MICHAEL BENNET GOES OFF — EXPOSES BESSENT’S DEFICIT SPIN

 The Moral Document of a Deficit: How Tax Cuts for the Rich Gut the American Safety Net

The blistering exchange between Senator Michael Bennett and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is a rare, unvarnished moment in Washington where the political fiction surrounding tax cuts and fiscal responsibility was violently exposed. Bennett’s frustration—his decision to “snap,” as the narration describes it—was not theatrical but necessary, fueled by the administration’s transparent and economically destructive plan to double down on a failed policy that simultaneously benefits the hyper-wealthy and starves the nation’s most essential social programs.

The core hypocrisy exposed is the relentless focus on the domestic discretionary spending, which Bennett correctly points out constitutes a mere 15% of the federal budget. The administration, in an act of political misdirection, strikes an “urgent tone on our growing deficit” while exclusively targeting the smallest slice of the budget for cuts. This focus is a smokescreen designed to distract from the real, multi-trillion-dollar fiscal hole created by their tax proposal.

---

The Two Sides of the Fiscal Coin: Cuts and Concessions

Bennett laid out the brutal trade-offs embedded in the proposed plan, contrasting the minor, politically-expedient cuts with the massive, debt-fueled tax concessions:

The Painful Cuts: The plan proposes to take health care from 10 million Americans, including 126,000 Coloradoans, and cut nutrition assistance (SNAP) for millions of low-income adults. It also suns

et clean energy investments, which are critical for the long-term economic and environmental health of the American West. These cuts disproportionately harm the middle class, the working poor, and the elderly—the very people who have been made “miserable by the economy” and need the safety net the most.

The Massive Windfall: Simultaneously, the plan adds a staggering $2.4 trillion to the national debt and directs over 40% of the tax benefits to the top 5% of earners. The average tax cut for the richest Americans is a staggering 

$300,000. The net effect is a moral mismatch: the nation must borrow money from its future—financed on the backs of the “sons and daughters of teachers and firefighters”—to hand out a massive tax cut to the people who least need it.

This is not a budget; it is, as Bennett implies, a moral document that explicitly devalues the stability of the vulnerable in favor of enriching the already insulated wealthy.

---

The Truth of the Debt Crisis

The Secretary’s supposed concern about the national debt is rendered absurd when viewed against the actual numbers. The proposed plan would push the deficit-to-GDP ratio up to 7%

, far exceeding the 3% target Bessent himself previously called sustainable.

This fiscal recklessness is not occurring in a vacuum. Bennett powerfully situated the debate within the terrifying global context:

Interest rates are at 20-year highs.

Moody’s has slashed the U.S. credit rating.

The World Bank has cut the U.S. growth estimates.

The cost of borrowing has become so immense that the nation now pays 

more in interest than it spends on national defense.

These are not partisan talking points; they are financial alarms indicating that the world’s investors view the nation’s fiscal path as unsustainable and dangerous. When the cost of servicing past debt is higher than the nation’s ability to protect itself, policymakers should be driven to seriousness, not the recycling of failed, deficit-exploding policies.

---

Refusing to Let History Be Rewritten

The most impassioned moment came when Bessent attempted to pivot, claiming the administration “inherited this fiscal situation.” Bennett immediately and correctly pushed back, refusing to let the Secretary refashion history.

The current fiscal hole was primarily created by the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which every credible economic model confirmed added massively to the debt. The new plan is not a solution to an inherited problem; it is a conscious decision to 

“double down” on the same demonstrably failed, debt-creating model. Bennett’s challenge was simple: “You can’t sit here and lie about that. The data shows that.”

In the world of finance, Bessent built a career on listening to data and making responsible trades. His refusal to do so in public service proves that the political ideology takes precedence over fiscal reality. This is not a difference of opinion on policy; it is a 

disagreement over objective fact and economic history. Bennett’s anger was not merely about being debated; it was about the infuriating sight of a Secretary using the power of his office to willfully ignore the data and, in doing so, knowingly sacrificing the health and well-being of millions of American families for the political and financial benefit of the ultra-wealthy.