Speaker 1: To be the iHeartRadio app. Take that wherever you want.
Speaker 1: You also stream it, but also podcast that. We're here
Speaker 1: for you, especially if you're driving and stuck in god
Speaker 1: awful traffic this morning. Yes, we had rain and we've
Speaker 1: had some significant rainfall today and tomorrow. And you know
Speaker 1: what that means. We're going to practice driving like morons.
Speaker 1: All of us are going to drive stupidly. So we
Speaker 1: have accidents and backups and all that stuff as well.
Speaker 1: So hang type, be patient, and it is what it is.
Speaker 1: So we jump in this morning with news a governor
Speaker 1: a shutdown of course, approaching the thirty day mark, and
Speaker 1: it's starting to become a growing liability for both the
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans. So Republicans passed the Continuing Resolution, which
Speaker 1: is basically kicking the can down the road to fund government.
Speaker 2: We do.
Speaker 1: That's all we do now is continuing resolutions and then
Speaker 1: address it later on. And the threat a shutting the
Speaker 1: government will happen in another seven weeks. So Democrats have
Speaker 1: blocked it. They want enhanced Obamacare subsidies and want Medicaid funding.
Speaker 1: And now with forty two million people set to lose
Speaker 1: flo's assistance with snap benefits on Saturday. Is anyone feeling
Speaker 1: the pressure at all to get this thing wrapped up?
Speaker 1: And I'll know too that congressional approval rating has plummeted
Speaker 1: from twenty six percent, which is awful, to fifteen percent
Speaker 1: in the past month. A fifteen percent approval rating. To
Speaker 1: put that in perspective, the Cincinnati Bengals defense has an
Speaker 1: eighteen percent approval rating. That's how bad it is. Kevin
Speaker 1: Burton is a political analyst at Crosstown Consulting in northern Kentucky. Kevin,
Speaker 1: welcome back.
Speaker 2: How are you?
Speaker 3: Thanks for having me, sloney.
Speaker 2: Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Before we get into the national politics of this, I
Speaker 1: want to put our local head on and I know
Speaker 1: you isn't a keen observer of both sides of the
Speaker 1: Ohio River. We have an election coming up in seven days.
Speaker 1: Mayor aft Ted Pureval has fired but not fired Chief
Speaker 1: Thiji Terry Thigi, the police chief. They're going to take
Speaker 1: until the end of the year. They've hired Frost Brown,
Speaker 1: Todd and Company to poke and prod and find out
Speaker 1: why they fired her. If that makes any sense, that
Speaker 1: that doesn't have to make sense because it's politics. I
Speaker 1: suspect that Aftab will not pay political price for this,
Speaker 1: and he'll get re elected. But you wonder about members
Speaker 1: of council. Somebody's gonna have to pay the price, and
Speaker 1: not just Terry Thiji. I think would you agree or disagree?
Speaker 4: So yeah, I mean for as mayor Aftabs going to
Speaker 4: win reelection. You you know, you have about as good
Speaker 4: as chances getting a date with halle Berry as Astappas
Speaker 4: is losing, like it's not gonna happen.
Speaker 3: He's going to win.
Speaker 4: The real question is going to be there's a lot
Speaker 4: of legacy family names on the ballot this time. Uh
Speaker 4: you know, you have a Mallory, you have a dree House,
Speaker 4: Uh you know, Lukita Cole is a well known name.
Speaker 4: So the question really is how many people vote, you know,
Speaker 4: let's say six incumbents, two or three of the you know,
Speaker 4: non incumbents, and is that enough to get someone like
Speaker 4: a Chris Smitherman or Liz Keating through the finish line.
Speaker 4: So you know, we can all speculate, but I would
Speaker 4: say Chris Smitherman and Unless Keating are the two best
Speaker 4: to break the stronghold of the Democratic All Council.
Speaker 2: And then you wonder who loses.
Speaker 1: I think last time, it was council Member Anna Oldby
Speaker 1: is the one who I think she was just above
Speaker 1: the threshold, right the nine papose person to get it.
Speaker 1: And you wonder who it is going to be this
Speaker 1: time for sure, But somebody's going to pay some price.
Speaker 1: There's just too many people running and there's too much upheaval,
Speaker 1: and namely with this crime issue that's polarizing everybody. Aftab
Speaker 1: will be just fine. But at the same time, politically speaking,
Speaker 1: in seven days and I think he's pretty much a
Speaker 1: lock at this point.
Speaker 2: No such thing.
Speaker 1: You never know, but I just don't see the demand
Speaker 1: by people who live in Hamlin County, specifically Cincinnati's saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: we got to get rid of him. I don't know
Speaker 1: if the alternative is better or not. I know a
Speaker 1: lot of people are lobbing, but I'm not sure that
Speaker 1: works in all blue Hamlin, deep blue Hamlin County. But
Speaker 1: I would think he's going to be on somewhat of
Speaker 1: a short lease with the new council coming in and
Speaker 1: go correct. Isn't that what he's going to have to
Speaker 1: pay politically, is he's going to have to probably be
Speaker 1: a little bit more in tune with what's happening and
Speaker 1: doesn't have as much wiggle room as he used to.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, first off, the city of Cincinnati voted
Speaker 4: roughly seventy five to twenty five percent for Harris versus Trump,
Speaker 4: so they you can suffer a lot of defections and
Speaker 4: still be completely fine, you know. For Astab, I think
Speaker 4: the bigger issue is going to be the posturing of
Speaker 4: council candidates after this election, because he's term limited out
Speaker 4: for mayor and what's what's the number one thing politicians do?
Speaker 4: They try to make themselves look better. So I think
Speaker 4: for the next you know, two four years, you're going
Speaker 4: to see a different council because now the stakes are
Speaker 4: you know, there's more at stake because all of them
Speaker 4: want to be mayor. So I think you're going to
Speaker 4: start seeing more pushback, more, you.
Speaker 5: Know, different thought processes. So it'll be interesting to see
Speaker 5: does the dismissal of Terry Thiji play with the electorate.
Speaker 5: You know, we tend to be a little more newsy
Speaker 5: and news cycle. I can smell BS a mile away.
Speaker 5: Uh you can too.
Speaker 1: I think most people listening have a good sense of
Speaker 1: that as well, because you look at this makes no
Speaker 1: sense whatever, But the typical voter doesn't pay that close attention.
Speaker 1: Do the optics of her dismissal or I guess her
Speaker 1: suspension while I investigate what is it she did wrong?
Speaker 1: Which is completely backwards? Does that actually play with voters?
Speaker 4: Well, we will see in seven days. Historically, no, I mean,
Speaker 4: you know, everyone always talked about how they're tired of
Speaker 4: the status quo, you know, and all this. Ninety one
Speaker 4: percent of the time, the better finance candidates win, ninety
Speaker 4: percent of the time, you know, the incumbents win.
Speaker 3: Right at the end of the day, it's up to
Speaker 3: the voters.
Speaker 4: And time and time again, voters for just have apathy
Speaker 4: and they justn't keep voting for whoever's in office. Yeah,
Speaker 4: and no real change ever really happens.
Speaker 1: Well then, and then, first of all, it's deep blue,
Speaker 1: so it favors after pure vol has incombatated favors in
Speaker 1: but also the the money. He's over three hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars and believe Corey Bowman, the challenger, has less than sixty.
Speaker 1: So that kind of tells you what he's up against there.
Speaker 1: Let's shift to what's going on the federal government. Kevin Burton,
Speaker 1: political analysts with Crosstown consultings upholster with the shutdown itself,
Speaker 1: and now we're As I said at the beginning, I
Speaker 1: think I hate you on too. It's all theater. For
Speaker 1: the first few weeks of the shutdown, it's nothing but theater.
Speaker 1: Because eight percent of government is shut down. The other
Speaker 1: ninety two percent is doing just fine. It's like letting
Speaker 1: the receptionists go home early, turning the lights out in
Speaker 1: the front office. But people are still working behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: It's just you don't see the forward facing stuff like
Speaker 1: parks and trash pickup and stuff like that. There are
Speaker 1: forty two million people, forty two million families set to
Speaker 1: lose food assistance with SNAP shutting down on Saturday because
Speaker 1: there's no funding. I asked, who's feeling the pressure at all?
Speaker 1: Fifty percent blame Republicans, forty three percent blame Democrats with independence.
Speaker 2: It's about fifty one thirty four Republican.
Speaker 1: And obviously the reason why is because Republicans controlled the
Speaker 1: White House, the Senate, and the House, so that makes
Speaker 1: them the more vulnerable party. But I remember starting to
Speaker 1: shift relative to people blaming Democrats with us.
Speaker 4: So yes, in the last three weeks it was substantially more.
Speaker 4: It basically went from thirteen points now down to seven.
Speaker 4: You know, so the Republicans have closed the gaps, but
Speaker 4: at the end of the day, I don't know how
Speaker 4: much lower it's going to go because they do control
Speaker 4: both chamber, and you know, frankly, both parties are gambling
Speaker 4: with forty two million lives, which I mean, I think
Speaker 4: that's the bigger issue that we should be talking about.
Speaker 4: That Just get the job done. Like you guys are elected,
Speaker 4: you are still getting paid. But if you're trying to
Speaker 4: fly with TSA or anything, it's a nightmare. I just
Speaker 4: think the American people just want it done. Just get
Speaker 4: the deal done. That's what you're elected, right.
Speaker 1: Democrats will say, well, we're getting some traction here because
Speaker 1: you know, we're on the right side with healthcare. Americans
Speaker 1: favor us and our plans with healthcare. Republicans really don't
Speaker 1: have a plan. And we just had seven million people
Speaker 1: show up to attend a No Kings rally. Whatever the
Speaker 1: hell that was, that has no impact whatsoever for them
Speaker 1: to look at the No Kings rally go A million
Speaker 1: people showed up this week in the protest. They all
Speaker 1: protested Trump for different reasons.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, no, and sometimes when you're the loudest,
Speaker 4: it doesn't mean anything. It's you know, it's an echo chamber.
Speaker 4: The real question is how many new people did you get?
Speaker 4: Because at the end of the day, Trump has figured
Speaker 4: out that his model of it's fifty plus one, So
Speaker 4: every single election is fifty percent of the vote plus
Speaker 4: one more person. And he knows his bass, he knows
Speaker 4: how to turn him out bigger than everything.
Speaker 3: And there is a lot of silent Trump voters. So
Speaker 3: you know, at the end of the.
Speaker 4: Day, Democrats need to play this smart and frankly, you know,
Speaker 4: jakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer have looked kind of like
Speaker 4: a deer in a headlight. Regardless of what you thought
Speaker 4: of Nancy Pelosi, she stood on she was a fighter.
Speaker 4: Can you say the same about those two?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: No, The thing is if this shutdown extends in November,
Speaker 1: we're closing in thirty five days is the longest period
Speaker 1: we have with a shutdown. That's largely because of the
Speaker 1: real cuts. We start to see the theaters at the
Speaker 1: first few weeks. Now you're starting to see the real
Speaker 1: results of the shutdown. People not getting food, and food
Speaker 1: is instance, and like, if this extends into November and
Speaker 1: we see the Obamacare premiums hit millions of Americans, which
Speaker 1: party's better position to capitalize on that. You want to
Speaker 1: say the Democrats, But with the leadership and lack of
Speaker 1: direction they have, I don't think that's necessarily true to you.
Speaker 4: I would still favor the Democrats just because healthcare is
Speaker 4: kind of their number one thing. And frankly, you just
Speaker 4: said Obamacare. So if Obamacare goes up three you know,
Speaker 4: three times under a president, you're going to be like, well,
Speaker 4: under Obama was this.
Speaker 3: But I just think it speaks.
Speaker 4: More of just how in the last twelve years you
Speaker 4: can't get anything done anymore. No, it's so polarizing that,
Speaker 4: you know, frankly, both sides need to concede a little
Speaker 4: bit and if it's good for eighty five percent of
Speaker 4: the country, just get the deal done.
Speaker 1: And if you're complaining and you're part of the no
Speaker 1: Kings movement, which I know, we have a king because
Speaker 1: he just does what he wants with executive order.
Speaker 2: It's because of what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: The Congress is so ineffective, so gridlocks and dead luck
Speaker 1: that they you know, we certainly Joe Biden had his
Speaker 1: share of executive orders. Now Trump has exceeded that for sure,
Speaker 1: but that that's the new reality. Congress isn't doing their job.
Speaker 1: They're not legislating anymore. They're just leaving it to the
Speaker 1: president and their guy via executive order.
Speaker 4: And this is why we should have term limits in Congress.
Speaker 4: I mean, frankly, you have people in there who's been
Speaker 4: in all like their careers have been thirty plus years
Speaker 4: in Congress. Get out, you're too old, right, like sorry,
Speaker 4: Like I just you know, it boggles my mind that
Speaker 4: we have term limits for governors, we have term limits
Speaker 4: for presidents, but heaven forbid, senators and representatives have terms now.
Speaker 1: Pilots, truck drivers, there's all sorts of occupations in the
Speaker 1: real world where you can't work past a certain age,
Speaker 1: and there's nothing wrong with that. But I don't understand
Speaker 1: how an eighty plus year old lawmaker is relevant. And
Speaker 1: you know, you've got to explain them how an iPhone
Speaker 1: works before you can actually address the issues of legislating
Speaker 1: what that looks like, and no idea whatsoever. They're completely clueless.
Speaker 1: And those are the most senior people in leadership positions.
Speaker 1: The Shoomer's the world. There's just so many of them
Speaker 1: right now, and I think we can do better, and
Speaker 1: term limits are certainly part of that. Kevin, regarding this,
Speaker 1: at some point, do you think that there's going to
Speaker 1: be cool or heads like, is it really going to
Speaker 1: get to the fact that forty too many people won't
Speaker 1: get snap benefits starting on Saturday? I know it's kind
Speaker 1: of like overplayed, but that hits home for a lot
Speaker 1: of people, especially with you know, going to the grocery
Speaker 1: store and seeing like the cost of beef. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm nowhere certainly near, thank god, receiving public assistance. I
Speaker 1: go to the store and I see ground beef. I go, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what, I like ground beef. But I'm good
Speaker 1: I'm not paying those kind of prices right now. That
Speaker 1: that's really got to hit home for these lawmakers. Do
Speaker 1: you see this thing ending before Saturday that they're going
Speaker 1: to come to a conclusion and if so, let's get
Speaker 1: down the path of what that looks like.
Speaker 3: Well, and that's that's the billion dollar question.
Speaker 4: I mean, gambling with forty two million lives is a
Speaker 4: risky proposition for both sides. I don't have the data
Speaker 4: of where those forty two million you know, voters are.
Speaker 3: But it's kind of like a kid.
Speaker 4: You know, when you have an exam, you're going to
Speaker 4: push it off, push it off, push it off. Well,
Speaker 4: you know, Friday is kind of the date you have
Speaker 4: to get it done by, and if you don't, then
Speaker 4: there's actual serious consequences. And this keeps going longer in November.
Speaker 4: You know, the busiest time of the year to travel
Speaker 4: is during Thanksgiving, so you're going to create even more
Speaker 4: of a headache with TSA and the air traffic. So
Speaker 4: to your point, starting Saturday is when you know it
Speaker 4: really hits home.
Speaker 1: And we're seeing a fifteen percent approval rating. Fifteen percent
Speaker 1: that has got to be close to an all time
Speaker 1: low for Congress.
Speaker 4: Yet you know ninety percent of incumbents will still win.
