WSJ: Opinion: Potomac Watch FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER

The Wall Street Journal

WSJ:

Opinion: Potomac Watch

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2025
9/26/2025 5:37:00 PMShare This Episode
Sen. Ron Johnson Wants to End Government Shutdowns for Good

ロン・ジョンソン上院議員、政府閉鎖を恒久的に終わらせたい

Congress barrels toward a government shutdown next week, with little progress on a funding deal, as Democrats use their leverage to seek about $1.5 trillion in spending, including on ObamaCare subsidies. Sen. Ron Johnson discusses his plan to end these dramas by automatically extending flat funding, plus why he opposes legislation to ban Congress from trading stocks.

• government shutdown    ˈɡʌvərnmənt ˈʃʌtˌdaʊn    政府閉鎖（連邦政府の予算未成立による業務停止）
• barrels toward    ˈbærəlz təˈwɔrd    （危険・問題に向かって）突進する
• little progress on    ˈlɪtl ˈprɑɡrɛs ɑn    ～に関してほとんど進展がない
• funding deal    ˈfʌndɪŋ diːl    資金調達合意、予算協定
• leverage    ˈlɛvərɪdʒ    影響力、交渉力
• spending    ˈspɛndɪŋ    歳出、支出
• ObamaCare subsidies    oʊˈbɑːməˌkɛr ˈsʌbsɪdiz    オバマケア補助金
• automatically extending flat funding    ˌɔːtəˈmætɪkli ɪkˈstɛndɪŋ flæt ˈfʌndɪŋ    資金を平準化して自動的に延長すること
• opposes legislation    əˈpoʊzɪz ˌlɛdʒɪˈsleɪʃən    法案に反対する
• ban Congress from trading stocks    bæn ˈkɑːŋɡrəs frəm ˈtreɪdɪŋ stɑːks    議会議員による株取引を禁止する
• flat funding（平準化資金）：現行予算を据え置きで延長する方式。これにより政府閉鎖の危機を回避できる。

Speaker 1: From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

Kyle Peterson: Congress barrels toward another deadline to fund the federal government with a potential shutdown now looming at midnight on Tuesday. If that happens, it would be the fourth federal shutdown in a dozen years, leading the Senator joining us today to conclude that surely there's got to be a better way. Welcome. I'm Kyle Peterson with the Wall Street Journal. We're pleased to have here with us today Senator Ron Johnson on location from the great state of Wisconsin. And Senator, unless you have some big news to break, neither of us knows if Uncle Sam is going to be open for business five days from today. But what's your perspective on the state of play as we sit here on Friday afternoon? The House has passed a bill to extend current funding until shortly before Thanksgiving. Is there much hope of getting to the 60 Senate votes needed to get that through the upper chamber?

