Speaker 1: Week here already first week almost in the books, or
Speaker 1: at least halfway there. I'm being an optimist, I mean
Speaker 1: an optimist. This kind dropped yesterday during the swearing in
Speaker 1: of many city officials. In order to address a thirty
Speaker 1: two million dollar budget deficit in the coming fiscal year,
Speaker 1: Mayor after a Purevall, wants city Council to place an
Speaker 1: income tax, a payroll income tax, on the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six ballot, meaning if you work in the city, you
Speaker 1: will get an extra tax there. The money is going
Speaker 1: to go towards public safety and what he called disrupting
Speaker 1: poverty whatever that means, affordable housing, investment in underserved neighborhood,
Speaker 1: support for minority owned business and like Jeff Kramerding is here,
Speaker 1: council member and of course chair Budget and Finance. Happy
Speaker 1: New year, Jeff, welcome back.
Speaker 2: Good to have you. Hope you had a good break.
Speaker 3: I did. Happy New Year, It's great to be back.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, So there's a lot going on here.
Speaker 1: I think people will immediately hear new taxes and they blosh.
Speaker 1: The big picture is compared to peer cities, hell, compared
Speaker 1: to Ohio cities, Cincinnati is still pretty good now. I'll
Speaker 1: put a asterisk next to that simply because we also
Speaker 1: have of the county taxes we have, you know, pop
Speaker 1: property taxes are driving people crazy. Right now, we're paying
Speaker 1: museum taxes, school tech and let you add it all up,
Speaker 1: and it's a pretty good chunk of money. But the
Speaker 1: bird's eye view is that comparatively speaking among peer city,
Speaker 1: Cincinnati is still pretty good on this.
Speaker 3: Right yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, just from the city and perspective, we are
Speaker 4: very good. You know, all of our most of our
Speaker 4: revenue comes from the earned tax. We're at one point eight,
Speaker 4: all of our peer cities in IRA at two point five,
Speaker 4: So there's substantially bringing in a higher tax rates than
Speaker 4: we do in the city.
Speaker 1: Of same time, though, you look at how much people
Speaker 1: are going to pay more in property taxes and you
Speaker 1: just you feel the bite. You can look at the
Speaker 1: numbers and go, hey, that's great, but it seems like
Speaker 1: I'm paying way more than that I should be at
Speaker 1: this point. And I'm sure you're sensitive to that.
Speaker 4: I am I I.
Speaker 3: I understand, I understand that.
Speaker 4: And then going to or door and talking to voters
Speaker 4: that that is a dynamic. But you have sit us
Speaker 4: that are frustrated by you know, by and by litter
Speaker 4: and by other issues. And you say, well, we've got
Speaker 4: to keep our ark tacks artificially low. But the tacks
Speaker 4: are too high, so that puts us in a.
Speaker 3: Very difficult spot. Put it is the reality, and I
Speaker 3: understand it well.
Speaker 1: And I think this is again the timing of this
Speaker 1: is kind of suspect too, or maybe not prime. And
Speaker 1: that is we just had the shooting of that eleven
Speaker 1: year old girl on New Year's Day at Laurel Park,
Speaker 1: and two and a half years ago we had another
Speaker 1: eleven year old boy that time murdered at the same park.
Speaker 1: And the idea in September was, hey, we're going to
Speaker 1: appropriate all this money five point four million towards public safety,
Speaker 1: which may add to this issue of the thirty two
Speaker 1: million dollar budget episode get into a second, But the
Speaker 1: takeaway I think for residents is hold on just a second.
Speaker 1: We were spending this money. You gave you one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty million to put cam one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand rather to put cameras in around this park, and
Speaker 1: we haven't done that, and no one knows why, and
Speaker 1: no one knows where the money is, and there are
Speaker 1: a lot of unanswered questions I had and all beyond yesterday.
Speaker 1: She was confused by this. I'm sure you are as well.
Speaker 1: And so the optics of this, Jeff Gramerding, are that, well, great,
Speaker 1: they're going to take more money in my paycheck. But
Speaker 1: are they actually responsible with the money that I'm giving them?
Speaker 2: Now, that's a fair question for yes.
Speaker 4: First, I mean, what happened to the children is just unbelievable,
Speaker 4: a terrible trategy that has to be addressed. It's important
Speaker 4: that this has been and this has been a long
Speaker 4: term conversation.
Speaker 3: It has to be.
Speaker 4: This conversation began with the Cincinnati Future Session when business
Speaker 4: and civic leaders came and looked at the city's budget.
Speaker 4: The report which was very thorough which people should look
Speaker 4: at as a since the Futures Commission I came out
Speaker 4: in twenty twenty four and said that there is a
Speaker 4: very real need.
Speaker 3: The city's budget.
Speaker 4: Is not sustainable and they recommended two earning saxes, one
Speaker 4: point five to sustained as city's budget and one o
Speaker 4: point one for housing economic development.
Speaker 3: So this work has been ongoing.
Speaker 4: For two years plus, from my perspective, is dragged. It
Speaker 4: needs to be picked up and needs to be at
Speaker 4: a more deliberate pace. And this conversation is not directly
Speaker 4: related to what happened to the tragic incident.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it isn't, but I think of the minds of
Speaker 1: voters like, well, wait a minute, there's no accountability for
Speaker 1: the money that was already allocated for the cameras, and
Speaker 1: now we've got literally have blood on hands. Is a sense,
Speaker 1: because I don't know if it would have prevented the
Speaker 1: murder of this poor girl, this child, but it's certainly
Speaker 1: not good from an optics perspective that one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars supposed to go to cameras and no
Speaker 1: one knows who is responsible, why it's taking some there's
Speaker 1: just literally no answers. And then you come back saying, hey,
Speaker 1: by the way, we're gonna hit you with a payroll tax.
Speaker 1: It's not a good look.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I understand that a coming. Once again, it's important
Speaker 4: to frame this in the big picture and what this
Speaker 4: money will go for.
Speaker 3: Keep in mind that the futures commissioning a very small arny.
Speaker 3: That's the still a hole.
Speaker 4: Uh, that's an existing gap in our budget. So I
Speaker 4: want to be very cautious. You know, if we're talking
Speaker 4: about a very small earnings tax, we're talking about filling
Speaker 4: that whole continuing.
Speaker 3: Service as there is.
Speaker 4: There's certainly no money for increased police or increased fire
Speaker 4: or increase public safety. So I mean, we just need
Speaker 4: to be very careful what we're promising to frame this
Speaker 4: very important, large debate.
Speaker 1: Okay, so people hear this and go, all right, public safety, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we got to spend there. And disrupting poverty and neighborhood
Speaker 1: investment and affordable housing is big. But disrupting poverty and
Speaker 1: support for minority owned businesses and people deserveively. So look
Speaker 1: at it and go what talk about accountability? Where's that
Speaker 1: money going? Is it more programs?
Speaker 2: Is it? Is it satisides?
Speaker 1: Is it just unaccounted for cash And we're going to
Speaker 1: we're going to pay off some people basically to disrupting poverty.
Speaker 1: Going uh, okay, it's one of the root causes of violence.
Speaker 1: But I also think that that is demeaning in a sense, Jeff,
Speaker 1: because the idea is if you're poor, you're going to
Speaker 1: turn a criminal activity, and that's just simply not true. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a lot of the people who commit crimes are poor.
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of people who are below the
Speaker 1: povert lint, are close to it, that are suffering, that
Speaker 1: don't resport to criminal activity. The idea that we have
Speaker 1: to pay people not to rob is I think that's insulting.
Speaker 4: I agree, and I think as far as we talked
Speaker 4: about part of the earning stacks used to sell a
Speaker 4: whole and part of it will it would be looking
Speaker 4: back to since any future commission talking about economic development
Speaker 4: and housing, they proposed a point one for economic development housing.
Speaker 4: The largest bucket of money I was for housing economic
Speaker 4: development in neighborhoods like Christville and Bontel where the city
Speaker 4: of CINCINNTI does not have the resources to create the
Speaker 4: development that we want. So I think that the development
Speaker 4: like that, proactive positive development is critical, is the foundation
Speaker 4: for of any crime, and that's what that should be
Speaker 4: the core around any earning stack. In any conversations around
Speaker 4: earning stacks increase.
Speaker 1: Tell some member Jeff Kramert in a chair Budget and
Speaker 1: Finance talking about the proposed payroll tax that I have
Speaker 1: to have mentioned yesterday and you've got about I think
Speaker 1: sixty days to come up with a plan for this
Speaker 1: whole thing. Correct me if I'm wrong with the city.
Speaker 1: We operated without deficits through COVID, and there's federal money
Speaker 1: there too. But what's specifically changed in the past year
Speaker 1: to create this thirty two million dollar hole. The rumor
Speaker 1: is it's police overtime, it's the crime issue.
Speaker 4: I would say that that that's not correct. Police overtime
Speaker 4: is a big factor. But you know, this is the
Speaker 4: city's budget being unbalanced is the reason I decided to
Speaker 4: run for council four years ago. This, you know, you know,
Speaker 4: going back in this is in the Futures Commission. We've
Speaker 4: been operating on about a twenty five million dollar deficit
Speaker 4: a year and a year out and we always find
Speaker 4: a way to paper overage. And this is going back,
Speaker 4: you know ten years ago now the state government cut
Speaker 4: what is called the state and local government bucks. Heard
Speaker 4: the city Cincinnati. It hurt other cities, that hurt all
Speaker 4: the townships. In townships and cities had an make tough decisions.
Speaker 4: They had either to raise taxes or they had to
Speaker 4: cut services.
Speaker 3: Painful, but they did.
Speaker 4: Here in the city sin Sanni, I say, we did
Speaker 4: what we always do the cucin Sanny, we put our
Speaker 4: head in the sand. And hope the problem would go away,
Speaker 4: but it had, so this problem has continued to grow
Speaker 4: a year and every year. You mentioned the federal stimulus dollars.
Speaker 4: We get that money from Washington, which let.
Speaker 3: Us paper it over for a couple of years. After that.
Speaker 4: From a revenue perspective, the city has just said boom
Speaker 4: years the last couple of years, and that's let us
Speaker 4: payer over. This deficits. But the problem remains. So we
Speaker 4: can either be proactive and address it now or wait
Speaker 4: till there's a recession, which will happen at some point
Speaker 4: and the city's be looking at very very real custo
Speaker 4: and basic city services and possibly layoffs. So that's the
Speaker 4: reason I want to get proactive. Put a proposal in
Speaker 4: front of the voters, give them all the information, put
Speaker 4: our budget out there, which I understand nobody's aware of
Speaker 4: the realities right now. We need to make voters citizens
Speaker 4: aware of that and let them make a conscientious decisions.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: So London, James Johnson declared the war on poverty back
Speaker 1: in the nineteen sixties. We saw how that worked out.
Speaker 1: Yesterday the mayor aftered Puirreval said this money, the thirty
Speaker 1: two million good chunk of that is going to go
Speaker 1: to public safey, but also disrupting poverty, what does that mean?
Speaker 4: Can talk about what disrupting poverty means to him? From
Speaker 4: my perspective, any earning sec needs books on housing, and
Speaker 4: he can out development in neighbors where there's not development occurring.
Speaker 4: To me, that would be critical to turning around his
Speaker 4: neighbors and reducing crime. That's where I'm going to be
Speaker 4: as this conversation develops, and that's where I would encourage
Speaker 4: others to be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that just kind of scares me because that's just like, Okay,
Speaker 1: it feels good, but what does that mean disrupting? But
Speaker 1: we're trying to disrupt and pay people not to be
Speaker 1: poor for a long time. It's not working jobs in
Speaker 1: the initiative, work seems to be a bigger issue, and
Speaker 1: certainly affordable housing fits into that as well. And I
Speaker 1: think people hear that and they're a little bit curious
Speaker 1: at the very least as to where their money's going
Speaker 1: to wind up going because it doesn't hit you in
Speaker 1: the pocketbook. So if crime doesn't drop or we don't
Speaker 1: crush poverty, which isn't going to happen in affordable housing,
Speaker 1: has not as materializes. How are you going to measure
Speaker 1: that success? You know it, we'll put throw money at it.
Speaker 1: But it seems there's again back to the accountability issue.
Speaker 1: I think that's critical here and that seems to be
Speaker 1: a thread throughout the conversations we have, whether it's poverty
Speaker 1: or crime is we'll take the money, will spend it,
Speaker 1: but there doesn't seem to be that much accountability. If
Speaker 1: it doesn't work out, what happens, I.
Speaker 4: Think, well, first of all, I think people should look
Speaker 4: at the Future's Commission because I think that there is
Speaker 4: a lot in there, and I think that we'll tell
Speaker 4: people that this is a very solid foundation to begin
Speaker 4: this conversation. You know, there's some stuff in there that
Speaker 4: is probably going to be a non starter. There is
Speaker 4: definitely there is recommendations for a trash acts. There was
Speaker 4: a recommendations to sell some golf courses and green spaces.