Speaker 4: It is you know, it's the complete It's just amazing that,
Speaker 4: you know, we all agree that Congress isn't effective, but
Speaker 4: then you know everyone turns around and just rubber stamps
Speaker 4: them again. And I think the interesting thing is, and
Speaker 4: you're kind of seeing this with up in New York
Speaker 4: with Mindani and that in a lot of ways, the
Speaker 4: Democrats are kind of going through what Republicans. Did you
Speaker 4: know ten years ago that they felt like, you know,
Speaker 4: they're hardy apparatus has sailed.
Speaker 3: Them, and there's kind of a revolt.
Speaker 4: You know, so like the neo liberals, I want to
Speaker 4: be shocked if he starts seeing maybe even Chuck Schumer
Speaker 4: and all these older ones get primaried because you know,
Speaker 4: because that's exactly what Trump and you know, the Maga
Speaker 4: movement kind of really did that, you know, simply they
Speaker 4: said that we are tired of the status quo and
Speaker 4: you kind of let us down the road and we've
Speaker 4: gotten nowhere.
Speaker 1: Thomas Massy a great example of that where you are
Speaker 1: in Kentucky. To get out of this mess, they'd have
Speaker 1: to strike a deal to save face. And I guess
Speaker 1: if we're looking at the Democrats are talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: we've got seven million Americans losing their healthcare. We're trying
Speaker 1: to prevent that. We we forced Republicans to back down
Speaker 1: from gutting Obamacare, and this is what we're fighting for,
Speaker 1: Republicans to say, you know, we want a targeted relief,
Speaker 1: we don't want more socialism, socialist expansion. We save hundreds
Speaker 1: of billions of dollars with you know, but by gutting this,
Speaker 1: by stopping this, and restored responsible governance and ended democratic
Speaker 1: obstruction cent So that's what both sides will say. Which
Speaker 1: is the winning messaging?
Speaker 4: I mean, on paper, it should be the Democrats, but
Speaker 4: they've played everything wrong against Trump for the last decade.
Speaker 2: However, So you know, if I.
Speaker 4: Was the Democrats right now, I would say, aren't we
Speaker 4: raking in billions of dollars in tariffs? And then that
Speaker 4: helped pay for this? But they're incompetent. Their leadership is incompetent.
Speaker 4: So if you ask me, I think Republicans will come
Speaker 4: out of this probably, you know, absolutely, fine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would think.
Speaker 6: So.
Speaker 1: It's just because the idea is and I think most
Speaker 1: people realize, like, well, we're subsidizing something. Okay, great, and
Speaker 1: I need it. I need it today. I don't care
Speaker 1: it's going to bankrupt the country because we're just borrowing
Speaker 1: more money. It's way too ex HEALTHA is way too expensive.
Speaker 1: We're subsidizing that. That's other people's tax money that you're
Speaker 1: subsidized with. But you know, if you can't afford to
Speaker 1: get A, or your fear that you know, my chronic
Speaker 1: illness is going to come back and I can't get coverage,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna fall between the quack cracks and what happens.
Speaker 1: Everything I work for is is gone right. I get
Speaker 1: the urgency, that's a different matter entirely, and I could
Speaker 1: see where both sides everything, but but yeah, I think
Speaker 1: they just come to a conclusion. Go listen, this has
Speaker 1: been too you know, if you get the speakers together,
Speaker 1: the length and the pain of the shutdown, it's been
Speaker 1: too long. It's probably we're gonna we're gonna do something
Speaker 1: for thirty day, seven weeks, whatever it is. We proved
Speaker 1: our point. It's time to govern at some point. Somebody's
Speaker 1: got to do that, or both sides got to do that,
Speaker 1: don't they.
Speaker 4: He would think, So go to your job. Everyone else
Speaker 4: has to do their job. I mean they're still collecting paychecks,
Speaker 4: so you know, it's the rule for the but not
Speaker 4: for me. And that's just the story of our Congress.
Speaker 4: Where they can do insider training, where they can basically
Speaker 4: do whatever they want and not actually have consequences. And yeah,
Speaker 4: I mean they need to get to work.
Speaker 1: I know that today and all I there a meaning
Speaker 1: about the constitutional convention of all things, which is a
Speaker 1: whole political whole different matter entirely, but about getting control
Speaker 1: and our arms back around our government that they work
Speaker 1: for us.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 1: You know you talk about no kings, but that would
Speaker 1: apply to Congress as well based on what you just said.
Speaker 1: Kevin Burton is with Crosstown Consulting. He's a political Anamson
Speaker 1: polster in northern Kentucky. Kevin, thanks to the inside is
Speaker 1: always good stuff.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Falney.
Speaker 2: Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: By the way, real quick, what if you're going to
Speaker 1: put odds on this thing as a political guy, the
Speaker 1: odds of this thing ending, the shutdown ending by Saturday
Speaker 1: is what what would you put money on?
Speaker 6: I would say sixty five seventy percent?
Speaker 1: Okay, so seven out of ten chance that this thing
Speaker 1: is done by Saturday, they fix it.
Speaker 4: I just think that you know, there's elections, you know,
Speaker 4: in a week from now, so there's real consequences, and
Speaker 4: you know you're gambling with forty two million lives. I
Speaker 4: think both sides will blank.
Speaker 3: You just have to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the opt on that are terrible. Kevin, all the best,
Speaker 1: Thanks again, brother, Yeah, appreciate your Let's get a time
Speaker 1: out in we got a news update. Traffic is an
Speaker 1: absolute disaster still in areas. Chuckle, have an update for
Speaker 1: you a real time on that one as well, And
Speaker 1: it's going to just continue to be wet here for
Speaker 1: the next couple of days. Weekend for the little trick
Speaker 1: or treat is looking pretty good though, uh, full details
Speaker 1: in that in news in just about four here, and
Speaker 1: when we return, a case has been made with an
Speaker 1: untimely death. As far as talk about bodily autonomy, I'm
Speaker 1: going to make the case for being allowed to sell
Speaker 1: your organs. And it has something to do with the
Speaker 1: news happening over the weekend here. Local news for that matter,
Speaker 1: just add slowly seven hundred wlw it so bearing down
Speaker 1: a Cat five storm headed right for.
Speaker 2: The mainland there and then breaking.
Speaker 1: I don't think we're gonna it's gonna go through the US,
Speaker 1: but yeah, that's the price. People go, Oh my god,
Speaker 1: Jamaica and the Caribbean, it's so nice. I would love
Speaker 1: to live here, to be amazing because of weather's so good.
Speaker 1: Then you get these events and you know, again there's
Speaker 1: a price to pay, even in.
Speaker 2: Paradise so to speak. So to speak our paradise.
Speaker 1: Paying the price of paradise here in Cincinnati involves sitting
Speaker 1: in some bumper to bumper traffic occasionally. I don't know
Speaker 1: a little bit of Ryan shouldn't be doing this, but
Speaker 1: it does.
Speaker 3: But it does.
Speaker 1: I just have Kevin Burton on Political Analyst and Upholster
Speaker 1: with Crosstown Consulting, and the fifteen percent approval writing Congress
Speaker 1: is approval writing down from twenty six to fifteen percent
Speaker 1: in the last month, coinciding with the government shutdown. That's
Speaker 1: completely unnecessary. And what it gets is, I don't know
Speaker 1: what the point of this whole thing is. I'm not sure,
Speaker 1: but you feel like, you know, people start not getting
Speaker 1: their benefits and people who are getting us a snap,
Speaker 1: which I think that's misconstrued. I still thought some people
Speaker 1: think that's this, well, yeah, today we get those welfare
Speaker 1: queens off. Yeah, that models kind of changeable. Most of
Speaker 1: the people that are on this are are people who
Speaker 1: have one or more jobs at least they're working the
Speaker 1: working port for the example, veterans, seniors. So it's not
Speaker 1: who you think it is final arch. It's still a
Speaker 1: sizeable group of people. And to think that because of
Speaker 1: this posturing and the gesticulating on part of Congress, the
Speaker 1: in effective of Congress, that people are going to go
Speaker 1: without starting on Saturday. Now, I would think that at
Speaker 1: some point here congressional leadership I both says, said, look,
Speaker 1: you know what, we can settle this thing. We'll kick
Speaker 1: the can down the road, as we often do. But
Speaker 1: once people stay cake at their food benefits, it's a
Speaker 1: different story entirely. So I feel that real quick. I'm
Speaker 1: sure you heard the story if you watch football this weekend,
Speaker 1: and obviously you know watching that. I was watching the
Speaker 1: Jets a little bit that Nick Mangold, and you may
Speaker 1: know the name. Nick Mangold is a retired two time
Speaker 1: All pro senter from Centerville, Ohio, stepped throwing Dayton Centerville,
Speaker 1: and Nick Mangold had forty one died of kidney disease.
Speaker 1: And you go, how is that possible that someone forty
Speaker 1: one years old die of kidney disease. I don't know
Speaker 1: the whole story, but it seems to me it highlights
Speaker 1: the problems faced by the what over one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: Americans waiting for organ transplants, organ donations. And I look
Speaker 1: at this whole model and go, okay, we've got we
Speaker 1: know that you can live quite well, just fine on
Speaker 1: one kidney. Okay, it's yeah, there's some risk involved there.
Speaker 1: Most people go and I'm good with my two kidneys,
Speaker 1: But why wouldn't you give up a kidney? We see
Speaker 1: signs alongside the road hell where I live. I saw
Speaker 1: there's a bunch of signs out someone else looking for
Speaker 1: a kidney. Can you donate a kidney? All blood times welcome,
Speaker 1: get your kidneys? Can you give a kidneys? I mean
Speaker 1: stuff from kidney failure in life without kidneys is now
Speaker 1: it's not sustainable. And even dialysis is a really really tough, long, painful,
Speaker 1: horrible process. But if your kidneys fail, you either got
Speaker 1: to get a transplant, which you can get another what
Speaker 1: twenty years, Someone like Nick Mangled can die an old
Speaker 1: man with a new kidney, a replacement kidney, or you're
Speaker 1: on dialysis for four to five years. You're health of
Speaker 1: to tear eate until eventually it die because that is
Speaker 1: a descence. Even the machines can't do what the human
Speaker 1: kidney can, and we lose. You know, there's like we're
Speaker 1: short more than I think forty fifty thousand kidneys a
Speaker 1: year in the United States, and that number along I
Speaker 1: think forty thousand is that's how many people die. More
Speaker 1: that kills more people than die in motor vehicle crashes
Speaker 1: in the United States, I believe. To put that number
Speaker 1: to context, and the question is, oh, how do you
Speaker 1: solve this instead of roadsides and the charity and courage
Speaker 1: and kindness of others and strangers and the horrible thing
Speaker 1: that Nick Mangol went through and died relatively young. It
Speaker 1: gets back with the shortage is because in nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: four we've passed the law that said it's unlawful for
Speaker 1: any person to require receive transfer any human organ for
Speaker 1: valuable consideration, meaning money to be used in a transplant.
Speaker 1: That you can't sell your organ. You can't sell a kidney.
Speaker 1: Now you go a wait a minute, we need more kidneys,
Speaker 1: not less. Hold on just a second, or let's apply
Speaker 1: what is true well to a large degree, although Congress
Speaker 1: strikes to change this. The fact that it's a free market. Okay,
Speaker 1: you have something that someone else wants, what is the
Speaker 1: price for that good or service or kidney in this case?
Speaker 1: And I've said this for a long time, and now
Speaker 1: Nick Mangold is dead, and it's a reasonably current story
Speaker 1: that the organ markets. If you sold stuff on a
Speaker 1: free market, think about the pain and expense of sitting
Speaker 1: on dialysis or waiting for a kidney and not knowing.
Speaker 1: I think you'd be flushed with kidneys quite us to
Speaker 1: a certain point that if you legalize the in this case,
Speaker 1: organ markets are kidneys for that matter. You know, first
Speaker 1: of all, it wouldn't be like you're out on eBay
Speaker 1: or something like that Facebook marketplace looking for a used kidney.
Speaker 1: You know, your healthcare providers would buy this up, just
Speaker 1: like they do with any durble medical equipment or medical supply.
Speaker 1: Blood for that matter. You know, you go donate blood.
Speaker 1: It costs the Red Cross, it costs hawks worth money
Speaker 1: in order for you to donate blood. You go in
Speaker 1: and you should because we're always in a blood short
Speaker 1: especially now, and it costs money to transport the blood.
Speaker 1: It costs money for the labor supplies, utilities, rent storage alone, refrigeration.
Speaker 2: All that stuff or.
Speaker 1: Something that's perishable costs a small fortune in the billions
Speaker 1: of dollars. And what they do is they would charge
Speaker 1: the hospitals who then mark the blood up and charge
Speaker 1: you in your insurance if you need a blood transfusion.
Speaker 1: Cost money to get blood because it costs the people
Speaker 1: getting the blood. Now, am I suggesting you charge people
Speaker 1: for blood? Well, we already are. How is that any
Speaker 1: different than we're talking about this way you're eliminating in
Speaker 1: the middle man. You do that with plasma for example,
Speaker 1: I don't understand that. You know, you can't. I can't
Speaker 1: make money off of giving you blood. But if I
Speaker 1: go down to the plasma center and roll up my sleeve,
Speaker 1: I can donate my platelets and somehow get paid for that.
Speaker 1: That doesn't make any sense to me. And if we
Speaker 1: can do that with plasma mode bats and I what
Speaker 1: about your organs? Now you're going, well, that's just just
Speaker 1: something wrong about that, is it really? Because why? Well,
Speaker 1: because typically it's going to be poor people that are
Speaker 1: going to do this. Okay, so you're exploiting poor people,
Speaker 1: like maybe the ones who are talking about people are
Speaker 1: on snap. Yeah, yeah, absolutely poor people. Well, the risks
Speaker 1: of you know, you can live a perfectly fine life
Speaker 1: with one kidney. Plenty of people do. You can live
Speaker 1: normal lives and there's some minor risk. There's always risk
Speaker 1: in well, but there's some minor health risks. It's not
Speaker 1: like you can't you know, you got to stop drinking
Speaker 1: alcohol or andything like, no, you can and the life
Speaker 1: expectancies about that with if you had two kidneys. So
Speaker 1: if you're not paying out a pocket and the LL
Speaker 1: risk is low, what is prevented? Well, yeah, it's just
Speaker 1: you know, it's so exploitative though, because it's going to
Speaker 1: be poor people. Well, I mean, we assume minor risks
Speaker 1: all the time in exchange for pay.
Speaker 2: Here's a grample for it.
Speaker 1: We're talking about Nick Mangold from Centerville, the two time
Speaker 1: pro bowler who died because he couldn't get a kidney
Speaker 1: because a kidney disease. He's an ALFL player, most professional athletes,
Speaker 1: most players in the National Football League come from poor backgrounds. Okay,
Speaker 1: can you make a case and say that Nick Mangold,
Speaker 1: every single time he put that helmet on risk his
Speaker 1: life risk serious injuries. We know that in the course
Speaker 1: of a career, players in the NFL lose about what
Speaker 1: three years of life with expectancy every season they play
Speaker 1: because of what it does to your body. Look at
Speaker 1: Chris Henry right, the CTE and things like that. So
Speaker 1: should we then saying well, you know, this is exploitative
Speaker 1: the poor people. Is anyone arguing that poor people should
Speaker 1: be banned from playing football or basketball or baseball or
Speaker 1: whatever it is. No, that's not exploitative. They're getting because
Speaker 1: of what it does they bring to the table. They're
Speaker 1: getting money, and well have a lot of money in
Speaker 1: exchange for that. That's where I think it's not exploitative
Speaker 1: at all. So they asked to make something like eighty
Speaker 1: thousand lives in the US could be saved by legalizing
Speaker 1: the organ markets, particularly kidney mark Kidney's a big one.
