"Elon's telling the truth!": Dem Rep. says GOP bill will balloon debt and "get rid of Elmo"
Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., has found an unlikely ally in Elon Musk.
Musk recently decamped from the Trump administration and has spent the days since his departure trashing Trump and the GOP over their massive spending bill. Moskowitz joined in the chorus on Wednesday, during a hearing on "NGOs gone wild," singing the praises of the tech billionaire while accusing House Republicans of talking out of both sides of their mouth on the topic of government efficiency.
"Elon has turned on them, but he's telling the truth," Moskowitz said. "The bill will add to the deficit and it will add to the debt... If you want to drop the "e" from DOGE, because we've not done efficiency, that's fine."
Moskowitz said that the "One Big Beautiful Bill" that recently passed the House would do nothing but inflate the national debt and kill off popular programs.
"They are going to do a $9 billion recision bill," he said. "They're going to get rid of Elmo, which the American people were clamoring for, but they're going to add $2.4 trillion to the debt."
Moskowitz went on to scoff at Republican leadership who trot the spending package out as a win.
"They want us to cheer for them and give them a trophy like they are a 5-year-old at a soccer game," he said. "Congress has not codified anything at all."Moskowitz's remarks come in the midst of a growing feud between Musk and congressional Republicans. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., has repeatedly bashed Musk in the press after the SpaceX CEO called for all Republicans who supported the bill to be voted out.
'I think he's flat wrong, and I've told him as much,' Johnson said on Wednesday, claiming he had spoken to Musk directly.
How the one who brought Musk into national politics feels is about his recent about-face is a matter of some debate. Fox News reported that the president is "furious" with the SpaceX CEO. Politico, on the other hand, said Trump is not too concerned Musk's efforts to kill the bill, citing senior administration officials.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
22 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Why won't Republicans call on Joe Hogsett to resign?
It is shocking that only one out of six Republicans on the Indianapolis City-County Council have called on Mayor Joe Hogsett to resign following sexual harassment allegations that have rocked his office in recent months. Many constituents of Republican councilors are frustrated that their caucus has been more passive than council Democrats, three of whom are on record saying Hogsett should resign. It is hard to trust your leaders when they stay silent about a moral and ethical issue, especially involving one of their political enemies. If anyone should have the courage to speak up, it should be Republicans. Unlike their Democratic colleagues, Republicans don't have to worry about Hogsett continuing to be a power broker in their party for several years due to their trouble building an independent political machine. '[Calling on Hogsett to resign] could cause personal financial hardship to people,' Democratic Councilor Jesse Brown, the first to call on Hogsett to resign, told me. '[And he] is in good with all the biggest donors and he has a ton of money in the bank and so … he absolutely could you know levy those connections or that money to sink people's political careers.' Briggs: Hogsett's texts to women show Indianapolis mayor embodied toxic culture When I asked Republican Minority Leader Michael-Paul Hart why he hasn't called on Hogsett to resign, he said he didn't want to get political. He has focused his criticism on the investigation into Hogsett, rather than Hogsett himself. After all, many are starting to think the investigation was just a PR stunt aimed at clearing him of legal liability. 'I try to be as apolitical as possible because I think local government is just non-political … we're always talking about roads, water, trash, public safety,' Hart said. 'At the end of the day, we've got to focus on what we can control and what is symbolic.' Gov. Mike Braun expressed a similar sentiment when asked by WIBC-FM (93.1) host Nigel Laskowski about the scandal. 'What I'm more concerned about would be the potholes per linear mile,' Braun said June 18. I don't think fixing potholes, criticizing a political process and taking a moral stance against political leaders engaging in ethical violations should be mutually exclusive. However, Hogsett still controls the city budget and Council President Vop Osili appears to be positioning himself to succeed Hogsett. Either person could retaliate against Republicans who chose to make trouble and divert city funds away from their districts. Opinion: I was dragged out by sheriff's deputies. Indiana Democrats stayed silent. 'I try to remind folks all the time there's … 240,000 people that the six of us (Republicans) represent and I would certainly not want them to be disenfranchised,' Hart told me when I asked if he thought Hogsett would retaliate against Republicans. 'But I would hope that the mayor wouldn't punish the people of our districts for something of that nature.' Several councilors and their employers are also financially dependent on contracts with the city-county government, which Hogsett could push to terminate if councilors call on him to resign. Hart, for example, is employed as a director by SHI International, which has a six million dollar contract through 2027 with Indianapolis. The risk of retaliation, however, did not stop both Democratic and Republican leaders from calling on former Attorney General Curtis Hill to resign after he faced allegations of groping, and did not stop both Democratic and Republican leaders from condemning former Indiana Senate Minority Leader Greg Taylor after he faced allegations of sexual harassment. Taking the personal risk to call for greater ethical standards for political leaders may not fix the roads, but it will do something just as important. It will rebuild public trust in local leaders by providing some concrete evidence that they subscribe to a set of moral standards, and that they want our political system to be just and fair for both their constituents and employees.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
LA isn't burning. ICE has terrorized many into an ominous silence.
