Live from Music Row Tuesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed official guest host and Grassroots Engagement Director of Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee Grant Henry in studio to discuss the Democrat’s multi-trillion-dollar spending package and how they have connected moral values to products.
Leahy: Joined in studio by the official guest host of The Tennessee Star Report, Grant Henry. Ben Cunningham has passed the baton to Grant. I think the reason is that he doesn’t like getting up at 3:30 am in the morning.
Why would anybody not like doing that? (Henry chuckles) And you are prepared to get up at 3:30 a.m. in the morning.
Henry: That’s God’s time, man. (Leahy laughs) That’s when the real work gets done. I’m telling you.
Leahy: Grant, we were talking during the break, and there may be some fraying going on among the Democrats in Washington, D.C. Tell us about that.
Henry: Yes. Look, I think y’all the pressure is working. The pressure you’re putting on these Democrats, especially in DC, it’s working specifically as it pertains to this boondoggle of a $3.5 trillion spending package.
We already heard that Democrat Senator Joe Manchin last Sunday said he will not support the three $5 trillion package in its current form. Now, Kyrsten Sinema has also come out, and Politico is reporting that she apparently told Joe Biden, they had a private meeting on Wednesday that “If the House delays it scheduled September 27 vote on this spending ing bill or if it fails, she will also not be backing the reconciliation bill.”
Not just her, Michael. Representative Kurt Straighter over in the House, one of approximately ten moderate House Democrat members is playing hardball with leadership over there. He said that several members of their group are on the same page about this.
Some of the lawmakers have convened and say that the message is that it’s up to chain leadership to convince them that they need to keep these two bills together. And saying, if they delay the vote or if it goes down, then I think you can kiss reconciliation goodbye.
Leahy: I’m glad you said that because I thought you were about to say, kiss something else. (Laughter)
Henry: Maybe that’s what some people are feeling. But if this doesn’t make sense to some of y’all, the reason why this whole idea of keeping them together and keeping it up together. What they mean by that is Nancy Pelosi is taking a big gamble in the House.
She’s trying to satisfy the progressives in the House by saying look. If you pass both of these things together, the one $2 trillion in big air quotes here infrastructure package, at the same time as the three $3.5 trillion boondoggle bill, then the progressives will be satisfied.
The moderates in the House are saying, look, I’m not for this nonsensical three $5 trillion spending. The parliamentarian in Senate just said that you can’t include amnesty on the Senate side. So you’re pushing stuff in there that has nothing to do with spending.
Leahy: And from Breitbart News, I’ll read the story. The Senate parliamentarian ruling Sunday effectively kills any chance of illegal alien amnesty through 2024. Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough’s rule that the Democrats plan to slip a massive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens into a bill does not comply with the Byrd rule.
That’s a former majority leader, Robert Byrd, regarding budgetary reconciliation. Democrats hope they could use their $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill to pass an amnesty.
MacDonough said Democrat lawmakers could not use reconciliation, which primarily relates to spending changes to the budget. To make sure such a drastic policy change as granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Henry: Here’s the calculation as far as Politico sees it. They think it’s a progressive think that if they band together and threatened to kill this infrastructure bill, the $1.2 trillion, it will convince moderate members to go along with the larger reconciliation package.
But multiple sources, including a senior Democrat aid and several in the decenters camp are telling Politico that the left is misreading their colleagues. If Nancy Pelosi gambles here it is to keep these two ridiculous things together, $4.7 trillion worth of spending to keep them together to satisfy the progressives, the moderates are saying we’ll kill all of it.
We’re not going to risk our reputation of $4.7 trillion worth of nonsense spending that will hit the people least able to afford it. So here’s how I think we win as Republicans. visit. stopthespendingspree.com. Sign that letter.
I think if we continually push this message that $4.7 trillion is wasted spending with historic tax increases that would lower worker wages and crush small businesses. Massive energy taxes and California-style mandates will add hundreds of dollars to your energy bills and it’ll put the government in more control over your health care.
Michael, this bill has nearly half a trillion dollars in healthcare spending. That’s one and a half times more than it was in the entirety of Obamacare.
