[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 30, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H4354-H4357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MATH DOESN'T LIE
(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr.
Schweikert of Arizona was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of
the majority leader.)
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, this is going to be another presentation
of basically budget, debt, my frustration with this place, and my
frustration with telling the truth.
Look, we are a remarkable country, no matter what you hear often from
our brothers and sisters, particularly from the left, a quarter
millennium of a remarkable experiment. We have brought more freedom to
the world, more prosperity to the world, more ingenuity to the world,
more health to the world.
I think sometimes our dourness, if that is a word, our frustration--
and Heaven knows I am a sinner on this. I am terrified of our
unwillingness to
[[Page H4355]]
tell the truth about basic math. So we are going to walk behind these
mikes over and over and over and desperately try to find whatever the
dopamine hit is of the day, and yet, we will borrow another $6 billion,
$7 billion today.
Last week, when I did this, I had my little boy, who had just turned
4 years old that day, running behind us. It was so much fun. Yet, the
comments we received from the folks who are unique enough to watch
something like this commented on the little boy, not necessarily the
math.
I was trying to make the point at one moment saying: Here is my 4-
year-old we have adopted. It is the greatest gift God has ever given
someone, and he is healthy. We were terrified he would never be
healthy. He was born with rather severe drugs. This government has made
a decision we will need 104 percent of that little boy's lifetime
earnings just to pay the Federal Government pensions, to cover Social
Security, Medicare, military retirement, our retirement, 104 percent of
the generation of young people today, we are so upside-down
mathematically.
{time} 1910
I also tried--and I am going to do it again because apparently I
didn't do it very well. We passed a housing bill. I voted ``no''
because there were too many gimmicks and it made government too big.
Fine, personal opinion. I actually have a background in housing
economics.
However, not once did someone come behind these microphones and say
that one of the primary problems in affordability of you being able to
purchase a home, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that if we had a normal debt
load, then you would be paying 5.5 percent on today's 30-year loan.
Instead you are paying 6.5 percent.
Why?
It is because the United States is going to borrow probably $2.3
trillion this year. We are crowding you out, Mr. Speaker. We are
raising the price of money.
I have given presentation after presentation saying that if we keep
this up for much longer, then the bond market is going to run this
country. We will exist in a fear of the weekly and monthly debt
auctions.
We actually brought some data just trying to show the difference
between 2011, and right now the interest rate movement. This is
interest rates. We are paying 1 point higher because of the scale of
U.S. sovereign debt borrowing that when you buy that 30-year mortgage,
Mr. Speaker, on an average priced home--and I think we used an average
priced home in Arizona, not here in D.C.--you are going to pay about
$2,500 more, and over the life of that loan, $76,000 more.
That is just the cost of money because we, as a government, borrowed
so much. We are responsible for that higher expense in the interest
rates.
Except for the problem here is the hallways here are full of armies
of people coming into our office demanding more money.
What happens when, Mr. Speaker, you and I go home?
We tell the truth.
Now, we make people angry because I am starting to worry: Voters, do
you want us to lie to you?
Is that actually what you are asking for?
Do you want us to tell you things that set off a good dopamine hit,
that make you feel this, but don't tell you the truth about the
demographics, debt, and deficit?
That is because at that point, it is not a conversation of what else
we can give you. It is going to be a conversation of how we are going
to fix it.
The data is actually pretty darn clear. Our borrowing raises your car
loan, Mr. Speaker, and raises the cost of you financing your small
business. Heaven knows, it is going to cost on an average home in
Tempe, Phoenix--not Scottsdale--about $76,000 more in interest. That is
a knockoff effect.
Let us actually start. I am going to produce a whole bunch of boards
here. My rule used to be that I am going to give you the problem, Mr.
Speaker, and then I am going to give you a series of solutions. I am
tired of coming here with solutions and then realizing there is not a
chance in hell--I can't even get cosponsors because it would mean
telling the truth.
When I have come here and shown the MedPAC reports, there is $1
trillion, $2 trillion of misalignment because some of it is legal on
the edge. We introduced a bill. The preliminary score was $1.84
trillion of savings over 10 years just to fix some of the things in
Medicare Advantage that wouldn't cut a single service, and I got told
this morning in conference: David, you don't understand. It has the
word Medicare. We are not allowed to talk about that in an election
year, but we will fix it next year.
I have been here 16 years, and it is always next year.
Let us take a look at this chart. I often start with this one because
so few people understand.
Mr. Speaker, do you see the blue area?
That is all you, as a Member of Congress, get to vote on, unless it
is a reconciliation budget, except we now use reconciliation budgets to
pass things, not save money. Here is your math problem: As of today,
just this little net interest sliver for this fiscal year will be 20
percent of all tax receipts. So when you pay $1, 20 cents of that is
just covering interest.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to show you some charts here that in 9 years
how big that math actually gets. But understand, your government is
functionally an insurance company with an army. I love that line. Think
about it. It will make sense.