Speaker 4: We received a lot of negative and immediate feedback on
Speaker 4: those proposals, so we heard residents. But I think there
Speaker 4: is a lot in that people will like and will
Speaker 4: lead to positive change to the neighbor And that's me
Speaker 4: part of the conversation and how you structure it When
Speaker 4: we did the railroad sale, we promised to put all
Speaker 4: that money into trust and lock box. That's been overwhelming successful.
Speaker 4: I think everybody read that with a wise move. That
Speaker 4: money is still in a lock box protected by city
Speaker 4: ordinance and state ordans.
Speaker 3: So if you're.
Speaker 4: Talking about an earning sex economic development, how thing you
Speaker 4: can do it the same way. So, yes, how we
Speaker 4: do this is be very important. The accountabilities can be
Speaker 4: very important, and that's me part of the conversation that
Speaker 4: has to be part of the conversation for where's.
Speaker 1: The line, Je crame and you're doing this right and
Speaker 1: then driving people away? If you make seventy five grand,
Speaker 1: you're going to pay something like one hundred and ten
Speaker 1: extra a year, one hundred and fifties to twenty five.
Speaker 1: We're crunching some numbers in the newsroom and this is outlier, obviously,
Speaker 1: but someone like Hunter Green would pay an extra sixty
Speaker 1: seventy thousand dollars here because of this, is there a
Speaker 1: concern you're going to drive out the desperately needed quote
Speaker 1: unquote rich people that we often I have, well, just
Speaker 1: tax the rich more. But what happened and as we
Speaker 1: saw in New York and other areas they move out
Speaker 1: is Kentucky Mason And are they becoming more attractive to
Speaker 1: people who are hiring income earners and what does that mean.
Speaker 4: For this Yeah, I think there's there's two points. First
Speaker 4: of all, the business community I believe in the city
Speaker 4: is very sensitive that are and for business leaders like
Speaker 4: Tim Spence, it's a third to come together and say, yes,
Speaker 4: this modest tax increase, this modest earning SAX increase makes sense.
Speaker 4: I think that says a lot when business leaders say
Speaker 4: this makes sense, we need this development, we need some
Speaker 4: more money. So that was the first thing. I think
Speaker 4: having the business community involved at the outset without politicians
Speaker 4: is critically important. And secondly, I'll point out, as we
Speaker 4: discussed at the outset, that our earning SAX is much
Speaker 4: lower than any of our city. So, uh, you know,
Speaker 4: using that logic, every everybody's choosing Cincinnati over.
Speaker 3: Columbus and Cleveland.
Speaker 4: Even with these increases, this takes me much lower than
Speaker 4: the other cities, so we'll still be winning compared to
Speaker 4: our other peers, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, honesty.
Speaker 1: That's fair too, is that you know, business is moving out,
Speaker 1: and that's what the concern is. We've seen some high
Speaker 1: profile businesses move and it might be because of crime,
Speaker 1: but this just adds another reason to do that.
Speaker 2: That's the scary part for you guys.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree with you. You don't like to raise taxes.
Speaker 4: That's a factor. But I think, uh, having a safe,
Speaker 4: vivor liberal city is going to be more important for
Speaker 4: businesses and equally important for potential employees than a sect.
Speaker 4: But that's only part of the conversation looking forward. I
Speaker 4: don't want to wet over that and say it's not
Speaker 4: a factor. It's definitely got to be part of the
Speaker 4: conversation as we've perceived the next couple of months.
Speaker 1: Yeah, is the is the timing on this a little
Speaker 1: bit sus in the sense that hey, you just got
Speaker 1: re elected, things are going, and now we're going to
Speaker 1: hit you with this tax literally days. That's the same
Speaker 1: day that everyone is has been sworn in. Uh, then
Speaker 1: you want to get this going within sixty days.
Speaker 4: So the reports came out in the spring of twenty
Speaker 4: twenty four. There was a conversation about going about into
Speaker 4: twenty four two years ago. There is a conversation about
Speaker 4: going to about in twenty twenty five last year when
Speaker 4: we are on the ballot and there is never enough
Speaker 4: consensus to do that, which is fine, this has to
Speaker 4: be done right, but you know, raising taxes, talking about
Speaker 4: taxes is there's never going to be a perfect time.
Speaker 4: So at some point of the city we're going to
Speaker 4: have to decide to do this, be bold and aggressive and.
Speaker 3: Put something before the voters.
Speaker 4: You know as a politician that this is not going
Speaker 4: to be popular, This is not going to be this
Speaker 4: is not going to be a fun conversation. I realized
Speaker 4: that I knew what I was getting into, but it's
Speaker 4: one that the city.
Speaker 3: Has to have.
Speaker 4: So I am not wedded into going in the spring
Speaker 4: or the fall. But you know, I will point out
Speaker 4: that this is now drug on for two years. I
Speaker 4: want to get it right. And if there's hard conversations
Speaker 4: went on, if people around the table really look at this,
Speaker 4: that's fine.
Speaker 3: But if we're.
Speaker 4: Just waiting for the sake of waiting, then I think
Speaker 4: that's unacceptable.
Speaker 1: One of the things the Futures Commission call FORER was
Speaker 1: a trash collection fee. It's never been done. Resalizing the
Speaker 1: water works. That's going to require voter approval, obviously, and
Speaker 1: those are difficult politically because it just feels like you know,
Speaker 1: he here's another tax. One of those go on the
Speaker 1: belt because voters might might ask reasonably, why should we
Speaker 1: approve a tax increase, wanting to try other revenue options.
Speaker 2: The Futures Commission recommended.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there's a lot of recommendations.
Speaker 4: As I said, I mean, I will not lie. The
Speaker 4: trash check received a lot of negative feedback. So you know,
Speaker 4: I've noted that waterworks. You know, that's very complex. It's
Speaker 4: going to take a lot of stepths. That's not a tax,
Speaker 4: but some sort of regionalizing water works and so it's
Speaker 4: not solely under the city. You know, that's complex, but
Speaker 4: there's no reason we should not start that conversation. You know,
Speaker 4: these are again difficult conversations, but you know we're here
Speaker 4: to have difficult conversations. So I say, think, I know
Speaker 4: that before this conversation, people are going to want to
Speaker 4: know that many things are ongoing, including looking at water,
Speaker 4: including looking into the pension system Solvent. The Office of
Speaker 4: Strategic Growth definitely was a focused point of the Futures
Speaker 4: Commission that has not been done. I would expect there
Speaker 4: to be quick progress on that front before this thing
Speaker 4: get gets to the mental because that's one a critical
Speaker 4: item that was in the Future Commission. There are other
Speaker 4: items in there that are equally important that we're going
Speaker 4: to have to have progress.
Speaker 3: On and make this work.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the Future Commission did the report. You got
Speaker 1: sixty days to put something together per the mayor to
Speaker 1: get it to voters. Hopefully it becomes more clear, because
Speaker 1: we honestly deserve to know what disrupting poverty means. And
Speaker 1: you know, neighborhood investment and support for businesses and that
Speaker 1: those are all vague and there's got to be more
Speaker 1: specifics to that whole thing. Otherwise it just feels like, Hey,
Speaker 1: you're asking for money and there's going to be no accountability.
Speaker 2: Hopefully you can get that address.
Speaker 1: Jeff Cramerting share a budget and finance with the City
Speaker 1: of Cincinnati councilmember. Thanks again of the time, appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Oh, it's great. Great to be with your listeners.
Speaker 1: See well, thanks, We've got to get a news update
Speaker 1: in and I know it's coming at you in all directions.
Speaker 1: The big picture, of course, is yeah, these city taxes
Speaker 1: are relatively low compared to other cities in Ohio and
Speaker 1: certainly peer cities, so there's room there, but no one
Speaker 1: wants to pay more taxes, and especially you know with
Speaker 1: property taxes and the county digging into your pocket a
Speaker 1: little bit more. You know, you start talking about now
Speaker 1: I gotta pay for trash, I gotta pay for this.
Speaker 1: That it all adds up, even though the technical it's not,
Speaker 1: you know, it's just another tax. I don't care what
Speaker 1: they call it, but it just feels that way, and perception,
Speaker 1: of course is reality. Saloney seven hundred wlw selony here
Speaker 1: seven hundred WLW Welcome to it. I just said, this
Speaker 1: is a that's kind of funny thing in where's this?
Speaker 1: In Wales? They they've had an issue now for the
Speaker 1: last number of years where like random shoes start walking
Speaker 1: ushing up on shore and you go, okay, that's from
Speaker 1: a obviously a shipping container or something. The shoes are
Speaker 1: from the Victorian era. About that like Victorian era's shoes
Speaker 1: because they have the cobbled nails in the bottom, and
Speaker 1: they identify the spever and then and they just like
Speaker 1: occasionally I'll find some more shoes. They have no idea
Speaker 1: where they're coming from, and a lot of the shoes
Speaker 1: actually are in good condition. Now figure that one out.
Speaker 1: You know, typically you see that, and this is kind
Speaker 1: of maybe a little bit gory. On the West coast example,
Speaker 1: they'll find shoes, like, you know, fairly newer models and
Speaker 1: the like, and there will sometimes be like a toe
Speaker 1: in there. They go, well, what the hell hat well,
Speaker 1: you know, by someone may have jumped off a bridge
Speaker 1: or died or whatever. And what happens is the sea
Speaker 1: critters when we call them sea critters around here, by
Speaker 1: the way, that's what they're known as sea critters, because
Speaker 1: you know, I'm also a marine biologists with technical name
Speaker 1: is seacretter. They'll just eat everything down and not get
Speaker 1: inside the shoe, and that would happen. So yeah, that's
Speaker 1: kind of gory, right, But there are other times where
Speaker 1: you have a storm or something, a cargo ship sinks,
Speaker 1: a cargo container falls over during a storm, and eventually
Speaker 1: it starts rusting and the you know, things will start
Speaker 1: leaking out. I think we have like some i know,
Speaker 1: some toys or dolls or something like that that they found.
Speaker 1: Is kind of creepy, but okay, that is fairly recent.
Speaker 1: You know, salt water and steel, it's not going to
Speaker 1: take that long to eat through that. However, you're something
Speaker 1: going well over one hundred years. All of a sudden
Speaker 1: you look at it, go wow, these are you know,
Speaker 1: and they're in pretty good shape. It's just the weirdest thing.
Speaker 1: And they can't figure out where they're coming from or why,
Speaker 1: but they just continue to occasionally wash up and got
Speaker 1: a pair of you know, ancient shoes that are right there.
Speaker 1: Someone look like they're in pretty good shape. Actually, believe
Speaker 1: it or not. Welcome to dry January. By the way,
Speaker 1: This is dry January. And the kids love them some
Speaker 1: dry Januaries, and that is not you know, some people
Speaker 1: experiment they going, hey, you know, I party too hard
Speaker 1: over the holidays, and I got to back it off
Speaker 1: a little bit here, and you know, start because it
Speaker 1: doesn't make you feel all that good if you are
Speaker 1: drinking every day, and so you have there are some
Speaker 1: people who wet januine where maybe it's just you know,
Speaker 1: one day a week or a weekend or whatever it
Speaker 1: might be, whatever works for you. But I think it's
Speaker 1: kind of quaint because you know, we just had and
Speaker 1: I'm going to try to get somebody on from rhein
Speaker 1: Geist here tomorrow to talk about this because Michael Why
Speaker 1: just banned the CBD infused you know, beverages for the
Speaker 1: state of Ohio, which I think is a bad totalitarian,
Speaker 1: nanny state, non traditional Republican kind of move, because clearly
Speaker 1: many Ohioans want the beverage and the governor said no
Speaker 1: and gave really no reason as to why he was
Speaker 1: going to line Item veto that whole thing, which is
Speaker 1: causing a lot of distillers and in this case brewers
Speaker 1: to pull their hair out because you're starting to lose
Speaker 1: market share.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you know this or not, and
Speaker 2: this was kind of news to me.
Speaker 1: I know that you know drinking is an I wouldn't
Speaker 1: say it's frowned upon, which sounds kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: pro clutchy, But I don't know if you knew the
Speaker 1: numbers behind this, And this is just it goes to
Speaker 1: show you how things change in America. That we are
Speaker 1: now at a ninety year ninety year low for alcohol consumption.
Speaker 1: Ninety years, you'd have to go back to the late
Speaker 1: nineteen thirties to find drinking levels at the levels they
Speaker 1: are right now. And it's especially big among younger people
Speaker 1: too Gen Zers, and now right now we don't know
Speaker 1: because they're too young. But Gen Alpha, the alpha generation
Speaker 1: behind them. Even there's an indication and being again that
Speaker 1: this trend may continue, it's unpresent. You have an entire generation.
