Honest journalism has become a crime. I have appeared numerous times on Maria Zaric’s program, Zeee Media. Maria is a professional journalist who asks thought-provoking questions to the experts that appear on her show. Her content goes against the grain and traditional narrative. The Australian-based journalist has been questioning COVID, the Great Reset, governments, globalists, the war in Ukraine, and many other topics that are completely taboo in the mainstream media. They attempted to shut down her channel in the past. Now, she has been de-banked with no explanation.
“Do you shut down peoples accounts due to their political views by any chance?” Maria asked the bank representative, only to be met with silence. Maria had been banking with ING Bank for numerous years without issues. Her account was suddenly shut down shortly after releasing a story on domestic terrorism in Australia. ING Bank has been unable to explain why her account was canceled.
Interestingly, ING is a partner of the World Economic Forum. Maria has extensively covered the WEF’s agenda to “enslave humanity.” Is Australia secretly keeping track of journalists’ “social credit scores” to silence skepticism?
The idea of eliminating someone’s ability to bank is essentially eliminating them from society. We saw Canadado the same thing to those protesting the Trucker Convoy. Trudeau took things a step further by also de-banking people who simply donated to the cause. The Canadian government used the premise of money laundering as a way to coerce the banks into reporting any activity that could have been intended to help the protestors. I know of numerous people who were frantically attempting to remove their funds from the bank during this time.
As if the public needed more reasons to lose trust in the banking system. This is not limited to one bank or country. I discussed how banks have the ability to “cancel” someone after JPMorgan Chase de-banked the rapper Kanye West for antisemitic remarks. The bank acts as the jury and judge. Epstein was permitted to hold funds at JPMorgan Chase despite an ongoing pedophile ring trial. Bernie Madoff banked with JPMorgan Chase. The bank has secret ties to the Third Reich and helped the group funnel money through South America during World War II. Again, the bank acts as the jury and judge; anyone can be de-banked anytime for any reason.
Most countries may not openly have social credit scores, but they’re keeping tabs on us. They are keenly aware that resistance to this New World Order is building. So they are now using professional journalists as examples hoping that people will stop asking questions to learn the truth. That is one of the reasons why this blog is free of charge – you deserve to know the truth.
QUESTION: Marty there are a lot of people who seem to be trying to create a panic. Some are claiming the stock market will plunge by 50%. Others are saying nothing will survive other than gold. It seems like none of these people have any sense of what is really unfolding. They were saying the same thing for different reasons before the banking crisis. Can you offer any historical perspective?
Thank you. You seem to be the only real source these days.
ANSWER: The Bank Holiday took place the first week of March 1933. It began with governors closing down the banks in their states. Once one began, like COVID rules, they quickly jumped on the bandwagon. As reported by March 4th, 1933, some 41 states had already declared a banking holiday. Back then, the president took office in March – not January. Thus, Roosevelt was sworn in on March 4th, 1933. As the new president, FDR delivered what is arguably his best-known speech.
“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is…fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.”
The following day, Roosevelt declared a national banking holiday on March 5th, 1933. Then Congress responded by passing the Emergency Banking Actof 1933 on March 9th, 1933. This action was combined with the Federal Reserve’s commitment to supply unlimited amounts of currency to reopened banks. Back then, they effectively created a de facto 100% deposit insurance and this was before the FDIC was created.
However, what the history books have omitted because it revealed the real reason for the major banking crisis, was the confiscation of gold precisely as Germany did in December 1922 seizing 10% of all assets which unleashed hyperinflation in 1923.
In Herbert Hoover’s memoirs (1951), he documents the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) played a very dirty game of politics. There were rumors that FDR would confiscate gold in 1932 BEFORE the election. These rumors spread and people ran to banks to withdraw their funds. The night before the election in 1932, FDR denied that he would do such a thing. After FDR won the election, the real bank panic began. FDR would not take office until March 1933.
The run on banks began as the Great Depression started. In 1929 alone, 659 banks closed their doors due to mismanagement and speculation. Ironically, to save money on paper, it was also in 1929 when the currency was reduced in size to save money. This time, they want to move to digital and save 100% on printing money. Here in 2023, the failures are due to the WOKE agenda which has deprived the banks of risk management rather than speculation.
However, as the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis hit, the number of bank failures skyrocketed. Goldman Sacks and others were selling foreign bonds to Americans in small denominations., As Europe began to default, US banks holding foreign debt and individuals in need of cash led to a banking panic for external reasons. Here is a chart showing the listing of bonds on the NYSE. We can easily see the collapse in the bond market thanks to the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis.
By 1932, an additional 5,102 banks went out of business. Families lost their life savings overnight. Thirty-eight states had adopted restrictions on withdrawals in an effort to forestall the panic. By March 4th, 41 states had declared a bank holiday shutting down banks. Bank failures increased in 1933, and Franklin Roosevelt deemed remedying these failing financial institutions his first priority after being inaugurated.