• barrels toward
  /ˈbærəlz təˈwɔrd/
  （目的・期限に向かって）まっしぐらに進む
• サムおじさん（＝連邦政府）

Sen. Ron Johnson: Well, Kyle, let me just start with the question. Aren't you getting sick and tired of this? This is my 15th year. I am beyond sick and tired of this. The current state of play is Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, their opening negotiating stance is we'll give you a four-week CR. In other words, we'll fund the government for another month. And all we're asking in exchange is just a mere $1.5 trillion of additional spending over 10 years. That's it. Entirely reasonable. What the House has done is they passed a relatively clean continuing resolution till right before Thanksgiving. I'm not particularly nuts about that. That's the same old playbook. No matter who's in charge, neither side can get the 60 votes in the Senate because we don't have the super majorities. And so what ends up happening is the uniparty, the big spenders have just set this process of creating these fiscal cliffs. Nobody's particularly serious about passing appropriation bills in the first nine months of the year. So we passed none. We passed a couple through the Senate. I'm not sure what the House did. I'm not sure they passed any, but so everybody knows we're not going to fund government before the end of the fiscal year. So now you get into the new fiscal year, you haven't funded it, and so you set up these fiscal cliffs right before Thanksgiving, right before Christmas. And what that does is it creates an enormous amount of pressure to just pass something and get out of town, which generally results in a lot more spending that we ordinarily would. So I got here in 2011. Since that time, we've had three government shutdowns. We've had 55 continuing resolutions. I couldn't even tell, I don't think I can count the number of actual appropriation bills individually that we passed, way less than 55. We've had 12 increases or suspension of the debt ceiling. We've gone from $14 trillion in debt to over $37 trillion in debt. Clearly something is broken. It's time to change this dynamic, which is why in 2019 as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I just tasked my committee, I said, "We're going to pass some kind of automatic continuing resolution." Like in the state of Wisconsin, we did this back in the '50s. If you're so dysfunctional, you can't fund the government, you don't shut it down. You just continue funding it at last year's levels until you get your act together and pass an appropriation bill, right? So the same basic dynamic. So we had three different alternatives. Rand Paul had a continuing resolution that actually reduced spending, I love that. Rob Portman actually would've increased spending. James Lankford and Maggie Hassan did what Wisconsin did, just continue at last year's level. The problem with their bill is it also set up a lot of pressure to just get the thing done, probably would increase spending. So that was a legitimate complaint about that bill. Even though I supported it, I passed it. So what I've done is I've skinned it that way down. Now it's just a very simple bill. It's called Eliminate Shutdown Act. And all it does is it establishes rolling 14-day continuing appropriations if you haven't passed an appropriation for all of government or individual departments. So what that does is let's say we just pass that bill and we haven't passed any appropriation. If the Senate House passes appropriation let's say for Veterans Affairs, okay, that continuing resolution would end because now we have appropriation bill and you've got 11 other departments you have to appropriate. A couple weeks later, pass another one, a couple weeks later. You could actually take the time and pass them individually, find the areas of agreement. If you simply can't find areas of agreement, again, you don't shut those departments down. You just continue spending at last year's levels. Now, that creates enough pressure in big spending. Washington, everybody, seems like everybody, not everybody, because there are a few people like me, but everybody seems to want to increase spending. So you're going to have the pressure to do those appropriations bills, but you give yourself time without playing games with people's lives. And that's what's so grotesque about this is, again, this is very predictable. I mean, this isn't my first rodeo. I see exactly how they're doing it. Again, I'm not that nuts about the House passing continuing resolution. It just happens to expire right before Thanksgiving holiday. My guess is if that's what happens, we won't come to terms there, they'll pass another continuing resolution that will expire right before Christmas. Again, like I say, this isn't my first rodeo, so I want to end all that drama. Now, I really do think that this may be the perfect time to pass something like this because who could be opposed to it? I mean, really, who could be opposed to doing something so reasonable, just keep spending, give yourself time, spend at last year's levels, get your act together, end the dysfunction?

• sick and tired of    /sɪk ənd ˈtaɪərd ʌv/    ～にうんざりしている
• current state of play    /ˈkɜrənt steɪt əv pleɪ/    現状、進行状況
• four-week CR    /fɔr wiːk siː ɑr/    4週間の継続予算（Continuing Resolution）
• fiscal cliffs    /ˈfɪskəl klɪfs/    財政崖（歳出停止・負債増などの危機的状況）
• appropriation bills    /əˌproʊpriˈeɪʃən bɪlz/    歳出法案
• debt ceiling    /dɛt ˈsiːlɪŋ/    債務上限
• dysfunctional    /dɪsˈfʌŋkʃənəl/    機能不全の
• rolling 14-day continuing appropriations    /ˈroʊlɪŋ ˈfɔːrˌtiːn deɪ kənˈtɪnjuɪŋ əˌproʊpriˈeɪʃənz/    14日ごとに自動更新される継続歳出
• grotesque    /ɡroʊˈtɛsk/    ぞっとするほど不快な、異様な
• get your act together    /ɡɛt jʊər ækt təˈɡɛðər/    しっかり行動する、まともにする
• I've skinned it that way down 「そのやり方で（余分なものを取り除き）法案を極力シンプルにした」

Kyle Peterson: And part of what's important for listeners to understand is that a government shutdown does not even often save any money because the furloughed workers are guaranteed back pay is my understanding.