Speaker 1: Gen Z is our huge generation, entire generation that's just
Speaker 1: not interested in drinking. And it's not primarily about health
Speaker 1: for them. They just are not interested because they're finding
Speaker 1: their social connections and stress relief and entertainment doesn't have
Speaker 1: to include alcohol in ways that previous generations didn't. And
Speaker 1: I'd imagine it has to do with the digital connection
Speaker 1: right where you're on your device, you're on a gaming headset, VR,
Speaker 1: whatever it might be, and you really don't need to
Speaker 1: drink to socialize out that they can have a good
Speaker 1: time without that, which is the dream of many, many,
Speaker 1: many teetotalers for sure that this day was coming, but
Speaker 1: it is. The problem is what happens to the alcohol industry.
Speaker 1: I mean, we are right here in the heart of
Speaker 1: Bourbon country. What happens in twenty years if this trend continues,
Speaker 1: You're going to see a lot of distillers wind up closing, merging,
Speaker 1: whatever it might be. And I would say the same,
Speaker 1: we're kind of like at peak microbrewery right now. Local
Speaker 1: breweries are facing a just a huge challenge right now
Speaker 1: with the economic environment, especially with the notion that you know,
Speaker 1: the next generation of drinkers aren't drinking, and we've seen
Speaker 1: just unprecedented numbers, huge generational shift away from alcohol, and
Speaker 1: I think it's you know, there's a lot of fact
Speaker 1: I mentioned social media, but I also think too that
Speaker 1: the non alcoholic alternatives out there are just so big
Speaker 1: right now, the mocktails, if you will, but also the
Speaker 1: fact that now years ago, I remember when oduleS first
Speaker 1: came out with oduels was like the first non alcohol
Speaker 1: beartic and you try and went, yeah, you kind of
Speaker 1: i'd have worse tasting alcohol beers, but it's not like, Wow,
Speaker 1: I really crave an o'duels. But the technology has changed
Speaker 1: so much that there's so many products out there. Heineken
Speaker 1: but particularly I try to guin Us. I think it's
Speaker 1: ginn a.
Speaker 2: Zero and it was really good. I mean it.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a little bit of a taste difference,
Speaker 1: but not not in a bad way. And if they're
Speaker 1: able to do that, and then you're like, Okay, well
Speaker 1: I was drinking for the taste before, but also the
Speaker 1: buzz i can do that, and maybe you know, I'll
Speaker 1: do an edible or something like that and just drink
Speaker 1: no alcoholic beverages and still feel better about myself because
Speaker 1: there's a huge health consciousness element to this as well.
Speaker 1: But also the decisould scare the rest of us too.
Speaker 1: As we talk you of debate over affordability. And of
Speaker 1: course you know Amy Acting by the way, just named
Speaker 1: David Pepper, Cincinnati's David Pepper, a long time Democrat, is
Speaker 1: her running mate and the gubatorial race against Vivek Ramaswami.
Speaker 1: And I look at this and go, okay, well, you
Speaker 1: know the battle's gonna be over in the present. Saying no,
Speaker 1: everything is affordable, it's just a lie. It's a myth.
Speaker 2: You know what.
Speaker 1: You know when it comes No one's gonna tell you
Speaker 1: about your personal finances. You know, if you feel the
Speaker 1: pinch about the economy and you think, you know that
Speaker 1: you have to tighten your belt because prices are high
Speaker 1: for stuff, then that's the reality no one's gonna send.
Speaker 1: No one is going to tell you otherwise you know
Speaker 1: your personal economic condition. Some people, you know, the stock
Speaker 1: market could take even more. And even though we're seeing
Speaker 1: record highs right now and really not feel the pinch,
Speaker 1: right you can iay, I've got to pay a couple
Speaker 1: of bucks extra for hamburger.
Speaker 2: You're not gonna fail. And there are people out there
Speaker 2: like that.
Speaker 1: But generally speaking, people feel squeezed, and that is also
Speaker 1: true with gen Z. Right now the financial twenty percent,
Speaker 1: two out of ten say I just can't afford to
Speaker 1: drink on the regular. Every once in a while, maybe
Speaker 1: I might have a glass of something that's buy and large.
Speaker 1: I'm not doing that. So we have a historic decline
Speaker 1: and alcohol consumption in this country. Fifty four percent Americans
Speaker 1: fifty four percent drink alcohol in twenty twenty three, So
Speaker 1: three years ago, I would say two years ago, uh,
Speaker 1: sixty two percent went from sixty two to fifty four,
Speaker 1: sixty two and twenty twenty three, fifty eight and twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four and fifty four.
Speaker 2: Now in.
Speaker 1: The end of twenty twenty five, and at this trend,
Speaker 1: you're going to see this, you know, the numbers go
Speaker 1: down in a ten year period, easily double digits, right,
Speaker 1: That's that's incredible.
Speaker 2: The largest single dip and drinking.
Speaker 1: We're seeing a ninety year low as far as alcohol goes,
Speaker 1: and forty four percent of Americans plan to drink less
Speaker 1: this year.
Speaker 2: Largely young people are driving this.
Speaker 1: I think the cutoff is going to be the cutoff
Speaker 1: obviously would be millennials, especially the older millennials. And you
Speaker 1: wonder that you look around, you see all these you know, microbreweries,
Speaker 1: and you know, in the day and agent, we know
Speaker 1: about restaurant and beverage, restaurant and food.
Speaker 2: I mean, restaurants generally don't hang around long.
Speaker 1: I mean, look at Taste of Belgium right, just filing
Speaker 1: bankruptcy protection in that place. I mean just a couple
Speaker 1: years ago, it's absolutely booming, multiple locations all over, and
Speaker 1: now they've they've completely taken that model down, and so
Speaker 1: tastes and interest change rather quickly in that sector for sure.
Speaker 1: So you know, looking ten twenty years out is damn
Speaker 1: near an impossibility of what the public is going demand
Speaker 1: because we're very fickle of what we want to put
Speaker 1: in our mouths or drink for that matter, drink or eat,
Speaker 1: So we just don't know one order.
Speaker 2: But it makes it wonder like, what is the bar?
Speaker 1: See what's it going to look like in twenty years
Speaker 1: if that, if that trend persists, are you gonna just
Speaker 1: see bars closing left after right, because no one is
Speaker 1: doing that anymore, or are you going to see all
Speaker 1: you know, non alcoholic joints open up, which you already
Speaker 1: have to some degree where you're gonna be able to
Speaker 1: open a quote unquote bar and not even have a
Speaker 1: liquor license because no one's drinking alcohol. And if that's
Speaker 1: the case, you go, well, why the hell would you.
Speaker 2: Go to a bar?
Speaker 1: I don't know, there's still the social element there among
Speaker 1: those who do drink. By the way, in that drinking number,
Speaker 1: only twenty three percent had a drink in the past
Speaker 1: twenty fours. That's a record low. Man, there's still twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three percent of people still having a drink a day. See,
Speaker 1: that just seems weird. That seems really weird to me.
Speaker 1: You know, back in the day, people would drink a
Speaker 1: lot of al and liquor and spirits because the drinking
Speaker 1: water is unsafe.
Speaker 2: Well, we don't have that problem.
Speaker 1: We haven't had that problem in like forever pretty much
Speaker 1: for almost everyone listening, I would say, and so yeah,
Speaker 1: you would get your ration of you know, if you're
Speaker 1: in the military, you get a ration of ale simply
Speaker 1: because the alcohol kill all the nasties off and you
Speaker 1: know it that that water was at least pure. But
Speaker 1: you know, according to people cabinet one drink a day,
Speaker 1: that's that's still pretty high. I would think, say it's
Speaker 1: more than it's been more than a week since their
Speaker 1: last drink. That's the highest number since two thousand and
Speaker 1: the average number of drinks the lowest since nineteen ninety six.
Speaker 1: It was three point eight and twenty twenty four or
Speaker 1: now down below to two point eight right now, and
Speaker 1: that number continues to drop. That is that's absolutely amazing.
Speaker 1: So you know, you talk about dried January, it's dry January.
Speaker 1: It seems like it's dry January through December, and maybe
Speaker 1: that is the one big month world young vibrary. You
Speaker 1: know again is against at you from you know, having
Speaker 1: a beer at a ballgame or at a picnic or
Speaker 1: something like that, a cookout barbecue. Okay, yeah, probably not,
Speaker 1: but it certainly is interesting dynamic. If you break it
Speaker 1: down by generation, and that is a percent planning to
Speaker 1: drink less this year. Gen z as I mentioned far
Speaker 1: and away sixty five percent, but millennial is about sixty
Speaker 1: percent plan to drink less this year. Forty nine percent
Speaker 1: gen xers baby boomers plan to drink more thirty Only
Speaker 1: thirty percent say of baby boomers. Are older generations say that,
Speaker 1: but my generation about we're about fifty to fifty right
Speaker 1: now planning. I'm not planning and drinking more or less.
Speaker 1: I just drink when I want to. And I know
Speaker 1: some people are hung up about drinking. Some people, you know,
Speaker 1: want to keep it clean and pure and pick their spots.
Speaker 1: Other people may be predisposed to alcoholism or just don't
Speaker 1: like the way it makes you feel. I get that,
Speaker 1: But yeah, I don't have all the thing of vices
Speaker 1: in my life. One of them is not alcohol necessarily.
Speaker 1: I like having a good bourbon or beer or whatever.
Speaker 1: I'll go where the vibe takes me. But I don't
Speaker 1: really schedule out my drinking, and like.
Speaker 2: By half of us do that. I guess as well too.
Speaker 1: Among different races, Nonspanic whites down eleven points. People of
Speaker 1: color studied about fifty percent, and that is the lowest
Speaker 1: of all groups. And I guess it gets back to
Speaker 1: that affordability issue, I would think anyway. So but but
Speaker 1: despite that, you know, there's still, as I said, there's
Speaker 1: alternatives out there. I think that's the other thing. You've
Speaker 1: got the super premium well tequilas and bourbons and things
Speaker 1: like that. You're going to see that grow, Actually, I don't.
Speaker 1: I the new trend is tequila. I guess eight percent
Speaker 1: projected growth in tequila. I don't know if that's at
Speaker 1: the expensive bourbon I'm not quite sure. Ready to drink
Speaker 1: cocktails that's up like twenty percent. So the pre mixed cans,
Speaker 1: if you will, what is it?
Speaker 2: Cutwater?
Speaker 1: I think they do a lot. And there's companies do that.
Speaker 1: Some of are goods, some of them are not good,
Speaker 1: like anything else. Ready to serve as our eight and
Speaker 1: alcoholic beer though nine alcoholic beer is up twenty two percent,
Speaker 1: but the overall category of beer is down a half
Speaker 1: more than a half percent and dollar sales and so
Speaker 1: you're seeing a huge shift here when it comes to
Speaker 1: drinking that younger generations are prioritizing physical, mental health and
Speaker 1: savings as well, and a lot of social media influencers
Speaker 1: are promoting alcohol free lifestyles because you know, it's all
Speaker 1: about looking good, and I guess part of looking good
Speaker 1: would be feeling good too. But that changes certainly the
Speaker 1: landscape of everything we've come to know when it comes
Speaker 1: to how we live here, that's for sure. That's sure
Speaker 1: coming up at ten o seven. His name is Ken
Speaker 1: Kochinelli Eno. If you know this, it's kind of wonky,
Speaker 1: but I think good for the first week back here
Speaker 1: to talk about this and the election integrity project. Governor
Speaker 1: Dewin just signed in the law Senate bill, I think
Speaker 1: two ninety three out to get my note on that one,
Speaker 1: I believe two nine to three, which would allow us.
Speaker 1: Now it's going to essentially what it's going to do
Speaker 1: is if your ballot doesn't get in by election day,
Speaker 1: it doesn't count.
Speaker 2: And there's a case both ways for this.
Speaker 1: But Ken Is said he's the guy who was behind
Speaker 1: this movement and is going to take a little bit
Speaker 1: of victory lap coming up at six this morning here
Speaker 1: on the Big One, seven hundred WLW in the Scots
Speaker 1: Loan Show. Later on Julie Bouki's here of course as well.
Speaker 1: And also talked to Steven eyed Is back about mental
Speaker 1: health care laws. And you know, we were just discussing
Speaker 1: yesterday the Rodney Hinton case and it's determined that the
Speaker 1: court is determined and the experts are determined that he
Speaker 1: is not going to face the death penalty because he
Speaker 1: was legally insane. I guess at the time that he
Speaker 1: murdered the deputy. I don't know if I totally agree
Speaker 1: with that logic there myself, but nonetheless, we have not
Speaker 1: seen the death penalty used effectively in a long time,
Speaker 1: so it's kind of a mood point to say we
Speaker 1: have a death penalty doesn't really matter. Life in prison
Speaker 1: seems to be the best you can do, and at
Speaker 1: least we hopefully there's hope that he will never see
Speaker 1: the light of day again, and that would be the
Speaker 1: dream of many, including the family of Larry Henderson and others,
Speaker 1: if not the community. But the idea that some people
Speaker 1: go in and get treatment in prison, that we know
Speaker 1: that not to be true, and you wonder if stronger
Speaker 1: And this is not to make a vicar of the
Speaker 1: murderer of Larry Henderson, not at all. But you know,
Speaker 1: the best way to stop talking about these horrific things
Speaker 1: and these acts is is to secure the problem. And
Speaker 1: for a lot of people it's mental health. I mean,
Speaker 1: look at this, this kid who broke into a kid
Speaker 1: he's twenty six, looks like he's ten. He's twenty six.