The threat of ICE raids on commencement ceremonies was credible enough that our Los Angeles school district devised plans to protect students from being kidnapped as they received their diplomas. Apparently, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi and President Donald Trump, 'California is burning.' Here in Los Angeles, however, we know too well the smell of a serious conflagration ‒ and also the stench of political gas when politicians try to justify corrupt assertions of authoritarian power. We are protesting now not because we are lawless, but because what is happening is a racially selective application of immigration laws that should have been reformed years ago. We are protesting because we still believe in decency, human dignity and respect for hard work and family. Some protesting among us have succumbed to anger, while others have opportunistically caused mayhem the way some revelers do when the Lakers or the Dodgers win a championship. Meanwhile the president and his ministers of cruelty, hysteria and lies are opportunistically causing far more mayhem, disrupting businesses and communities and devastating families and insulting our brave troops by gratuitously deploying them to our streets, pitting them against American civilians, trying to use the selfless members of our military as an authoritarian flex. Rogue opportunists don't represent all LA protesters California is not burning. LA is not burning. Some cars and other objects have been set ablaze by a few individuals who are willing to go to jail for their outrage, nihilism, pyromania or whatever. Their conduct doesn't represent me or most of the rest of us. They certainly do not represent my students now living with terror and dread, watching masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in armored vehicles occupying the parking lots of their supermarkets, scrolling the rumors that scream across social media about the next ICE raid at another Home Depot or factory or a school graduation. The threat of ICE raids on this spring's commencement ceremonies was credible enough that our Los Angeles school district officials devised plans to protect parents, grandparents, and other friends and family members and the students themselves from being kidnapped as they receive their diplomas. My students didn't talk much about it during their last days of the school year. They were trying to be happy about the impending summer vacation. They are exhausted. They spent more than a year of their childhood isolated from peers by the COVID-19 pandemic, many of them trapped in chaotic circumstances, watching the parents who are now treated as expendable when they were essential workers compelled to risk their health and their family's health to keep things going for the rest of us. Some watched those parents get sick and in some cases die or infect grandparents or aunts and uncles who died. My students saw those sacrifices of their parents rewarded with vicious slights and condemnations, heard them called criminals for their very presence in this country. Those adults now must wonder if it is safe to go to work anymore, if there is any other way to provide food and shelter. This summer, end-of-the-school-year silence was ominous We can only guess what is happening to many of our students and their families, though. Not only because of their silent stoicism but because, actually, most stopped attending classes ‒ more of them than usual, even for the last week of school. I don't know what that means but I can imagine. One girl told me almost no one showed up recently at her usually crowded church. With fear and apprehension come small doses of relief. When a graduation goes unmolested by federal agents. When a kid reaches out by email to say they and their family are all right ‒ and asked that I round their grade up to a B. The end of a school year usually brings a silence that is a break from the constant cacophony. This year, that end-of-the-day at the end-of-the-school-year silence was ominous. This year, that silence reminds me of the cruelties. Not just the ICE raids and not just the threats to people who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights, but also the threats to Pell Grants and other forms of student financial aid that could derail the hopes and dreams of my students and undermine the hard work that my colleagues and I commit ourselves to every day. As a parent myself, I know how difficult it is to go through adolescence with a child. It can be frustrating and terrifying, and the feelings of powerlessness can overwhelm. I cannot imagine what it is like to experience that and wonder if you're going to suddenly be seized by armed men and not know if you will ever see your child again. So when I see the silent stoicism of my students, I don't know what to make of it. Is it fatalism or denial disguised as optimism or something else that I don't understand? Whatever it is, my colleagues and I will continue to indulge it and keep things as optimistic as the kids want it, understanding that there could be some we won't ever see again and others returning to school without parents at home. We will try to prepare ourselves to pick up the pieces left by the brutality that is being unleashed on some of the most vulnerable people in our city. Larry Strauss, a high school English teacher in South Los Angeles since 1992, is the author of 'Students First and Other Lies: Straight Talk From a Veteran Teacher' and "A Lasting Impact in the Classroom and Beyond," a book for new and struggling teachers.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns
WASHINGTON (AP) — The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill. The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called 'suppressors' by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks. The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled, or sawed-off, rifles and shotguns. Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful." 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.