However, it was actually the election of FDR that started the banking crisis post-1931. Hoover pleaded with FDR to please come out and address the gold confiscation rumors. People had been hoarding their gold coins fearing the rumored confiscation. Despite Hoover’s plea for FDR to come out and deny the rumors after the election, he remained silent. Given FDR’s manipulation of Japan and the attack on Pearl Harbor which he appeared to instigate with sanctions confiscating Japanese assets in the USA, denying the sale of any energy to Japan, and then threatening to use the fleet to block them from buying fuel from anywhere else, They Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. There were Senate investigations afterward about FDR’s role because the US had already broken the Japanese code and knew in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor. He did that to force the US into World War II.
It was in his character to remain silent and create the worst banking crisis in history before he was sworn in as president. FDR was a radical socialist and many viewed that he admired Lenin. If it were not for Mr. Jones exposing the truth behind Stalin, even the corrupt New York Times journalist promoting Stalinism was meeting with FDR. The run on the banks became massive when FDR won the election on November 8th, 1932. FDR allowed the banking system to implode with people rushing to withdraw the money in gold coins.
At 1:00 a.m. on Monday, March 6th, 1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039 ordering the suspension of all banking transactions, effective immediately. Roosevelt had taken the oath of office only thirty-six hours earlier.
The terms of the presidential proclamation specified:
[N]o such banking institution or branch shall pay out, export, earmark, or permit the withdrawal or transfer in any manner or by any device whatsoever, of any gold or silver coin or bullion or currency or take any other action which might facilitate the hoarding thereof; nor shall any such banking institution or branch pay out deposits, make loans or discounts, deal in foreign exchange, transfer credits from the United States to any place abroad, or transact any other banking business whatsoever.
For an entire week, Americans would not have access to banks or banking services. They could not withdraw or transfer their money, nor could they make deposits. The entire economy ran simply on cash in your pocket.
While the first phase of the banking crisis unfolded after 1929 due to speculation losses (hence Glass–Steagall Act), then the second phase was the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis, it was the third phase with the election of FDR that led to thousands of banks failing as there was a mad rush to withdraw your gold coin. But a new round of problems that began in early 1933 placed a severe strain on New York banks, many of which held balances for banks in other parts of the country. About 4,000 banks failed during this period alone bringing the total to over 9,000.
Much to everyone’s relief, when the institutions that could reopen for business on March 13th, 1933 saw depositors standing in line to return their stashed cash to neighborhood banks. Within two weeks, Americans had redeposited more than half of the currency that they had withdrawn post-FDR’s election on November 8th, 1932. This would prove to be a sneaky trick of FDR to get people to redeposit all the gold coins they had withdrawn – as we are about to explore.
The stock market was also ordered closed when FDR came to power. With the cleverness of a real con artist operating a Ponzi Scheme to gain the confidence of the people, FDR needed the gold coin to be deposited for Phase 4 of the banking crisis. On March 15th, 1933, (The Ides of March), the stock market was allowed to reopen. On the first day of trading, the New York Stock Exchange recorded the largest one-day percentage price increase ever.
The week before the closure, the Dow Jones Industrials fell to 49.68. The week following the closure, the Dow rallied to 64.56 – a percentage gain of virtually 30% over the banking holiday. The shorts who were better on the collapse of the market once it reopened were devastated. It was a major short-covering rally.
With the benefit of hindsight, the nationwide Bank Holiday and the Emergency Banking Act of March 1933, ended the bank runs that had plagued the Great Depression, but it also set the stage for the confiscation of gold. What you have to understand is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) actions in 1933 were not directed simply at gold. He was embarking on what he called the New Deal, which was a Marxist Agenda that was very popular at the time. His New Deal would end austerity, whereby they were maintaining a balanced budget in the belief that they needed to inspire confidence in the currency.
It was this balanced budget philosophy that also inspired John Maynard Keynes who argued that in times of economic distress when the demand has collapsed, that is when the state needs to run a deficit and increase the money supply. There was a simultaneous international flight of capital from Europe to the United States in the face of European sovereign debt defaults. That capital flight lasted for nearly two years until FDR won the election in 1932. There was much concern that Roosevelt would do what Germany did in 1922 in confiscating assets. That was the rumor about the possible confiscation of gold.
Milton Friedman criticized the Fed because the capital flows poured into the US but they refused to monetize it. We can see that as Europe defaulted on its debts in 1931, the capital rushed head-first into the dollar. Then we see that the dollar peaked in November 1932 with the election of FDR fearing that would weaken the dollar and exploit the economy. All this gold came to the USA pushing the dollar higher, but the Fed refused to monetize it, was Milton’s criticism. The backing of gold behind the dollar doubled in supply between 1929 and 1931.
So, you must separate gold and the devaluation of the dollar to comprehend what the issue was all about. FDR could have simply abandoned the gold standard, as did Britain, and not confiscated gold. However, that would have also been sufficient to end austerity. But the bankers would have profited and sold the gold overseas at higher prices. Roosevelt in his confiscation of gold was intended to deprive the private sector of profiting from his devaluation of the dollar which was rising the price of gold from $20 to $35. You must keep in mind that he even degraded Pierre du Pont (1870-1954) and called him the “Merchant of Death” because he produced arms for World War I and made a profit off of that war demand. Many saw Roosevelt as a traitor to his own class.