Speaker 1: Here the kid who smashed the windows at Jade Vanson's house.
Speaker 1: His mom was on the news last night. Seemed like
Speaker 1: a well adjusted, normal lady, I guess. And you know, again,
Speaker 1: mental health certainly knows no socioekon boundaries. You could be rich,
Speaker 1: it could be poor, black, white, doesn't matter if people
Speaker 1: have metal health issues in this country, as you know,
Speaker 1: and it probably is struck in some way, shape or
Speaker 1: form anyone listening, whether it's a family, friend, neighbor, cowork
Speaker 1: or something like that.
Speaker 2: It's scary.
Speaker 1: And her son was, you know, when he was on
Speaker 1: his meds or as he was doing well, he was thriving,
Speaker 1: I guess, and this is one of the times where
Speaker 1: he wasn't. Took a hammer and did twenty eight thousand
Speaker 1: dollars for the damage to jd Vance's house. And she said,
Speaker 1: now it wasn't political law. It could have been any house,
Speaker 1: as a lawyer said, political haw. It could have been
Speaker 1: any house, could have been Anybody's just happened. He picked
Speaker 1: the wrong house. And jd Vance is because that's going
Speaker 1: to carry a whole bunch of federal charges. He's looking
Speaker 1: at decades in prison for that act, which I don't
Speaker 1: know if the judge throws that at him.
Speaker 5: Or not.
Speaker 1: I'm not quite sure. But again it's back to the
Speaker 1: mental health issue, and that's probably true. That's true with him,
Speaker 1: it's true a lot of folks, including Rodney Hinton. But
Speaker 1: you wonder, you know, if we simply got we got
Speaker 1: away from that whole thing where we would take people
Speaker 1: maybe like that where they should be on. I don't
Speaker 1: know about the Jdvans guy, but in this case with Hinton,
Speaker 1: we know that he is suffering from a very serious
Speaker 1: mental illness in bipolar disorder, you know, schizophrenia, things like
Speaker 1: that that need serious, serious medication. But if you don't
Speaker 1: take your meds, and you can't force someone to take
Speaker 1: their meds, what's the alternative. Well, we have all these
Speaker 1: people on the street. You add in the homeless as well.
Speaker 1: It's a huge problem. You know, if we just simply
Speaker 1: bring back the institutions to house folks like this where
Speaker 1: they could literally make sure they're on their medication and
Speaker 1: post a dangerous society, maybe things like this don't happen
Speaker 1: in the future. They will, but maybe not to the
Speaker 1: extreme that we see that. Anyway, there're two stories just
Speaker 1: you know, in the last week or in the last couple
Speaker 1: of days, for example to illustrate that. So we'll get
Speaker 1: into that. At about eleven oh seven this morning, I
Speaker 1: get a news update, and as I said, Ken Couchinelli's
Speaker 1: here changing election law. Excuse me a little bit in Ohio.
Speaker 1: We'll do that next year. Seven hundred WW Cincinnati to Manican.
Speaker 1: It's scott'sone show on seven hundred WLW. It is Ohio
Speaker 1: Senate built two ninety three, and that's going to set
Speaker 1: new restrictions for absentee balloting voting in Ohio. Number of things,
Speaker 1: a climate, improves efficiency, voter confidence, and it would basically
Speaker 1: what happens in Ohio have four days after election day
Speaker 1: to have your vote counted.
Speaker 2: This would change that.
Speaker 1: I think thirty seven other states I believe, have that
Speaker 1: right now, where if the ballot is not received at
Speaker 1: the Board of Elections by election day itself, it's it's invalid.
Speaker 1: And that is part of Senate Buil two ninety three,
Speaker 1: which has now been signed by the governor. Ken Kuchenelli's
Speaker 1: a former Trump's staffer and former Attorney General of Virginia
Speaker 1: and he's with the Election Transparency Initiative joins the show
Speaker 1: this morning.
Speaker 3: Ken.
Speaker 2: How are you.
Speaker 3: I'm doing well, he's changed his name.
Speaker 5: You can well, for one, particularly as the postal service
Speaker 5: gets worse and worse instead of better and better, the
Speaker 5: logic of ending elections on election day becomes clearer and clearer.
Speaker 5: You know, you can go back twenty years to Jimmy
Speaker 5: Carter and James Baker. They had a bipartisan commission that
Speaker 5: they found that the most the form of voting, most
Speaker 5: subject of fraud and problems was mail in voting. And
Speaker 5: if you cut it off on election day, not only
Speaker 5: do you find out who won your elections on election
Speaker 5: day instead of the having the four day waiting period
Speaker 5: in which so much conspiracy theories take place from both sides.
Speaker 5: By the way, that you also have voters whose ballots
Speaker 5: are showing up earlier who if they make mistakes, can
Speaker 5: actually cure them. You can't cure them mistake after election day.
Speaker 5: You can only cure it before election day.
Speaker 3: So this would.
Speaker 5: Also lead to fixing more mistakenly cast ballots, something that
Speaker 5: doesn't get talked about very much. And as you noted,
Speaker 5: it's thirty four other states that really end elections on
Speaker 5: election day and at Election Transparency Initiative, as our name implies,
Speaker 5: we believe transparency is critical to the confidence in elections,
Speaker 5: and when you drag elections out past election day when
Speaker 5: you don't need to, that confidence begins to drop pretty precipitously,
Speaker 5: and that has real effects on whether people show up
Speaker 5: in the first place and turnout. And so we think
Speaker 5: Center Built two ninety three would be a tremendous improvement.
Speaker 5: And also, by the way, establishes cleaning up of the
Speaker 5: voter rolls every month. And as I mentioned, you can
Speaker 5: fix You can fix mistake and ballots before the election
Speaker 5: that you can't fix after the election. It's not legal.
Speaker 1: Isn't that the burden though on the voter and consequestion?
Speaker 1: How many people are actually going back and realizing they
Speaker 1: made a mistake. What are the numbers on that?
Speaker 5: So it isn't that the people realized they made a mistake.
Speaker 5: That the clerks get to process the ballots before election
Speaker 5: day and they find that voters made a mistake and
Speaker 5: they can contact the voter and if they can come
Speaker 5: in and fix the mistake, for example, they didn't fulfill
Speaker 5: the requirements of the envelope the ballot has to come in,
Speaker 5: they can fix those things. And obviously all of us
Speaker 5: who want it to be easy to vote and hard
Speaker 5: to cheat. Want people to be able to fix those mistakes.
Speaker 5: So I don't know the exact numbers in Ohio. I
Speaker 5: do know that curing is allowed and that your clerks
Speaker 5: do what they can to make sure the people who've
Speaker 5: made those sorts of errors get the chance to fix them.
Speaker 5: So they can't do it on or after election day.
Speaker 5: On election day, they just don't have the manpower. After
Speaker 5: election day, it's too late.
Speaker 1: Keny also said that you know this is about the
Speaker 1: mass slower and selver mail service, but just still punishes
Speaker 1: people though, because if mail service is slow beyond their
Speaker 1: control and they still don't get in by election day,
Speaker 1: that's even worse instead of that four day grace period
Speaker 1: that they would give you. And consequently, it doesn't that
Speaker 1: disproportionately impact rural voters with slower mail service, or the
Speaker 1: disabled or elderly voters, working class vote or something like that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: at the same time, there's an exemption here that allows
Speaker 1: that four days to stand. For soldiers who are serving overseas,
Speaker 1: why just exempt them?
Speaker 5: Well, because for several reasons, One, they have no choice
Speaker 5: but to vote by mail, whereas for most people who
Speaker 5: use voting by mail in Ohio, they do have the
Speaker 5: choice one and two.
Speaker 3: They're coming longer.
Speaker 5: Distances because they're overseas and deployed, So there's some rationale
Speaker 5: to it.
Speaker 3: I would tell you.
Speaker 2: What if what if you work overseas well?
Speaker 5: Those folks are left in the same posture before and
Speaker 5: after CENTEFIL two ninety three, that four day stays for
Speaker 5: both military and and resident overseas voters.
Speaker 2: Gotcha, okay, so it applies to them.
Speaker 5: I don't know this thing is then you find out
Speaker 5: who who wins on election night.
Speaker 3: That's a big deal. I mean, think about.
Speaker 5: Look, I'll point to Florida. Florida is the third largest state,
Speaker 5: and people on both sides of the aisle continue to
Speaker 5: be amazed that an hour after the polls closed in
Speaker 5: Florida they throw six million votes up on the board.
Speaker 5: How do they do that? They do that because votes
Speaker 5: have in before election day that they've processed, right, and
Speaker 5: so they can have them counted during election day and
Speaker 5: be ready to put that up. And both sides appreciate
Speaker 5: that that takes an awful lot of the guests words
Speaker 5: suspicion out of the process of ballot processing. A lot
Speaker 5: of it and I would also note in Virginia, you
Speaker 5: know my most Democrats, so I'm a Republican. So people
Speaker 5: might think, well, some must be some Republican. Well, the
Speaker 5: director of Elections and the most Democrat voting district in Virginia, Petersburg, Virginia,
Speaker 5: has for years been recommending to people in her city
Speaker 5: that they not ever mail about it ever, that they
Speaker 5: do anything they can to bring it in in person
Speaker 5: or voting person because of how many every single election,
Speaker 5: no matter how early they mailed them, just never show up.
Speaker 5: And that's been that's been years in the making.
Speaker 3: So look this, but this is not about that.
Speaker 1: This is about I don't really care about those states.
Speaker 1: I care about where I live Ohio.
Speaker 5: And work, but the postals. But but the reasons for
Speaker 5: it are universal. The reasons for it are universal. And
Speaker 5: I use Florida as an example because it's such an
Speaker 5: enormous state and yet they managed to process all those
Speaker 5: ballots by an hour after the post close. And and
Speaker 5: look you've got You've got tens hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 5: people voting by mail. And if they they're not stupid,
Speaker 5: I don't assume they're stupid. I know Mike Dwain. We
Speaker 5: serve as Attorney's General together. I know he doesn't think
Speaker 5: people in Ohio stupid, and they're going to shift forward.
Speaker 5: They're voting, if they're male voters, to make the deadline.
Speaker 5: They're not dumb, they're smart. And they're also going to
Speaker 5: by doing that, get the opportunity in the in the
Speaker 5: event they make mistakes on their ballot to be able
Speaker 5: to correct those. So this is going to get more
Speaker 5: votes in the ballot box, some of which the estimate
Speaker 5: I understand out of Ohio's around the thousand that would
Speaker 5: otherwise be uncounted because of the estates and how they're filed,
Speaker 5: will have the opportunity to get cured.
Speaker 4: And you know.
Speaker 3: That's that's not a big number.
Speaker 5: But we've had races to seven by a thousand in
Speaker 5: Virginia and where you know.
Speaker 1: We've had close ones here in Ohio. Absolutely. Ken Kuchinelli's
Speaker 1: here on the show on seven hundred WLW. He's with
Speaker 1: the Election Transparency Commission, and Mike the Wine just signed
Speaker 1: the law sentate Bill two ninety three that would aid
Speaker 1: any transparency of election spending. To look at this thing,
Speaker 1: and one of the caveats would be to eliminate the
Speaker 1: four day gray spiard after elections. To have your ballot count,
Speaker 1: it have to be in and counted prior to election
Speaker 1: polls closing for that to occur. And it's kind of
Speaker 1: a that's kind of a minor point, but I guess
Speaker 1: you have thing too, would be well, if the election
Speaker 1: were that close, and we've had, as you said, close elections,
Speaker 1: and the way as divide as we are in this country,
Speaker 1: will have even more close elections, I guess in the
Speaker 1: near future. But if that's the case, wouldn't I just
Speaker 1: automatically trigger a recount? So it puts everything on hold.
Speaker 5: Anyway, when you have elections that are within the margin
Speaker 5: of the recount, of course that happens, but that doesn't
Speaker 5: even determined until you've got your ballots in and their counting,
Speaker 5: and you can know that election night if you have
Speaker 5: all your ballots in and I say all your ballots in.
Speaker 5: Of course, we've already talked about military and overseas voters
Speaker 5: still get the four days, but the proportion of the
Speaker 5: balloting that comes from those folks is extremely small, extremely small.
