Friday's HOT MIC

Here is your HOT MIC for the day.

THIS IS FINE.

It didn’t take long for the U.S. to rack up another trillion dollars of debt.

Democrats, 2009: "We're going to borrow and spend an extra $1.4 trillion 'stimulus' dollars in just two years to no measurable effect."

Republicans, 2018: "Hold my beer."

It has taken a little more than six months for the U.S. national debt to grow by a trillion dollars, a quick clip that has little precedent over the nation’s recent history.

Last week, the debt hit $21 trillion for the first time, rising from the $20 trillion mark it notched on Sept. 8. The debt is guaranteed to go higher, with President Donald Trump having signed a debt-limit suspension in February, allowing unlimited borrowing through March 1, 2019. Economists expect wider deficits to result from the tax cut Trump signed in December.

While a trillion-dollar increase over roughly six months isn’t unprecedented — there was one in 2009, during the Great Recession, and another in 2010 — it’s certainly fast.

The national debt exceeded $20 trillion in September 2017, after taking 20 months to add a trillion dollars. A debt limit that had been in place since March 2015 was raised in March 2017, and again on Sept. 8, 2017.

This report actually came out three days ago, but I left the browser tab open so I could wait and see what this GOP Congress would do about it as the Omnibus deadline approached.

And what they did of course was lard up the Omnibus with enough leftwing pork to make Democrats croon. And on bonuses for themselves. And which rejects Trump's cuts to the EPA and DOE. Zero funding for that yuge border wall. Hell, they wouldn't even defund Planned Parenthood.

You know what the difference is between this week's Omnibus and 2009's Stimulus? When the Democrats were spending us into oblivion, they delivered the goods to their own constituents instead of the other side's. They didn't load up their bill with GOP priorities. Instead, we got Obama's "I won" and "elections have consequences" and all that.

Well, apparently some elections don't have consequences, because we have a Republican Congress spending like Democrats on Democratic interests.

So this Omnibus monster passed the Senate last night and awaits Trump's signature. He is expected to sign it.

If Trump does, I expect to see a Democratic majority on Capitol Hill next January. That is, a majority of Democrats who don't hide under an "R" after their names.

UPDATE: As I was writing this Trump tweeted that he might veto the Omnibus.

That would be the smart move, Mr. President.

Trump explains crumnibus vote: All about the troops.

He also wants a line-item veto. Dems destroyed him in this round, and there's no way he'll get a line-item veto.

Congress tried to give President Bill Clinton a line-item veto, and the Supreme Court said, "Nope. Unconstitutional." This actually makes sense. In 1998, SCOTUS ruled in Clinton v. City of New York that using a line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the president of only parts of bills authorizing federal spending.

This takes away Congress's authority to draft legislation, especially on spending. Sorry, Trump, but the rules won't just magically change for you.

As there has been a lot of discussion here today about the budget and President Trump caving signing it, I thought I would post the link to the video I just did for the PJ Media Facebook page. Apologies for the vertical orientation, but FB was being difficult (AGAIN).

Not to be a party pooper, but I don't think Trump had much choice but to sign the creepy omnibus bill.  He has bigger fish to fry at the moment than a conservative wishlist - namely he's about to go into serious negotiations with North Korea.  He needs a strong military for that negotiating stance. He needs that to stand up to Putin as well. Further, it's real easy to sit in Congress as Cruz and Rand did and vote no, another thing to veto a bill as POTUS.  Way different, in fact, if you think about it.  Also, Trump was right to weigh in against the filibuster.  That should be followed up on. Okay, now, have at me as squishy but just remember my latest piece for PJM was just read aloud today by Rush Limbaugh.  So be careful whom you diss. [insert smiley here]

 

Stephen,

I'd love to join you for that meat and drink! But ironically, I am abstaining from drink during Lent (and meat on Fridays). Can't wait until Easter!

The real question is, does this betrayal inspire calls for a primary challenge from the Right, in addition to the one Trump might face from someone on the Left of the party. His "never again" promise holds very little weight, given the man's personal history (and his switching from one party to the other).

How does the Right hold him accountable after this? Will this cave-in motivate conservatives for 2018, or drive them away from the polls?