The confiscation of the gold was for two reasons. First, FDR was changing the monetary system from one where there was no distinction domestically from internationally to a two-tier system. Gold would freely circulate without restriction only internationally. Therefore, the confiscation of gold was altering the monetary system moving to a two-tier monetary system with gold only used in international transactions.
Consequently, FDR confiscated gold to move to a two-tier system and to deprive Americans of any profit from his devaluation. What FDR then did was confiscate gold from all institutions ordering them to turn over whatever they had. Ironically, this move was intended to target bankers rather than the public. FDR did not have people knocking on every door demanding all their gold. That is why there are plenty of US gold coins that have survived. If individuals possessed them rather than an institution, then they kept what they owned
Therefore, Roosevelt was able to seize whatever gold existed in banks. He declared all contracts void that had gold provisions for payment. It was in Perry v. United States – 294 U.S. 330 (1935) that the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress, by virtue of its power to deal with gold coin as a medium of exchange, was authorized to prohibit its export and limit its use in foreign exchange. Hence, the restraint thus imposed upon holders of gold coins was incidental to their ownership of it, and gave them no cause of action. id/P. 294 U. S. 356.
The Supreme Court held that it could not say that the exercise of this power by Congress was arbitrary or capricious. id/P. 294 U. S. 356. They held that even if the Government’s repudiation of the gold clause in the government bonds was unconstitutional, it did not entitle the plaintiff to recover more than the loss he has actually suffered, and of which he may rightfully complain. id/P. 294 U. S. 354. Therefore, the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, held:
“insofar as it undertakes to nullify such gold clauses in obligations of the United States and provides that such obligations shall be discharged by payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts, is unconstitutional.” id/P. 294 U. S. 349.
Yet, swapping gold for dollars created no loss that was cognizable even though the taking of gold was unconstitutional. Clearly, the Supreme Court did not consider the loss in terms of foreign exchange. The Court reasoned:
“Plaintiff has not attempted to show that, in relation to buying power, he has sustained any loss; on the contrary, in view of the adjustment of the internal economy to the single measure of value as established by the legislation of the Congress, and the universal availability and use throughout the country of the legal tender currency in meeting all engagements, the payment to the plaintiff of the amount which he demands would appear to constitute not a recoupment of loss in any proper sense, but an unjustified enrichment.”
In my understanding of the law, those who argued before the Court made purely a domestic argument. A dollar was still a dollar in domestic terms so there was no cognizable loss and the Court did not reach the constitutional question. Had they argued that their loss was with respect to some debt owed in British pounds, they there was a loss. Purely domestically, the only loss would have been to inflation and the Court would never rule against the government on such an issue.
All of that said, there does not appear to be any historical precedent for the stock market to collapse by 50%, all tangible assets to turn to dust, and only gold will survive given a banking crisis where Biden and Yellen sit on each other’s hands and do nothing. Trust me. Every major Democratic donor will be screaming. And as for those claiming the Fed will reverse its position, say inflation is suddenly no longer a problem, and monetize everything in sight, this is even too big for the Fed. have to create QE and absorb all the debt, there to things have changed. If the Fed does that, it will also lose all credibility. It squarely understands that inflation comes from handing Ukraine a black check to the most corrupt government in the world. The Fed raised rates yesterday for it cannot back down. It is choreographing the best it can but the bankers do not listen.
If they simply stand behind all the deposits, then there will be no panic. That is what they did in 1933 and the market rallied in confidence thereafter.
The banking crisis continues and it is impacting funds that have been buying bonds. Allianz, a subsidiary of Pimco, is writing off countless millions with Credit Suisse bonds. The banking crisis has been the result of artificially low-interest rates for far too long and banks were used to free money and buy long-term bonds all because they were making their money on the spread. Now that rates are rising, their risk management was effectively nonexistent, and thus the losses and widespread.
The Allianz subsidiary Pimco is one of the largest asset managers in the world. They have to now write off a loss in Credit Suisse bonds and it’s ain’t over yet as we head into April 10th.
In an interview on May 11, 2014, I explained on USAWatchdog that confidence always outweighs reality. “It’s basically what you believe. There have been all sorts of studies on fundamentals that say if interest rates go up, stocks go down. It is simply not true. The stock market has never peaked with interest rates twice in history. If you think you are going to make 25% in the market, you’ll pay 10% interest; but if you really think the market is only going to go up 10%, you won’t pay 10%. So, it’s always the difference between what you believe and reality.”