Speaker 5: And let's say that the majority, the vast majority of
Speaker 5: those votes are already in by election day, So with
Speaker 5: the other votes not lingering after election, it's the tune
Speaker 5: of tens or hundreds of thousands of votes, you know
Speaker 5: immediately if you're heading into a recount situation. And I
Speaker 5: would say, look, we've seen the hyperbole that flies around
Speaker 5: after elections from both sides. You can look at Stacy
Speaker 5: Abrams and Georgia in twenty eighteen, you can look at
Speaker 5: how people felt about the twenty twenty outcome, and this
Speaker 5: trace is back all the way really to Bush v.
Speaker 5: Gore in two thousand, right in some aspects of those
Speaker 5: complaints are often legitimate and some aren't. And you mentioned
Speaker 5: this bill does a couple of small things. Elections are
Speaker 5: made up of hundreds of small things, and this bill
Speaker 5: would help clean up and clean up Ohio elections, firm
Speaker 5: them up, and make them more transparent on election day
Speaker 5: when people expect, whether you and I think it's reasonable
Speaker 5: or not, when people expect to know the outcome, and
Speaker 5: you know, matching the process to citizens expectations is a
Speaker 5: way to build confidence in the outcome of the election,
Speaker 5: no matter who wins. And that's that's a major goal
Speaker 5: for the Election Transparency Initiative.
Speaker 1: But that's also Ken that's also kind of undermined when
Speaker 1: you have people that are talking about how, you know,
Speaker 1: if you lose the election. Let's talk about what Trump
Speaker 1: did last time, right he lost the election, I was
Speaker 1: you know, was stolen basically, and we still have the
Speaker 1: Mipellow guy out there that's pretty much lost everything and
Speaker 1: he's still banging the drum for this stuff.
Speaker 2: It's never been proven.
Speaker 1: I think that underminds it more than things like this,
Speaker 1: don't you.
Speaker 5: This is what legislators and governors can do to build
Speaker 5: the confidence up, and they have to work with how
Speaker 5: their process really works. They don't get to just say
Speaker 5: whatever they want. And you can use the twenty twenty example.
Speaker 5: I started with Stacy Abrams. We can go back all
Speaker 5: the way to two thousand and the Bush vy Gore
Speaker 5: and this has been both sides of the aisle at
Speaker 5: various points in time. Hillary Clinton didn't concede she lost.
Speaker 5: Perry mccaulloff didn't conceive that Hillary Clinton lost, you know,
Speaker 5: for years and years, and suddenly that was treason when
Speaker 5: Donald Trump wouldn't wouldn't took the same approach. So you know,
Speaker 5: this bill treats everybody the same. It changes the rules
Speaker 5: before the election in a way that voters can understand. Again,
Speaker 5: we respect intelligence voters and we expect them to respond
Speaker 5: to the changes in the process. And the more states
Speaker 5: that start doing this when it is presidential elections at
Speaker 5: state the only elections that cross state lines, then we'll
Speaker 5: know the answers to the answer to who the next
Speaker 5: president is more quickly and will eliminate the paranoia period
Speaker 5: between election day and when ballots are finally counted.
Speaker 1: Is that I mean, is their census might be mooting
Speaker 1: sent because I know that the court I think Fifth
Speaker 1: Circuit ruled Mississippi's grace period violator federal law right because
Speaker 1: election includes receipt of ballots that only applies in three states.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court yet to rule on this. So is
Speaker 1: this here in Ohio can preemptively elinating voter access based
Speaker 1: on speculation about what Scotus might do? And if Supreme
Speaker 1: Court rules the other way, then do we need to
Speaker 1: we have to under the law?
Speaker 2: Should we wait till it's till's still rules?
Speaker 5: First of all, this bill doesn't eliminate voter access. It
Speaker 5: improves voter access. You seem to assume that no one
Speaker 5: will adjust.
Speaker 1: Well, you could just it's easy to fix us and
Speaker 1: just go, hey, you know what, here's kind of like
Speaker 1: Christmas shopping. Here's when you're shipping gifts, or like Amazon says, okay,
Speaker 1: here's the drop that if you want your package arrive
Speaker 1: before Christmas. Uh, it's well average. We could do the
Speaker 1: same thing and not eat a bill, isn't it. I
Speaker 1: mean you're just telling people to vote earlier.
Speaker 5: No, well, to do what you propose is still require
Speaker 5: a bill, but for your listeners benefit, you're correct. The
Speaker 5: Fifth Federal Circuit, which is Mississippi and Louisiana, ruled recently
Speaker 5: that in federal elections, so even year elections happening in November,
Speaker 5: because they can only rule on federal law and federal elections,
Speaker 5: that the election must end on election day, meaning all
Speaker 5: ballots must be received by election day. That's the Fifth
Speaker 5: Circus interpretation of federal law that has been appealed to
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has taken the case.
Speaker 5: We don't know how that case will come out, but
Speaker 5: you are correct for federal elections that if the Supreme
Speaker 5: Court upholds the Fifth Circuit, then all even year elections
Speaker 5: are going to end on election day. And what you
Speaker 5: and I are talking about is going to become the law. Well,
Speaker 5: it will have been acknowledged as having been the law,
Speaker 5: but not enforced across the country. So it doesn't mean
Speaker 5: it applies to all your state elections or any that
Speaker 5: you may have in the spring at local and so forth,
Speaker 5: those kinds of things. But it would apply to federal elections,
Speaker 5: which will be the even year November election.
Speaker 1: Ken Kuchinelli at the Election Transparency Initial, appreciate you answered
Speaker 1: my questions.
Speaker 5: Sure, glad to do it all the best of you
Speaker 5: be well.
Speaker 1: Thanks again, And that is the law signed by the
Speaker 1: governor right now. So it's going to change a little bit,
Speaker 1: a little bit. Anyway, I've got to get a news
Speaker 1: update in run a little bit behind. What do we
Speaker 1: got on the way here? How about Julie Bouki our
Speaker 1: career shurpas. She is coming up next on the show,
Speaker 1: some career advice for you from the woman herself. That's
Speaker 1: next after news on the Home of the Red seven
Speaker 1: hundred W wellw.
Speaker 2: Helping you put the big P in profession. Here's our career, sir,
Speaker 2: Julie Bauki. First one of.
Speaker 1: The new year, where our good friend at Julie Bauki
Speaker 1: and we today's our anniversary who we've been together the
Speaker 1: most marriages?
Speaker 6: Last Yeah, twelve years ago we had our first regularly
Speaker 6: scheduled segment. Not that we hadn't talked before then. This
Speaker 6: is our anniversary of our of our regularly scheduled segments. Yeah,
Speaker 6: so happy adversary.
Speaker 2: Happy adversary to you. Yeah, I'm not quite sure. Twelve.
Speaker 2: What is twelve? I think is cement? I think I'm
Speaker 2: not sure it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well it doesn't feel like a day over fifteen anyway,
Speaker 1: Julius here, she's our career Shirpa on the Sconslan Show
Speaker 1: on seven hundred WLW, and we always talk career related stuff.
Speaker 1: I saw this over the holidays and wanted to bring
Speaker 1: it up because I think it's intriguing that there are
Speaker 1: a number of states right now that have something called
Speaker 1: a pay transparency law.
Speaker 2: Can you talk about that?
Speaker 6: Yeah, nineteen out of twenty states have what they call
Speaker 6: a pay transparency law. And what it means different things
Speaker 6: in different states, but in general, what it means is
Speaker 6: the company's over a certain amount of employees, and again
Speaker 6: that number varies by stakes must share or advertise when
Speaker 6: they advertise a job they must say here's the salary
Speaker 6: range for the jobs. And then in some states when
Speaker 6: you post an internal job, you also have to you
Speaker 6: have to make salary ranges available of your organization for
Speaker 6: your employees as well. Now, most people who worked in
Speaker 6: any sort of company of any size are pretty used
Speaker 6: to the idea of salary ranges and pay bands or
Speaker 6: whatever they call you know, whatever they call them. Where
Speaker 6: you are, it gives you a feel for where you
Speaker 6: land in that pay band. So it gives you a
Speaker 6: feel for what your potential is within that pay band.
Speaker 6: What's the highest, what's the lowest, what's the mid range?
Speaker 6: Ahl old HR jockeys are very very aware of this,
Speaker 6: and it's just this is one of those things that
Speaker 6: I look at and say, why wouldn't you have pay transparency?
Speaker 6: Why wouldn't you want people to know what the pay
Speaker 6: range is for their role? And the only reason I've
Speaker 6: ever thought of is it's if you want to keep
Speaker 6: it hidden and pay people as little as you can.
Speaker 6: And that generally happens a lot of times when there
Speaker 6: is we do the stance when we interview, well, what
Speaker 6: is what's the salary range for the vision of what
Speaker 6: are you currently making what are you looking for? What's
Speaker 6: the salary range posission? And it's not It is just doesn't. Yeah,
Speaker 6: it doesn't create trust or transparency. And if you are
Speaker 6: not proud of the way that you are that you
Speaker 6: are paying your people and where you sit in the
Speaker 6: market to other competitors for that talent, then maybe you
Speaker 6: should do something about that instead of trying to fool
Speaker 6: people who there's so much conversation now about salaries between people.
Speaker 6: It's not the taboo topic it used to be. That
Speaker 6: they're going to find out anyway. If you can't justify
Speaker 6: it for the market and for what you're trying to
Speaker 6: do in your organization and make that a part of
Speaker 6: an interview or a conversation, I'm not sure what we're
Speaker 6: trying to do here. I don't think that I don't
Speaker 6: think that bodes well for your future with the potential employee.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I again, because business is trying to save
Speaker 1: every penny they can. That's a negotiation, you know, if
Speaker 1: you're buying same buy the same thing with buying a car.
Speaker 1: The car dealer has a number, You have a number,
Speaker 1: but you kind of got an idea how much the
Speaker 1: car of the actual resale the real shore retail price
Speaker 1: of the car is and you negotiate around that. You
Speaker 1: really don't have that on the job. What about things
Speaker 1: like open door that have kind of leveled of playing fill.
Speaker 1: How accurate is that stuff?
Speaker 6: It's pretty good, Blackdoor.
Speaker 2: I think you're talking about glasto. What did I say?
Speaker 4: It's pretty good?
Speaker 7: You know, I think you have else.
Speaker 6: I think you have to take anything you see online
Speaker 6: with a grain of salt. One of the things that
Speaker 6: really is helpful from an employee standpoint is that because
Speaker 6: people are so well connected online, you can go out
Speaker 6: and read, you can talk to people who used to
Speaker 6: work there, talk to people work there now. But what
Speaker 6: you can also do is you can take a look
Speaker 6: at what other companies are paying. So if you're a
Speaker 6: claim to adjust sure at a company and you say, well,
Speaker 6: wait a minute, I wonder, am I I've been here
Speaker 6: a long time? Am I being paid fairly to market?
Speaker 6: That's what you should be comparing yourself to, not the other, Yes,
Speaker 6: to the other claims adjusters that you know, but also
Speaker 6: what is the market paying. I think for all of us,
Speaker 6: because we now know that we're very much in a
Speaker 6: tactical relationship with our employers, which means that two weeks
Speaker 6: pay for two weeks work and then we renegotiate. It's
Speaker 6: much more tactical than relational. I think you owe it
Speaker 6: to yourself to take your product to the market, and
Speaker 6: what I mean by that is through the product and
Speaker 6: by taking to the market, at least do some research
Speaker 6: if I were to leave here, and what would I get?
Speaker 6: Because who happens sloany? Which is just and this is
Speaker 6: where people find out and they just you know, just
Speaker 6: it's just horrible. Is that I've been doing this for
Speaker 6: ten years. You just hired somebody to do the same job,
Speaker 6: sit next to me, and you're having me train them,
Speaker 6: and you're paying meet them more than me. What So
Speaker 6: that also has to be a look at what what
Speaker 6: kind of equity do you have? What's in the salary equity?
Speaker 6: Is it performance based, is it value based? And what
Speaker 6: do you have inside your company? And how do you
Speaker 6: feel about that? Internal people have to take a look
Speaker 6: at what is our what's our what are our salaries
Speaker 6: look like? Internally? Are we taking care of our long
Speaker 6: service high performers or are we doing me I'm just
Speaker 6: going to hope they don't find out.
Speaker 1: Method Yeah, and I think our organization is obviously reluctant
Speaker 1: to change that. That's driving this too as well. It's
Speaker 1: the pay transparency issue right now. So what nineteen or
Speaker 1: twenty states have it? By the way, I guess like Novada,
Speaker 1: New York has a Maryland, Illinois and Minnesota obviously, uh
Speaker 1: in Ohio, I know that Toledo and Cincinnati also have
Speaker 1: limited pay transparency ordinances. Anyway, I don't know how you
Speaker 1: can unforce that specifically in the city but state wide
Speaker 1: to be a different issue entirely. But I guess this is,
Speaker 1: you know, the genius is in the details with how
Speaker 1: you do this whole thing. The idea here is to
Speaker 1: close the pay gap, but one employees just find new
Speaker 1: ways to keep those disparities through bonuses, their equity or
Speaker 1: different types of conversation because because what happens is there
Speaker 1: are people that are big, big performers, and guess what,
Speaker 1: you want to keep those people employed with you, and
Speaker 1: you're going to try and do that. What if that
Speaker 1: exceeds the window that you had posted. So it's again,
Speaker 1: it's such a it's such a fluid thing that I
Speaker 1: don't know how this work. If it's it's actually going
Speaker 1: to do what's intended to do. Let's put it that way.