Speaker 1: I don't find that exploitative at all. Let's say, I
Speaker 1: don't know if you can get one hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: for a kidney. Let's just say one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars for that. I don't know what a kidney
Speaker 1: would go for one hundred thousand dollars. So there's someone
Speaker 1: who needs money we're talking about, you know, the snap
Speaker 1: benefit cuts, healthcare and all that stuff. Wouldn't that go
Speaker 1: a long way into lifting them out of poverty all
Speaker 1: for the minimal risk of donating your organ It seems
Speaker 1: to me like that the kidney market would benefit poor
Speaker 1: people more than it would harm them. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's flawed logic. If I got a fifty grand for kidney,
Speaker 1: and it'd probably be more than that quite honestly. Now
Speaker 1: you've got something you need, which is money. I mean
Speaker 1: we all need money, right, but especially if you're poor.
Speaker 1: You're looking AHw okay healthcare. How am I going to
Speaker 1: pay for this? If the snap benefits going, How'm gonna
Speaker 1: pay for this? I could sell it organ? Now it
Speaker 1: sounds again, it sounds cruel. It's like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: you had to sell an organ basically see the give
Speaker 1: up your organ or eat. Yeah, but let's face it,
Speaker 1: that hundred grand you'd probably go to Disney, you'd probably
Speaker 1: better car, probably buy some night clothes, maybe go on vacation.
Speaker 1: I maybe go to the casino.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's your money. And if someone like that.
Speaker 1: Reason believes the risk is worth it, why should the
Speaker 1: government force that person to choose otherwise? I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't say, well, you shouldn't get a tattoo, you
Speaker 1: shouldn't get a piercing, you shouldn't cut your hair that well,
Speaker 1: you shay, you know that's the nanny stay talking. Well,
Speaker 1: you know it's ungodly. Well again, that's your business and
Speaker 1: what you worship or choose not to worship is your business?
Speaker 1: Quit good foisting that on me. What your sense of
Speaker 1: godly morality is is wrapped up in your own thing,
Speaker 1: not mine. And if I look at it, going wow,
Speaker 1: that's all well and good. But I think God wants
Speaker 1: me to give up a kidney for one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars part of the prosperity gospel.
Speaker 2: Right, same thing.
Speaker 1: So I just don't see how this argument works out
Speaker 1: that somehow it's exploitative and only poor people. Did I
Speaker 1: know a lot about probably middle or upper income people
Speaker 1: who go, huh, one hundred grant for a kidney? You know,
Speaker 1: has wanted that bigger boat. I was wanted that country
Speaker 1: club membership. I wanted that I'm going to go on
Speaker 1: that trip to Dubai. I've been wanting to go on.
Speaker 1: For one hundred thousand dollars in one less kidney, you're
Speaker 1: helping somebody out, You're sustaining their life. You feel good
Speaker 1: about that, You feel great when that one hundred k
Speaker 1: hits your bank account. Who the hell loses in this
Speaker 1: whole situation because the way it is right now, you've
Speaker 1: got forty thousand people waiting on the list, and eighty
Speaker 1: thousand people essentially dying from this. Nick Mangolds forty one,
Speaker 1: he's leaving behind a wife and some kids. And I
Speaker 1: don't know the full details of Nick Mangold and from
Speaker 1: the Jets and of Center of the Ohio the football player,
Speaker 1: two time Pro bowler, but it certainly made news this weekend,
Speaker 1: like how can someone that young die so quickly from
Speaker 1: diagnot because his kidneys failed that quickly. There's nothing they
Speaker 1: could do for him save a transplant. But you got
Speaker 1: to get on the list. You gotta wait.
Speaker 2: And even then, it's a crapshit that makes no sense
Speaker 2: to me. It seems to me.
Speaker 1: That it's your body parts. If you want to sell
Speaker 1: him off, you should be able to do that. This
Speaker 1: is some busy body government over each crap to protect
Speaker 1: whom I'm looking at the nineteen eighty four National Organ
Speaker 1: Transplant Act NODA, it shall be unlawful for any person
Speaker 1: nor only acquire, receiver, or otherwise transfer any human organ
Speaker 1: for valuable consideration for use in human transportation transplantation. If
Speaker 1: the transfer affects interstate commerce, why are we regulating that?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you shouldn't be doing in a
Speaker 1: back alley or something like that. And unlicensed doctors taking
Speaker 1: your kidney out, like those old internet memes from back
Speaker 1: in the day where I went to Vegas. Next thing,
Speaker 1: I woke up on my bathtub and my kidney was gone,
Speaker 1: Like yeah, that never really happened.
Speaker 2: That's just scaring people.
Speaker 1: But doing a clinical setting and I take one hundred
Speaker 1: grad I think about it, going I could help somebody
Speaker 1: make one hundred grand.
Speaker 2: I've got a problem with that.
Speaker 1: I don't know about other bodily organs, but the kidney
Speaker 1: is one you could live quite a healthy life on with.
Speaker 1: Just the one makes a lot of sense to me.
Speaker 1: Why are we fighting this? And it would because it's
Speaker 1: market forces. The more demand there is for a kidney,
Speaker 1: the more money you could gain from donating say kidney
Speaker 1: or selling said kidney, as opposed to waiting for someone
Speaker 1: out of the kindness of their heart to donate it.
Speaker 1: So I mean as well hear the stories and you
Speaker 1: know it makes it happens locally. I had someone on
Speaker 1: my show not long ago, same things, save their life
Speaker 1: because they got a kidney. It's a great story, but
Speaker 1: how many, how many thousands of people die who never
Speaker 1: get that kind of attention. It seems so just so
Speaker 1: hit or miss. Quite honestly, I don't know anyway. It's
Speaker 1: loanly here on seven hundred WLW coming up in about
Speaker 1: ten minutes. It's a complete and full news update. Jason Philibaum,
Speaker 1: attorney at law, is here. What to expect from the
Speaker 1: law firm investigating Terry Thiji. So the timeline of courses,
Speaker 1: you know, in this this stumbling, bubbling mess that is
Speaker 1: our city government that Cincinnati is now paying forty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars to Frostbontade are really really well respected law firm,
Speaker 1: but they've got forty grand and to the end of
Speaker 1: the year to come up with reason as to why
Speaker 1: they fired Terry Thichi. So you take someone, you place
Speaker 1: them on paid administrative leave, meaning she's collecting every bit
Speaker 1: of her two hundred thousand dollars plus salary. So the
Speaker 1: taxpayers are foot and full bill for that, and then
Speaker 1: they're footing the forty thousand dollars for this law for
Speaker 1: them to come in and investigate why they fired her
Speaker 1: in the first place. Normally, you build your case and
Speaker 1: you go, you know what, We're putting you on leave
Speaker 1: until a final determination is May because we have reason
Speaker 1: to believe Terry thg that you're incompetent, you're grossly incompetent.
Speaker 1: It could be malfeasans, misfeasans all the feacens is. Who
Speaker 1: knows what it is. But we've had enough of you.
Speaker 1: You're done. Instead, out of the blue, they just go, well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna put you on paid administrative leave and name
Speaker 1: an interim chief, not a temporary but when you go interim,
Speaker 1: that is the chief who might become the chief or
Speaker 1: maybe the chief between chiefs. But just calling it the
Speaker 1: interim police chief is wrong. If this is a suspension, right,
Speaker 1: wouldn't the adjective you're looking for be like the temporary
Speaker 1: chief or acting chief. There's a difference between acting and interim.
Speaker 1: And they even chose the wrong words. They made a
Speaker 1: I mean, this seems like a hell of a lawsuit
Speaker 1: on Terry Thigi's part too. If they do can her
Speaker 1: and that wait a minute, essentially, no, no, we didn't
Speaker 1: we suspend. Then why did you use the word interim
Speaker 1: because interim basically means the stop gap between the old
Speaker 1: and the new acting as well. This person is on
Speaker 1: sick leave where they're out or something. Okay, they're acting
Speaker 1: until that person gets back. You know when the Reds
Speaker 1: or of the Bengals never do this. But when the
Speaker 1: Reds fire manager, it's the interim manager. Okay, we've fired
Speaker 1: Brown Prices out. Now the interim manager is you're the
Speaker 1: bench coach until you get Terry Francona. If David Bell
Speaker 1: would have gotten sick, and that sometimes happens, it'd be
Speaker 1: the acting manager, not the interim manager. So even choosing
Speaker 1: these words is stupid. It seems like you're setting yourself
Speaker 1: a ven greater lawsuit. And now you're looking at the
Speaker 1: reasons why you let her go or suspended her. I guess,
Speaker 1: and you're going to pay forty thousand dollars. And now
Speaker 1: they have to the end of the year to come
Speaker 1: up with the reasons why they fired in the first place.
Speaker 1: So it's going to be months later the reasons come
Speaker 1: out as to why she is the wrong person for
Speaker 1: the job and some of the scope of the investigation
Speaker 1: and the questions to be asked according to the inquirer.
Speaker 1: Is she an effective leader and manager of the department,
Speaker 1: including personnel and resources. Is she a leader within the
Speaker 1: context of city government, meaning furthering the broader goals and
Speaker 1: objectives of the city administration. Well, that's easy, and that's
Speaker 1: a stupid question to ask to put in their scope,
Speaker 1: because the broader goals and objectives of the administration are
Speaker 1: simply to put up with crime, not put people in jail,
Speaker 1: release them on low bond or no owner cognizance, and
Speaker 1: essentially trust the criminal that they're going to report back
Speaker 1: when the When they don't, you just go, well, we'll
Speaker 1: go we'll get them eventually.
Speaker 2: It's no big deal.
Speaker 1: So those are the goals and objectives or the administration
Speaker 1: that Terry will probably lay out. And if that's the case,
Speaker 1: and you are dancing to the piper being have to
Speaker 1: have pureval and shere along, then you absolutely are furthering
Speaker 1: the broader goals and objections to the city administration. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: when the broader goals and objectives are just drunk ass stupid,
Speaker 1: as they have been at her aftab and cheer along,
Speaker 1: she is the one that winds up drawing the short straw.
Speaker 1: The music ended, and she's without a chair. So she
Speaker 1: did what they wanted them to do, wanted her to do.
Speaker 2: And then when they.
Speaker 1: Realized the policies don't work, and it may sound good
Speaker 1: in theory and appiece, a whole bunch of community activists. Well,
Speaker 1: then guess what, It's her fault, not mine, And so
Speaker 1: it goes. That is the price you pay when you
Speaker 1: kneel at the altar of politics, as Terry Thigi's learning. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: because she had a long, great career thirty five years,
Speaker 1: nothing in her jacket, nothing in her file indicates anything
Speaker 1: negative or anything seriously negative has been done under thirty
Speaker 1: five years as a cop in Cincinnati. And now after
Speaker 1: the fact, we've got to find in thirty five years
Speaker 1: something wrong she's done to bring it to light to
Speaker 1: justify this wholester fire. Jason Philibaum, attorney law, breaks that
Speaker 1: down and tells us just how much more of the
Speaker 1: city's going to be on the hook for meeting you taxpayers,
Speaker 1: all while AFTEB gets reelected probably just ahead on the
Speaker 1: Home of the Best Bengals coverage seven hundred WWD Cincinnati.
Speaker 4: Now your chance to win one thousand dollars entered this
Speaker 4: nationwide keyword on our website.
Speaker 3: Bank that's bank.
Speaker 5: You enter it now, want to an American?
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining Scott's thowing here on seven hundred ww
Speaker 1: and V the iHeartRadio app take is wherever you go
Speaker 1: So the news breaking not long ago that the City
Speaker 1: of Cincinnati is playing a local law firm, Frost Brown
Speaker 1: Todd forty k to investigate police Terry Thigi's performance after
Speaker 1: they fired her. Normally, you investigate the performance, go okay,
Speaker 1: they gotta go. This is completely backwards, and they expect
Speaker 1: the law firm to be finished by the end of
Speaker 1: the year. So it's going to cost us forty grand
Speaker 1: and the city is still shelling out the full salary
Speaker 1: and benefits to Terry Fiji of in excess of two
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars. Because of this nonsense, she hired her
Speaker 1: own employment lawyer, Stephen m and he has no intention
Speaker 1: of allowing her to resign because she said there's nothing negative.
Speaker 1: Thirty five years on the job to the date when
Speaker 1: she was removed. Thirty five years, nothing significant, nothing minor
Speaker 1: in her jacket, pretty exemplary thirty five year law career
Speaker 1: that she's had. So why now? And also there's some
Speaker 1: developing news overnight regarding the scope of the investigation what
Speaker 1: the law firm is going to look for. Specifically, joining
Speaker 1: the show is attorney Jason Philibaum, who's been on the
Speaker 1: block a few times.
Speaker 2: Jason welcome, how are.
Speaker 3: You good morning, Thank you doing well?
Speaker 1: Yeah, this whole thing right away, it just just screams
Speaker 1: like wrongful dismissal in a sense, because before we get
Speaker 1: into the intricacies of at Jason Phillibom, I look at
Speaker 1: this and go, okay, I've been on the job for
Speaker 1: thirty five years, and on my thirty fifth anniversary, I
Speaker 1: get noticed that I'm now on paid administratively. If I'm
Speaker 1: in Denver, Colorado, I get summoned back from this conference
Speaker 1: to Cincinnati because I'm probably gonna get fired. And she
Speaker 1: wasn't technically fired, she's unpaid leave. And it wasn't because
Speaker 1: of something happened. I mean the Fountain Square issue. It
Speaker 1: happened days a couple of days after she left for Denver,
Speaker 1: so nothing new was going on here. And then furthermore,
Speaker 1: they come in and go, okay, we're going to put
Speaker 1: you on leave. We're going to name an interim chief.
Speaker 1: By the way, not a temporary position, but interim generally
Speaker 1: means between the past into the future. If it was
Speaker 1: someone let's say that God forbid, she were sick, there
Speaker 1: would be someone temporarily there, right so that would be
Speaker 1: someone who is not an interim chief. There'd be another
Speaker 1: adjective for that, it'd be acting chief. And so they
Speaker 1: even chose the words incorrectly here. If you're not firing,
Speaker 1: she's not fired, then why I have an interim chief?
Speaker 1: Does that not help the legal case against the city
Speaker 1: from Terry Thiji.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think so. I think this looks like a
Speaker 7: witch hut. It reminds me of this guy that had
Speaker 7: one hundred arrows in the side of his barn and
Speaker 7: he would ask how he did it, and he said,
Speaker 7: it was easy.
Speaker 3: I shoot an arrow into the.
Speaker 7: Side of the barn and then I go ahead and
Speaker 7: paint the bull's eye around it. And you know what
Speaker 7: I think you have here is you have a situation
Speaker 7: where you know they they want are gone. I mean
Speaker 7: that's clear. And instead of just terminating her and worrying
Speaker 7: about whether they have to pay out a contract or not,
Speaker 7: they then hire a law firm, you know, approximately one
Speaker 7: hundred to one hundred and twenty hours of work to
Speaker 7: essentially investigate her. And you know, I can tell you,
Speaker 7: you know, being around the block as you say, you know,
Speaker 7: if you start investigating someone that has thirty five years
Speaker 7: of experience, you know you may not find something illegal,
Speaker 7: But I'm pretty sure you're going to find some policy
Speaker 7: that's been broken that everybody breaks, and then that's going
Speaker 7: to be their linch pin. But it sounds to me
Speaker 7: like there's some issues in Cincinnati and they're using her
Speaker 7: as escapegoat.
