(Daily Signal)—As a Republican holdout on the “big, beautiful” budget bill, as President Donald Trump calls it, Sen. Ron Johnson thinks he has a fairly simple request for the 10-year budget plan: Go back to the drawing board and cut spending down to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.
“That pretty well sums it up in one chart,” said Johnson, R-Wis., in his office Tuesday, passing a historical timeline of deficit levels across his desk.
Johnson, a fiscal hawk who was first elected senator during the fiscally conservative tea party wave of 2010, would like to see Republicans hit the brakes on the current bill and slash federal programs.
The chart goes from the $200 billion deficit levels of the early 2000s to the $2.6 trillion deficits projected by the Congressional Budget Office for the mid-2030s if the House of Representatives’ big, beautiful bill were to pass as is.
Johnson says these budgetary deficits could have catastrophic effects, as signaled by shaky bond markets he thinks are reacting to runaway spending and excessive borrowing.
“The bond markets are indicating things: Moody’s, the last credit rating agency to downgrade our credit rating. These are all signs,” he said.
“They’re not good signs. Global investors—one of the reasons interest rates are moving up is they’re not plowing their money into the U.S. bond as a safe haven. They’re buying gold. Just look at what the market is telling us. The market doesn’t lie.”
What Will Trump Say?
Johnson’s current opposition to the bill may put him in an awkward position with Trump—who has called for its speedy passage—but he says he’s hopeful Trump can be won over. Johnson is a longtime ally of the president.
He was reportedly phoned into a conversation between Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on Monday.
“I’m more than willing to work with the president. Based on our conversation, it sounds like he’s more than willing to work with me and others that have serious reservations. He wants to bend that [deficit] down,” the Wisconsin lawmaker said, adding:
At the State of the Union, [Trump] said he wanted to balance the budget. Well, we’re a long way from balancing the budget.
Johnson’s Counterproposal
Johnson’s proposal is to split the bill in two. One bill would “get what we need to get done quickly”; namely, raising the debt ceiling for a year to avoid a default on the national debt, extending Trump’s first-term 2017 tax cuts before their expiration, and banking the easiest savings.
The second part, Johnson said, would be a Department of Government Efficiency-inspired “forensic analysis” of the federal budget, in which “you can probably eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars of spending that nobody would even notice, other than the grifters who are sucking down the waste, fraud, and abuse.”
“Did you realize there’s 2,600 programs in the federal government?” he said. “I bet you could eliminate half of them, and you would be none the wiser.”
He dismissed the idea that these cuts would clash with the Senate’s Byrd Rule, which forbids provisions that are not primarily budgetary.
“The things I’m talking about all have budgetary impacts. I mean, you just cut a program up,” he said.
Johnson told The Daily Signal that he’s not alone in his wish to dramatically alter the 10-year spending plan.
There are “four people that unless significant changes are made, we’ll not support it,” he said, adding:
I think there’s a much larger number of people who get this, want to do something about it, are probably a whole lot quieter than those of us who are speaking out about this.
As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, Johnson is in a position to potentially stall the bill if he so wishes.
“My primary effort right now is just to force people to look at the numbers, to make them look at the facts and acknowledge them,” he said, when asked whether he would attempt to use that position as leverage.
Will Johnson Fold Under Pressure?
The situation is sure to get more stressful for Johnson the closer the Senate gets to its preferred deadline for passage of the bill of Independence Day, July 4.
Asked what he would do if Republican leadership dared him to vote against a bill that would extend Trump’s tax cuts and prevent a potential default on the national debt, Johnson suggested he wouldn’t blink.
“I recommend they don’t dare me,” he replied. “Work with me, and let’s do something that can pass, something that I can support.”
A likely reason the entire budget process has been packed into one big, beautiful bill as opposed to two or three is to increase the pressure on members to vote for it.
If controversial provisions are included with others that are almost universally considered necessary by Republicans—such as raising the debt ceiling—then holdouts are less likely to vote against the bill.
Johnson says that won’t work on him.
“That has succeeded in the past. It still might succeed; it’s hard to say. I mean, I know why they bundled it all up,” he said.
“It’s like, ‘Oh, you’re going to really vote against it? You’re going to vote to, in effect, default on the debt? You’re going to vote to actually increase people’s taxes?’”