Speaker 6: Yeah, And unfortunately, inside a lot of organizations, the left
Speaker 6: hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And
Speaker 6: there isn't that internal look. It's just always been and
Speaker 6: traditional leadership was just I'm going to call it traditional management.
Speaker 6: So the leadership has always been pat me on the
Speaker 6: head and I'll tell you when you're ready for a raise.
Speaker 6: And you don't need to know that stuff. Yeah, they do.
Speaker 6: There is each individual, it's their career and they have
Speaker 6: every right to and have as much information as makes sense.
Speaker 6: Do they have the right to know what everybody else
Speaker 6: makes of course not, but they If you can develop
Speaker 6: a culture with trust and transparency that people in general
Speaker 6: believe that you are, that you are treating them billy
Speaker 6: in the market and compared to their peers for your
Speaker 6: performance and experience level, you will have a very very
Speaker 6: engaged employee who will be very very happy to help
Speaker 6: recruit other great employees to you. And so it's it's
Speaker 6: this let's let's keep everybody in the dark approach. That
Speaker 6: doesn't work anymore because the market is saying otherwise, and
Speaker 6: people are talking about their salaries and they're talking about
Speaker 6: what they pay, what each company pays, and so if
Speaker 6: you're sitting in Ohio or a state without a salary
Speaker 6: transparency law, people that live here can go look at
Speaker 6: job postings all over country and they can get a
Speaker 6: good feel for, in general, what the market rate is
Speaker 6: for their skills. And so even if you don't have
Speaker 6: it in Ohio, technology helps us really figure out what
Speaker 6: we're worth now this and then you know, if you
Speaker 6: find out that, you could leave. And I've had clients
Speaker 6: do this where they say they go back to their
Speaker 6: to their employer and say, you know, hey, look I
Speaker 6: just got approached by another company, or I just got this,
Speaker 6: or I just got that, and I'm finding that there
Speaker 6: are lots of companies out there who would love to
Speaker 6: hire me or double what I'm making now, or ten
Speaker 6: percent more than i'm making now. It's a risk to
Speaker 6: have that conversation, and you have to really have your data.
Speaker 6: But if you're not a strong performer, that's a double
Speaker 6: risky question. That's a double risky conversation because that could
Speaker 6: turn into there's the door, right, and so you know
Speaker 6: you have to be really careful. But if you don't
Speaker 6: advocate for yourself, no one else will just don't ever
Speaker 6: in conversations emotionally. You want to go in armed with
Speaker 6: information at make it a business proposition. Yeah, you know, Val.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think that's true.
Speaker 1: Again, it's incumbent upon you to try and get the
Speaker 1: best deal possible for you with the information that you have.
Speaker 1: I don't know if mandating pay transparency is going to
Speaker 1: do that, because I mean, if you look at wage growth,
Speaker 1: for example, is there a concern that that's just transparency thing?
Speaker 1: Pay transparency issue that's been mandated by some governments and
Speaker 1: states and it's catching on now, so almost half states
Speaker 1: have some sort of law on the books involving pay
Speaker 1: transparency and a scale for what your job pays. I
Speaker 1: think a couple of things. Number one is we're always
Speaker 1: changing jobs. People in school today are training for jobs
Speaker 1: that are yet to be created, so that that's a
Speaker 1: whole new twist there because we just change and pivot
Speaker 1: so quickly because of the nature of capitalism and our economy.
Speaker 1: Yesterday's job isn't guaranteed, and tomorrow's job we don't know
Speaker 1: what it is, but it'll be something. And I think
Speaker 1: there's an issue that this could suppress those wages if
Speaker 1: if now you're anchored to these ranges rather than competing aggressively.
Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely, you know it's an internal look. Organizations have
Speaker 6: to do an internal look at pay equity, but also
Speaker 6: they need to do compensation surveys. Either compare themselves to
Speaker 6: the people or i'm sorry, the organizations against which they
Speaker 6: compete for talent. And that's really important. You've got to
Speaker 6: make sure you're comparing apples to Apple. And it's not
Speaker 6: enough to say, well, you know, there aren't many jobs
Speaker 6: out there, so nobody's going to leave because they're turnover
Speaker 6: so low. Oh, believe me, when things pick up as
Speaker 6: they always do, your best people are the ones that
Speaker 6: will have those opportunities. And is it worth it? Is
Speaker 6: your employee relations strategy just simply I don't know, I
Speaker 6: think my people are too lazy to go find something
Speaker 6: else or you know, I mean that has a terrible
Speaker 6: way to have an engaged workforce that's bringing their best
Speaker 6: skills every day.
Speaker 1: And that's probably the rule rather than the exception that
Speaker 1: that kind And it's like, hey, listen, you know what
Speaker 1: I got. We got to figure out a way how
Speaker 1: to get to ten percent profit this quarter?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: You know that means throwing bodies out the window and
Speaker 1: paying people less. We're going to do that because I
Speaker 1: got to hit my numbers. That's how the generally, that's
Speaker 1: how the system is built. And then of course, you
Speaker 1: know what about highly compensated employees where their pay exceeds
Speaker 1: the posted range because the job title is always changing
Speaker 1: or whatever. You know, how do you how do you
Speaker 1: retain and attract top tailent at that level?
Speaker 6: Yeah, and so there you will find in a lot
Speaker 6: of organizations. You will find that there are people that
Speaker 6: have been there for a very long time and have
Speaker 6: continued to be promoted to be given more pay in
Speaker 6: terms of balery, and their pay is higher than the
Speaker 6: value they bring to these organizations. And that is what
Speaker 6: That is a real tough one because when you start
Speaker 6: to get into we're paying for longevity and service versus
Speaker 6: performance and value, then you will get to that position
Speaker 6: where you have people who are way, way, way higher
Speaker 6: than they should be. And I've been in situations in
Speaker 6: each R where we've had to say, look, here's the situation.
Speaker 6: You can either take on more responsibility or we can
Speaker 6: freeze your pay. We can keep you where you are.
Speaker 6: Show that in the market, data show that they are
Speaker 6: paid very well, in fact overpaid. And just this that
Speaker 6: I have thirty years experience just doesn't fly anymore because
Speaker 6: how much of that experience, as I always say, is
Speaker 6: still relevant and of value. Today institutional knowledge is only
Speaker 6: worth so much.
Speaker 1: There's some Julie BUCKI some demanding and I don't know
Speaker 1: if there's just in other states. Is that like they
Speaker 1: really want to be very transparent about pay. That with
Speaker 1: pay transparency, that the law should be expanded beyond job
Speaker 1: postings to require disclosure of employees' actual pay. And I
Speaker 1: think of that going well, okay, now everyone knows what
Speaker 1: everyone else is making, is completely transparent. I couldn't imagine
Speaker 1: the line at the HR director's door of people coming
Speaker 1: to bitch and moan because someone else is making fifty
Speaker 1: cents more or you know, I mean one of those
Speaker 1: things you're gonna be You're gonna be putting fire without
Speaker 1: all the time. That's all you're gonna do is start
Speaker 1: to Again. You can get too granular in this, and
Speaker 1: I think that the lawmakers are suggesting that are they're insane,
Speaker 1: is what they are.
Speaker 6: No, that's right, because they've been I guess into price
Speaker 6: the issues. Yeah, and there's so many elements that go
Speaker 6: into what someone said, and then you start getting into well,
Speaker 6: you know, I do half a Fred's.
Speaker 3: Job, right right, yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, no, so that's I think that's that's ridiculous, right.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's going to do much to close
Speaker 1: the alleged pay gap that there as well. But I
Speaker 1: mean a lot of this is incumbent upon the person
Speaker 1: seeking the job. You should know what your value is,
Speaker 1: what the what the dynamic for that position pays, what
Speaker 1: part of the country. And obviously, if you live in
Speaker 1: West Virginia and doing a job and you move to
Speaker 1: midtown Manhattan, you're going to be making a lot more
Speaker 1: more and vice versa because of the nature where you live.
Speaker 1: All those things have to come into play as well,
Speaker 1: and it's upon you to determine what your value is,
Speaker 1: and then you know whether the what they offer you
Speaker 1: is acceptable. You know, there's always been bait and switches
Speaker 1: where you're not, well, we're not sure with the job,
Speaker 1: and then you know you've put all the time in
Speaker 1: the interview and you find out that well, this doubt's
Speaker 1: paying peanuts and I wasted my time.
Speaker 2: So there's that side of.
Speaker 6: It, Yes, exactly, and that's so important. Why wouldn't you
Speaker 6: give your hiring give a range and then people can
Speaker 6: decide can I operate in that range or can I not?
Speaker 6: And then when you are asked employer, you're entering your
Speaker 6: acts about salary, even if they say what were you
Speaker 6: making in your last role? My advice is to always
Speaker 6: talk about what salary you're seeking in this current role,
Speaker 6: because there are times when people have been in industries
Speaker 6: that didn't give in, that didn't give a raise for
Speaker 6: five years, and so they are truly behind market, and
Speaker 6: so people shouldn't be vitalized for that. And so I
Speaker 6: always say say something like, based on my market research
Speaker 6: and other you know, and other search that I've done,
Speaker 6: it seems that the pay for my level of experience
Speaker 6: is sixty five to seventy five, even if you're sitting
Speaker 6: there making fifty eight, because you know, you work for
Speaker 6: a company that pays really low. So it's really about
Speaker 6: market value. It's not necessarily just about what you were
Speaker 6: making in your last job, because that's what that's what increases.
Speaker 6: The gap is when you stay down because you are
Speaker 6: constantly you start low and then even the raise isn't
Speaker 6: going to get you up to where up to where
Speaker 6: you want to be, because you're starting with one foot,
Speaker 6: you know, not one foot behind the line there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, as the case may be, so is your would
Speaker 1: your advice be to just leave the thing the way
Speaker 1: it is?
Speaker 2: Right now?
Speaker 1: Do we need these portray pay transfer? I mean you
Speaker 1: kind of have it in the in the public sector
Speaker 1: obviously because it's public money. But the private sector feels
Speaker 1: different to me. And they all adage about you know,
Speaker 1: women make less than math. Well, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: reasons behind that math as well. I mean, the whole
Speaker 1: idea that you're paying someone less simply because of their
Speaker 1: gender is you know, I'm sure there's still some holdouts,
Speaker 1: some people that believe that, and as they die off,
Speaker 1: you know, those those values change. But by and large,
Speaker 1: you know, if I ran a company said wow, I
Speaker 1: can pay a woman a third less for doing this job,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't hire a guy.
Speaker 2: I just hire all women.
Speaker 6: Then they're gonna rise.
Speaker 2: Well no, I'm just.
Speaker 1: Saying, yeah, yeah, it's like I pay you based on
Speaker 1: what you bring to the table, what your experiences are
Speaker 1: and the like.
Speaker 2: You know, so as it should be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, but pay transparency, that's where it's at in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, we hit the wrong button. Now, Sorry, I
Speaker 1: had to cut Julie off because I had to mention
Speaker 1: this real quick, Julian, My apology. Southbound seventy five right now,
Speaker 1: between Mitchell and the seventy four split, it is absolutely stopped.
Speaker 2: There's a jackknife truck.
Speaker 1: I mean literally, I'm looking an image of a semi
Speaker 1: here and it is completely perpendicular to the highway and
Speaker 1: they've got some three or four toe trucks there right
Speaker 1: now trying to move that thing. So everything is stoped.
Speaker 1: Southbound seventy five between Mitchell and the sevi four split
Speaker 1: is completely shut down right now. So if you're headed
Speaker 1: that way, you want to avoid that area. Details coming
Speaker 1: up in news that's about six seven minutes away here
Speaker 1: on seven hundred WLW.
Speaker 2: Do you want to be an American idiot? Got flown
Speaker 2: back on seven hundred WLW.
Speaker 1: One of the big, big problems we have with critical
Speaker 1: mental health in this country, specifically OHIOI and in Kentucky
Speaker 1: is that healthcare is it's really hard to find a
Speaker 1: bed if you're in a mental health crisis. And Ohio
Speaker 1: Governor Mike de Wins, matter of fact said that over
Speaker 1: ninety percent of the state's psychiatric beds now are being
Speaker 1: occupied by people referred to or demanded by the courts
Speaker 1: to have a mental competency test. And the problem with that,
Speaker 1: obviously then is that if you are someone who is
Speaker 1: not involved in criminal activity and forced by a court
Speaker 1: to have a psychiatric exam or a psychiatric stay, you
Speaker 1: can't find a place to get treatment yourself. And it's,
Speaker 1: as I said, not new. It's just not unique to Ohio,
Speaker 1: with happening all over the country. And Steve and I
Speaker 1: is here with the Manhattan Institute. They're a think tank
Speaker 1: and came out of the new way to maybe approach
Speaker 1: this subject and fix it. Although it seems like you
Speaker 1: guys come up a lot of great ideas, Steven, and
Speaker 1: the government is reluctant to take those good ideas and
Speaker 1: do anything with them. But you gotta keep trying, Steve,
Speaker 1: and welcome are you.