Speaker 2: Well, it's not easy to dismissible gig.
Speaker 1: Well, we investigated and we found this in your jacket,
Speaker 1: which should be you know, essentially it's already something that's
Speaker 1: known but didn't rise the level of termination. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, the argument from Stephen m would be, well,
Speaker 1: not only did you know this because it's part of
Speaker 1: you also promoted her in rank to the chief of police,
Speaker 1: so you're complicit in this whole thing. You're fining her
Speaker 1: for something you had no problem that she did at
Speaker 1: the time. You can't that's revisionis you can't do that.
Speaker 1: I mean that that's going to cost the money, is
Speaker 1: in't it?
Speaker 3: Yeah? And that's the.
Speaker 7: Process I think they're they're going down here that I'm
Speaker 7: not sure is going.
Speaker 3: To be wise what they're trying to do.
Speaker 7: I mean, they want or gone, Like you said, they
Speaker 7: even use the word interim, So she's gone. She's not
Speaker 7: going to resign and so they're going to want a terminator.
Speaker 7: Now in Ohio, we'ren't at will state, so you can
Speaker 7: terminate someone as long as it's not based on some
Speaker 7: you know, legal reason.
Speaker 3: Race, gender, national origin, et cetera.
Speaker 6: But she is.
Speaker 7: Probably under a contract. So if that's the case, then
Speaker 7: they can only terminate her from that contract for just cause.
Speaker 7: There's got to be a good reason why. And it
Speaker 7: could be policy, you know, some type of policy being
Speaker 7: broken obvious, so it could be something illegal, or could
Speaker 7: just be mismanagement of the you know, the city. So
Speaker 7: those are things that they're going to be looking for.
Speaker 7: And you know, the the issue with that too is
Speaker 7: you know, we do know that crime is up, and
Speaker 7: we know that violent crime is up. But her Herney
Speaker 7: said the other day that she's offered to sit down
Speaker 7: with the mayor and the judges to talk about, you know,
Speaker 7: these these bonds that are being given because that could
Speaker 7: be one situation that why crime is up is essentially
Speaker 7: if someone gets arrested for a violent crime and is
Speaker 7: back out on the street, you know, a few days later,
Speaker 7: you know, crime is not going to go away, and
Speaker 7: and it looks like, you know, an election year you're
Speaker 7: now having a situation where the that's let's get rid
Speaker 7: of the police chief, and that's why there's all these
Speaker 7: problems going on in Cincinnati instead of may be you know, leadership.
Speaker 1: I don't think you have to be a political analysis
Speaker 1: supple political mind like like a Willie Conningham, James Carvill
Speaker 1: or something that right where they for the regular voter,
Speaker 1: for the rank and five or the typical constitution, what
Speaker 1: they see this they see right through. And I think
Speaker 1: every man and woman who doesn't have a jurisd doctorate
Speaker 1: is not educated in law like like you are, Jason Pillibaum.
Speaker 1: I mean I look at it and go, they're doing
Speaker 1: a dirty.
Speaker 7: Yeah, And I think that's what a lot of people
Speaker 7: are thinking. Now, you know, play Devil's Advocate for a second.
Speaker 7: You know, crime is up. We talked about that. Is
Speaker 7: there something she should have been doing that she's not?
Speaker 7: I mean, is she not you know, putting the police
Speaker 7: in the right position. Are her subordinates telling her that,
Speaker 7: you know, you should you should put police here, you
Speaker 7: should maybe do some kind of burst here, and then
Speaker 7: she just decides she's not doing that, and as a result,
Speaker 7: you have this issue on Fountain Square you have these
Speaker 7: other issues.
Speaker 3: Now that might be a legitimate thing. I mean, and
Speaker 3: maybe that's something we don't know.
Speaker 7: Again just playing devil's advocate, But even if you look
Speaker 7: at what her attorney said, is the FOP I think
Speaker 7: is backing her. So I would think that if her
Speaker 7: subordinates were telling her to do things and she was
Speaker 7: just flat out of ignoring them, I'm not sure that
Speaker 7: they would have that backing that she has.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he is attorney Jason Philibaum, the very latest involving
Speaker 1: territory THIJI. Now we're hiring a law from a local
Speaker 1: law from Frost Brown Todd, pretty good firm that they're
Speaker 1: going to do some deep diving and try and find
Speaker 1: out the reasons why they fired her before. Ye as
Speaker 1: you said, you know this is I showed first, asked
Speaker 1: questions later. I guess the Inquirer came out with this
Speaker 1: this morning. The scope of the investigation. This is what
Speaker 1: the lawyers, the team for the city outside council is
Speaker 1: going to investigate. And now there are four prongs to
Speaker 1: this thing. Is she an effective leader and manager of
Speaker 1: the department, including personnel and resources. Is she a leader
Speaker 1: within the context of city government, meaning does she further
Speaker 1: the broader goals and objectives of the administration. Has she
Speaker 1: committed any infraction or positive volition while serving as police chief,
Speaker 1: and did she disregard best practices in the running a
Speaker 1: CPD to the detriment of detriment of public safety and
Speaker 1: crime prevention. Well, let's start with the first one. Is
Speaker 1: she an effective leader and manager of the department, including
Speaker 1: personnel and resources? That seems like an open ended question,
Speaker 1: like if there were problems with her management personnel that
Speaker 1: the previous chief notoriously had issues with that when I
Speaker 1: guess it was before Craig notoriously had problems with that too,
Speaker 1: and it was public so but believing or heard of
Speaker 1: that at Chief Thiji, you know, the rank and file
Speaker 1: were really split on it, really didn't care for her
Speaker 1: all that much. But once they did what they did
Speaker 1: to her, they realized they could come next. And now everyone,
Speaker 1: even her detractors, are supporters, so they rallied them. So
Speaker 1: to look at this and say is she an effective
Speaker 1: leader or manager? You can say that of any boss,
Speaker 1: can't you?
Speaker 3: Right? Exactly? And I call that fuzzy math.
Speaker 7: You know, that's the law school exam where it depends
Speaker 7: on who's paying me. That's the answer I give you. Know,
Speaker 7: you're paying me on this one side, I tell you
Speaker 7: why she's an effective leader. If you're paying me on
Speaker 7: the other side, I'll give you all the reasons why
Speaker 7: she's not. I mean that's again, I don't think that's
Speaker 7: what this is going to fall down on, because again,
Speaker 7: like you said, that is so vague, it's so fuzzy
Speaker 7: that you know, if they want to decide that she's
Speaker 7: not a good leader, they're gonna they're gonna find reasons
Speaker 7: to justify that, just like if you want to find
Speaker 7: that she's a good leader, you'd find the reasons. So,
Speaker 7: you know, the first two that you mentioned, those prongs
Speaker 7: that those both both are very fuzzy, math fuzzy sort
Speaker 7: of law school exams where anyone can answer anything. I
Speaker 7: think the crux is going to be number three, which
Speaker 7: is is there an infraction?
Speaker 3: You know, is there something that she did that she
Speaker 3: not follow a policy.
Speaker 7: I don't think there's any allegation of criminal wrongdoing, So
Speaker 7: it's going to be something something you know, so minor
Speaker 7: that and that's where she's gonna then get into court
Speaker 7: and say, look, other people have done you know, other
Speaker 7: people forgot to call in on day that they were
Speaker 7: taken off and they were allowed to stay. But I'm
Speaker 7: getting fired things like that. And then of course number four,
Speaker 7: I mean, that's that's I think the one that's a
Speaker 7: little bit more serious. You know, there's a problem in
Speaker 7: Cincinnati with crime. Whose fault is it? Is it the mayors?
Speaker 7: Is that the judges? Is it the police chief?
Speaker 3: You know? Is it society? I mean, what's the problem?
Speaker 7: And I think it'd be interesting to see if there's
Speaker 7: something that she should be doing or something like you said,
Speaker 7: best practices that she didn't do. That would be the
Speaker 7: one that would you know, sell me yes or no,
Speaker 7: as opposed to the other three prongs that you know
Speaker 7: they can find out of anybody.
Speaker 1: Now, Jason Philibel, Attorney at Law, Relative to the four
Speaker 1: pillars of this investigation by outside Council for the City
Speaker 1: of Cincinnati to towards Terry Thiji, you mentioned number three,
Speaker 1: is she's committed any infraction policy violation while serving as
Speaker 1: a police chief. If she had and it rose to
Speaker 1: the level of an impeachable offense, wouldn't we have heard that?
Speaker 1: I mean, typically, you know, when someone commits a crime,
Speaker 1: let's look at what happened with the NBA recently. What
Speaker 1: happened was Cashpttel. The FBI held a press conference, they
Speaker 1: had the evidence. They made the charge that Okay, here's
Speaker 1: we're coming at these individuals. We're going after Chauncey Belcher,
Speaker 1: going after other individuals because this is the as.
Speaker 2: We have in this case.
Speaker 1: They're going, well, it'd be like them going, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: we're suspending Chauncey pillops, and now we're going to do
Speaker 1: an investigation to find out what he did wrong. That's
Speaker 1: the problem with this is that if you in any
Speaker 1: other case, with due process, and I think it applies
Speaker 1: you to a degree that if you commit an infraction,
Speaker 1: you make those charges allegations, you suspend them all, you
Speaker 1: investigate the scope and the depth, and then eventually you
Speaker 1: terminate that person because now you've gathered the evidence.
Speaker 2: This is completely the opposite of that, right, And.
Speaker 7: That's why I think a lot of people look at
Speaker 7: this and say that's not fair. You know, you don't
Speaker 7: arrest somebody and say, go find me a crime. The
Speaker 7: crimes committed, then you arrest them, and then you either
Speaker 7: investigate further or prove or disprove.
Speaker 3: That it happened.
Speaker 7: What's not fair is to essentially take someone out of
Speaker 7: a position and look for something that they did wrong.
Speaker 3: And you know, I.
Speaker 7: Would think, you know, if they did something wrong, you
Speaker 7: wouldn't have the city manager talking about what a great
Speaker 7: thirty five years and what a great person this is
Speaker 7: and we wish you the best. I think I think
Speaker 7: that was the statement when they put her on leave,
Speaker 7: is you know, what a great sellar career. If there's
Speaker 7: truly an infraction worthy of dismissal, that's not the statement.
Speaker 3: You put out there.
Speaker 7: So that tells me they probably don't know if there's one,
Speaker 7: and they're now looking for one so they can hang
Speaker 7: their hat on it.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, our tires at nineteen ninety eight, we're touching a
Speaker 1: handicapped spot. Accidentally, she didn't close the cover before striking
Speaker 1: when she was trying to light a candle some matches,
Speaker 1: and she tore the mattress tag offer her ceiling. Those
Speaker 1: don't rise to levels. The reason you get fired because
Speaker 1: everyone does that.
Speaker 7: Right exactly exactly, and that's what they're that's what they're
Speaker 7: looking for now again so they can find it for
Speaker 7: cause now I think again, the legitimate, legitimate, investigation would
Speaker 7: be number four. But again that's not something that I
Speaker 7: would do. Post termination or in this case just suspension.
Speaker 7: Is what is she doing wrong? Why is the city
Speaker 7: you know, and maybe that's a good investigation, you know,
Speaker 7: find to tell me why Cincinnati crime was going up?
Speaker 7: And see if we but to sit there and take
Speaker 7: the police chief out and then do that investigation.
Speaker 6: That seems again putting a little bit of the cart
Speaker 6: before the horse.
Speaker 1: Well it seems like, you know, they're turning under a stone,
Speaker 1: the stone over, but when they kick the stone, a
Speaker 1: lot of things are going to run. I wonder how
Speaker 1: much of those those bugs come back to bite after
Speaker 1: a pureval Because two and four of this four pillar
Speaker 1: investigation by Brown Frost Todd is she too is is
Speaker 1: she a leader within the context of city government, meaning
Speaker 1: furthering the broader goals and objects of the city administration?
Speaker 1: Number four is did she regard best practices in the
Speaker 1: running of CPD. I don't know if that's just best
Speaker 1: practices by police standards, pot of standards or best practices
Speaker 1: is set forth by number two the administration. Because that's
Speaker 1: the sticky part is when she interviewed for this job
Speaker 1: three years ago, Jason Philabmama was looking at some of
Speaker 1: the interviews she did. She said her biggest priority was
Speaker 1: to continued diversity, equity, and inclusion within the Cincinnati Police Department,
Speaker 1: how to lift people up. And she also had to
Speaker 1: get the blessing and interview essentially with Iris Rawley, who
Speaker 1: we've seen in recent time investigated and get herself involved
Speaker 1: between a suspect a subject who was being arrested for
Speaker 1: violating probation and was essentially interfering with the business of
Speaker 1: a police officer. She had an interview with her to
Speaker 1: get this job in the first place. So when I
Speaker 1: hear that and then see what's happened with owner cognisance
Speaker 1: people cutting their ankle monitor off and there's no repercussion
Speaker 1: from the court for that essentially doing what they say
Speaker 1: they weren't going to do, literally within minutes of leaving.
Speaker 1: The people who have been jammed up and all this
Speaker 1: high profile violence save maybe the brawl, there's other factors
Speaker 1: in there, and how that was handled as a nightmare
Speaker 1: that wasn't on the chief, but everything else was. Like
Speaker 1: people who had violent prior criminal offenses that were precluded
Speaker 1: from having a gun because they're under disability. By law,
Speaker 1: it's not her to set those policies. That's on the mayor.
Speaker 1: So they're doing this investigation. I wonder how much of
Speaker 1: this this is going to come back and implicate have
Speaker 1: to apeer, volunteer a loan.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I agree, And if you look at I think
Speaker 7: the mayor put out a statement. He put out a
Speaker 7: statement that he had nothing to do with his firing. Again,
Speaker 7: I find that to be maybe a little disingenuous, because
Speaker 7: why in the world would a city manager three weeks
Speaker 7: before an election terminate your female police chief without talking
Speaker 7: to the mayor. That would be a very dumb move.
Speaker 7: So I would think that there was a discussion ahead
Speaker 7: of time. But like you said, there's a lot of
Speaker 7: factors to consider. You know, is she pushing dei and
Speaker 7: that's why there's not enough police on the street.
Speaker 6: Maybe that's a legitimate decision.
Speaker 7: To you know, talk about whether that's.
Speaker 3: The appropriate way to handle policing.
Speaker 7: You know, but recently the city also engaged in a
Speaker 7: federal settlement where they are changing the way they're policing.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's that could be a very real reason
Speaker 3: for why things are.
Speaker 7: Going up, you know, having bonds like you said, someone
Speaker 7: that commits a violent crime and has let out, Hey,
Speaker 7: that's the that's not on the police issue.
Speaker 3: That's not on her Exactly.
Speaker 1: I could see if she's falsifying reports and people aren't
Speaker 1: showing up, and she's backdating payroll. I mean, those are
Speaker 1: the things you're definitely going to get you and should
Speaker 1: get you fired. But essentially, the vision by this administration
Speaker 1: is criminals are victims too, has led us to this point.
Speaker 1: That's not on Terry Thiji. That's on the people who
Speaker 1: hire Terry Thiji.
Speaker 3: Exactly.