These types of messages will force Nancy Pelosi to make a distinction between the two bills, possibly separate them, or have moderates kill the entirety of all of them. It’s encouraging for me. I think we keep the pressure on.
Leahy: Grant, we need encouragement. And I’m glad you’re encouraged because if you’re encouraged, I’m encouraged. And our listening audience, which really needs encouragement, is encouraged as well.
Senator Bill Hagerty from Tennessee was also encouraged. He tweeted this out yesterday. He said the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian has ruled that Democrats’ mass amnesty plan cannot be included in a budget bill.
Their tax and spend spree remains dangerous for our economy. But on immigration, Democrats will now focus hopefully on the massive border crisis they’ve created and ignored. I think hopefully was the active word there Grant.
Henry: Yes. The immigration situation is something that needs a full-on look. Republicans continue to believe that immigration is still good, but our system is broken especially in times of unprecedented economic challenge.
Republicans, we stand behind the idea that we welcome immigrants who are motivated to improve their lives and contribute to society that will enrich American lives.
Many immigrants or entrepreneurs who start businesses create jobs, generate demand for other goods and services, which in turn requires businesses to hire more people. It works out better for all of us!
However, Democrats in this administration need to acknowledge that Americans are feeling unsafe about their health and are feeling anxious about their economic future, and may feel threatened because of that.
They also need to acknowledge that there is an unprecedented crisis going on at the border and we simply cannot afford to kick this issue along extreme party lines anymore.
We’re dealing with real situations here that have real effects on real lives. This is no longer theoretical, Michael. We need to build a better immigration system for the long term.
We also need to focus on fixing the broken system immediately. I feel like what Democrats are doing is trying to cram something in an alleged spending bill that does not do service to what we really need to focus on here in this country.
Leahy: Democrats also want to do this, I’d be delighted to hear your reaction to this. They plan a $12,500 tax credit for pricey electric car purchases. This is at The Tennessee Star. Tennesseestar.com. House Republicans are arguing against a Democratic proposal to increase the $7,500 taxpayer-funded credit for electric car purchases to as much as $12,500, arguing that it would disproportionately help wealthy Americans who can afford to buy pricey electric vehicles.
Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee have proposed increasing the credit as part of their party’s filibuster-proof $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill which includes new social programs and billions for electric vehicle infrastructure. Your thoughts Grant.
Henry: Go some research on the amount of energy it takes to create one of those cars versus the amount of energy that you’re saving out of it. What kind of metals do you need to get those batteries? What is going on?
Leahy: I think it’s Lithium.
Henry: What’s the human cost involved?
Leahy: That’s pretty darn high from what I can tell. It’s interesting because when you look at what the Democrats on the left have done is they have attached moral values to products.
So an electric car is a moral good. A car powered by gasoline is a moral, bad. That’s the simplicity of it. But the reality of it is if you look at the power and the impact on the environment, to me, I think that the evidence is that electric vehicles have a more destructive impact on the environment.
If you go all the way back to the key factor, which is lithium batteries, the mining of lithium is extraordinarily destructive from what I’ve read.
Henry: No, exactly. There’s a human toll involved as well. There’s child labor, possibly in some of the situations going on to mine some of this stuff out.
Leahy: It comes from third-world countries.
Henry: And I think you hit it on the head when you add a moral component to pushing some of this in the guise of, I don’t know, doing something to say, save the world or carbon tax credits or a Green New Deal or anything that you’re really trying to push through an ulterior motive, you get a problem because you’re pushing something you don’t fully understand.
You’re pushing something to win in PR points but not understanding what the policy might actually be doing to our country.
If we really want to have a conversation about energy, I don’t know why nuclear is not brought up every single time. But no one ever brings that up anymore. I don’t know. Maybe for reasons I don’t fully understand.
Leahy: Nuclear is interesting because it was for a period of time, morally bad. Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas in the China Syndrome movie, morally bad. But now they don’t know what to do because it doesn’t have bad emissions on it.
But, you know, way back when, 40 years ago, the left and Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas and Jack Lemon all said it was bad. Personally, I think the idea of Adam Smith’s idea of the marketplace working, that is a way to go.
We’re moving more towards the government working and telling everybody what’s a good product, what’s a bad product. I say it’s none of their business.
Listen to the third hour here:
– – –