Speaker 8: I'm great, Thanks for having me, Scott.
Speaker 1: This topic of mental health care in prisons, I think
Speaker 1: it's pertinent today now more than ever because of what's
Speaker 1: happening to Rodney Hitt and of course accused of murdering
Speaker 1: Deputy Larry Henderson in May after his son was shot
Speaker 1: legally and lawfully by police officers because of committing a
Speaker 1: couple of felonies. And you hear about how now he's
Speaker 1: going to be found not guilty reason of insanity. He's
Speaker 1: going to face life in prison. And that is the reality.
Speaker 1: The family has accepted it reluctantly, and I think the
Speaker 1: public has reluctantly. But what is likely that someone like
Speaker 1: that gets the kind of treatment they need.
Speaker 8: Yeah, we have a very large population of people with
Speaker 8: serious mental illness, both in jails and in prisons. It's
Speaker 8: a problem that's been with us with that for a
Speaker 8: couple decades now. But many people trace that problem back
Speaker 8: to when the States decided to shut down the state
Speaker 8: asylum programs and we saw basically a shift from psychiatric
Speaker 8: institutions to correctional institutions. We hoped that the people would
Speaker 8: leave the psychiatric institutions find better care and community settings.
Speaker 8: We now know that didn't happen. So now we're trying
Speaker 8: to do this kind of humpty dumpy act of pick
Speaker 8: up the pieces and figure out what to do both
Speaker 8: on the correctional front and on the mental health funt.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'm going to here, well, you know Reagan
Speaker 1: and when he was president, closed all the mental health
Speaker 1: out well. And they actually started back in the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 1: They started doing this because they thought that was best
Speaker 1: practices back in the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 8: Yeah, there are many things going on there, but excessive
Speaker 8: hopes about psychiatric drugs. There's a lot of cost shifting
Speaker 8: going on too. The states saw in a way that
Speaker 8: they could shift costs to the federal government. A lot
Speaker 8: of the costs now actually are born by counties because
Speaker 8: county are the ones who run jails, and guess where
Speaker 8: all these mentally is to kill people are confined. And
Speaker 8: that's why it's really important that we have leadership from
Speaker 8: the gubernatorial level.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, jails are obviously temporary holding before you go
Speaker 1: off to prison or maybe you stay in jail at
Speaker 1: the sentences less than a year, and so jails are
Speaker 1: instead of the same purpose. But our prisons and we're
Speaker 1: talking federal prison state prisons versus your county jail. I
Speaker 1: can't imagine county jails are well equipped to handle the
Speaker 1: mentally ill.
Speaker 8: No, there's a lot of flux, it's a lot of
Speaker 8: it's a kind of chaotic place. Prison people are in
Speaker 8: for longer. But prison is not better than a mental hospital,
Speaker 8: which I would say would be a better place for
Speaker 8: a lot of these people. Constitutionally is difficult for just
Speaker 8: kind of difficult to transfer someone from a prison to
Speaker 8: a mental hospital. But if we talk more about like
Speaker 8: investing upstream in mental hospitals, like it sounds like Governor
Speaker 8: Dwine is doing, then we would put people like in
Speaker 8: the right system and the system that would be better
Speaker 8: for them. That it's a mental health system, not correctional.
Speaker 1: System, and it can't be a good outcome. I mean,
Speaker 1: to begin with, I'm sure the rate of people are
Speaker 1: incarcerated must be disproportional to the share of the general population,
Speaker 1: because if you think about your own treated mental health issues,
Speaker 1: not always, but generally that leads to crime some way
Speaker 1: more serious, some self harm, but nonetheless criminal activity.
Speaker 8: Yeah, serious mention illness. It's about we would say fifty
Speaker 8: five to six percent for the general adult population, but
Speaker 8: then around fifteen to twenty percent for the incarcerated population.
Speaker 8: So it's a rate like three to four times as
Speaker 8: high as a general adult population. And everything is worse
Speaker 8: for seriously mentally ill people incarcerated, that is, they're victimized
Speaker 8: of higher rates. They get put in solitary confinement at
Speaker 8: high rates, then they recitibate as a higher rate, so
Speaker 8: it's all worse when they get kind of caught up
Speaker 8: in that system.
Speaker 1: And Steve and I, why do I have a sense
Speaker 1: that is going to cost us, like anything in America
Speaker 1: more money in the long run. Rather than addressing the
Speaker 1: problem early on and fixing with mental health beds, we
Speaker 1: chose to incarcerate and care feed and house the mentally ill,
Speaker 1: and then when we allot them out there probably worse.
Speaker 1: And so this costs us more in the long run.
Speaker 1: I'm guessing.
Speaker 8: Yeah, there's a lot of physcal buck passing between you know,
Speaker 8: state governments and federal governments and counties and private health systems,
Speaker 8: but it's the CONTs just well enormously. So it's at
Speaker 8: a certain point somebody just says, look, this is going
Speaker 8: this is an expensive population. We need invest upfront, upstream,
Speaker 8: and that means investing in mental health systems. That's the
Speaker 8: only responsible way to a bridge problem.
Speaker 1: Gotcha, Steven, I's here from the Manhattan Institute and Governor
Speaker 1: Mike DeWine commenting that over ninety percent of the state
Speaker 1: psychiatric beds are occupied by people who are being sent
Speaker 1: by the courts for a mental competency hold. Kind of
Speaker 1: like what's happening with that kid in Marymont now getting
Speaker 1: a second although I think he's in juvenile custody. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure how that works with that, but nonetheless, I
Speaker 1: think you get my point. And now there's no room.
Speaker 1: There is no room literally in state beds for people
Speaker 1: who aren't convicted or aren't facing a serious crime for
Speaker 1: that matter. Too, and we talked about the differently jails
Speaker 1: in prison. You also talk too, Stephen about the funding.
Speaker 1: This stuff is funded on mainlant of county budgets. How
Speaker 1: does it work?
Speaker 8: So Medicaid insurance can't be used to pay for healthcare
Speaker 8: in side correctional institutions. Okay, so it's just has to
Speaker 8: come out of general revenue. Yeah, general state revenues in
Speaker 8: the case of brisons, and general county revenues in the
Speaker 8: case of local jails. And this was never a business
Speaker 8: that counties were in. I mean, I mean providing healthcare
Speaker 8: for people with very serious problems. I mean, especially if
Speaker 8: you're talking about rural counties. You know, most jails are
Speaker 8: pretty small. You know, if you got to jail with
Speaker 8: like fifty two one hundred people, Like, what realistically can
Speaker 8: you do, especially if you're based in the county that
Speaker 8: may not have one psychiatrist for the community in general.
Speaker 8: You know, you're talking about kind of a nurse coming
Speaker 8: by a couple of days a week, dropping off some meds,
Speaker 8: you know, hoping for the best. It's not a fiscally
Speaker 8: a very well arranged system. And that's why, you know,
Speaker 8: to emphasize it's really important that there's leadership at the
Speaker 8: state level. If we're going to fix this, should we.
Speaker 1: Go back to the model that it once was pre
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties, sixty seventies, eighties, and that would be institutionalizing
Speaker 1: and mass institutional and because you could have a hospital
Speaker 1: only have a hospital for six people, but some are
Speaker 1: I guess retirement communities. We have all over the place
Speaker 1: right for people who are of above a certain age
Speaker 1: that are moving to another stage of life. We have
Speaker 1: all these niches of care depending on what it is
Speaker 1: you need and what you require where you're looking for.
Speaker 1: And yet we pretend we don't need that when it
Speaker 1: comes to mental health. Why don't we just you know,
Speaker 1: and not there's an emphasis to do it, but it
Speaker 1: seems like we should be building big facilities for people.
Speaker 2: Who have mental health issues.
Speaker 1: And I'll point out too, since we're talking about Rodney
Speaker 1: Hinton here in this case that he's pleaded not guilty.
Speaker 1: Reason with sanity, they found him incompetent to Stan Toronto's
Speaker 1: charge is probably life in prison. But here's a man
Speaker 1: who's diagnosed with a bipolar disorder and did not take
Speaker 1: his medication as prescribed. If you put someone in group
Speaker 1: housing in a place like this, you can mandate that
Speaker 1: they take their not only they're segregated from side, but
Speaker 1: also you make sure they're on their edge. You can't
Speaker 1: do that when you're out on your own.
Speaker 8: Yeah, a couple of things there. Well, First of all,
Speaker 8: you may don't even need to build new facilities. You
Speaker 8: probably still have these state campuses. Then you could increase
Speaker 8: their capacity. Like you said, they're being used for a
Speaker 8: certain purpose, maybe they could be used for other purposes.
Speaker 8: There's also this question of mostly everyone would agree, first
Speaker 8: of all, that the pendulum has slung way too far,
Speaker 8: Like okay, like people were abused back in the nineteen fifties,
Speaker 8: but it's a different world now, and we've just cut
Speaker 8: way too many beds. We need more beds at least
Speaker 8: than we have now, whether we're bringing back the old
Speaker 8: days or not. Secondly, we got to talk about where
Speaker 8: the beds are going to be. So there are private
Speaker 8: health system private hospitals to do some kind of psychiatric care,
Speaker 8: but they really want to do that on kind of
Speaker 8: like a short term basis, stabilize people just enough, like
Speaker 8: get them their meds and then they're out. If you
Speaker 8: want to talk about care that's going to last like
Speaker 8: an intermediate term, a longer term, and that's probably what
Speaker 8: we're talking about. For people very serious chronic problems on
Speaker 8: the state government, those state programs are the most appropriate intervention,
Speaker 8: and so I think that's what we have to be
Speaker 8: moving back towards. There are a lot of people who
Speaker 8: are not ready to it that the Democrats aren't ready
Speaker 8: from a civilivererties perspective. On the Republican side, it's going
Speaker 8: to because it's going to cost a lot of money.
Speaker 8: Sometimes they're not ready. But you know, in my work,
Speaker 8: I try to make the case that like, look, as
Speaker 8: you alluded to earlier, this is already costing us top
Speaker 8: lots of money. Let's figure out what's the most responsible
Speaker 8: way to spend money, because we're going to be you know,
Speaker 8: it's going to be a big build no matter what.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess if you're progressive, you probably look at
Speaker 1: the whole you know, very anti mass incarceration that we
Speaker 1: lead the free world and in prisoners and the like,
Speaker 1: and we've got to end that whole thing.
Speaker 2: That's a big social plan.
Speaker 1: And also the fact that you know, they pursued policy
Speaker 1: that went after policymakers to close jails. On top of that,
Speaker 1: I mean, look what they're doing in New York with
Speaker 1: Rikers Island. Not that that's a you know, that's not
Speaker 1: a carnival. Certainly it's a horrible, horrible place. But you know,
Speaker 1: closing the prison doesn't make the problem go away, like
Speaker 1: closing the mental institution doesn't make the problem go away.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 8: That's the parallels are very eerie. Like if you know
Speaker 8: anything about the whole history of shutting down the state asylums,
Speaker 8: the hopes there were and the disappointment that followed, that's
Speaker 8: exactly what's going on with this movement to quote abolished jails.
Speaker 8: And those voices are very influential in some places. There
Speaker 8: are places in America, where you have a local jail
Speaker 8: that was to build decades and decades ago, it's falling apart.
Speaker 8: It needs to be replaced. But because there's this idea
Speaker 8: that no, no, no, no, we don't want to do jails anymore,
Speaker 8: the people who are still being confined to those places
Speaker 8: are really suffering because you know, responsible policy makers are
Speaker 8: just not letting their voices be heard.
Speaker 1: Well, the people inside suffer, which makes the problem worse,
Speaker 1: gives them more bag to go.
Speaker 2: See, you see, this is why you gotta close it.
Speaker 1: It's falling apart and it's dangerous, and okay, great, we
Speaker 1: close it like Rikers Island or any other prison that's
Speaker 1: closed to And what do we do. We're not making
Speaker 1: anymore because of the outcry, and so look at the
Speaker 1: rise and you know, assaults and stuff like that. Un
Speaker 1: least here in Cincinnati too.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: Granted the overall crime numbers are going down, but still
Speaker 1: we've got to segregate bad people from the rest of society.
Speaker 1: The idea that we will close prisons with that there
Speaker 1: will be no impact on societies foolish, right.
Speaker 8: And you also another thing to have, it's just abandonment.
Speaker 8: I mean, you put people out of the community. And
Speaker 8: what does that means. I mean, nobody is responsible for them, right.