Speaker 7: As I said at the beginning of this talk, it
Speaker 7: sounds to me like a scapegoat. It sounds to me like,
Speaker 7: you know, we're two weeks out from an election, and
Speaker 7: I've got to tell the people that there's a problem,
Speaker 7: and I fixed the problem. And now, by the way,
Speaker 7: that's hired these really good attorneys to go in there
Speaker 7: and find out what the problem was, and then I
Speaker 7: can match it up and say, hey, did a good job,
Speaker 7: which of course won't come out until after the election. Anyway,
Speaker 7: it's going to take two three months to do a
Speaker 7: thorough investigation, whether it's legitimate or whether it's brought up
Speaker 7: after the facts. So I don't think we're going to
Speaker 7: know anything. We'll probably januinely.
Speaker 1: After the election. Of course, that's what this is about
Speaker 1: buying some time for the election. But it really doesn't
Speaker 1: because it makes them looking competent and stupid and not
Speaker 1: the first time either. I would also add this finally,
Speaker 1: Jason Philibama, attorney at law, if you're representing, if you're
Speaker 1: on Team Fiji, are your eyes now glazing over with
Speaker 1: the millions and millions of dollars would possibly be getting it?
Speaker 1: Because quite honestly, the way this whole thing was executed,
Speaker 1: it's seemingly, in addition to the two hundred K she's making,
Speaker 1: could wind up getting a help of payout to sign
Speaker 1: a non disclosure agreement because if she doesn't sign an NDA,
Speaker 1: don't force an NDA, then then she can roll over
Speaker 1: on this administration and really let the go seut and
Speaker 1: they don't want that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Yes, her attorney's firm is well known for suing cities
Speaker 7: and municipalities and going after them and then you know,
Speaker 7: that's been a lot of expensive lawsuits and if they
Speaker 7: if they end up getting, you know, something that they
Speaker 7: can hang their hat on, then you've got attorney fees
Speaker 7: in play, and that's a pretty penny that.
Speaker 3: The Cincinnati have to pay out. So yeah, there's there's
Speaker 3: My guess is there's going to be.
Speaker 7: A settlement some way through the process, because otherwise it's
Speaker 7: going to be expensive for somebody.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: If the Finny law firm were like the Bengals defense,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't be having conversations about not making the playoffs
Speaker 1: and firing coaches, if you know what I mean, because
Speaker 1: they are tenacious. If anything, he is attorney Jason Phillibaum
Speaker 1: a private practice of course, attorney himself, just kind of
Speaker 1: a different view, a different set of eyes on this
Speaker 1: issue right now because it doesn't pass my sniff test,
Speaker 1: and it certainly doesn't pass Jason's either. Jason, all the best, buddy,
Speaker 1: thanks for jumping on this morning.
Speaker 3: I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thank you over at Jonas and Philibaum. Thanks again.
Speaker 1: Quick time out, we'll get a news update. And the
Speaker 1: controversy that they wish we're kind I hate when like
Speaker 1: we've got enough controversy in the world. What is controversial
Speaker 1: about what's happening at the White House relative to the
Speaker 1: East Wing, Because it feels like people are pushing this
Speaker 1: narrative like we should be all worked up into a
Speaker 1: froth about this, and I just maybe it's just me.
Speaker 1: I don't see it, and I'll tell you why next
Speaker 1: seven hundred WLW. One of the big stories this week
Speaker 1: is the demolition of the East Wing of the White House.
Speaker 1: With the government shutdown, with the snap benefits in getting
Speaker 1: cut and FAA and executive orders and effectless Congress and
Speaker 1: our deficit and debt growing exponentially and so much more going,
Speaker 1: does anyone actually give a fly and bleep about the
Speaker 1: East Wing demolition? I mean, you talk about a story
Speaker 1: to me that is just I don't know. It feels
Speaker 1: like it's like the no Kings people pressing this entire story.
Speaker 8: You see what he's doing, you see I don't know,
Speaker 8: As you know, I have some issues with Trump specifically,
Speaker 8: you know, the executive power, the spending of money we
Speaker 8: don't have, the tariffs and where they're going, what's going
Speaker 8: on with healthcare.
Speaker 2: There's like a thousand other.
Speaker 1: Questions out ask Trump and question what he's doing and
Speaker 1: the motives behind it. Not so much with the East Wing,
Speaker 1: Like I just legitimally don't care. I know the timing
Speaker 1: sucks with this cutdown and the shutdown and the cuts
Speaker 1: and all the time you get.
Speaker 2: The timing sucks.
Speaker 1: But you know when you sign a construction demo contract
Speaker 1: and you get as you know, after the anchors dried,
Speaker 1: you know, you move forward with the project.
Speaker 2: You don't really have a choice. I carry you.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of things with the executive branch and
Speaker 1: executive power I care about more, much, much more than
Speaker 1: the East Wing. This is not on the radar, but
Speaker 1: I'm fascinated by all the gnashing of teeth and crying
Speaker 1: about it. Is that, Well, what are they upset about? Well,
Speaker 1: they're taking this historic part of the it's the people's house.
Speaker 1: It's the people's and they're destroying it. They wiped out
Speaker 1: the entirety of the historic East Wing. Is it really
Speaker 1: that historic? Because it was Teddy Roosevelt.
Speaker 2: That built the East Wing.
Speaker 1: It's not exactly going back to Washington, it's not going
Speaker 1: back to seventeen ninety two here now. Granted, has a
Speaker 1: lot of history occurred in there, and they had to
Speaker 1: cut some trees down there after presidents. I get that,
Speaker 1: but is it really like you're destroyed? It didn't like
Speaker 1: take the White House and Clee level of put a
Speaker 1: Trump hotel up. Okay, that that would be outrageous, but
Speaker 1: the East wing in and of itself put into context,
Speaker 1: here's the silliicity argument. So the White House is about
Speaker 1: fifty five thousand square feet fifty five thousand square feet, which.
Speaker 2: Is like the size of.
Speaker 1: I mean, I was gonna say, like it's smaller than
Speaker 1: a wal Mart for crying out loud. It's six stories,
Speaker 1: there's one hundred and thirty two rooms. There are thirty
Speaker 1: five bathrooms. So if you got a pee, White House
Speaker 1: would be a good place to be. Comparatively speaking, if
Speaker 1: you look at comparable places, I guess in democracy, Buckingham
Speaker 1: Palace comes to mind, grants the palace the King, but
Speaker 1: that is essentially fifteen times larger than the White House.
Speaker 1: Now there is ten Downing Street. Downing Street is where
Speaker 1: the PM is, and that's about thirty eight hundred scriff.
Speaker 1: It's an apartment, basically, it's townhouse. It's about less than
Speaker 1: ten percent the size the White House. But again that's
Speaker 1: the figure out. It's a prime minister, primacy, important job.
Speaker 1: But you know it's about royalty, the British throne, so
Speaker 1: bucking and you know, okay, you've got Downing the street,
Speaker 1: but you think of that as the center of democracy
Speaker 1: for the government of the UK, for the British government.
Speaker 1: But Buckingham Palace, if you've ever been there, I've toured
Speaker 1: it on the outside anyway, changing the garden all that,
Speaker 1: it's massive. It's fifteen times besize the White House. The
Speaker 1: Rostra Parti of Bevon in India is about two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand square feet. So what's that four times is four
Speaker 1: times is the large of the White House. So comparatively speaking,
Speaker 1: the White House is kind of like in the middle.
Speaker 1: It's very mid as far as the size of the
Speaker 1: executive branches of government. But it's hard to compare to
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know the Kremlin. It's hard to
Speaker 1: compare to other forms of government and what their I
Speaker 1: guess their palace would be the version of their White House,
Speaker 1: if you want to call it that. So it's kind
Speaker 1: of hard to compare because you have different types of governments.
Speaker 1: So here the White House kind of like modest size.
Speaker 1: It's like a modest sized building. And okay, I put
Speaker 1: this in perspective right because in America, we ft we
Speaker 1: love space, you know, so they'll remodel pay Course stadium. Well,
Speaker 1: they gonna they're gonna put smaller seats, and no, they're
Speaker 1: gonna put bigger seats. If you've ever gone to a
Speaker 1: place where I mean it's old, old and they haven't
Speaker 1: updated on anything, you realize so quickly how uncomfortably crowded
Speaker 1: it is because it's built for smaller people. Today we
Speaker 1: get you know, when Teddy Roosevelt puts this thing, then
Speaker 1: the population was much much less and therefore fewer people
Speaker 1: would be gathered to the White House. And so if
Speaker 1: you just look at some and oh, here's what we've
Speaker 1: lost at the East Wing, I'm looking at pictures going
Speaker 1: that place was way overdue to be blown up. Then
Speaker 1: the East Wing had a movie theater, the Presidential theaters there,
Speaker 1: and there's pictures. Oh my god, look at this historic
Speaker 1: area that for the last roughly one hundred years. It's
Speaker 1: one hundred years old. The itself is like literally four
Speaker 1: seats across, and then they have like some folding chairs
Speaker 1: in the back. It looks janky as hell. They have
Speaker 1: this image they keep showing Obama is running bow his
Speaker 1: dog at the time when he was a puppy, And
Speaker 1: they have another image there I guess from that would
Speaker 1: be looked like the sixties or seventies where they had
Speaker 1: all these garish looking red Christmas trees up and then
Speaker 1: the main Christmas room mult they call it Christmas tree
Speaker 1: at the end.
Speaker 2: Of the hall.
Speaker 1: But if you'd have walked down the middle of that,
Speaker 1: you'd have to kind of swivel your hips. You'd have
Speaker 1: to kind of do the side by side wall, you know,
Speaker 1: like swing your hips through to not hit the Christmas
Speaker 1: tree on your left and right to get down that
Speaker 1: hall like it's that narrow, like could only be maybe
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five feet across.
Speaker 2: The real problem is hosting an event.
Speaker 1: And I talked to someone who used to work in
Speaker 1: the White House in news and news media and said, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, you don't really see it on TV because
Speaker 1: it all the airs of the White House. You may
Speaker 1: get the tour and everything, but the day to day,
Speaker 1: the operational the executive mansion is different than what we're
Speaker 1: talking about where stuff gets done, and it is the
Speaker 1: tour cramped, like there's a room for nothing there. It's
Speaker 1: it's so small and you've got so many people. We've
Speaker 1: added bodies, people have gotten bigger. You've had a more job,
Speaker 1: more titles and jobs and that adds to the bloat
Speaker 1: and size of government. And the White House essentially functionally
Speaker 1: has stayed the same, and so I kind of get
Speaker 1: that that if you add on this this which dwarfs
Speaker 1: the White House, it does look it does make it
Speaker 1: look like a double take. But you know, to have
Speaker 1: a ballroom that size seems about right in a sense
Speaker 1: because you're hosting all of these world leaders and all
Speaker 1: these events, where in the past you could have a
Speaker 1: few of them in there, but largely you had overflow
Speaker 1: and the tents on the outside. It was just it's
Speaker 1: not laid out very well. And so if you have
Speaker 1: a building that's that old and that small, I kind
Speaker 1: of get it, you know. And the other element here
Speaker 1: too is Truman is the one who really brought this
Speaker 1: thing into the twentieth century. It was a huge renovation
Speaker 1: that lasted like four year, made major changes. But even
Speaker 1: since the Truman renovation, because the White House was starting
Speaker 1: to fall apart, you know, Jackie Kennedy put the rosegard
Speaker 1: Trump leveled the rose gardens. But okay, well, what was
Speaker 1: the rose garden before Jackie Kennedy or you know, Gerald
Speaker 1: Ford added a swimming pool? Okay, what was that before
Speaker 1: he had to knock some trees down to do that.
Speaker 1: Nixon converted the swimming pool into the briefing room, so
Speaker 1: he changed that and added a bowling alley. By the way,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I think the bowling always there and
Speaker 1: something else now. So each administration is coming and done
Speaker 1: something sizeably markedly different. Then now this is huge compared
Speaker 1: But if you think about those changes in context, this
Speaker 1: looks about right. Like I can't help but think if
Speaker 1: you know, there's another term of Biden, let's say, or
Speaker 1: come on and they decid, Yeah, you know what, It's
Speaker 1: just it doesn't serve our needs. We need to We
Speaker 1: didn't make this place bigger because we're having a lot
Speaker 1: of state dinners, we're having events that require a lot
Speaker 1: more people there. We need more space. And even in
Speaker 1: our daily lives as Americans, you know, look at how
Speaker 1: the size of the house you grew up in verse
Speaker 1: unless you live on the West Side, doesn't matter. It's
Speaker 1: the same house, but the house you grew up, and
Speaker 1: how much different in your house is today, how much
Speaker 1: more space you have. When I first uh started dating Michelle,
Speaker 1: and I think where I actually married at the time
Speaker 1: she and I grew up in Buffalo, New York, and
Speaker 1: so we were back visiting and like you know, showing around,
Speaker 1: you know, you do that thing you show you grew
Speaker 1: up and stuff like that, and literally the house that
Speaker 1: we grew up and I was a kid, like, man, okay,
Speaker 1: this is the house I grew up in. We drove
Speaker 1: past it because I knew the address, knew exactly where
Speaker 1: it was, and I drew past it because I didn't
Speaker 1: recognize it. I'm like, wait a minute, hold on, just
Speaker 1: a second. Like my mom, my dad, me and my
Speaker 1: brother and my little brother three three, we lived in
Speaker 1: that house, Like how did we fit in there? In
Speaker 1: the backyard, I remember, it's me a massive, huge backyard.
Speaker 2: It was tiny.
Speaker 1: And so that's true. Right, we move on, we would
Speaker 1: get bigger things. Americans like bigger. We like more space.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how in the play to the East
Speaker 1: Room of the White House, and you know, it's one
Speaker 1: of those things where and I've been critical of Trump,
Speaker 1: but I get critical of things like he can control
Speaker 1: and what he told us and what he's not doing,
Speaker 1: and the government getting bigger and being more irresponsible, not
Speaker 1: more responsible, and doing stupid things and missteps and all
Speaker 1: those things. That's all fair, but this apocalyptic coverage of
Speaker 1: the dismissed the we're dismantling them, destroying the White House,
Speaker 1: the East wing of the White House. It's the worst
Speaker 1: thing ever. It's a it's just a remodel. It's an
Speaker 1: architectural decision. Like there's many of the things I won't
Speaker 1: worry about more in this administration and in politics in general,
Speaker 1: like the shutdown, and the East Wing doesn't even meet that.
Speaker 1: And I get, you know, it's like, well, we're going
Speaker 1: to make a small change. It turns out next thing,
Speaker 1: you know, two days later, the entire East Wing has gone.
Speaker 2: And I get it.
Speaker 1: The excuse was that while we decided, once we got
Speaker 1: in there, it's just going to be cheaper and easier
Speaker 1: to knock the whole thing down to build this in
Speaker 1: ninety thousand square football room is in addition, okay, and
Speaker 1: I think they probab probably knew that going into it,
Speaker 1: but shows selectively to go, oh yeah, we got in
Speaker 1: there and it was a mess, and they said this
Speaker 1: is the easiest thing to do. So it's too late,
Speaker 1: because you know, if you'd said that weeks prior, someone
Speaker 1: to come in and try to stop you know, somebody
Speaker 1: was Chuck Schumer would have chained himself to the east
Speaker 1: wing to send a message and over my dead body
Speaker 1: are going to do this kind of you know thing.