• furloughed workers    /ˈfɜrloʊd ˈwɜrkərz/    一時解雇された公務員（閉鎖中の休職者）
• guaranteed back pay    /ˌɡærənˈtid bæk peɪ/    給与が保証される（後払いが保証される）

Sen. Ron Johnson: Oh, yeah, yeah. They get vacation, they go to spas, and then they come back in and we pay them back pay. That's exactly what happens. No, it's a ripoff to the American taxpayer. It's why I generally have already voted for a continuing resolution as long as they're short enough. I don't like it. It's not a good way to fund government. This is a far better way, just automatic continuing resolutions, rolling 14 days at a time and then start knocking off these appropriation bills one at a time. Nobody can predict exactly how it will all work out, but what it could do too is take the partisanship away from the funding in terms of the shutdowns. Maybe we would pay some serious attention to real budgetary and appropriation reform. 

• ripoff    /ˈrɪpˌɔf/    詐欺、ぼったくり
• knock off (appropriation bills)    /nɑk ɔf əˌproʊpriˈeɪʃən bɪlz/    （法案を）一つずつ処理する
• partisanship    /ˈpɑrtɪzənˌʃɪp/    党派性、党派対立
• take the partisanship away    /teɪk ðə ˈpɑrtɪzənˌʃɪp əˈweɪ/    党派対立を排除する、切り離す
• real budgetary and appropriation reform    /riːl ˈbʌdʒəˌtɛri ənd əˌproʊpriˈeɪʃən rɪˈfɔrm/真の予算改革・歳出法案改革

For example, an idea that's been kicking around for years, it's not my... This isn't original with me, but go to two-year appropriation bills. So you've got 12 accounts, right? So if you do two years, you can do six one-year, do oversight on the other six and then reverse to the next year. I could go to three-year appropriation bills. You only have to pass four at a time. Again, that kind of impinges on a new Congress, I mean they're complications. But again, you could start those conversations. You could start bringing some measure of function and rationality back to this appropriation process, which is clearly completely broken and spending is completely out of control.

• kicking around    /ˈkɪkɪŋ əˈraʊnd/    （アイデアなどが）あちこちで議論されている、ずっと存在している
• two-year appropriation bills    /ˈtuː jɪr əˌproʊpriˈeɪʃən bɪlz/    二年ごとの歳出法案
• oversight    /ˈoʊvərˌsaɪt/    監督、管理（法案・支出の監督）
• impinge on    /ɪmˈpɪndʒ ɑn/    ～に影響を与える、制約する

Kyle Peterson: Hang tight. We'll be right back in a moment with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. 

Welcome back. We're here with Ron Johnson talking about the impending possible government shutdown. The shutdown, if it happens, despite not saving any money, may really inconvenience some people. I mean, some of the effects depend on who is deemed essential employees who still have to show up for work, even if they're not getting paychecks and what activities are deemed non-essential. So for example, on Capitol Hill, the Capitol Police are expected to still be operating, but there won't be any garbage pickup. There won't be any Capitol tours. And if this is your family's one trip to take your kids to Washington, D.C., to the nation's capitol, tough luck. And so I think part of the argument here is that this is no way to run a railroad to use that old expression. So what is the response that you're getting from your colleagues about this idea to just have a flat continuing resolution automatically for the accounts that these 12 appropriation bills that Congress is supposed to pass every year for whichever of those bills that are still waiting to get through?

• impending    /ɪmˈpɛndɪŋ/    差し迫った、目前の
• government shutdown    /ˈɡʌvərnmənt ˈʃʌtˌdaʊn/    政府閉鎖
• inconvenience    /ˌɪnkənˈvinjəns/    不便、迷惑
• essential employees    /ɪˈsɛnʃəl ɛmˈplɔɪiz/    必須職員（業務継続が求められる）
• non-essential    /nɑn-ɪˈsɛnʃəl/    非必須、業務停止でも問題ない
• Capitol Hill    /ˈkæpɪtəl hɪl/    アメリカ議会（国会議事堂周辺）
• Capitol Police    /ˈkæpɪtəl pəˈlis/    キャピトル警察
• flat continuing resolution    /flæt kənˈtɪnjuɪŋ ˌrɛzəˈluʃən/    フラットな継続予算（前年水準のまま自動延長）
• this is no way to run a railroad to use that old expression.
  古い表現を借りれば「鉄道を運営するやり方としては全く適さない」
  「こんなやり方はまともな運営の仕方ではない」