Nondefense and defense, that is all we vote on, and we are about to
make this much bigger. People go to war with us when we are trying to
cut down nondefense.
Mr. Speaker, a moment of truth. Let's have some fun here. DOGE
identified $0.25 trillion in potential savings modeling. What has made
it through the legislative process is about $7 billion, basically what
we will borrow today.
I know folks aren't really good at math with lots of zeros. Our
government borrows about $1 million every 13 seconds or so. In 13, 13.5
seconds, we borrow $1 million, and then $1 million. So often we will
have debates here and say that this will save $3 million. I try to
explain that it barely covered 30-some seconds of borrowing.
We are now borrowing about 90--if you do just this fiscal year so
far, so just this fiscal year, about $73,000 a second.
If you do the last 12 months--understand there is a blip in there
because we had the extraordinary measures where we didn't have a debt
ceiling and we had to refund it. But if you do the last 12 months, we
are borrowing about $98,000 per second.
I know everyone is going to talk about that, right?
All right, let's get to the math. Let's do some speed dating on math.
Do you see this chart, Mr. Speaker?
This is basically to make a point. We are in the OECD, basically the
organization of developed economies.
Do you notice the red one down here, Mr. Speaker?
If you add up everything, Mr. Speaker, we are borrowing 7.9 percent
of our entire economy. We are the worst in the entire industrialized
world.
Mr. Speaker, if you actually start to take a look, you start seeing
countries like Greece--and those are much healthier than we are. Do you
realize today Greece can sell a 10-year bond substantially cheaper than
the United States?
Of course, we are going to work on that and talk about it next year.
Let us actually walk through some of what is going on.
Remember, Mr. Speaker--I am going to try to make this point a couple
of times through the presentation in some of the last slides--the
primary driver of the debt is not a tax cut over here. It is our
demographics. Next year the data looks like we are going to have fewer
under 18 than we had 20 years ago and double the number 65 and up.
Are we allowed to actually say that?
It is not personal. It is not actually Democrat or Republican, it is
just math.
{time} 1920
Mr. Speaker, I am blessed to hold the chairmanship for the Joint
Economic Committee, so I have a handful of guys who all have Ph.D.'s,
and we geek out on this. We are trying to find ways, and they are
terrified with me.
I have done presentation after presentation here of my chairmanship
from
[[Page H4356]]
Ways and Means over the Oversight Subcommittee, where the fraud we
found in so many programs--can I get a piece of legislation? Can we
actually have an honest discussion of fixing it?
Well, we would have to take on the lobbyists. We would actually have
to tell the truth. We would actually have to redesign the programs. We
would actually have to have an honest conversation of some of the fraud
we found in things like Medicaid and Medicare. Even then, understand,
we have worked on this over and over.
It is still 7 to 12 percent of the spending we can figure out is
missed payments, fraud. The majority of it isn't some international
syndicate coming and stealing money from us. It is things we, as
Members of Congress, have allowed to happen because when we find it, we
don't go back and fix the law because that would be hard because we
will have to take on advertising. They will say mean things about us.
``Raising spending, not falling revenues, have driven long-term
deficits.''
Here is a point: Revenues. Go back to 2015 all the way through what
we have modeled. You will notice it is consistent. It is basically that
the long-term projection sits about 18.8 percent of the entire economy
we are collecting. Back down here was slightly below, 17.8, 17.9. It is
not tax cuts. It is demographics.
Here is the problem: Our spending, when we get 30 years from now,
almost 28 percent of the entire economy, but I need to make a point.
When you actually look at some of these charts, you are going to
actually see--and I am bouncing around--if we do current policy--let me
explain for those who are not budget geeks.
Here is the law. In our laws, we have: Oh, taxes are going to go back
up in 4 years. Oh, that program is going to get cut in 4 years. We used
to have this thing called paygo, pay as you go, except in the law,
there was a scam. It says if it goes beyond 5 years, we have to find
offsets to pay for it, but if you write the law that it ends in 5
years, even though they never end in 5 years because we always extend
it, then you don't have to score it. You don't have to score it as more
long-term debt. We lie in our budget documents.
Here is the current law. So last summer, 1 year ago, we had a whole
fight about this. Do you use current law or current policy, even though
this current law had all these things ending? So we couldn't win that
so we used current policy, which actually gave it--extending of the
current spending.
Now, when you start to take a look, you start realizing that revenue
has basically stayed the same, but now you are borrowing about or
spending about 32 percent of the entire economy. Then, you take another
look at it: Budget deficits under current policy will exceed 14 percent
of the entire GDP.
That is in 30 years. How many of you plan to be around in 30 years?