Speaker 1: We've seen the taper tantrums before, but it's a three
Speaker 1: hundred dollars may face. And the other element, too, is
Speaker 1: the concern that corporations are footing the bill for this,
Speaker 1: and how wrong that is it really, because you know,
Speaker 1: I recall every other administration, republic Democrat, they get stuff
Speaker 1: done by going to their donors and benefactors in order
Speaker 1: to get stuff done. To me, this is a little
Speaker 1: more refreshing and though, okay, how much is this costing?
Speaker 1: Three hundred million dour but we already have two hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars from big companies that want to do business
Speaker 1: with the government. Now, if they get a fat contract
Speaker 1: or something, they certainly there's quid pro crow there and
Speaker 1: it doesn't look good but countless and this is how
Speaker 1: things work. Option is how things work in our government, sadly,
Speaker 1: is that you got to pay to play. You got
Speaker 1: to get paid it. Just because you donate I don't know,
Speaker 1: ten or twenty million dollars to this cause doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you're going to get that in return, And most of
Speaker 1: the experts say, yeah, it's kind of an ongoing process.
Speaker 1: Like the big boys continually throw money in, which is
Speaker 1: why they donate to campaign You look at a campaign financing,
Speaker 1: why did they give equal amounts to Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: or a little more a little less to the side
Speaker 1: of that side. It's because they got to keep everybody happy.
Speaker 1: They got to streat spreading the fat cash around, so
Speaker 1: they keep everybody happy. This is nothing different. I guess
Speaker 1: the relieving part is like, man, we don't have to
Speaker 1: pay three hundred million. And I would also point out
Speaker 1: too that from those progressives out there that think this
Speaker 1: is the worst thing ever and why this is so
Speaker 1: wrong because these companies are paying an office. How often
Speaker 1: do we often we hear about these big companies and
Speaker 1: the CEO of fat cats, the fat cats, how they
Speaker 1: get those money? They don't pay any taxes? How did
Speaker 1: they give it anything back? They're a drain on the system.
Speaker 1: I got to pay tax they don't have.
Speaker 2: To pay taxes.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, if you're giving back this money essentially to
Speaker 1: build a white House, that will be there or east
Speaker 1: doing that will be there in the future. Isn't that
Speaker 1: kind of giving back? So is it hypocritical for you
Speaker 1: to talk about the breaks these companies get. These corporations
Speaker 1: get and they get hand out of hand and they
Speaker 1: don't do anything, but they know they're not paying tax
Speaker 1: and not paying their fair share, and they do something
Speaker 1: like this. You're also against that, Like, it's not like
Speaker 1: me and you and a bunch of poor people handing
Speaker 1: money out. It's not like all this three hundred million
Speaker 1: is going to come from the tax revenue that we
Speaker 1: don't have to pay for this. It's being paid for
Speaker 1: by private donations. Now do they want some trying to
Speaker 1: ingratiate themselves with this administration? There's no question about it.
Speaker 1: But it's not like Trump invented this. This has been
Speaker 1: going on since day one and in Congress and in
Speaker 1: the White House. What how is this any different than
Speaker 1: what previous presidents have done? You know, give it to
Speaker 1: my foundation? It's well, okay, if I'm giving to the
Speaker 1: I don't know, the Clinton Foundation or the Obama found
Speaker 1: or the Biden Foundation. Is how am I not getting
Speaker 1: special treatment there?
Speaker 2: Okay? Yes?
Speaker 1: And then then when Republicans do it, democrats yell. And
Speaker 1: then when Democrats do it. Republicans yell, I get that,
Speaker 1: but you know, to me, it seems like we're winning
Speaker 1: because literally the companies are paying for this, the same
Speaker 1: companies who say don't pay their fair share. Don't understand.
Speaker 1: I'll get a news update in about five here on
Speaker 1: seven hundred, ww whos Scott's Loan Show? And Winter Turn
Speaker 1: eleven oh seven. Here's a conversation that normally I would
Speaker 1: not want to have with this person. Nick Crossley is
Speaker 1: the Hamlin County director for the Emergency Management Association or agency.
Speaker 1: I guess it would be here in Hamlin County.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 1: Normally, if I have Nick Crossley on, it's because all
Speaker 1: halls breaking losts we have a flood, we have tornadoes,
Speaker 1: have an earthquake, we have a forest fire. I don't
Speaker 1: know if we have a forest fire maybe the mount
Speaker 1: Airy Forest, I don't know. But nonetheless, he is the
Speaker 1: guy who heads up our emergency management agency. Don't want
Speaker 1: to have Nick Crossley on the radio because I mean,
Speaker 1: stuff's going down, if you know what I mean. This
Speaker 1: time I did, though he's in DC and here's how
Speaker 1: jacked up FEMA is. Speaking of things we should pay
Speaker 1: attention to, not so much the East Wing of the
Speaker 1: White House.
Speaker 2: Did you know this that.
Speaker 1: A lot of areas of the country who have to
Speaker 1: get FEMA money. Now we've got some from flooding and
Speaker 1: stuff like that, but they're like, I think like a
Speaker 1: third I got the numbers here in the second or there.
Speaker 1: I think it's almost like a third of the counties
Speaker 1: in the United States something like that get a billion
Speaker 1: dollars or more in FEMA relief last year or the
Speaker 1: last couple of years. Goes to show you just how
Speaker 1: many problems we have when it comes to natural disasters
Speaker 1: and the like that we need the money for that.
Speaker 1: A lot of these communities, and this would be Hammelin County,
Speaker 1: Butler County, Warren County, and Campbell and Canon Counties for
Speaker 1: that matter, of Switzerland County.
Speaker 2: That if you had natural disaster, you'd actually.
Speaker 1: Have to go borrow money, borrow the money to foot
Speaker 1: the bill for the for the emergency relief from FEMA
Speaker 1: until the FEMA check comes in, and then you pay
Speaker 1: the bank back with interest. So wait a minute, double hit,
Speaker 1: I gotta pay interest in the marrio at Bauer.
Speaker 2: I thought FEMA was there for that.
Speaker 1: They're looking to reform the whole system as the point,
Speaker 1: and he's in d C four that's important. It's one
Speaker 1: of those things where like I don't really care, well,
Speaker 1: you know what, if it hit the fan, then you'd care.
Speaker 1: And now's the time. And we talked about government being
Speaker 1: reactive not proactive. Fortunately, people like Nick and the other
Speaker 1: people that are on this task force going to d C.
Speaker 1: And he's in DC right now. As he will tell you,
Speaker 1: this is important. We got to do this now because
Speaker 1: FEMA is really screwed up. We got to make the
Speaker 1: process easier, not harder, if and when a natural disaster
Speaker 1: hits our area here in southwest Ohio. He is next
Speaker 1: on the show right after News on the Home of
Speaker 1: the best boundals coverage seven hundred WWT since then towards
Speaker 1: the US.
Speaker 2: If you look at it, go back.
Speaker 1: In the year that we have all the numbers, and
Speaker 1: on twenty twenty three, about a third of all US counties,
Speaker 1: a third of US counties experience at least one federally
Speaker 1: declared disaster exceeding a billion dollars in damage. That is incredible.
Speaker 1: Think about that, a third of all counties in the
Speaker 1: United States of America.
Speaker 2: Every year.
Speaker 1: We're pretty lucky here in Southwest Ohio, Indiana can. But
Speaker 1: if and when we need help, there's horror stories about
Speaker 1: the process of getting relief from FEMA. Nick Crossley is
Speaker 1: the Hamlin County Director of Emergency Management. He is in
Speaker 1: DC right now part of a task force meeting with
Speaker 1: federal leaders about disaster reformed.
Speaker 6: Nick.
Speaker 2: Welcome, how are you. Oh, I'm doing great.
Speaker 3: I'm doing great.
Speaker 6: Good morning.
Speaker 1: All right, on this topic, this may be the one
Speaker 1: time where I would like to talk to you. Typically
Speaker 1: in the course of your job as the head of
Speaker 1: the emergency management of Hamlin County, I would not want
Speaker 1: to talk to you. So if I have to talk
Speaker 1: to Nick Crossley, We've got problems, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: I do, I do.
Speaker 2: Wait, We're pretty lucky.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, the weather's pretty temperate here is
Speaker 1: save maybe some tornadoes, I suppose, earthquake, But as far
Speaker 1: as the rest of America goes, we don't have to
Speaker 1: worry about fires and hurricanes and stuff like that.
Speaker 6: We're pretty good, well, we do, although we do have
Speaker 6: what are called Duratio events, which are high land you know,
Speaker 6: several years ago, around eight it caused the power outage
Speaker 6: of over one hundred thousand people. Remember that we have
Speaker 6: the river flood. It flooded just this last March, caused
Speaker 6: several hundred thousand dollars worth of damage along the river.
Speaker 6: And then of course we're starting to have more higher
Speaker 6: impact snow events and then of course extreme heat. So
Speaker 6: it's pretty much it's pretty much year round for Hamilton County.
Speaker 1: But comparatively with those third of counties think it a
Speaker 1: billion dollars in damage, We're not anywhere near that amount,
Speaker 1: thank god. What is the doomsday scenario that you prepare for?
Speaker 1: You know, maybe flooding, extensive flooding. I suppose a big
Speaker 1: wind event, but that's kind of temporary blizzard And okay,
Speaker 1: we might get a blizzard as we did back in
Speaker 1: the eighties. But what's the one thing You're like, Wow,
Speaker 1: if this hits, we're in trouble. What would it be?
Speaker 6: I think the biggest thing is similar to what happened
Speaker 6: in Montgomery County a couple of years ago on Mother's Day,
Speaker 6: which would be that large scale, multi vortex, multi county
Speaker 6: tornado that would come through. Because of our population density,
Speaker 6: you're we're pretty much completely developed in Hamilton County almost,
Speaker 6: and so if anything like that happened in Hamilton County,
Speaker 6: we would have incredible both initial the initial response would
Speaker 6: be intense with trying to help rescue people, and then
Speaker 6: of course the short term stabilization if we have Friday
Speaker 6: Ay temporary housing, and then a court long term recovery,
Speaker 6: which would be one of the most challenging things. And
Speaker 6: long term, both short and long term recovery is where
Speaker 6: working with our state and federal partners comes really into
Speaker 6: play to ensure that we have a system nationally that
Speaker 6: can assist the county in its recovery.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I was thinking as you're talking there, Nick,
Speaker 1: the seventy four Xenia tornadoes. Some people like a xenio
Speaker 1: iiO flattened to decimated, but there are several touching down
Speaker 1: in and around cbg SO and much less populated than
Speaker 1: seventy four than it is today. But imagine having those
Speaker 1: kind of tornadoes in Hamblin County. The results would be
Speaker 1: absolutely mind boggling as far as the death and devastation go. Nick,
Speaker 1: You're in DC right now with this task force and
Speaker 1: it's the reform or an introduced I guess reform, but
Speaker 1: it's the FEMA Act.
Speaker 3: What is that?
Speaker 2: What's that do.
Speaker 6: So the FEMA Act is really attempt to work with Congress,
Speaker 6: and it is they're looking for a companion bill in
Speaker 6: the Senate, but so it has passed the House committee.
Speaker 6: It's an attempt to fix the system, reform the system,
Speaker 6: not do away with the system, both including FEMA and
Speaker 6: the system as a whole. And so what it would
Speaker 6: do is, oftentimes counties post disaster have to find the money,
Speaker 6: borrow the money, front the money to pay for disaster
Speaker 6: recovery and then eventually, within months or years, you finally
Speaker 6: get reimbursed by the federal government if you get a
Speaker 6: federal declaration. And so what this would do is it
Speaker 6: would turn it more into a Once you create the
Speaker 6: estimate of what it's going to cost the recovery, FEMA
Speaker 6: would provide grants immediately, so that because every government struggles
Speaker 6: depending on I mean you're talking hundreds of millions of
Speaker 6: dollars that the government would have to find to pay
Speaker 6: for these projects upfront. So it would reform that process.
Speaker 6: It would also for survivors of disag or is create
Speaker 6: one application for all There's dozens of programs available to
Speaker 6: people post disaster, So this would create one application that
Speaker 6: would go to all the agencies and the other entities
Speaker 6: that assist so that they don't have to go to
Speaker 6: multiple websites or multiple phone calls. Another thing that it
Speaker 6: does is it provides a loan interest payment release, so
Speaker 6: if the government does have to take out a loan,
Speaker 6: that you can claim that interest as part of the
Speaker 6: reimbursement from the federal government. And then finally it works
Speaker 6: with FEMA to create a public facing dashboard. So this
Speaker 6: is the accountability piece, the transparency piece, so that people
Speaker 6: can see where the funding is going, what their government
Speaker 6: is receiving, and what their government is spending and on.
Speaker 6: So that's really really important with public assistance.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you're advocating for universal disaster application, that makes sense.
Speaker 1: You should be a portal. You go in, you fill
Speaker 1: it out, and all the agencies go to there to
Speaker 1: get the information they need. The fact that you have
Speaker 1: to go to each individual agency for aid is at
Speaker 1: this day and age is insane.
Speaker 6: Correct with with the advent of speaking candidly with AI
Speaker 6: and other things that can analyze data and really help
Speaker 6: you walk through which programs you're eligible for, whether it's
Speaker 6: a loan or it's a grant, that's critical to residents,
Speaker 6: and and and our our citizens are already stressed out
Speaker 6: from having their property damage or maybe that maybe they've
Speaker 6: gotten hurt or family members have died in the disaster.
Speaker 6: So this is one way that the federal government can
Speaker 6: assist with relieving that stress and trying to help our
Speaker 6: residents recover.
Speaker 1: Does this suggest the fact that we've got to reform this?
Speaker 1: Nick Rossley, that counties don't know where their applications stand
Speaker 1: in the whole process right now, are you just like
Speaker 1: kind of left in the dark.
Speaker 6: It's it's a it's a tedious process to be to
Speaker 6: be candid, and it always has been. And I don't
Speaker 6: know that that's if anybody's fault per se, because you know,
Speaker 6: you have to have accountability while you're asking for these funds.
Speaker 6: But I think one of the key things to point
Speaker 6: out is that federal declarations are the are the are
Speaker 6: the one percent, if you will, of declarations send it
Speaker 6: out across the country. Most disasters in the US never
Speaker 6: qualify for state or federal assistance. And so when you're
Speaker 6: when you're talking about this kind of event, this is
Speaker 6: the extreme. This is the Montgomery tornado on Mother's Day
Speaker 6: a few years ago, This is the both Montgomery County
Speaker 6: a few years ago on Mother's Day and then of
Speaker 6: course the city of Montgomery Tornado a few years several
Speaker 6: years ago.
Speaker 2: What a couple of I think.
Speaker 6: You yeah, nine nine, you're right. And so these are
Speaker 6: that level of disasters. So you have both extreme impacts
Speaker 6: to your residents and your citizens, and you have extreme
Speaker 6: impacts to the local governments. And a major disaster can
Speaker 6: cripple a local government. And so this is an attempt
Speaker 6: to work with Congress on a reform process because there
Speaker 6: is a role for the federal government in helping our
Speaker 6: communities recover from disasters. I mean, as you know, these
Speaker 6: are our tax dollars that we're using to help communities recover.
Speaker 6: And and and in my belief this is this is
Speaker 6: why one of them we formed a union, you know,
Speaker 6: two hundred and fifty years ago for many reasons. One
Speaker 6: of them was in bad times as well as good
Speaker 6: And this is why this declaration process is critical. And
Speaker 6: a FEMA is really critical to the country's resilience.