The people have lost all confidence in government. We have heard rumors of a “soft landing” from the Fed for the past year, but the situation continues to worsen. Washington maintains that everything is stable as banks continue to fail and inflation rages on. There can be no price stability when war is at play. Biden just released his latest budget plan that no reasonable person would condone. I explained in 2014 that great empires all come crashing down after piling on massive debt. People believe hyperinflation would cause such a scenario, but debt is the major player. Once the government accumulates enormous debt, it targets its citizens aggressively. That is what we are seeing today.
So where should you put your money? I said in 2014: “One of the number one questions I get all the time is where do I put my money? If the banks can just take whatever they want now, there will be bail-ins rather than bail-outs. People are afraid. What do you do with the cash? So, people are buying things like real estate and stocks, just trying to get money out of the banking system.” That sentiment is continuing and the latest CPI report even showed that shelter costs are rising at the highest rate since June 1982. Smart money has been trying to escape the banks for years. There was no incentive until very recently to park money in the banks due to artificially low rates.
I also explained that the Fed would only bail out deposits and had been asking institutions to change their models. “Everybody knows I advise some of the big institutions around, and I can tell you that they have told me directly that the Fed went to them and told them they will not be bailed out for proprietary trading. It will be only on deposits. That’s it,” I stated. “The Fed has been going around telling them, ‘hey, you better change your models.’ They don’t think it will be a flight to quality as it was before. You buy the long term (Treasuries) and that saves you. They don’t think that’s going to happen. It’s quite interesting. . . . It looks like the long term (Treasury bonds) is going to end up starting to rise.”
Sound familiar to the current situation? People have moved from the public sector into the private sector. We are well into a private wave, and the public will not go back to the public sector for many years to come.
COMMENT: Marty; Two former Merrill Lynch traders were each sentenced to a year and a day in prison Thursday for manipulating the precious metals markets, the US Department of Justice announced. Of course, —- —–, which is forever bullish metals, claims they moved the metals in the “direction they wanted from 2008 to 2014.” It just seems that people claim it is always manipulation when they have been wrong. They only look at gold in dollars as you have said it’s a global market. They would have to manipulate all the currencies as well.
This latest affair of so-called manipulating trades during the day proves what you have been saying. They have always been gunning for stops during the day, but they cannot manipulate the trend between a bull or bear market. Do you think people will ever understand this is a global economy?
ANSWER: I know. Unless people have actually been a trader, they will never understand the market. They will blame people like this to pretend they were not wrong. The problem is that this nonsense of manipulation is driving a stake through the heart of the market. Trading is like a poker game. Do you reveal your hand before everyone starts to bet? Sometimes you bluff, but the point is if you are bluffing, you have to stand behind your bet.
The mere fact that someone is blaming this type of “manipulation” for being the reason they have been wrong demonstrates that they know nothing about investing no less trading. The DOJ is now big on calling placing large “spoof” orders as manipulation. That is absurd and it is no more than bluffing in a poker game. This is the way all the markets have always functioned. Everyone would know where the stops were anyway. Sometimes they traded ahead of them using the stops as your risk point to exit the trade, and other times they would sell or buy to push the market through the stops when it was obvious that was even possible.
When I was trading in precious metals back in the ’90s, the biggest “local” dealer on the floor was Oni Morrison. He would do “spoof” orders all the time which I called “flash” bids or offers. The difference was he was good for it if hit. I was long one time in gold and I wanted out for the computer projected a crash was coming. But if you offer a thousand lots and the market was heading lower, everyone will read that and jump in front of you. That is how the Hunts went bankrupt. The Hunts did not know how to trade. Just as in poker, you cannot show your hand and expect to trade.
Oni would do “flash” bids or offers. I told my broker not to offer anything. I told him just to watch Oni and as soon as he would do a 1,000 flash to buy – say done! Sure enough, Oni was trying to push the market back up and he did one of his famous flash bids for 1,000 lots. My broker, Emerald Trading, instantly said “DONE!” Oni did it again, and they said “DONE!” Again he did a fash for 1,000 and again they said “DONE!” That was it. Oni was full and everyone began selling as the metals tumbled.
That is the way you have to trade SIZE. This is the very foundation of trading all markets for everything is just a poker game. To now call a “spoof” trade manipulation is just wrong. It is totally different when you do not have the backing. Now that would be a fraud and trying to manipulate the market for that moment – not changing the overall trend. But when you have the backing to honor your “spoof” it is just a “flash” bid or offer that you must stand behind when hit. That is just trading.
It is total BS to pretend that these guys manipulated the entire market. That is just absurd. Not even the central bank can manipulate the economy. You cannot “manipulate” a market against the trend for everything is connected. That caused the Panic of 1893 when the Silver Democrats overpriced silver. The Europeans hit the arbitrage and dumped silver in the US and took the gold back to Europe. That led J.P. Morgan to have to arrange a $100 million gold loan to bail out the treasury. That alone proved that you CANNOT manipulate ANY market against its trend for it will be arbitraged internationally – plain & simple.