Sen. Ron Johnson: Well, let me first point out that government thinks a lot of itself, right? So most of the government is deemed essential, and most will continue. I mean, we shut down less than 10% of the federal government. And of course under Democrat presidents, they make those shutdowns as painful as possible because the media's always going to blame Republicans on this. The good news this time is it'll be managed by a Republican president. Presidents have a fair amount of discretion to reapportion, move money around, make a shutdown as painless as possible. That's what would happen in this case. So that'd be the good news out of this. But again, the Preventing Government Shutdown Act that we passed on my committee, that was a bipartisan bill with Maggie Hassan and James Lankford. It had a number of Democrat senators supporting that. So again, there's nothing partisan, but my proposal here. a continuing resolution from my standpoint will still spend too much, but it's a whole lot better than what you described shutting down government, furloughing people, giving them back pay once they come back so you don't even get the fruits of their labor while we're shut down. It disrupts and it drives up costs. Again, it's just incredibly stupid. It's completely dysfunctional, it's grotesque. And again, it's such a simple solution. Just keep doing these rolling CRs and then get to work and start funding these agencies the right way.

Kyle Peterson: What do you make of the argument that Congress in this polarized and partisan age needs these kinds of hard deadlines coming up to bridge the divide even sometimes within the Republican party on things like the SALT deduction where there are disagreements within Republicans? I mean, maybe part of your response is that by keeping the continuing funding flat, it won't take away all the pressure to get the appropriations bills eventually passed. Because I guess the argument is that if you have a step up slowly over time, then maybe the End Shutdowns Act would be the new normal, and Congress would be content to just let that funding continue.

• polarized and partisan age    /ˈpoʊləˌraɪzd ənd ˈpɑːrtəzən eɪdʒ/    「分断が激しく、党派的な時代」
• hard deadlines    /hɑːrd ˈdɛdlaɪnz/    「厳しい締め切り」
• bridge the divide    /brɪdʒ ðə dɪˈvaɪd/    「分断を埋める、対立を乗り越える」
• SALT deduction    /sɔːlt dɪˈdʌkʃən/    「州税・地方税控除」(State And Local Tax deduction)。米税制での重要争点。
• keeping the continuing funding flat    /ˈkiːpɪŋ ðə kənˈtɪnjuːɪŋ ˈfʌndɪŋ flæt/    「継続的な資金を据え置く（増減させない）」
• be content to    /bi kənˈtɛnt tuː/    「〜に満足する、〜でよしとする」

Sen. Ron Johnson: It wouldn't be the worst outcome. But again, there's enough problems with just continuing resolution. You can't fund new defense programs. I mean, it creates pain on both sides, which will bring people to the table. So again, there's really not a good argument against doing this. The only argument for doing it is it really plays into the hands of big spenders. And let me just describe this. So generally what's happened, you have these shutdowns, you create these cliffs, and we get a 2,000 page plus omnibus spending bill dropped on our desk on December 23rd. Nobody has a chance to read them. And what's happening in this process over the years, over the decades, I mean, this is lather, rinse, and repeat, right? This happens over and over again. 