Speaker 2: Does this and FEMA is one thing, but what about
Speaker 2: mutual aid? Does that impact that at all?
Speaker 6: It's it's not really impacting this. So mutual aid is
Speaker 6: that initial response I was talking about, and that's where
Speaker 6: we all come together, our forty nine communities, in our
Speaker 6: in our local neighboring counties, and also the states that
Speaker 6: if we need that immediate response, that mutual aid is
Speaker 6: virtually automatic to make sure that we can rescue people
Speaker 6: and get them out of harm's way. This is more
Speaker 6: looking at the short and long term recovery, so that
Speaker 6: so that communities and our residents can recover hopefully as
Speaker 6: quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: Nick Crosley's the Hamlin County Director of Emergency Management Director
Speaker 1: Emergency mand for him. Counties in DC part of the
Speaker 1: task force to try and reform FEMA because third of
Speaker 1: all US counties have experienced this is twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: one third of all counties in the United States experienced
Speaker 1: at least one federally declared disaster that exceeded a billion
Speaker 1: dollars in damage. To put that in perspective in today's dollars,
Speaker 1: the Xenia tornadoes from seventy four would be well over
Speaker 1: one point five billion dollars today in today's dollars. To
Speaker 1: show you the scope of this thing, and that's happening
Speaker 1: in a third of all counties, which is mind boggling itself,
Speaker 1: and it sounds like based on a whole bunch of factors,
Speaker 1: weather change included that these things are getting more frequent
Speaker 1: and more intense.
Speaker 6: Oh definitely, And I think again also the density of
Speaker 6: Hamilton County today versus the Montgomery twenty ninety nine versus
Speaker 6: other disasters that we've had, everything is impounded. And then
Speaker 6: of course in today's world, with the cost of goods
Speaker 6: and other things going up, in the cost of flavor,
Speaker 6: it's even more increased. And so it's critical that we
Speaker 6: share this recovery process with our federal and state partners.
Speaker 1: Well, Nick, you're calling for this reform right now, but
Speaker 1: disaster damages are closing in on two hundred billion dollars right
Speaker 1: now and that number continues to climb for the reasons
Speaker 1: we talked about. Is FEMA even equipped to handle all this?
Speaker 6: Oh, I definitely thin because when you think FEMA, you
Speaker 6: think of the entire federal government. It's the same thing
Speaker 6: with the county has an Emergency Management Agency, but that's
Speaker 6: that's ten people the county. The agency works with all
Speaker 6: of the other agencies and departments in county government and
Speaker 6: state to respond to a disaster. It's the same thing
Speaker 6: with FEMA. So FEMA has X amount of staff, X
Speaker 6: amount of programs, but it works with the entire federal
Speaker 6: infrastructure and then of course with Congress to allocate the funds.
Speaker 6: So I think they're more than capable of it. I
Speaker 6: think that it is definitely time for some when we've
Speaker 6: been calling these for these reforms for many, many years,
Speaker 6: that we have an opportunity here with the Fixing FEMA,
Speaker 6: Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act, the FEMA Act, that
Speaker 6: to make these changes and make the process more streamlining,
Speaker 6: more helpful to at the end of the day, the
Speaker 6: local residents and governments of the United States.
Speaker 1: In the reality is we just said, I think it
Speaker 1: was Michigan and Wisconsin I believe that had their FEMA
Speaker 1: disaster claims denied long after the event occurred. And is
Speaker 1: that because of the reform we want here? Is that
Speaker 1: part of it?
Speaker 6: So you know they if you're talking about the recent denials,
Speaker 6: I mean, so it's either one of two things. It's
Speaker 6: usually because the the you have to reach a certain level,
Speaker 6: so there's a dollar amount you have to reach and
Speaker 6: damage and affects the citizens residents, and if you don't
Speaker 6: hit that, then you don't qualify for the federal decoration.
Speaker 6: Which is why most disasters are not assisted by FEMA.
Speaker 6: They don't they don't receive federal dollars for the recovery.
Speaker 6: For example, the flood we had in March did not
Speaker 6: did not reach the level of federal assistance. But I
Speaker 6: think that here recently there has been and more of
Speaker 6: a push to push that responsibility down to the local government.
Speaker 6: And obviously that's debatable whether or not whether or not
Speaker 6: they should do that, but but I think again there's
Speaker 6: a role that if we meet the statutory requirements to
Speaker 6: receive a federal decoration, that we should states should receive
Speaker 6: that federal declaration.
Speaker 1: Nick Crosley, head of the Hamlet County EMA here, is
Speaker 1: in d C lobbying the federal government to approve the
Speaker 1: FEMA Act FEMA Reform Act, that is going to streamline
Speaker 1: the process here to make it easier and quicker to
Speaker 1: get relief from damages when indeed, we have a natural disaster,
Speaker 1: and that could be here in Hamlin County, tornado, flood,
Speaker 1: possibly an earthquake, who knows we're near a fault line
Speaker 1: at any of that could possibly happen. But you're doing
Speaker 1: this the same time the government shut down?
Speaker 3: Does that?
Speaker 2: How do those two things work?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 6: So you know, while the members are not in session,
Speaker 6: they are on the hill, and so I have meetings
Speaker 6: set up with Senator Marino's office and centat Houston's office,
Speaker 6: and we'll be stopping by and chatting with them about
Speaker 6: the the FEMA Formact. So they're all still here working
Speaker 6: and so we just wanted to have that conversation while.
Speaker 3: We were here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we've had criticism about FEMA's response times in bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: And that's one thing for a government to Hamlin County,
Speaker 1: City of Cincinnati, State of Ohio. But when it's me,
Speaker 1: it's my house, my domicile and it's damaged that that's
Speaker 1: the taxpayer right. And again I'll have these agencies looking
Speaker 1: out for you. But that's that's a concern. It's the
Speaker 1: big bottleneck. Have you experiencing things personally in the course
Speaker 1: of doing your job.
Speaker 6: I have seen it as part of my job. I
Speaker 6: have not personally had you.
Speaker 2: Know, my home damage right right right by.
Speaker 6: A major disaster. But I've through my career, I've worked
Speaker 6: in from Kansas to California, too. I've been here in
Speaker 6: Hamilton County for ten years. I've seen the impact of
Speaker 6: the slow response and slow recovery and the bureaucracy, and
Speaker 6: so I think we're trying to feed that up with
Speaker 6: with accountabilities built in so that funds are used correctly.
Speaker 6: And I think again, the whole folks of this entire
Speaker 6: thing is so that residents can recover faster.
Speaker 1: The other element of this is shocked me, Nick, is
Speaker 1: that there's a provision in here for a loan interest
Speaker 1: payment payment really from our counties currently have to take
Speaker 1: out loans to cover disaster costs, will waiting for FEMA
Speaker 1: money and then have to taxpayers have to foot the
Speaker 1: bill of the interest.
Speaker 2: Is that a thing?
Speaker 6: Yes, so yes, So again, when you're talking these billion
Speaker 6: dollar damages, these billion dollar disasters.
Speaker 4: Then.
Speaker 6: In some cases counties have had to take out loans
Speaker 6: in order to because you have to you have to
Speaker 6: get moving right, so to speak. You've got to recover
Speaker 6: bridges and roads and water treatment systems and sewer treatment systems,
Speaker 6: and so this is the kind of it's the backbone
Speaker 6: infrastructure that they're trying to fix, and so they've had
Speaker 6: to take out loans and so This has been an
Speaker 6: ongoing argument discussion with FEMA about helping with those interest
Speaker 6: costs because we're simply waiting on the money that we
Speaker 6: have been awarded, but it's takes so long that they
Speaker 6: have to get moving because you can't leave a sewer
Speaker 6: or water treatment system or a bridge out forever.
Speaker 1: Right, Right, if this act passes, the FEMA Act passes,
Speaker 1: what's the timeline for Hamlet Countency changes? Specifically? What would
Speaker 1: be your top priority? Then they do what they're supposed
Speaker 1: to do or what you're asking them to do. What
Speaker 1: do you need to do at your end?
Speaker 6: I think our end would be educating. Once we both
Speaker 6: educate ourselves on what's the new process, right, what changes
Speaker 6: have come into play, make sure we understand them, communicate
Speaker 6: that to our elected leaders across the county. So I
Speaker 6: have forty nine communities with forty nine councils, so to speak,
Speaker 6: and so we'll be educating them on the process. So
Speaker 6: we know that if a disaster happens, then we receive
Speaker 6: a federal declaration both for that can help residents as
Speaker 6: well as local governments. We can get them into that
Speaker 6: process as quickly as possible. And so it's our job
Speaker 6: to make sure we're that bridge between the victim so
Speaker 6: to speak, and the resources that are available.
Speaker 1: Yeah, something the easy thing to do is make this
Speaker 1: grant based rather than reimbursement based.
Speaker 6: Right, I mean, it'll be you know, they'll once the
Speaker 6: FEMAC passes, they'll have to put in the face their
Speaker 6: policies and procedures. But again, the key that we'll be
Speaker 6: watching for is to make sure that when it's done
Speaker 6: that it's speed The intent is to get the money
Speaker 6: out sooner and speed up the process. And so we'll
Speaker 6: be monitoring that with the National Association Accounties and our
Speaker 6: state partners to make sure that FEMA does that. What's
Speaker 6: the level of support like on the hill for this,
Speaker 6: So it's bipartisan. So the Infrastructure Transportation Infrastructure Committee in
Speaker 6: the House passed it I think fifty six to three,
Speaker 6: So it's bipartisan support in there. And so again they're
Speaker 6: working on that. You have to have the companion bill
Speaker 6: in the Senate, so they're working on getting sponsors for that.
Speaker 6: And so I think disasters are a political disasters affect
Speaker 6: all states, all communities at at a given time, and
Speaker 6: so it does not know political boundaries, and so I
Speaker 6: think that hopefully we have a really good chance and
Speaker 6: also working with the administration because they have definitely called
Speaker 6: for for FEMA reform since before President Trump was elected,
Speaker 6: so we hope to well to line right up with
Speaker 6: with his with his efforts.
Speaker 2: Who are the three clowns that voted?
Speaker 3: I have no idea.
Speaker 6: I was looking at that boys.
Speaker 1: Get them to buy fors and go at it. You
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying doesn't make much sense there. What's
Speaker 1: the timeline for getting to implemented?
Speaker 6: I don't know. So again I think they're, you know,
Speaker 6: in the shutdown doesn't help, but I think that they're
Speaker 6: they're working to try to get the Senate Companion bill
Speaker 6: done and then it just has to go through the process.
Speaker 6: And you know, things are interesting in Congress right now?
Speaker 6: Gotcha all right, as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: Nick Crossley, Hamlet County Director Emergency Management, I hope to
Speaker 1: never talk to you in your professional capacity when you've
Speaker 1: got your helmet and your state of Ohio, your county
Speaker 1: jacket on and stuff like that. God forbid, It's going
Speaker 1: to be a bad day. But Nick, I'm glad you
Speaker 1: do what you do and I appreciate it.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Great to chat with you, Nick Crossley, Yeah, kind of a.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's interesting to think that God forbid we
Speaker 1: have a natural disaster that we now have to borrow
Speaker 1: money and pay interest on that just to you know,
Speaker 1: give people money in order to live, to survive. That
Speaker 1: is a huge hole. And fortunately you have bipartisan support
Speaker 1: for this whole thing. I mean, if we got money
Speaker 1: for foreign countries and you know, redoing the White House, Okay, great, awesome,
Speaker 1: Well how about fixing FEMA? You guys, no wonder Congress
Speaker 1: has such a low approval rating. Scott's loan seven hundred WW.
Speaker 7: Willy gives me hope, and these days we can all
Speaker 7: use some hope.
Speaker 2: Willy is here for you, no matter how lousy my
Speaker 2: day is.
Speaker 1: I know I can count on Willy to turn things
Speaker 1: around here to soothe your fears.
Speaker 6: I wish I could find a man just like Willie, like.
Speaker 2: The Great American that I am uses lots of big words.
Speaker 2: I use lots of big words too. It's almost like
Speaker 2: we're twins.
Speaker 6: All you have to do is listen to me the
Speaker 6: Great America, Bill Cunningham.
Speaker 5: Today at twelve noon on seven hundred WLW.
Speaker 1: Have you taken your family to dinner recently have been
Speaker 1: shot stash.
Speaker 2: This is all Worth Advice with Andy Shaeffer. Oh Man,
Speaker 2: you smell that. It smells like money.
Speaker 1: It smells like money has just come into the conversation here,
Speaker 1: Andy Shafer from all Worth Financial. I can smell the
Speaker 1: money through the microphone this morning. I can smell it.
Speaker 1: I thought that was just false, Scott.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll tell you what.
Speaker 1: You'd have some you're in high cotton if you've got
Speaker 1: money skinning the game. Of course, a couple few days
Speaker 1: of records or market highs right now, it's been incredible.
Speaker 2: What's driving all that?
Speaker 9: Well, I mean a lot of things are going on
Speaker 9: right now. You know, first of all, we're pretty you know,
Speaker 9: we're getting some decent inflation numbers. We had the CPI
Speaker 9: last week on Friday with a consumer price index, which
Speaker 9: is a measure of inflation. And you know, we haven't
Speaker 9: been able to get a lot of data since the
Speaker 9: government shut down, but the CPI is one of those
Speaker 9: where the government says, well, we need this number to
Speaker 9: be able to adjust the cost of living adjustment for
Speaker 9: Social Security, and they're certainly going to keep an eye
Speaker 9: on that and make sure that they have that in place,
Speaker 9: So you know, we're kind of looking at what data
Speaker 9: we have available to determine what the FED is going
Speaker 9: to do. Uh, the Fed's meeting today, we're going to
Speaker 9: get a decision tomorrow at two o'clock and the FED
Speaker 9: Chairman Power has a press conference immediately after that, and
Speaker 9: it does seem likely we're going to get a quarter
Speaker 9: percent cut. Investors enjoy that because what that means is
Speaker 9: when you start to cut rates, that encourages spending, It
Speaker 9: encourages borrowing. You know, it makes companies a little more
Speaker 9: flexible to be able to hire. And so what the
Speaker 9: FED is doing is they're starting to attack the labor
Speaker 9: market to make sure that it stays pretty healthy. And
Speaker 9: you know, in addition to that, you know, we're seeing
Speaker 9: you know, from a political standpoint, we're seeing some calling
Speaker 9: on terraffs and you know, with Donald Trump meeting with
Speaker 9: President g at the end of the week this week,
Speaker 9: it seems like there's some positive progress there. And so
Speaker 9: all of that, you know, leads to investor optimism and
Speaker 9: that's kind of where we are right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, and it's been a hell of a
Speaker 1: stretch right now. For sure, we'll see what happens. And
Speaker 1: I know those the numbers you're talking about were delayed
Speaker 1: because of government shutdown.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they were delayed a little bit.
Speaker 9: Now, we did have headline prices rose point three percent
Speaker 9: on the core, which excludes food and energy, but that's
Speaker 9: really what the FED looks at because they don't believe
Speaker 9: that they can impact food and energy prices. And so
Speaker 9: when you see these numbers that say, okay, well you
Speaker 9: know raised point three percent year over year, Well that's
Speaker 9: still higher. Yeah, but you have to understand how inflation works.