If you plan to be around in 30 years, think about this: Treasury
tomorrow wants to sell a 30-year bond. There is still a remarkably
liquid market buying our bonds. When will the folks buying that 30-year
bond start to realize: I have a problem.
Thirty years from now, if we stayed with the current both law and our
policy baseline, you have about 14 percent of the country's GDP just in
borrowing, not spending. It is not in building things. It is just
paying interest.
Let's get back on track here. This is one of the things I have railed
about over and over because I get frustrated with it. CBO keeps having
to readjust its baseline. Why does it have to readjust its baseline? It
readjusts because things happen: COVID happens; a war happens; 2008
happens; and Congress happens. Understand, if you and I take a look at
what were our projections, we functionally have added just about--I
think this all adds up to $1.39 trillion in additional spending in the
baseline.
It is geeky, but what it means is, when CBO puts out a report, it is
of what they have, but they are constantly having to update it because
things happen in the economy; interest rates go up; and we spend money
and don't pay for it.
Let's actually walk through another famous chart. Ever since the
pandemic legislation--during the pandemic, we were spending about
$63,000 per American citizen. Guess what. Today, that is way down. We
are spending about $55,000 per American citizen, but over the next 9
years, it goes up to $66,000. If you add up all the spending, add up
all the residents of the United States, citizens, $66,000 is our spend.
Right now, it was $55,000. Anyone see a math problem? If you don't see
the math problem--I am going to bite my tongue.
Budget deficits under current law will reach $3.1 trillion by 2036,
so that is 9 budget years from now, because we are working on right
now--hopefully, we are finishing and passing the 2027 stuff. This is
under current law. I need you to understand how devastatingly ugly this
number is, and when I show you under current policy, it is even worse.
This is 9 budget years from now. CBO last February said, hey, we are
going to be borrowing $3.1 trillion that year, 2.1 of it will be just
interest. So, the structural deficit will be only a trillion dollars,
but on top of that, we owe $2.1 trillion in interest. Okay.
What does that actually mean to us if we just--this is under current
law. That means, in 9 budget years, 31 percent of every tax dollar that
is paid, meaning income tax, payroll tax, and tariffs, everything
coming in, in 9 budget years, 31 percent of all those tax collections
will be just interest. It will be just interest, and this is on current
law, assuming no wars, no pandemics, no market crashes, and no
additional spending from Congress.
If you come back over here, my math says 20 percent. The chart says
19 percent. Depending what revenues are, it could be 21. That is this
year. Let's just use 20 percent. This year, when you write $100, $20 of
that just went to pay interest. Anyone see a problem?
Let's see. ``Budget deficits under current policy will reach $4.4
trillion.'' See what I am doing here. This one said the deficit--and I
am sorry; this is a little awkward--in 9 budget years is $3.1 trillion
under current law, but if we keep doing what we have been doing, which
is we just extend current policy.
I am sorry this is geeky, but it is math. This is going to destroy
the Republic. We have made it a quarter millennium, I would like this
to be another American century. I would like it to be the place my 10-
year-old and my now 4-year-old prosper. Hell, I would like to have a
nice, quiet retirement, but in 9 budget years, it is no longer $3.1
trillion of borrowing. It is $4.4 trillion if we follow current
spending policy, current baseline spending, not current baseline law.
Anyone see a problem?
{time} 1930
Mr. Speaker, are we even allowed to talk about this? Because I know
the armies of folks, often both at home and in our hallways here,
demanding more money, telling us they are going to say mean things
about us on social media unless we hand them more checks or we do
things to regulate their competition. This is what this place has
become. I am terrified we have hit the point where, on Twitter and X,
someone saying something mean about me is now a policy override over a
calculator.
Here is one of the drivers of this, one of the things that is really
uncomfortable to talk about: We have a shortage of young people in the
country. It is a math problem. Look, we are only a couple ticks over
zero population growth right now. There are a couple datasets out
there--depending on what continues with immigration policy and a couple
of other things--sometime in the next 5 years, we may actually, as a
country, go slightly negative. You go, oh, good.
Remember, Medicare and Social Security are pay-as-you-go programs. I
did the presentation a couple weeks ago on the Social Security actuary
report. I am sure every Member of Congress pulled it out, read it,
highlighted it, and noticed you had about 6 years and 3 months before
the trust funds are empty.
If we followed the law--I think the Social Security actuary report is
wrong on their math, but they said in 6 years, 3 months, you get a 22
percent cut. I think it is 24 percent. If you extend that out, that is
doubling senior poverty in the following year. Yay, we are going to
double the number of homelessness living on the street of baby boomers.
Is that moral?
Are we allowed to talk about it? Allowed to fix it? Are we allowed to
do the really hard things? Guess what, Mr. Speaker. At that same time,
the Medicare trust fund is also empty.