• play into the hands of    /pleɪ ˈɪntuː ðə hændz əv/    「〜の思うつぼになる」「〜に有利に働く」
• omnibus spending bill    /ˈɑːmnɪbəs ˈspɛndɪŋ bɪl/    「歳出一括法案」：複数の予算項目をまとめた巨大法案
• lather, rinse, and repeat    /ˈlæðər rɪns ənd rɪˈpiːt/    「泡立てて、すすいで、繰り返す」＝同じことの繰り返し、決まり文句

Well, they tuck all kinds of nasty stuff in these omnibus spending bills. And here's the nastiest. Again, these funding fights are only over about 25% of the budget. So this year we'll spend about $7 trillion, 25% of that is about 1.8. That's what we're fighting over. The other 5.2 is mandatory spending. But here's the important point. Of the 5.2, a trillion dollars is what they refer to as other mandatory, it's not social security, it's not Medicare. It's not even Medicaid. What it is what used to be discretionary spending that in some way, shape or form, and I think a lot of this probably occurred in these omnibus spending bills, somebody wrote in that, "Oh, now this spending, we're going to transfer this into the mandatory category, so we never pay attention to it." So that can go out of control. So now that's a trillion dollars. So we spend 1.8 trillion discretionary, but we've transferred about a trillion of what should have been 2.8 trillion in discretionary since there's, "Oh, look, we're not increasing spending that much because we're only talking about the discretionary accounts." Again, it's a despicable game. It's been played by both sides. It's been played by the uniparty. It's what I kept screaming about in the One Big Beautiful Bill that we had literally hundreds of billions of dollars of other mandatory spending, again, not social security, Medicare or even Medicaid, that we then increased far beyond 2019 spending plus up for inflation and populations, that's about $234 billion higher than if you were just taking the 642 billion in 2009 other mandatory and grow it. We're spending a trillion dollars, 234 billion more than just plus that up for inflation and population. So again, I know that's kind of getting in the weeds, but that's how the uniparty does it. They make it so complex. Again, they set up these fiscal cliffs, omnibus spending bills, multi-thousand page bills, nobody reads, they get passed and we move on and we mortgage our children's future. That's what's happening.

• tuck … in    /tʌk ɪn/    「〜を詰め込む、こっそり入れる」
• nasty stuff    /ˈnæsti stʌf/    「嫌なもの、厄介な条項」
• mandatory spending    /ˈmændətɔːri ˈspɛndɪŋ/    「義務的支出」：法律で自動的に支出が決まる（社会保障、メディケア等）
• discretionary spending    /dɪˈskrɛʃəˌnɛri ˈspɛndɪŋ/    「裁量的支出」：議会が毎年承認する支出（国防、教育など）
• other mandatory    /ˈʌðər ˈmændətɔːri/    「その他の義務的支出」＝本来は裁量的だったのに義務化された支出
• despicable game    /dɪˈspɪkəbəl ɡeɪm/    「卑劣な手口」
• uniparty    /ˈjuːnɪˌpɑːrti/    「ユニパーティ」：党派を超えて大きな政府支出を推進する政治勢力を皮肉る言葉
• in the weeds    /ɪn ðə wiːdz/    「細かすぎる話に深入りする」
• mortgage our children's future    /ˈmɔːrɡɪdʒ aʊər ˈʧɪldrənz ˈfjuːtʃər/    「子供たちの未来に借金を押し付ける」＝将来世代に負担を残す比喩

Kyle Peterson: What is your read of the politics of these shutdowns and the history of them, how they have played over the years? I mean, it does seem in some sense that there's maybe a reversal of the roles here. I mean, people probably remember the 2013 I think shut down was where some Republicans were making the argument that if we stick together, we can get a spending bill passed and President Obama will sign it and we can defund Obamacare. And it's kind of flipped here now. Remember, Democrats are in the minority in the House, in the minority in the Senate. They don't hold the White House. And part of what they're holding out for here, that $1.5 trillion figure that you cited is a reversal of some of the healthcare changes that were in the One Big Beautiful Bill, and then also an extension of some of the Obamacare health plan subsidies that were passed during the COVID pandemic. And so I mean, I assume that Republicans are not eager to undo some of what they've just passed in the One Big Beautiful Bill. But does that suggest that part of the political dynamic is that Republicans can make the case that Chuck Schumer and Democrats are courting this shutdown and make that in the public airwaves?