Speaker 9: It doesn't mean that prices are coming down. What it
Speaker 9: means is is that they're going up less fast. And so,
Speaker 9: you know, the FED at this point feels pretty good
Speaker 9: that inflation right now is you know, it really hasn't
Speaker 9: been significantly impacted by the terrafs and things are starting
Speaker 9: to cool. The other thing that I thought was really
Speaker 9: interesting is we're finally seeing shelter, which is the largest
Speaker 9: comport component of the core inflation continue to cool. You know,
Speaker 9: we saw that that rents just rose point one to
Speaker 9: three percent. Primary rent increase just at point two percent,
Speaker 9: and so you know, when we start to see housing
Speaker 9: prices come down, and I think the fact that we're
Speaker 9: going to see rates cut again is going to cool
Speaker 9: it even more. You know, that's pretty optimistic from the
Speaker 9: fence perspective.
Speaker 1: And people see this and go, how can that be
Speaker 1: that the market's doing so well? And let look at
Speaker 1: they're going to cut SNAP benefits pretty soon, and the
Speaker 1: cuts to SNAP and the Americans they Affordable Care Act
Speaker 1: and people are going to have to pay you know,
Speaker 1: twenty eight percent more for their health insurance or the
Speaker 1: same cran we're in benefit season. How can all those
Speaker 1: things be true at the same time. And it illustrates
Speaker 1: I guess for everything and try and I that this
Speaker 1: is a disparity between the haves and the have nots,
Speaker 1: the rich and then everybody else to.
Speaker 9: Some to some extent, I think that it is challenging.
Speaker 9: You know, you know, when we go to the grocery store,
Speaker 9: you see is that are you know, pretty high. That's
Speaker 9: probably one of my biggest bills. We cook at home
Speaker 9: all the time. We go to the grocery. Meat prices
Speaker 9: are particularly high right now, and so you're thinking, you know,
Speaker 9: how is all of this possible? Well, people continue to
Speaker 9: have jobs and there haven't been significant cuts in the
Speaker 9: labor market at this point. So if you have the
Speaker 9: ability to continue to earn a way just going to
Speaker 9: translate to spending. And furthermore, you know, people that have
Speaker 9: investments in those that have retirement plans and retirees and
Speaker 9: their accounts are continuing to grow at fifteen percent every year.
Speaker 9: That generates a decent amount of wealth to where you
Speaker 9: can continue to draw an income stream and continue to spend. So, yes,
Speaker 9: prices are continuing to be higher, but people are still
Speaker 9: able to earn a wage and the job market is
Speaker 9: fairly stable at this point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you look at that and go, okay, well that
Speaker 1: that makes sense right now because it's a small percentage
Speaker 1: of the America and three hundred million people you're talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, one point to one point four people are sorry,
Speaker 1: forty two million on Snap benefits rather and there's three
Speaker 1: hundred million Americans and say, okay, well, as a percent
Speaker 1: it's not that much, but it does have an impact
Speaker 1: on economy, and you're on a personal economy too. If
Speaker 1: you look at the price of things you just mentioned
Speaker 1: b For example, for the first time I can remember,
Speaker 1: I was at Costco of all places, I looked at
Speaker 1: some beef and when I'm not paying that right, I'm
Speaker 1: not paying that.
Speaker 3: Well, And I think there's a there's a point to that, Scott.
Speaker 9: You know, during COVID, when certain products were a little
Speaker 9: bit higher in price than others. You know, I enjoy
Speaker 9: a BLT sandwich, but when bacon is eight dollars a
Speaker 9: pound or whatever it was during that period of time, yeah,
Speaker 9: I'm going.
Speaker 3: To go without.
Speaker 9: And so, you know, people still have the ability to
Speaker 9: make decisions on their spending, and that's really where it
Speaker 9: comes to play. Just because prices go up, you still
Speaker 9: have the option and choices to make smart decisions with
Speaker 9: your spending.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I did see this that AI is now starting Well,
Speaker 1: we've seen it cost jobs. But Amazon's going to cut
Speaker 1: fourteen thousand people, and online education company CHEG is going
Speaker 1: to cut half of its eight hundred employee workforce all
Speaker 1: because of AI. And so the looming threat to poses
Speaker 1: is starting to become reality.
Speaker 9: There is some cuts that are going to be coming
Speaker 9: because of AI. I think there's a lot of industries
Speaker 9: that are going to be affected more by AI. However,
Speaker 9: we're continuing to see AI also developed jobs. We have
Speaker 9: a lot of jobs that are increasing because of AI
Speaker 9: and the tech sector We also have a form in
Speaker 9: Saudi Arabia right now where the Oracle Co CEO Mike
Speaker 9: Cilia basically said, Hey, the next stage of private data
Speaker 9: with AI is private data and merging them with leading
Speaker 9: AI models. And the thing about it is is that, yes,
Speaker 9: we've been through industrial revolutions, We've been through different you know,
Speaker 9: work revolutions. When the Internet was originated, we thought that
Speaker 9: that was going to be a collapse of a lot
Speaker 9: of jobs and we weren't going to be able to
Speaker 9: you know, find work and things like that. The reality
Speaker 9: is is that it also creates a lot of opportunities
Speaker 9: and additional jobs. So where one one sector might be
Speaker 9: thinning out a little bit, where are adding jobs to
Speaker 9: other sectors as well?
Speaker 1: All Right, Andy Schaeffer from all Worth Financial mentioned the
Speaker 1: numbers come out. The CPI core inflation shelter is the
Speaker 1: largest component of that. That's cooling off a little bit,
Speaker 1: believe it or not. Food We mentioned that that's moderates
Speaker 1: up but still kind of just pulling steady. Things look
Speaker 1: fairly normalized in flat right now, but the inflation rate
Speaker 1: is still a sticky three percent. That's above where the
Speaker 1: Fed wants it to be. Therefore interest rate cuts are coming.
Speaker 9: Yeah, because the FED has the ability to either attack
Speaker 9: inflation or pay attention more to the labor market. And
Speaker 9: the FED right now feels like, yes, it's a little
Speaker 9: bit higher than where we want it, but we're comfortable
Speaker 9: where it is, and the trends are going in the
Speaker 9: right direction, so they can switch their focus from attacking
Speaker 9: inflation to basically attacking the labor market and making sure
Speaker 9: that it remains healthy by cutting interest rates, which we're
Speaker 9: going to get a rate cut here tomorrow, We're probably
Speaker 9: going to get another quarter percent cut in the summer,
Speaker 9: and it's likely we get another one or two quarter
Speaker 9: percent cuts next year. And so you know, as an investor,
Speaker 9: you're looking at it, you're saying, okay. You know, with
Speaker 9: with interest rates starting to come down, that loosens the
Speaker 9: strings for people to be able to spend because borrowing
Speaker 9: becomes cheaper, not only individuals but also businesses. And so
Speaker 9: that's where the optimism is from a market standpoint, and
Speaker 9: that's why we're at our all time hius right now.
Speaker 1: Andy Shaffer explained to me, because I'm not an economist,
Speaker 1: most people listening article and I'm kind of stupid too,
Speaker 1: why can't you cut it?
Speaker 2: Why is it either or inflation or jobs?
Speaker 9: Well, think about it this way. If prices go up
Speaker 9: and they become you know, we were just talking about
Speaker 9: the price of bacon, If you increase interest rates, that
Speaker 9: makes it tougher to borrow. And so if you have
Speaker 9: less borrowing ability and it becomes more expensive, then that
Speaker 9: reduces demand. And if demand starts to reduce, then prices
Speaker 9: come down and follow along with it. When you cut
Speaker 9: interest rates, that increases demand, which allows for businesses to
Speaker 9: continue to thrive and hire more workers and help the
Speaker 9: labor market remain strong. So that's where it is. It
Speaker 9: all comes down to interest rates and how that affects
Speaker 9: the economy in general. If you continue to raise interest rates,
Speaker 9: which we did when prices were significantly higher, people aren't
Speaker 9: going to be willing to spend as much. And that's
Speaker 9: what it's all about. It's about demand and supply and
Speaker 9: your basic you know economics.
Speaker 1: There the balance of finances. What this is in the
Speaker 1: economy basically is that you can't serve all masters. You've
Speaker 1: got to pick the crisis and deal with that and uh,
Speaker 1: and then when the other one we.
Speaker 3: Go the other way.
Speaker 1: So and That's why it's it's.
Speaker 9: A certainly a delicate balance, and that's why you know,
Speaker 9: we talk about soft landings all the time, and you know,
Speaker 9: the FED can't be too quick with it, and they
Speaker 9: can't be too slow with it. And the challenge for
Speaker 9: the FED is is that when they implement either you know,
Speaker 9: interest rate increases or interest rate decreases, it takes about
Speaker 9: eight months for that to weave through the economy, so
Speaker 9: it's not instantaneous, and so they have to be a
Speaker 9: little bit patient, look at the data, see how those
Speaker 9: decisions affect the economy, and then adjust from there. And
Speaker 9: that's what makes it such a tricky and Denver, all.
Speaker 1: Right, let's get into the weirdness and the imbalance and
Speaker 1: also the whiplash nature of trade, Andy Schaeffer from all
Speaker 1: Worth Financial US in China. Looks like they made progress
Speaker 1: towards a deal deal that would pause more terrifikes, start
Speaker 1: to store normalized trade and I guess more more trades stability.
Speaker 1: I guess I want to say that is similarly really
Speaker 1: good news. I think the markets reacted as such.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, who knows, you know, I mean right right, well,
Speaker 9: you know, this is what we get you know, Donald
Speaker 9: Trump likes President G and then he doesn't like President G.
Speaker 9: And you know, there's you know, you know, a lot
Speaker 9: of bluster, and you know, sometimes it feels almost personal.
Speaker 9: But basically where we are with this is that it
Speaker 9: seems like cooler heads are starting to prevail. Things are
Speaker 9: loosing up, and most importantly, I think that both sides
Speaker 9: are focused on reaching an agreement before the end of
Speaker 9: the year. You know, this week's progress. It's not a breakthrough,
Speaker 9: but we have a meeting on October thirtieth between President
Speaker 9: Trump and President G for the first time in months.
Speaker 9: And so the fact that we're you know, at least
Speaker 9: sitting together and talking is positive. And again, you know,
Speaker 9: China needs our markets. There are supply side type of economy,
Speaker 9: so they need people to buy their goods, and you know,
Speaker 9: and and there's a lot of things that China supplies
Speaker 9: us that is important, you know, to to our path
Speaker 9: forward from an economic standpoint. So we we do need
Speaker 9: each other and it seems like things are starting to
Speaker 9: cool and that's why the markets have responded.
Speaker 2: Then there's Canada that's at the other end of.
Speaker 9: Oh yeah, well, you know, with Canada, there's there's also
Speaker 9: a lot of name calling and a lot of bless
Speaker 9: are there, and and the mood is a little bit
Speaker 9: different there. You know, we we had some trade talks,
Speaker 9: you know, with Canada. Recently, Ontario ran an ad here
Speaker 9: in the United States criticizing American tariffs and basically urging
Speaker 9: a return to the Reagan style uh economic trade balance.
Speaker 9: And you know, and and that, you know, kind of
Speaker 9: upset the White House and an upset Washington. Ottawa called
Speaker 9: the ad unfortunate but stood by its message. But basically,
Speaker 9: you know, that irritated the United States, and so it
Speaker 9: halted progress on steel negotiation, is aluminum, agriculture, and those
Speaker 9: are the big things that we trade with Canada, and
Speaker 9: and and that relationship remains important and hopefully we'll be
Speaker 9: able to have some cooler rhetoric moving forward there too.
Speaker 1: All right, there seems no end to the government shutdown.
Speaker 1: It's obviously not affecting markets. And how much are that
Speaker 1: weighs on our lawmakers to get something done? I mean,
Speaker 1: the markets start to suffer as all the shutdowns, that's
Speaker 1: a different story, but clearly the opposite is happening. How
Speaker 1: much is it do you think that weighs in their decision.
Speaker 9: I think there's a timeline on that. Right now, it
Speaker 9: doesn't very much. You know, there hasn't been a lot
Speaker 9: of official economic releases, so it kind of keeps us
Speaker 9: in the dark to where the economy is.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 9: If you start to see the limited amount of data
Speaker 9: that we have, start to move sideways on that and
Speaker 9: we need a lot more clarity, you know, politicians will
Speaker 9: start to get together and make a deal. However, you
Speaker 9: know where we stand right now, there is not a
Speaker 9: lot of urgency for the government to get back open,
Speaker 9: you know. Right now, you know Wall Street's going to
Speaker 9: focus on corporate profits. We're starting to move into earning season.
Speaker 9: We have one hundred and sixty two large cap companies
Speaker 9: that are going to report earnings this week. We have
Speaker 9: a lot of heavyweights out there. They're going to report Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft,
Speaker 9: and so we'll see where that is. So right now,
Speaker 9: investors are focusing focusing on, you know, what are the
Speaker 9: earnings of companies, how are they performing, and looking at
Speaker 9: the limited data that we get to make decisions as
Speaker 9: far as you know, where am I going to invest
Speaker 9: and how is the how is the economy continuing to progress?
Speaker 6: All right?
Speaker 2: What do we got week ahead here.
Speaker 9: Uh, well, you know again, we're a limited, a little
Speaker 9: bit limited. The big one obviously is the FED meeting
Speaker 9: today and in the conference tomorrow. We're going to get
Speaker 9: you know, some trade information as well. We're going to
Speaker 9: get pending home sales on Wednesday. Thursday, we're going to
Speaker 9: get our GDP numbers, hopefully right because a lot of
Speaker 9: this is still you know, on the sidelines. Friday is
Speaker 9: normally a big day where we get personal income, consumer spending,
Speaker 9: producer price index, a lot one of those bits of data.
Speaker 9: But as long as the government room hearing's shut down,
Speaker 9: we're not going to get those numbers.
Speaker 2: So we'll see what we get.
Speaker 3: We just don't know at this point.
Speaker 1: He's Andy Schaeffer with all Worth Financial simply Money. That
Speaker 1: show airs at six o'clock weeknights, that would be tonight
Speaker 1: on fifty five KRC. Every Tuesday morning he pops in
Speaker 1: to kind of check what's going on with the markets
Speaker 1: and money. So Wall Street looks really, really good right now.
Speaker 1: Government looks to be inapt and all is right with
Speaker 1: the world. I guess if it comes to your investments now,
Speaker 1: the day to day's different story. So keep your eye
Speaker 1: on the long term prize, which is getting the hell
Speaker 1: out of your workplace with a little bit enough hopefully saved,
Speaker 1: to be able to retire at some point in your future.
Speaker 1: I hope that's true for all of us, sooner rather
Speaker 1: than later. All the best, Drew, thanks again, have a
Speaker 1: great one.
Speaker 9: Thanks Scott, look forward to talking to you next week.
Speaker 1: Willie is standing by. He has returned. He's ready to go.
Speaker 1: He's champing at the bits. More Chresa Thiji stuff on
Speaker 1: the way. We've found out the law firm that's going
Speaker 1: to look for her reasons that she's been fired after
Speaker 1: she's fired, and we're going to pay them like forty
Speaker 1: grand to do that and get a by the end
Speaker 1: of the year.
Speaker 2: So that's awesome.
Speaker 1: You have a police chief who essentially has been fired
Speaker 1: and now we hired a law firm to look for
Speaker 1: the reasons as to why she's fired.
Speaker 2: It makes sense to you, No it does not. Does
Speaker 2: it make sense to those high a top city hall,
Speaker 2: Yes it does, Yes it does. And we have an
Speaker 2: election coming up makes it more interesting. Scott's loan Home
Speaker 2: of the Best Bengals coverage seven hundred W Dowde, Cincinnati,