“I understand the pressure coming our way, but this is what I can’t vote for. I can’t accept this without doing something about it,” he said, pointing at the deficit chart again.
“We can’t acquiesce to this. I mean, what we’re doing here, it’s wrong. It’s immoral. The transfer of wealth from young to old is literally immoral. It’s got to stop.”
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.
Ron is a legend in his own mind and wants to make himself look good by raising our taxes.
You are a whining nonsense emitter. So, you were of course unable to refute anything Johnson said.
He’s right. Go back to the 2019 budget and pass it. I am certain we will survive on $4.4 Trillion which would be balanced.
Dump all the covid spending and the Democrat orgy of the last 4 years. Make it simple, no pork, no fraud, no abuse. (Circle back to get those out) No reason we can’t get by on $4 Trillion a year…
Just give us a bill that cuts spending drastically. That is all we want. Nothing more.
Johnson is of course correct.
How about some of the corrupt RINOs such as Thune step forward and start working on improvements, instead of wasting time? War lover Graham went out to Ukraine to try to start WW3.
Trump said he supports improvements to the bill.
The funniest part is “our” National Debt is a complete fiction. Johnson must have his Johnson in a vise of sorts…
I asked Grok these two questions—
Can the current US President direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a single coin equivalent to the national debt? And must it be accepted by the Federal Reserve System?
Answer to the Query
Yes, the current US President can direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a single coin equivalent to the national debt, and the Federal Reserve System must accept it as legal tender. Below, I’ll explain the legal basis, process, and implications of this hypothetical scenario.
Legal Authority to Mint the Coin
The President, as the head of the executive branch, has the authority to direct the Secretary of the Treasury, who serves at the President’s discretion. The Secretary of the Treasury, in turn, has the legal power to mint such a coin under 31 U.S.C. § 5112(k). This statute authorizes the Treasury to mint platinum coins in any denomination, with no specified upper limit. Originally intended for commemorative purposes, the law’s broad language allows the Secretary to assign a face value equal to the national debt—currently over $35 trillion. Thus, the President could instruct the Secretary to mint a single platinum coin with this massive denomination, and the action would be within the Treasury’s statutory authority.
Federal Reserve’s Obligation to Accept the Coin
Once minted, this coin would be considered legal tender under US law. The Federal Reserve, as the nation’s central banking system, is required to accept lawful money, including coins issued by the US Treasury. According to 12 U.S.C. § 411, Federal Reserve notes are legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the broader legal framework obligates the Federal Reserve to accept US currency. Since the platinum coin would be an official product of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve would have no legal basis to refuse it. The Treasury could deposit the coin into its account at the Federal Reserve, which would then credit the account with the coin’s face value, effectively increasing the Treasury’s funds to pay off debts.
Practical Context: The Platinum Coin Solution
This concept, often dubbed the “platinum coin solution,” has been proposed as a theoretical workaround to the debt ceiling—a legal limit on federal borrowing set by Congress. By minting a coin with a face value matching the national debt, the Treasury could deposit it at the Federal Reserve and use the resulting funds to meet obligations without additional borrowing, bypassing Congressional gridlock. While never implemented, the idea gained attention during past debt ceiling debates.
Potential Challenges and Implications
Though legally feasible, this action would be highly unconventional and could face significant hurdles:
– Political Backlash: Congress holds the “power of the purse” under the Constitution, controlling spending and borrowing. Minting a coin to sidestep the debt ceiling might be viewed as an overreach, potentially sparking legal challenges or political opposition.
– Economic Risks: Depositing a multi-trillion-dollar coin could be perceived as money printing, raising concerns about inflation, currency devaluation, or loss of confidence in the US dollar.
– Practicality: The national debt comprises numerous obligations to diverse creditors, not a single payable sum. However, the coin’s deposit would still provide the Treasury with funds to address these debts incrementally.
Despite these issues, they do not negate the legal authority to mint the coin or the Federal Reserve’s obligation to accept it.
Conclusion
In summary, the President can direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a single platinum coin equivalent to the national debt under existing law, and the Federal Reserve must accept it as legal tender. While this approach is theoretically sound, its unprecedented nature and potential consequences make it a controversial and untested option.
Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don’t share information that can identify you.
cc.
@realDonaldTrump
@SecScottBessent
@USTreasury
@federalreserve
@POTUS
@WhiteHouse