• hold out for
  /hoʊld aʊt fɔːr/
  「〜に固執する、強く要求する」「（妥協せずに）〜を強く要求して譲らない」

Sen. Ron Johnson: Well, first of all, understand how incredibly unfair these shutdown fights are. Republicans like me, if there's any threat of a shutdown, if we're withholding our vote, it's because we're trying to stop mortgaging our children's future. We're trying to reduce the growth in spending. There's really no talk in actually reducing spending. We're just trying to reduce the growth in spending. The problem is the American public, they love free money from the federal government. And of course, we don't educate. We don't have our news media talking and connecting the dot for all this massive deficit spending, which by the way, current estimate is we're going to average over the next 10 years $2.6 trillion per year in deficits. 

Now, those ramp up from about the 2 trillion this year up to over 3 trillion. But imagine that, $26.4 trillion deficits over the next four years. That's the current estimate. So again, the few fiscal conservatives in Washington, D.C., we dig our heels in, we're doing something that's not particularly popular because the American public loves getting that free money from the federal government and they don't connect the dots that that's why your dollars devalued. Okay, let me just tell you to the extent it has. In 1998, a dollar you held in 1998 is only worth 51 cents. A dollar you held in 2014 under Obama is worth 74 cents. A dollar you held in 1980 is worth 80 cents. That's what you can't afford things. That is what I call the chronic debt crisis. It's just been building up over decades. What we're trying to do is we're trying to avoid an acute debt crisis where we have a failure of the bond markets. And again, you saw what happened with Great Recession when one money market fund broke the buck, and we had contention in the Great Recession. So we're trying to avoid that. We're not doing a very good job of doing so.

• dig one’s heels in    dɪɡ wʌnz hiːlz ɪn    譲らずに踏ん張る、断固として抵抗する
• connect the dots    kəˈnɛkt ðə dɑːts    点をつなげる → 全体像を理解する、因果関係を理解する
• devalue    diːˈvæljuː    （通貨・価値を）切り下げる、価値を下げる
• break the buck    breɪk ðə bʌk    （マネー・マーケット・ファンドが）基準価格1ドルを割る、信用不安を引き起こす

Kyle Peterson: But do you think that you say we're digging your heels in, but Republicans are in the majority here, and so if we get a shutdown next week, do you think that Republicans can successfully make the argument to voters that the shutdown is because Democrats who don't control either Chamber of Congress are holding out for more than is reasonable?

Sen. Ron Johnson: I think so. Again, on Monday night when we return, we'll bring back up the House bill, which the Democrats vote against as we left town. So we'll bring the house bill back up, just a clean sea. Again, I'm not that nuts about that. I don't like the way they're playing games with continuing it right before Thanksgiving, shutdown that builds pressure to spend more than we should spend. But then right after that, we're going to be voting on the Eliminate Shutdowns Act. So again, Democrats vote against a continuing resolution, so well, let's avoid a shutdown. Okay, then let's just avoid that. And then we start working on these appropriation bills. If they vote no on that, who's trying to shut down the government? So I think we can do that. Plus, as I said, previous shutdowns have generally been managed by Democrats who try and make it as painful as possible. The shutdown under Trump, very few people even knew it. Again, Democrats make sure you shut down Yellowstone National Park. They make it very visible, very painful. President Trump and Russ Vought, they will manage this thing as painlessly as possible. And Kim Strassel had a great piece in today's Wall Street Journal. They're talking about how a Russ Vought will be a very powerful man, and he will use this shutdown to do what Trump and Republicans want to do is we'll start trimming government if that's what Democrats want. I mean, Kim makes a very strong point that it'd be really stupid of Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries to actually do this, but it looks like they're headed down that path.

Kyle Peterson: Hang tight. We'll be right back after one more break with Senator Ron Johnson. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker, "Play the Opinion: Potomac Watch podcast"

Speaker 1: From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

Kyle Peterson: Welcome back. We're here today with Senator Ron Johnson. I also wanted to ask you about another topic that's been in the news, a push on both sides of the capitol to ban members of Congress from trading stocks. You recently voted against a bill on that in committee and went so far as to call that proposal legislative demagoguery. What's informing your opposition to that idea?