[[Page H4357]]
From last year to 2032, Medicare doubles in spending. It goes from 1
trillion to 2 trillion. The Medicare Part A trust fund, if you are a
hospital, you take a 12-percent cut. That is the law.
How many of you on Medicare are going to be able to see your doctor
in that hospital?
Start to take a look at this. In 2025, people 0 to 18, we had 76
million people but 63 million over 65. In 9 years, we will have 70
million, so we will actually have fewer people under 18, and we will
have 76 million, 65 and up. I am one of them. I am 64--yes, I am 64
with a 4-year-old. Yes, I am really optimistic about the future. I am
just cranky about the math.
All right. Let's continue on this. Workers per Social Security
beneficiary. We have got a problem. In 2011 we had 2.9. In 2025, last
year, we had 2.7. It continues to do this. It is a little hard to do as
a pay-as-you-go program.
That is why every month when Social Security checks go out the door,
the Social Security administrator reaches over to their special
Treasury bills and say, Treasury, we are short because the payroll
taxes don't cover all the checks going out the door. Give us some of
our money back. That goes on and on for about another 6 years and 3
months, and then they don't have any more to cash in.
Seniors per 100 working-age adults. 2011, we had 21.9 seniors per 100
people in the labor force. Last year, it is now 32. I am just trying to
pound this point in. We prefer it to be: Oh, it is horrible Democrat
policy. And they say: Oh, it is a tax policy. I have already shown you
the percentage of the economy that we take in in taxes has stayed
remarkably stable. The economy grows so you may have a lower tax rate
but, because the economy is bigger, you are still taking in the same
percentages of the GDP.
U.S. population age 65 and up. 2011, we had 41 million. 2026--this is
a projection for this year--we have 63 million.
Estimated share of outlays by group. I know there are a lot of bars
on this chart. The punch line here is actually very simple. In about
25, maybe 26 months, over half of the Federal Government spending will
go to those 65 and up.
Now, why is this important? Now, remember, think of baby boomers as
large demographic quartiles. When I was a kid in the 1970s, for every
dollar for seniors, there was $7 spent for those functioning under 18.
That is almost reverse now. It is not really about a change in policy.
It is actually a change in demographic populations.
This is really important. National defense in 9 years will take 12
percent of our spending. Seniors over 65 will take 52 percent in 9
budget years. It is just math. We know it. Hell, we knew people were
going to turn 65--we knew we had a baby boom 65 years ago--actually 70-
some years ago.
Why are we so terrified to go in front of our voters and tell the
truth about math? Why are we afraid to tell them that often the crap
that they see on this thing is fake? It is meant for you to click, get
a nice dopamine hit, but it is not budget policy.
I had a woman the other day at an event--beautiful event, wonderful
people--I think it was up in Prescott, talking about this. She was
absolutely positive, if we just cut this one benefit off, we could
balance the budget.
We spent a couple moments. We walked on the internet using our
phones, and she saw it was like $9 billion was the total value of the
benefit over a year. It did cover about a day and a quarter of
borrowing--not spending, borrowing. She was devastated. It was as if I
said something horrible to her.
Is that why politicians are terrified? Is that why we are terrified
to actually tell the truth to our brothers and sisters? Remember, you
have a country that is borrowing about $6 billion to $7 billion every
day.
I started to talk about DOGE before. My economists, we helped them. I
am a believer we have to have a revolution in how we provide government
services: the adoption of technology, the elimination of excess
positions, those things. All that has passed so far is about $7 billion
in actual spending cuts that have made it through Congress, Senate, and
to the President's desk for his signature.
Functionally, it barely covers one day of borrowing. How many of our
folks back home get a text message every other week saying: Are you
ready for your DOGE check? Just send us a couple thousand dollars, and
we will send you a DOGE check. Those text messages are fraud.
The point of this is: It is just demographics. I am one of them. I am
at the tail end, but I am a baby boomer. It basically means, in 9
budget years, 21.4 percent of our population will be 65 and up. We will
have moved into our earned benefit years: Medicare, Social Security,
military or public service retirement, whatever it is. Then you take
other calculations that I am not going to geek out too much on: labor
force participation, the number of our population that is actually in
the labor force, and then we have a math problem.
{time} 1940
What is the moral obligation of those of us who are elected to
actually know what--sorry, I can't curse on the floor--know what the
hell we are talking about, know the math, stop trying to sell shiny
objects and things that basically are enraging but don't take down the
republic?
I will argue this debt, unless we find a way to start stabilizing it,
we are not going to make it another 250 years.
Is this miracle of a self-governing republic worth saving? Then it is
worth telling our voters and the public the truth about our
demographics, the cost of financing it, and how much trouble we are
actually in.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will go back and look at all of the angry
comments I am going to get because, once again, telling the truth means
you get the crap kicked out of you around here. I am perfectly happy to
do it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________