.

So the Democrats got essentially everything they wanted. This is what I meant when saying that one election of one president could not change the corruption level of the D.C. establishment.

But whatevs — just another trillion dollars dumped on our children and grandchildren while we debate the really big issues of rats in Baltimore, Trump’s tweets and who had the best sound bite at the Demcorat debates.

A few lonely Republicans have remained opposed to the irresponsible spending. 

“I paid off a third of the state debt when I was governor of Florida,” Sen. Rick Scott said on CNBC Wednesday ahead of Thursday’s vote. “There’s no focus up here on the debt. We can’t have $22 trillion worth of debt and growing a trillion dollars a year and it not have a consequence at some point.”

That’s right. But obviously we’re doing it anyway. The vote was 67-28. Scott went on.

“We’ve got to have a legitimate conversation about how do we spend our money up here, let’s stop the waste, let’s live within our means, we do it at the state level,” he said. “I paid off $10 billion worth of debt and cut $10 billion worth of taxes. We cut 20 percent of our regulations. And we added 1.7 million jobs. This is all doable, but you’ve got to make choices. Up here what happens is everyone gets everything, so there’s no tough choices made.” 

But even Scott, when pushed gently, would not name the big dogs in the debt — the ever-growing entitlement trifecta of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We can eliminate entire agencies and squeeze out waste, fraud and abuse, but it won’t close the trillion-dollar annual gap. The Swamp knows what needs to be done, and has no intention of doing it.

No, we should not be sleeping well at night. We are loading up our offspring to pay off debts they did not incur.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Budget Congress Constitution Government Truth

True Constitutional Budgeting Would Eliminate Political Brinkmanship

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Now that the most recent budget panic is momentarily past, let’s speak about the budget truthfully and constitutionally.

Politicians and media pundits seem intent upon deflecting, distracting and deceiving the American public to keep the same old divisive politics churning along. The popular talking points do nothing to identify the real problems nor focus on the right solutions. It’s time to stop the blame game and look at the problem that has plagued America since 1921.

We want to look to the Constitution of the United States and what those who wrote that document say about the budget; how taxing, spending and budgeting are designed to work, who is responsible for that process, and most importantly, what is the designed solution to this current budgeting problem.

First let’s put aside some of the errant deflections that saturate popular media and get to the root issues.

The President of the United States is not to blame for any budget crisis. This is not a defense of any president. This is a factual statement that applies to all presidents since the Constitution was ratified in 1789. The president of the United States, other than submitting a budget, was not established as a “necessary” part of the budgeting process until Congress passed the unconstitutional Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

The Senate is not to blame for the failure to pass a budget. The Senate, constitutionally speaking, only plays a supportive role in creating and passing of the budget. From a Constitutional perspective it’s not mandatory for the Senate to approve any budget.

I know this sounds strange. I know that your D.C. politician is likely to vehemently disagree, and some may be just ignorant. However, the budget process that is used today is not only relatively new in our government, but also contrary to the design of the Constitution.


The original and long-lasting budgeting method

Ironically, it’s this radical, new budgeting method that makes the process so complicated that it’s nearly impossible to understand. The process created by the designers of our Constitution, the process that was mostly followed until the turn of the 20th century, is plain, simple and expedient. The constitutional process, like the Constitution itself, was designed so that the “we the people” could clearly understand and follow the budget process, easily identify any problems and quickly apply the proper solutions.

Article 1 Section 7 Clause 1 of the Constitution is the governing text regarding this issue of budgeting. It reads:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”

Since the Constitution is a contract, in line with contract law, we must look to the drafters of the contract when we need clarity. James Madison, drafter of the Constitution, fourth president of the United States and commonly referred to as the “Father of the Constitution,” explains in Federalist 58 that the budget is to rest firmly in the hands of the House of Representatives. He says:

“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of the government…This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutatory measure.”

Check Our Youtube Channel

Madison also explains that one of the main reasons the House was vested with this important power was to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government” as the people may demand.

According to the Father of the Constitution, when speaking about the design of the Constitution with those who would ratify the Constitution, the sole responsibility for creating a budget rests in the hands of your House Representatives. Alone.

On May 15, 1789, during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison, then a federal representative to his District in Virginia, had a conversation with fellow Virginia Representative Alexander White.

White says: “The Constitution, having authorized the House of Representatives alone to originate money bills, places an important trust in our hands, which, as their protectors, we ought not to part with. I do not mean to imply that the Senate are less to be trusted than this house; but the Constitution, no doubt for wise purposes, has given the immediate representatives of the people a control over the whole government in this particular, which, for their interest, they ought not let out of their hands.”

It is interesting to note that White is repeating the principle of the power of the purse Madison identified in Federalist 58; that it is the duty of the House of Representatives to have a “control over the whole government” to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government.”

