Economist Stephen Moore joined Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson to dissect the latest federal budget proposal—and didn’t mince words about what he sees as both parties’ failure to get serious about government spending.
The discussion began with Moore reacting to criticism of the proposed House budget bill from Senators Rand Paul and Ron Johnson, both of whom say the bill falls short of delivering meaningful fiscal reform. Moore agreed, noting that under current projections, the federal government is on track to spend $85 trillion over the next decade. The Republican alternative? A reduction to $83 trillion—what Moore called barely a “dime’s worth of difference.”
Moore pointed to rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending, estimating $500 billion per year in fraudulent payments alone. “If we just got rid of that,” he said, “we’d save $5 trillion over a decade.” But he emphasized that the real key to reducing the deficit isn’t just spending cuts—it’s growing the economy. A consistent growth rate of 3–3.5%, he argued, would significantly reduce the debt burden over time.
He also took aim at Republican defense hawks, arguing that many in the GOP are unwilling to cut Pentagon spending—even as they preach fiscal restraint. “The Pentagon is the biggest bureaucracy in the world,” Moore said. “We talk about government waste—no agency wastes more money.”
Moore proposed a straightforward solution: cut every federal department’s budget by 10%, without exception. But he acknowledged that even such a modest across-the-board cut is unlikely to gain bipartisan support, especially with Republicans pushing for additional military funding and Democrats defending social programs.
The conversation turned to the structure of the current budget itself. Proft noted that despite GOP talking points, the so-called “cuts” in the Republican plan are really just slower increases in spending. Moore confirmed this, saying that under the GOP proposal, government spending would still increase every year—just not as quickly as previously planned.
One specific point of contention was the elimination of Medicaid benefits for illegal immigrants—a provision that’s become a lightning rod for critics like actress Rosie O’Donnell. Moore dismissed the outrage, citing polling that shows a large majority of Americans oppose giving welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants. “If Democrats feel that strongly about it,” he said, “put a bill on the floor saying taxpayers should pay for it. Let’s see how that goes.”
Moore also weighed in on Donald Trump’s delay of tariffs on the EU until July 9, interpreting it as a sign the Europeans had “blinked” and were ready to negotiate. While Moore said he’s not a fan of tariffs in general, he believes pressure tactics can yield better trade terms—particularly with countries that impose significant non-tariff barriers on U.S. goods.
Still, he pushed back against the idea that tariffs have no effect on inflation, challenging claims from Trump administration officials that import taxes wouldn’t raise prices. While technology and imports have kept prices low for decades, Moore warned that tariffs can, and often do, lead to higher costs—especially when supply chains aren’t easily rerouted.
The segment ended on a lighter note, with Moore joking about America’s reliance on cheap goods from China and lamenting the fact that it’s becoming harder to even identify where products are made. He noted that many labels no longer show country of origin, making it difficult for consumers who want to avoid buying from geopolitical rivals.
Despite the humor, the message was clear: fiscal responsibility remains more rhetoric than reality in Washington. Moore echoed the frustrations of many voters who feel that neither party is serious about confronting the national debt—and that real change will require more than just talking points and symbolic cuts.
Moore is the co-author of The Trump Economic Miracle and the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again, alongside economist Art Laffer.