President-elect Donald Trump gave many of his supporters whiplash Monday when he endorsed House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA).
“Speaker Mike Johnson is a good, hard working, religious man. He will do the right thing, and we will continue to WIN,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Mike has my Complete & Total Endorsement. MAGA!!!”
Republicans and populists soured on Johnson’s speakership after he negotiated with Democrats earlier this month to pass a bloated spending bill and avoid a government shutdown. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) has been testing the waters to determine if Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) or another candidate could garner enough support to challenge Johnson for the speakership.
Republicans are rightfully disappointed in Johnson and the GOP generally for continuously folding on the matter of government spending. The federal government currently spends $1.8 trillion more than it brings in annually, and the national debt has ballooned to over $33 trillion. However, to meaningfully take on these challenges, it would require vast majorities in Congress and the kind of political will not seen in generations.
The first obvious obstacle to implementing substantive economic reform is the historically tiny majority that Johnson, or any other speaker, will be dealing with. It is extremely unlikely that moderate or swing-district Republicans would vote for bills cutting entire federal departments or privatizing Social Security, which would be necessary measures if the goal is to get the nation’s fiscal house in order. You can’t pay off $33 trillion by trimming pork around the edges. Even if a bill substantially reducing spending somehow made it through the House, the new boss, same as the old boss, incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), would have to ideologically transform into Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and wrangle his own slim majority.
Let’s say the perfect House speaker rams the perfect bill through the chamber and Thune becomes a fiscal libertarian and convinces a roomful of elderly politicians who have no fear of voters because they only face reelection every six years to follow suit. Who’s to say Trump would sign a bill reforming popular entitlement programs or a bill cutting military spending?
Trump has pledged never to touch Social Security or Medicare, and spending on these programs only increased during his first term in office. The national debt increased by 33% under Trump’s presidency. Indeed, the 45th president oversaw the largest increase in debt in terms of physical dollars in any four-year period in American history.
The truth is that Trump is a dealmaker, not an ideologue. Fiscal Republicans will likely continue to be disappointed by Trump’s economic policies, just like immigration hard-liners are currently frustrated by his support of legal immigration. Voters on the libertarian and/or populist Right will likely find disappointment in Trump’s foreign policy since many in those spaces have projected their own isolationism onto Trump, regardless of the fact that he was far from an isolationist during his first term.
There are many reasons why voters, myself included, went for Trump. Despite economics being my top concern, however, I never expected Trump to be the second coming of Calvin Coolidge. When Roy and Massie criticize wasteful spending and the politicians who are responsible for it, I’m in full agreement.
Unfortunately, the will to effect substantive change simply does not exist.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Brady Leonard (@bradyleonard) is a musician, political strategist, and host of The No Gimmicks Podcast.