When a federal redistricting panel carved up Virginia’s 7th District in January, there were murmurings that it could make it harder for incumbent Congressman Dave Brat to get re-elected. Adding to the challenge was Henrico County Sheriff Mike Wade, who filed to mount an intra-party challenge to Brat for the Republican nomination.
However, perhaps with an eye for greener pastures, Wade withdrew from the race in March, announcing that he would seek instead to run in the neighboring 4th District. For now, that leaves Brat without significant opposition. Yet with the recent congressional recess spent campaigning in his district, he isn’t taking the situation for granted.
“The average person knows the status quo is unacceptable,” Brat told the Washington Examiner. “They see it resulting in a weakened America in terms of foreign policy, they saw the economy grow at one percent last quarter, they see college kids living at home who can’t find jobs, they see a monopoly in K-12 education, and they see runaway spending at the federal level.”
“Everybody knows intuitively we have to get off the path that we’re on, or the country is going to be Greece in 20 years,” Brat added.
Beyond spending, another priority for Brat is legislation he proposed that would require the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to have its funding appropriated by Congress. The agency, which is responsible for carrying out the president’s executive orders on immigration, currently self-funds through application fees. That arrangement, Brat says, insulates the agency from voters.
That proposal was introduced with 15 cosponsors in mid-March, and on April 1 was referred to the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Washington Examiner: What was the need that you saw for the USCIS proposal?
Brat: The unconstitutional amnesty where President Obama would not follow the law of the land was the issue, and through executive power he was granting amnesty to certain groups through executive authority.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2579270
To get at a clean start at that, we want to start asserting our Article I role, and say look, Congress has the right to authorize funding. This bill is a first attempt at trying to rein in that piece, and we can use that as a starting point.
A lot of folks signed on right off the bat. Everyone is catching on that this is a real issue. We have to start putting policy in place where we avoid drama and follow the rule of law, and re-establish Congress’ role so the executive branch stops working unilaterally.
Examiner: DHS is requesting appropriations to account for 75,000 unaccompanied minors being apprehended at the border in 2016. That exceeds the record, 68,000 in 2014. What does that tell us?
Brat: It heightens cynicism when the executive is smart enough to put out meaningless statistics like that.
They want to expand funding for apprehensions. The question for the secretary is, what does he do with the folks who are apprehended? Over the past couple of years, what he’s done is try to keep our law-enforcement agencies from actually enforcing the law of the land time after time after time. Instead the border is still wide open. Folks are apprehended and then released and never return to meet the judge.
He has the been point person we’ve been competing with in trying to solve these problems. So when they say we need more money to solve the problem, it’s not credible in any sense.
Examiner: The president and Speaker Ryan have proposed a $1.070 trillion budget for fiscal 2017. You and your colleagues in the House Freedom Caucus have asked for a reduction in the amount of $30 billion. Can you expand on that?
Brat: This hasn’t been covered. Chad Pergram of Fox News had a pretty good piece out where he was getting closer.
The main point is that there’s a false narrative floating out in the press that the House Freedom Caucus and the Republican Study Committee, with its 170 members, are against the budget, and there aren’t enough votes for a budget. There’s also been some idea floated in the press that there are more votes for a $1.070 trillion budget than for a $1.040 trillion budget.
That is false in terms of the real story. The real story is that there is a yes vote to be had. That is the part that’s not getting out. To understand that you need to put two things together.
One is that the House Freedom Caucus, and many people in the Republican Study Committee, are willing to compromise. But that isn’t being reported. Many of us have said for months, on the record, in the paper, every day, that we are willing to vote for the higher number, the $1.070 for the discretionary piece.
We would vote for the cleaning-the-barn, crap sandwich number, on the discretionary side, but we’re saying all you have to do is reform the mandatory side, the other $3 trillion of the budget, by only $30 billion.