Gold trading around the world in different exchanges is arbitraged. You cannot have gold $20 high in one market v another. It will be arbitraged instantly. Those who claim this as “proof” that the metals have been manipulated so that is why they have not rallied and why they have been wrong are fools who have been separated from the money. They will never understand the markets no less be able to see beyond the end of their nose. It will be instantly arbitraged.
The collapse of the Soloman Brothers was precisely that. They were putting in bids at the Treasury Auction using other people’s names to goose the market. They got caught and the firm was taken down. I know PhiBro from the ’70s and ’80s. They took over Solomon Brothers and brought that style of trading from the commodity pits to Wall Street.
This excuse by goldbugs that the metals were actually “manipulated” in their long-term trend, shows their hopeless ignorance of the markets and how they even trade. There is NOBODY who could possibly do such a thing for everything connected. As soon as the dollar would rise, the metals in terms of foreign currency would be so overvalued they would all sell and they will end up broke the same as the Silver Democrats bankrupted the country by overvaluing silver.
Trading internationally, with clients in all currencies, we have to look at each market in terms of their currency for that will determine if they made a profit or loss. Anyone who claims the metals have been manipulated and that is why they have not rallied is obviously oblivious to the world around them.
Gold does NOT rise with inflation – that is the sales pitch of a used car salesman. Gold rises in times of UNCERTAINTY with respect to the government. In times of war, it rises because it is NEUTRAL and you are not betting on who will win.
All we hear is that the debt is rising and therefore gold will explode. Once again, they offer no proof of their sophistry because there is no such proof. Gold declined for 19 years while the national debt climbed endlessly.
Then there is the myth about interest rates and gold that higher rates are bearish and lower rates are bullish. Well, interest rates peaked in 1981 and declined in 1994 before they began to rise marginally into 1995. Yet then contrast that myth with the performance of the dollar. There the greenback rose to a record high in 1985 but then declined for 10 years into 1995 all the while gold declined into 1999.
OK, so now let’s look at gold between 1980 and 200 in terms of Swiss francs and British pounds. We can instantly see that gold bottomed in 1985 in terms of the Swiss franc. In terms of British pounds, gold did not bottom until 1999.
People come up with theories all the time. However, they always try to reduce everything to a single cause and effect. They are doing that with climate change. They are telling the world it is CO2 that has changed the climate without ever addressing anything else.
The world we live in is not only complex, but it is also so dynamic it appears that no human can correctly forecast the future with an “I think” scenario. Sometimes they will be right, and others they will be wrong. Typically, they fail because they try to reduce the world to a single cause and effect.
Gold Rises with UNCERTAINTY with respect to the question of will the government survive its own madness.
Gallup has just confirmed what our computer has been forecasting especially since 2011. The majority of Americans now say that a lack of leadership from President Biden and Congress is the country’s biggest problem and that means the entire world. Perhaps aliens should have a right to vote for the decisions of the Biden Administration are destroying lives around the world.
The Gallup Poll shows that it is the collapse of confidence in a government that is now viewed as the greatest threat even more so than inflation, the immigration crisis, and the state of the economy. Despite Americans suffering economically with higher taxes and inflation reducing the standard of living, they have cited that “the government/poor leadership” is now in the No. 1 spot taking that place from inflation over the past year. Gallup has reported that 21% of Americans name our incompetent government as the “most important problem facing this country today” compared to the 15% who said so last year, a Gallup Poll found.
Inflation and the economy came in last year as the top two issues — tied at 16% each — followed by the government (15%), immigration (8%), and unifying the country (6%). However, over the past year, Americans’ concerns with the economy fell 6% to 10%, with inflation falling one point to 15%, and immigration rose 3 points to 11%.
Just wait until they realize that the Biden Administration is so incompetent, it has allowed the Neocons to wage World War III on two fronts – China and Russia. These people will destroy Western Civilization and that is what 2032 is all about.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-California): Good morning. Thanks for having me back in studio.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It must be sobering to hear that reminder.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, it took me a little while to get there, but it feels good.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you are here now at this key moment in time. And I want to get to some of the top agenda items.
You have accepted an invitation to meet with President Biden. When will that happen, and what offer will you put on the table?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, we’re going to meet this Wednesday.
I know the president said he didn’t want to have any discussions, but I think it’s very important that our whole government is designed to find compromise. I want to find a reasonable and a responsible way that we can lift the debt ceiling, but take control of this runaway spending.
I mean, if you look at the last four years, the Democrats have increased spending by 30 percent, $400 billion. We’re at a 120 percent of GDP. We haven’t been in this place to debt since World War 2. So we can’t continue down this path.
And I don’t think there’s anyone in America who doesn’t agree that there’s some wasteful Washington spending that we can eliminate.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: So, I want to sit down together, work out an agreement that we can move forward to put us on a path to balance, at the same time, not put any — any of our debt in jeopardy at the same time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But avoid a default, in other words?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But do you have any indication that the president is willing to discuss both lifting the debt ceiling and the issue of future spending?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, if he’s changed his mind from his whole time in the Senate and vice president before — I mean, he literally led the talks in 2011 and he praised having those talks. This is what he’s always done in the past.