Madison replies to White with confirmation:

“The principle reason why the Constitution had made this distinction was, because they (the House) were chosen by the people, and supposed to be the best acquainted with their interest and ability.”

It really becomes clear, according to the drafters of the Constitution, that the House alone was vested with the power of purse.  

Remember, Article 1 Section 7 Clause 1 says, the Senate may propose amendments and may concur, but now we know it says MAY because their agreement is not necessary.  

As both White and Madison stated, this power rests in the House alone because it is the House that is chosen directly by the people as their representatives and best suited to remedy their grievances and reduce and control all the other branches…as the people see fit.  

Constitutionally speaking, if the House proposes a budget that the Senate refuses to vote upon, then the House budget stands. If the Senate proposes an amendment to the budget and the House doesn’t want it, then the original House budget stands. It is also important to note that constitutionally speaking the president was to have no veto power over a budget.

And this is how our government operated until the 20th century.


The new budgeting process confusion

Proponents of the new and then-radical budgeting procedure that began with the Budget Accounting Act of 1921 (which moved many preliminary budget-setting functions to the President, created what is now the Office of Budget and Management in the Executive Branch and required the President to submit an annual budget), want to confuse the specific process outlined in Article 1 section 7 clause 1 with the procedure of passing a law in Article 1 section 7 clause 2-3.

A very important distinction must be recognized: A budget is not a law. Very simply, a budget expires, a law does not. A law must follow the procedure of both houses of Congress, with veto power by the president because in order to get rid of a law it must be repealed.

The arduous process of passing a law is established to be a check and balance to prevent the passing of unconstitutional, harmful laws. Budgets, however, expire and must be renewed each congressional session. No future Congress is ever bound by a past congressional budget. That is one reason why the Senate is not necessary to the process, and president is procedurally excluded from the budgetary process. The budget process does not require the same level of checks and balances; the budget is the check and balance.

We must also remember that one of the chief purposes for vesting this power in the House was to reduce the overgrowth of the other branches of government. It is counterintuitive to ask the House to exercise that control over the Senate, the Executive, and the Judiciary and then require those branches to concur with that control.

Visit KrisAnne’s Youtube Channel

It is highly unlikely that our founders would create such an absurdity within the Constitution, yet the process has been corrupted to take control from the House and consequently from the people so that the other branches are free to run roughshod over the people’s liberty and continue year after year on an unbridled spending spree. This is the most important reason the involvement of the Senate and the Executive are intentionally limited and even excluded from the budgetary process.

Of course, the taxing and spending authority of the House of Representatives itself is not limitless, but is directly limited by the few and defined powers that are delegated to the federal government. Madison warned in 1792 that if the members of the House were allowed to tax and spend outside the delegated authority by the Constitution on things like education, roads, care for the poor, and local police matters, it would transmute the very nature of the Constitution and the limited government it created.

James Madison, in Federalist 45, also explains that the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are exercised principally on foreign affairs. He says these powers are specifically “war peace negotiations and foreign commerce, with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.” The power to tax and spend in the House was to be principally exercised through foreign affairs, not through the direct taxation of the people. For the budget to be consistent with the Constitution, it must be limited to spending on powers and programs properly delegated through the Constitution.  

The current budgeting procedures, invented outside the boundaries of the Constitution less than 60 years ago, are contrary to the Constitution and therefore, according to Article 6 section 2 of the Constitution, invalid and unlawful. These corrupted procedures have also achieved exactly what both James Madison and Alexander White have warned and exactly what the creators of the Constitution hoped to prevent: the House has let this vital power out of their hands and placed it into the hands of those not constitutionally fit nor authorized to fulfill the demand.  

We need educated and principled leaders in Congress to stand against this usurpation of the greatest check and balance on governmental overreach. We need educated and principled representatives in the House who are willing to demand and require that all budgeting, taxing and spending are consistent with the Supreme Law of the Land, even if they must oppose current legislation.

We need educated and principled people in America who will expect and demand that every budget will follow the following guidelines as established by the Constitution and practiced in the United States for over a century:

  1. Budget must be firmly in the hands of the House of Representatives
  2. No overriding control by the Senate
  3. No veto power by the Executive
  4. No spending on items beyond the grant of the Constitution
  5. House of Representatives to check the expansion of the federal government by control of the purse strings.

Then America can begin the journey to Constitutional recovery.  


If you want to get a full, original source understanding of the budgetary process established in 1789 and followed for over a century, visit and enroll in this online, self-paced, educational program. I personally guarantee that Liberty First University will to teach you the education necessary for demanding a proper Constitutional Republic; an education that you cannot find anywhere else.

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.