• go so far as to ~    ɡoʊ soʊ fɑr æz tu    ～するほど徹底する、～とまで言う
• legislative demagoguery    ˈlɛdʒɪslətɪv ˌdɛməˈɡɑːɡəri    立法における大衆迎合的な扇動（感情的な人気取り政治）

Sen. Ron Johnson: Well, first of all, just so you know what I did when I became a U.S. Senator, I sold all my marketable securities. I didn't even put them into an ETF. I just sat on cash and I lost my you-know-what sitting on cash. I mean, since that time, I've invested in some ETFs. So again, I think that's just a good practice for members of Congress. But we passed the Stock Act. We have very complete disclosure what our financial situation is. Now, again, I think the way we disclose it with these enormous limits, asset between 5 and $25 million, you don't get... I don't know why we do that. Within 100,000 bucks, this is what you have in that particular asset. So there's reforms that could do that so you can really hone in on what somebody's net worth is. But we fully disclose any transaction over $1,000. And if you're a Republican, trust me, the legacy media, the liberal media, they watch that like a hawk. So if there is any concern of a conflict of interest or inside trading, that should be very well publicized. I mean, we've got this one former congresswoman running for governorship who made apparently $6 million of... She sat on the Arms Appropriation Committee and buying stock in these companies that might get some of these contracts. I mean, that looks like conflict of interest. But that's being reported in the media and the voters can take care of that. So this is a completely unnecessary piece of legislation. It was grotesquely overreaching. 

• lost my you-know-what　lɔst maɪ ˈjuː noʊ wʌt
  （婉曲的に）大損した／ひどい目にあった

Again, I suppose I could vote for don't trade in individual stocks, put those things into ETFs or some kind of stock index fund. But this would've forced like a business person to divest of their long-term business. It impacted family members as well. I mean, it was just such an overreach. Plus, the sponsor of the bill, Josh Hawley, didn't provide us the up-to-date copy of the bill until the moment of the markup. He apparently had provided the Democrats that, so they were all in lockstep in terms of what the bill has. We had a red line version. Nobody could even figured it out, but it was just a grotesque overreach. And what I also said is that you could have renamed this the Career Politician Protection Act. 

• divest of    dɪˈvɛst əv    （資産や事業を）売却・手放す
• long-term business    lɔŋ tɜːrm ˈbɪznɪs    長期的に所有している事業
• overreach    ˌoʊvərˈriːtʃ    権限や影響力の行き過ぎ、やりすぎ
• markup    ˈmɑːrkʌp    議会での法案の修正・審議
• in lockstep    ɪn ˈlɑːkˌstɛp    足並みを揃えて、一致して
• red line version    rɛd laɪn ˈvɜːrʒən    修正前・原案との比較用の旧バージョン

Again, I come from the private sector. If I would've had to sell my business the minute I became a U.S. Senator, there is no way I ever would've run. Now, a lot of people may wish, "Boy, I wish that would've happened." But we want more people that have private sector experience that have built businesses, understood how onerous taxation and the regulatory burden is on a business. And come to Washington with, first of all, the experience in, which means the knowledge of, and maybe even more important, the sympathy for somebody in the private sector trying to grow a business, trying to create jobs. We don't have enough people like that in Washington, D.C. obviously. We have way too many career politicians. So again, it was this legislative demagoguery. I think the sponsor was saying, "Well, the American people just don't trust members of Congress." Well, it's because you're telling them that they can't trust members of Congress. Now, there's certainly some members of Congress I wouldn't trust, but again, it's like Nancy Pelosi. How did she make those riches? By the way, in committee, an amendment by Rick Scott to do an investigation of how Nancy Pelosi became too rich, that was voted down by Josh Hawley and the Democrat co-sponsors the bill. So go figure. So they didn't really want to go into specific members of Congress. They just wanted to paint a broad picture, basically indict every sitting member of Congress like we're all corrupt, we're all involved in insider trading. I'll make a final point. I've been here 15 years. I don't serve on armed services, so I wouldn't know about those contracts. But there's not one time, not one secure briefing, not one piece of information that I received that the public didn't know about, that I went, "Ooh, this is a good opportunity to make some money in this stock pick." Not once. Not once. So this has blown way out of proportion. And again, we need to get more people from the private sector. It's already a huge deterrent, giving up your private sector life and coming to serve in government. I don't want to create greater deterrents because I want more people with that private sector background, citizen legislators as opposed to career politicians.