And if he listens to the American public, more than 74 percent believe we need to sit down and find ways to eliminate this wasteful spending in Washington. So, I don’t believe he would change his behavior from before, and I know there’s a willingness on our side to find a way that we can find a reasonable and responsible way to get this done.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But, right, I mean, you know why I’m asking that…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … in terms of not linking one as leverage for the other.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.
Well, in my first conversation — and, to be fair, the president, when he called me to congratulate winning speaker, this is one of the first things I brought up to him. And he said we’d sit down together.
Now, I know his staff tries to say something different, but I think the president is going to be willing to make an agreement together.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we’ll watch for that on Wednesday.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I’m hopeful, yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to dig into what you are willing to put on the table because Republicans campaigned on fiscal responsibility.
You promised you won’t spend more next year than you did last year. Are you willing to consider any reductions to Social Security and Medicare?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No. Let’s take those off the table. We want to…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Completely?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.
I mean, if you read our commitment to America, all we talk about is strengthening Medicare and Social Security. So — and I know the president says he doesn’t want to look at it, but we’ve got to make sure we strengthen those. I think…
MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you mean by strengthen them? You mean lift the retirement age, for example?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, no, no.
What I’m talking about, Social Security and Medicare, you keep that to the side. What I want to look at is, they’ve increased spending by 30 percent, $400 billion, in four years. When you look at what they have done, adding $10 trillion of debt for the next 10 years in the short time period, if you just look a month ago, they went through and they never even passed a bill through appropriations in the Senate.
While Mr. Schumer has been leader, he’s never passed a budget. He’s never passed the appropriation bill. He simply waits to the — to the end of the year and allowed two senators who are no longer here to write a $1.7 trillion omnibus bill. I think we…
MARGARET BRENNAN: You want to work with Democrats to come to agreement on a budget?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that what you’re saying?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, I — I first think our very first responsibility, we both should have to pass a budget. We both should have to pass the appropriations bill, so the country can see the direction we’re going.
But you cannot continue the spending that has brought this inflation, that has brought our economic problems. We’ve got to get our spending under control.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK, just fact-check, though, 25 percent of the debt was incurred during the last four years of the Trump presidency. I mean, this is cumulative debt over many, many years.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, well, over the short — this time period.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But you’ve also found that you had a pandemic.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: And, as that pandemic comes down, those programs leave. I have watched the president say he cut it.
No, it is spending $500 billion more than what was projected. They have spent more. And we’ve got to stop the waste.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is defense spending on the table?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, look, I — I want to make sure we’re protected in our defense spending, but I want to make sure it’s effective and efficient.
I want to look at every single dollar we’re spending, no matter where it’s being spent. I want to eliminate waste wherever it is.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But when you became speaker, you did come to that agreement I have referenced of capping ’24 spending at ’22 levels.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, look, listen…
MARGARET BRENNAN: So that would call for reductions.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, I mean, look, you’re going to tell me, inside defense, there’s no waste? Others? I mean…
MARGARET BRENNAN: So defense spending is up for negotiation?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: They spend a lot of — I think everything, when you look at discretionary, is sitting there.
It’s like every single household. It’s like every single state. We shouldn’t just print more money. We should balance our budget. So I want to look at every single department. Where can we become more efficient, more effective, and more accountable? That should be…
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, more efficiencies in Social Security and Medicare as well?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The one thing I want to say, we take Social Security…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Completely?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … and Medicare off the table.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you support a short-term debt limit extension until September, buy more time for talks?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Look, I don’t want to sit and negotiate here.
I would rather sit down with the president, and let’s have those discussions. The one thing I do know is, we cannot continue the waste that is happening. We cannot continue just to spend more money and leverage the debt of the future of America.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We’ve got to get to a balanced budget.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, and I think many people would agree with you on the issue of fiscal responsibility, but there’s that deadline on the calendar in terms of facing potential default.
Are you saying…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, wait. Wait a minute…
MARGARET BRENNAN: … you will guarantee the United States will not do that?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Listen, we’re not going to default.
But let me be very honest with you right now. So we hit the statutory date. But let’s take a pause. We have hundreds of billions of dollars. This won’t come to fruition until sometime in June. So the responsible thing to do is sit down like two adults and start having that discussion.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Unfortunately, the White House was saying before, like, they wouldn’t even talk.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I’m — I’m thankful that we’re meeting on Wednesday, but that’s exactly what we should be doing.
And we should be coming to a responsible solution. Every family does this. What is — what has happened with the debt limit is, you reached your credit card limit. Should we just continue to raise the limit? Or should we look at what we’re spending?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it’s paying past commitments.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: If Chuck Schumer — yes, but if — no, no.
Chuck Schumer never passed a budget since he’s been leading. He’s never passed an appropriation bill. Those are the most basic things that Congress should do. And what — if you’re going to show to the American public where you want to spend your money, and if you’re going to ask the hardworking taxpayer for more of their money, you first should lay out how you’re going to spend it, and you should eliminate any waste, so you don’t have to raise more taxes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But just to put a fine point on it, because it matters a lot to the markets in particular, you will avoid a default? You will not let that happen on your watch?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Look, there will not be a default.