You’ve got a $100 trillion unfunded liability problem. So out of a $100 trillion problem, that Paul Ryan said next year we’re going to have a ‘big, bold vision’ on, $30 billion is a down payment this year to make up for the crap sandwich. And then we all get to yes. So there’s an easy yes that’s sitting out there to be had for the House Conference. I don’t understand why we aren’t there.
That proposition has never been tested, and I wish the press would test that.
In my view, based on seeing the conference, there are yes votes. We can make the deadline. If people don’t want to meet the deadline, I don’t understand it.
Examiner: What other priorities do you have months leading to the election?
Brat: Before the election, it’s going to be very hard, to get the entitlement message spread as far across the country as we can. That issue, to be fair, is not an in-house fight. The real pressure we’re facing there is, I haven’t seen the Democrats propose any bold vision on anything. I’m not being flip. I mean that.
I haven’t seen a liberal economist, a Democrat House staffer, a Senate staffer, I haven’t seen anyone on the other side of the aisle ever put forward an agenda dealing with entitlement reform, and this is by far the biggest number you will find in any economic text book it is the issue of our day
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2585215
They know all the facts, there are plenty of bright people, it’s not a matter of brightness. They know Medicare and Social Security will both be insolvent in 18 years. They know under current law kids in high school right will not have those programs when they retire. They also know that in 11 years, all federal revenues will go only to those mandatory programs.
There will not be a dollar left for any discretionary spending. In 11 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, you’ll need to deficit spend the entire discretionary piece of the budget. And in six or seven years, the deficit is expected to be a trillion dollars a year, which is the size of the entire discretionary budget we’re talking about now.
Our side is showing tremendous guts to even bring the issue up. We need someone on the other side to meet us at least a little bit. The whole country wants us to compromise and get things done. But how do you do that when the other side won’t even acknowledge the problem exists? That’s a real challenge.
Examiner: What perspective do your constituents have on the Republican presidential race right now?
Brat: My constituents are curiously split. Three of my counties, Henrico and Chesterfield and Goochland, all went for Rubio. The other seven all went for Trump. I’m still holding as many town halls and meetings as I can. I’m trying to interpret what my constituents are saying, and what issues are important to them.
Examiner: Do you think they’ll be upset if the candidate with the most votes doesn’t become the nominee?
Brat: Yeah. I think the broad majority will be upset, because what’s at stake there is one of the fundamental premises of western civilization, which is democracy.
It would be the first time the American people see a major party, in recent memory at least, hasn’t followed the democratic tradition of nominating the leading candidates who have been doing the grueling work of fighting state by state and picking up millions of voters.
If what Karl Rove called a ‘fresh face’ appears who’s been handpicked by someone behind the green curtain, it would prove to be a disaster not only for the party but for the country.
Examiner: What do you see as being big issues in the presidential race more broadly?
Brat: Something I find amazing with the press a little bit is the Obamacare narrative. They say it’s a bipartisan war split along 50-50 lines, I don’t think that’s true. We’ve got clear evidence now with Hillary Clinton running away from Obamacare and the cost of Obamacare to middle income voters.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2581041
Chelsea Clinton has been out messaging for her on this, which is the height of cynicism. I wish the press would highlight the logic of having your child go out and message on this, just so Clinton can backpedal after she’s thrown out trial balloons regarding 20 percent of the economy. Hillary knows full well that the middle income person cannot afford a $5,000 deductible. This isn’t being reported, but it’s a huge story.
Both parties have outside candidates doing surprisingly well. And I think that means the average person knows the status quo is unacceptable. They see it resulting in a weakened America in terms of foreign policy. They saw the economy grow at one percent last quarter. They see college kids living at home who can’t find jobs. They see a monopoly in K-12 education. And they see runaway spending at the federal level.
That spells disaster. Whoever is in charge of that outcome needs to be replaced. So the vast majority on both sides are voting for outsiders. Everybody knows intuitively we have to get off the path that we’re on, or the country is going to be Greece in 20 years.