• onerous taxation　ˈoʊnərəs ˌtækˈseɪʃən　重い税負担

Kyle Peterson: Just to underline a couple of those points, since I tend to agree with you, that Stock Act that you mentioned does prohibit members of Congress from trading on non-public information. And sometimes that is investigated, but I can't tell you how many of these stories that I read that promise a scandal in the headlines, so-and-so member of Congress traded X, and you get down halfway through the news story, and then it says that the Congress person in question says, "Oh, yeah, I mean, all that stuff is done by my husband without my knowledge," or some outside financial advisor, or even sometimes in some of these stories during this COVID trading was people saying, "It's all in a blind trust. I mean, I don't even know what's in there." And so, I mean, I agree with you that this is blown out of proportion, but for some of the people, particularly on the left, deterring successful business people from running for office seems to be part of the point. There's another bill circulating in the House, and one of the sponsors is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She said at a recent news conference, "If anyone says this isn't fair, I'm going to have to divest all my stocks if I'm going to run for Congress, maybe you should stay home." She went on to say that millionaires are very overrepresented, and there are a little too many here. 

• blind trust    blaɪnd trʌst    ブラインドトラスト（資産の運用者に完全委任し、所有者は内容を知らない形式）
• blown out of proportion    bloʊn aʊt əv prəˈpɔːrʃən    大げさに報じられる、過剰に騒がれる
• deterring successful business people    dɪˈtɜːrɪŋ səkˈsɛsfəl ˈbɪznəs ˌpiːpl    成功したビジネスパーソンが立候補するのを阻止する
• overrepresented    ˌoʊvərˌrɛprɪˈzɛntɪd    過剰に代表されている、多すぎる割合で存在する

But I agree with you, Senator, that my concern would be that already there are plenty of reasons for people to decide if they're thinking about running for public office. I don't really want to do that. I don't want to put my family through that. I don't want to go through the public scrutiny of that and a big financial hit for business people who've built up a portfolio or for spouses who have built up a portfolio. If somebody's thinking about running for office and maybe her husband is a professional investor, I just worry that that's one more disincentive adding to the pile. And by the way, as you point out, all this stuff is disclosed. So if somebody is day trading in office, whether or not they're doing it on insider information or not, voters can take account of that. And I'm sure these people, senators and congressmen get asked about their trades.

Sen. Ron Johnson: Well, if you're a Republican, you certainly are. Now, we've known about Harry Reid going from kind of a pauper to a multimillionaire, same with Nancy Pelosi, her husband, an unbelievably successful investor. Their constituents kept reelecting them. They knew full well. So again, it's in the end, the voters is the control. It's about disclosures, and the media for sure is going to be bird dogging Republicans and conservatives. But look the other way generally with Democrats. Again, it's not a level playing field. But again, this was an overreach. I think it's even would've impacted what your children could own. I mean, it was a grotesque overreach. And again, legislative demagoguery is what it truly was.

• pauper    ˈpɔːpər    貧乏人、無一文の人
• constituents    kənˈstɪtʃuənts    選挙区有権者
• bird dogging    bɜːrd ˈdɑːɡɪŋ    厳しく追跡監視する、つけ回す（主に記者が政治家を監視する意味）
• level playing field    ˈlɛvəl ˈpleɪɪŋ fiːld    公平な競争環境、公正な条件
• grotesque overreach    ɡroʊˈtɛsk ˌoʊvərˈriːtʃ    極端に行き過ぎた権限行使、ひどいやりすぎ
• legislative demagoguery    ˈlɛdʒɪslətɪv ˌdɛməˈɡɑːɡəri    大衆迎合的立法、感情操作的立法
  ->人気取り・感情操作のための立法を批判す

Kyle Peterson: Thank you, Senator Johnson. Thank you all for listening. You can email us at pwpodcast@wsj.com. If you like the show, please hit that subscribe button and we'll be back next week with another edition of Potomac Watch.