But what is really irresponsible is what the Democrats are doing right now, saying you should just raise the limit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But would you…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I think…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you get in the way — if 15 Republicans came to you and said they would be willing to raise the debt limit…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The only person — but let me be very clear.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … would you allow them to do so with Democrats?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The person — the only person who is getting in the way right now is the president and Schumer. They won’t even pass a budget. They won’t even negotiate. We have now until June.
I want to make sure we have something responsible, something that we can move forward on and something that we can balance our debt with. So I’m looking for sitting down. That’s exactly what I have been asking for. The only one who’s playing with the markets right now is the president to have the idea that he wouldn’t talk.
Does the president really believe and, really, all your viewers, do you believe there’s no waste in government? Do you believe there was no waste in that $1.7 trillion? That’s what we were spending just four weeks ago. So, I think the rational position here is, sit down, eliminate the waste and put us on a path to balance.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll watch for that meeting on Wednesday.
I want to ask you about your vision of leadership. You made a number of deals within your party to win the speakership. Senator Mitch McConnell, your Republican colleague, said: “Hopefully McCarthy was not so weakened by all this that he can’t be an effective speaker.”
How can you effectively govern with a very narrow majority and when your conference is so divided?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, that may be somebody else’s opinion. So let’s just see what my father always said. It’s not how you start. It’s how you finish.
So, let’s — you see what happened in the first week. So, in the very first week, we have passed what? We repealed the 87,000 IRS agents. We bipartisanly created a new Select Committee on China, where 146 Democrats joined with us.
We bipartisanly passed to stop the Strategic Petroleum Reserve being sold to China, where 113 Democrats joined with us. We have just now, for the first time on the House — it hasn’t happened in seven years, the entire time the Democrats were in the majority, where you had an open rule.
And let me explain what that is. An open rule allows every single member of the House to offer an amendment on a bill. So what I’m trying to do here is let every voice in America have their ability inside the House. We opened the House back up so the public could actually join.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re arguing you haven’t been weakened? But…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I — no, it’s only been strengthened.
Maybe people didn’t like what they saw that we didn’t win on the very first vote, but that was democracy. And what you found at the end of the day, we’re actually stronger.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I would…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You know what else?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We changed it where members of Congress now have to show up for work. I know, in the Senate, they don’t come very often.
But if you look what we’ve been able to do, we’re transforming Congress. We’re looking for solutions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you also allowed one — just one member now can force a vote to oust you as speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: OK.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How can you expect to serve in the next two years in this role?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Exactly how every other speaker has served with that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Without those rules like that right now.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a risk.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: OK.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I mean, do you really think you can control the Freedom Caucus and some of those more conservative members who gave you such a hard time?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Everybody has a voice.
But let me — let me explain that. That one vote to vacate, that’s not new. That’s been around for 100 years. The only person who took it away when they got a small majority was Nancy Pelosi. So, Nancy felt she did not have the power to stay in office if that was there. I’m very comfortable in where we are.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: So I don’t have any fear in that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You don’t regret any of the concessions you made?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The only concession I made was taking it from five to one, where it’s been around for 100 years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about some of the makeup of your caucus.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: According to CBS records, 70 percent of the House GOP members denied the results of the 2020 election.
You’ve put many of them on very key committees, Intelligence, Homeland Security, Oversight. Why are you elevating people who are denying reality like that?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, if you look to the Democrats, their ranking member, Raskin, had the same thing, denied Trump when Bush was in there. Bennie Thompson, who was the…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Did you see those numbers we just put up there?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Did you see the — yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Seventy percent.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Did you also be fair and equal and where you looked at Raskin did the same thing. Bennie Thompson, who’s a ranking member and was the chair?
These individuals were chair in the Democratic Party.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m asking you, as leader of Kevin McCarthy’s House…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But I’m also — I’m also…
MARGARET BRENNAN: … why you made these choices. These were your choices.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, They’re my choices, but they’re the conference choices.
But I’m also asking you, when you look to see just Republicans, Democrats have done the same thing. So maybe it’s not denying. Maybe it’s the only opportunity they have to have a question about what went on during the election.
So, if you want to hold Republicans to that equation, why don’t you also hold Democrats? Why don’t you hold Jamie Raskin? Why don’t you hold Bennie Thompson, when Democrats had appointed them to be chair? I never once heard you ask Nancy Pelosi or any Democrat that question when they were in power in the majority, when they questioned…
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re talking about things going back to 2000, which was a time…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, you’re talking about…
MARGARET BRENNAN: … when I didn’t have this show back then…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … which is why I’m asking you now about your leadership.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, on, but they were — they were in power last Congress. So, why — why…
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you’re talking about questions from 2000 election.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But you’re asking me about that happened to another Congress.
MARGARET BRENNAN: About these choices you just made, you just made.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You’re asking about questions for another Congress.
So, the only thing I’m simply…
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is your Congress.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: These — these are members who just got elected by their constituents, and we put them into committees, and I’m proud to do it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about some specifics then. Marjorie Taylor Greene, you put her on a new subcommittee to investigate the origins of COVID.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: She compared mask requirements to the type of abuse Jews were subjected to during the Holocaust. She called for Fauci to be arrested and imprisoned, and she spread conspiracy theories.
How is anyone supposed to take that work seriously and find that work credible?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Very well. You look at all of it, so you have all the questions out there. I think what the American public…
MARGARET BRENNAN: You think these are legitimate questions?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I think what the American public wants to see is an open dialogue in the process. This is a select committee where people can have all the questions they want, and you’ll see the outcome.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You know that there is a lot of doubt about institutions and faith in institutions in this country.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Oh, yes, when you saw what happened in Congress where they had proxy voting, where bills didn’t go through committees, and you…
MARGARET BRENNAN: I don’t think most people know what proxy voting is.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, let — well let — Well, let’s explain what proxy…
MARGARET BRENNAN: But — but approval…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But I think it would be fair to your viewers…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Approval level, according to Gallup, of Congress is at 22 percent. Approval level of journalists is also not very high, I will give you that.
But doesn’t it further wear down credibility when you put someone who is under state, local, federal, and international investigation as a representative of your party on committees?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Are you talking about Swalwell?
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m talking about George Santos…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, I…
MARGARET BRENNAN: … representative from New York.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, we should have that discussion. So let’s have that discussion.
You want to bring up Santos, and let’s talk about the institution itself, because I agree wholeheartedly that Congress is broken. And I think your — I think your listeners or viewers should understand what proxy voting was, because it never took place in Congress before.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But I’m asking you about George Santos.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I know you asked me a question. Let me ask you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you could put it to a vote to try to oust him.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You asked me a question. I would appreciate if you let me answer.
So let’s go through this, because it’s not one simple answer. Congress is broken, based upon what has transpired in the last Congress. The American public wasn’t able to come in to see us. People voted by proxy, meaning you didn’t have to show up for work, Bills didn’t go — have to go through committee.
So what I’m trying to do is open the people’s house back for the people so their voice is there, so people are held accountable.
So, now, as I just had in the last week, for the first time in seven years…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … every member got to vote.
MARGARET BRENNAN: If you got a third of your caucus to vote to oust him, you could do so.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you — you don’t think you could get your Republicans to do that?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I wasn’t finished answering the question.
So, if every single new person brought into Congress was elected by their constituents, what their constituents have done is lend their voice to the American public. So those members can all serve on committee.
Now, what I’m trying to do is change some of these committees as well, like the Intel Committee is different than any other committee.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you’re just not going to answer the question I asked?
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, no, I — no, you don’t get a question whether I answer it. You asked a question. I’m trying to get you through that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I don’t think you’ve said the name George Santos, like, once.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I have asked you a few times.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But you know what? I just — but — but…
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re talking about proxy voting and other things.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, no, no, but — no, you started the question with Congress was broken, and I agreed with you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: No. Congress…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But I was answering the question of how Congress is broken and how we’re changing it.
So, if I can finish the question that you asked me, how Congress is broken, I equated every single member…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … that just got elected by their — by their constituents. They have a right to serve.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: So that means that Santos can serve on a committee…
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … the same way Swalwell, who had a relationship with a Chinese spy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Speaker…
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But they will not serve on Intel, because I think…
MARGARET BRENNAN: They’re wrapping me in the control room, because we have a break.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well that’s unfortunate. I wish I could answer the question.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I have to leave it there. I would love to have you back.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I would love to be able to come back and have time to answer the questions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. We’ve spent a lot of time here, and I have more questions for you.
The debtceiling has currently hit $31.4 trillion (Pi), representing borrowing that the Treasury undertakes to fund its financial obligations, ranging from safety-net benefits such as Social Security. Is this coincidence, or is the magic number where the government starts to lose control? As Socrates has been forecasting, this is the end of the road for our Republican forms of government. They are irresponsible, show no form of fiscal management, and exploit every possible means to sustain their power. The problem has been that they never see the end of the road. They think they can keep borrowing year after year and the public will keep buying.
The real crisis is the amount of new debt that the government needs to issue, is exceeding the balance sheet of the Primary Dealers. If they must buy the debt to retain their status, then if they cannot sell the debt, that is when you are looking at a major banking crisis. It is actually cheaper at this point to simply print the money and stop this fool’s game of pretending to be running the system responsibly.
It is time to turn out the lights on the stupid game of running endless deficits and borrowing when there is NEVER any intention to ever pay off the debt. Let’s stop the nonsense for this cannot continue indefinitely.
From the birth of the US paper dollar in 1861, it will be 19 intervals of 8.6 years in 2024. We have reached the Rubicon. It is almost time to celebrate a new beginning is on the horizon.