Speaker 8: You know, they're homeless, they're disconnected from their families, their
Speaker 8: living lives of great instability to get mixed up in drugs.
Speaker 8: They get victimized. Out in Los Angeles where it was
Speaker 8: last week, you see a lot of that. And that's
Speaker 8: a place in particular of much like Rikers Island. They
Speaker 8: need a nicer jail, they need a new jail. They
Speaker 8: need to fix the jail that's falling apart. But they
Speaker 8: can't bring themselves around to that idea before essentially ideological reasons.
Speaker 8: It's history repeating itself.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we close the jails.
Speaker 1: The other side, and this would be those who are
Speaker 1: conservative that you want more punishment, you want tougher restrictions,
Speaker 1: you want three strikes and you're out, which which can
Speaker 1: and can't be helpful. But both these two things are
Speaker 1: at odds against each other, which is why the system's broken.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 8: But we have a lot of crime going on. I mean,
Speaker 8: crime is not in a good place. We need safer communities.
Speaker 8: I mean, I don't know what to say, Like crime
Speaker 8: is a bad thing. It's bad things to happen to
Speaker 8: a business individual. You know, the trauma. You know, people
Speaker 8: will live a incident for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 8: We need safer communities. We're not where we need to
Speaker 8: be in terms of crime on multiple fronts across the nation,
Speaker 8: and I'm sorry, incarceration is probably going to have to
Speaker 8: be part of that solution. Police certainly are, So what
Speaker 8: do we mean by that. Let's talk about licum or modern,
Speaker 8: more therapeutic form of incarceration to the extent that that
Speaker 8: is possible or at least provide for better people while
Speaker 8: they have to be locked up. But I think we
Speaker 8: need to just reconcile ourselves to the idea that we're
Speaker 8: going to need jails and we're going to need incarceration
Speaker 8: if we win to face after this crime problem.
Speaker 2: Stephen on that too.
Speaker 1: If we could just take the population of the mentally
Speaker 1: ill out of the nation's prisons and county jails and
Speaker 1: alike and institutionalize them to get the treatment that they
Speaker 1: need and maybe up to a degree, the criminally violent.
Speaker 1: I think that there are people out there who are
Speaker 1: sociopaths that yeah, that's a mental health condition, but doesn't
Speaker 1: mean you should not be in prison. You should be
Speaker 1: because you're a danger to yourself and others around you
Speaker 1: for the long term. Maybe there's a distinction there and
Speaker 1: to what puts you into a mental prison, hospital or
Speaker 1: a mental institution versus a prison. But just getting that
Speaker 1: population by and large out of prisons, what does that do.
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 8: They Yeah, I mean if you're talking about transferring them to,
Speaker 8: for example, a psychiatric institution, they would still be confined,
Speaker 8: but they would be inside of an agency whose goal
Speaker 8: is mental health treatment. Is the correctional institution's goal mental
Speaker 8: health treatment, Well, not exactly. I mean, if it has
Speaker 8: to be, it has to figure out something, put something
Speaker 8: together maybe, but it would really be better if that
Speaker 8: population were in the care of the mental health system
Speaker 8: for it, like essentially good government reasons. Also on the
Speaker 8: correctional side of things, like you know, you do have
Speaker 8: people who.
Speaker 3: Are just bad.
Speaker 8: They're not mad. You know that they prey on the
Speaker 8: mentally ill. They're a tough enough nut to crack, and
Speaker 8: so on the correctional side of things, it would be
Speaker 8: easier if they could just focus on them. Needs to
Speaker 8: be let's get all mixed up. I mean, people, you
Speaker 8: make a lot about the idea that well, they're just sick.
Speaker 8: They just need to be out and given healthcare, out
Speaker 8: into society, and that's how we'll stabilize them. That creates
Speaker 8: a lot of confusion as to what type of population
Speaker 8: you're dealing with, because in some cases, these really are
Speaker 8: dangerous people. As you say, yes they have a secret
Speaker 8: serious psychiatric illness, they're also dangerous. So they're going to
Speaker 8: have to be confined. That means a different type of
Speaker 8: custodial institution, right, but a certain type of custodial institution,
Speaker 8: one with a more psychiatric outlook that's a better suited
Speaker 8: to their needs.
Speaker 1: Well, for example, in our newsroom here at seven hundred
Speaker 1: w LW. Steven, we have multiple scanners and play scanners fire,
Speaker 1: and you hear all the time that somebody's not they're
Speaker 1: off their medication. You know, you can't trust someone who's
Speaker 1: mental ill to continue to take their medication. That is
Speaker 1: something that has to be administered to them. And when
Speaker 1: you're out and left to your own devices, it's a
Speaker 1: lethal it can be a lethal combination.
Speaker 2: And that's happened a lot real quick.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 2: What how do we fix this?
Speaker 8: Well, so, first of all, look invest more in upstream solutions.
Speaker 8: We need to reckon. Republicans need to reconcile themselves the
Speaker 8: idea that we probably need to spend more through for example,
Speaker 8: the Medicaid program. It's a very expensive budget busting program,
Speaker 8: but that is going to need to be part of
Speaker 8: the solution. More money spent on these upstream psychiatric solutions.
Speaker 8: And on the inside, you need more involved in my
Speaker 8: state government in the jail based systems. The jail based
Speaker 8: systems don't have the resources, they sometimes don't even have
Speaker 8: the know how the personnel to serve this population. You
Speaker 8: are in the near term going to still have people
Speaker 8: with serious psychiatric illnesses can find the jails in prisons,
Speaker 8: So we need to face up to that and make
Speaker 8: sure that we have the resources and personnel in this
Speaker 8: place is to stabilize them and make what's going to be,
Speaker 8: you know, a challenging situation at least a little bit
Speaker 8: more manageable and a little bit more enlightened than the
Speaker 8: situation we've got.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think that's that's probably true.
Speaker 1: But you know why these political analyies battling over their
Speaker 1: turf and planning their flag, and of course we have
Speaker 1: governs that don't have enough resources and are fighting over
Speaker 1: for O Repenny and so that's why we can't get
Speaker 1: the needle to move, and the end result as we
Speaker 1: all suffer as a society, in individuals and families as well.
Speaker 1: It's sad, but hopefully at some point we'll have clear
Speaker 1: heads that wind up being our overlords. That solved this problem.
Speaker 1: Steve and I thanks so much for joining the show.
Speaker 1: From the Manhattan Institute. You can read more there all
Speaker 1: the best.
Speaker 8: I really enjoyed it. Thanks for having me, Stuf Care.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is an absolve Rodney hitting from doing what
Speaker 1: he did. But you know, you go back and look
Speaker 1: kind of like the cameras at the park, right, we
Speaker 1: had a kid killed two and a half years ago
Speaker 1: and the camera's supposed to go up, but didn't.
Speaker 2: We got another eleven year old dead.
Speaker 1: I don't know if this would have stopped the murder
Speaker 1: of Larry Henderson and other scourge is a society and
Speaker 1: the like. But you know, if you're refusing to take
Speaker 1: your medication and a serious mental health issue like bipolar,
Speaker 1: schizophrene or anything of that, a handful of them, then
Speaker 1: there should be some institutionalization going on, but we don't
Speaker 1: have the facilities to do that. We've got a news
Speaker 1: update in about four minutes. It's a Scott Sloan show
Speaker 1: seven High Wild. There we go, New Year's resolution, more snorts.
Speaker 2: Sarah Relasi's here from the Kid Chris Show one on
Speaker 2: two seven e v M.
Speaker 1: Of the social media perspective on everything sport and Cincinnati.
Speaker 2: There is some of the new year with the snorts report.
Speaker 9: Yes, there are so many things trending with Cincinnati sports
Speaker 9: right now.
Speaker 7: Not really snort worthy, though.
Speaker 1: Is anything good? Gimme let's let this because it's a
Speaker 1: new year. What do you give me something positive from
Speaker 1: Cincinnati sports? There's no positive? What's positive? The Reds are
Speaker 1: gonna be terrible. We got Reds fast haupping up. The
Speaker 1: Bengals are terrible. They're tearing the state. They're remodeling the stadium.
Speaker 1: They need to remodel their front office. We've got the Cats.
Speaker 1: Can't win Xavier? What what give me a post?
Speaker 4: Wait?
Speaker 9: Why are we putting so much money into the Duke Energy?
Speaker 9: What is it called now? The Cincinnati Convention Someday Energy Center?
Speaker 7: Don't that's not what the article said.
Speaker 2: Sure, I'm just gonna call it that forever, okay, because
Speaker 2: its energy? So the Riverfront stadium.
Speaker 7: But I'm like, shouldn't we put more money into our defense.
Speaker 2: Again?
Speaker 7: We're gonna start with the positive though, real quick.
Speaker 9: Miami University's men's basketball team is sixteen O baby. Here
Speaker 9: we go, Sarah, And by the way, happy New Year.
Speaker 9: I've not seen you since last year.
Speaker 2: Hold on, hold that thought a second.
Speaker 1: So we've been doing this segment for a few years now,
Speaker 1: and I believe this is the first time she's mentioned Miami.
Speaker 2: University basketball because it's that bad.
Speaker 1: We've got to go to Oxford to go, well, there's
Speaker 1: something we can hang our hat on all the way.
Speaker 9: In cozy Oxford, my alma mater. You'll be checking out
Speaker 9: a game there on the thirty first.
Speaker 2: Are you going to go watch the bear Cats?
Speaker 9: We're definitely not going to go do that. And here
Speaker 9: Wes Miller have another meltdown on our airwaves. I guess
Speaker 9: that's what was trending on social media when I woke
Speaker 9: up this morning, going off on Dan Ward.
Speaker 1: I like, of all the people hiding off on Dan,
Speaker 1: I don't know if it was going off on him.
Speaker 9: There's a little sketchy. I don't like the tone that
Speaker 9: he took with Dan. I'm like, you'd be nice to
Speaker 9: our guy.
Speaker 1: Well, it's also the problem I have with coaches in
Speaker 1: general is you know, the sportsman asking me these questions
Speaker 1: and they got you know, they got to get all
Speaker 1: hard ass and like it's us against the world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because you suck.
Speaker 7: It's like, don't be darky and say that.
Speaker 9: I don't like that the whole us against the world,
Speaker 9: the world.
Speaker 2: Then why am I buying your tickets?
Speaker 1: He just jeans to me, why am I beying your
Speaker 1: merch Right, He's like, no, leading into your fan base,
Speaker 1: don't alienate them.
Speaker 9: But as you know, it doesn't matter who the coaches
Speaker 9: are in Cincinnati, we are going to hang on to them.
Speaker 2: The coaches show is the dumbest thing.
Speaker 7: It doesn't matter what the record is.
Speaker 9: I guess in Baltimore it matters because they let go
Speaker 9: of their night to that guy.
Speaker 2: Tom is going to be the greatest.
Speaker 9: Meanwhile, we've got everybody in the AFC North cutting coaches
Speaker 9: except in Sincenata.
Speaker 7: What about you stay another year.
Speaker 2: You've got to get one more time.
Speaker 1: Duke Tobin's been here since the Truman administration, before football
Speaker 1: was even the thing.
Speaker 9: So speaking of our guy, Duke Tobin, he is going
Speaker 9: to be holding a press conference this Friday, A rare
Speaker 9: press conference. Oh my god, Friday at one o'clock. I
Speaker 9: will be sad. Here's my take on it. Let the
Speaker 9: fans at it for about thirty minutes, go on Facebook
Speaker 9: Live and answer questions.
Speaker 2: Doing it? Going to write it to an Ama asked
Speaker 2: me anything.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I don't want the Bengals media in there. I
Speaker 7: don't want this. I don't want this interview to be weak.
Speaker 9: I need the real fans that are in the stands,
Speaker 9: that have had season tickets for twenty plus years to
Speaker 9: ask Duke whatever they need to get at their checks.
Speaker 1: God, the questions are going to be you know, so
Speaker 1: don't built Dennison seven hundred ww So, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: you could talk about you know, talk about some of
Speaker 1: the good what what you know?
Speaker 2: What about the draft?
Speaker 7: Nobody wants to lose their crew.
Speaker 2: But I want yeah, very so bad. Yeah, because they
Speaker 2: well they'll pull there.
Speaker 1: That's so weak as like, well, you asked a tough question,
Speaker 1: you'll have your credential pulled.
Speaker 9: So I went on to social media and I said, hey,
Speaker 9: if you dude, you got to read the responses. Take
Speaker 9: fifteen to twenty minutes out of your day because that's
Speaker 9: how many responses are on this post. Go check out
Speaker 9: my post and read all of the comments from people
Speaker 9: because I asked him iselif if you could ask Duke
Speaker 9: Tobin one thing at this press or on Friday, what
Speaker 9: would you ask? A lot of these are not really
Speaker 9: appropriate for the airwaves. No, just take some time away
Speaker 9: from work today and go check out the response. But
Speaker 9: a lot of people asking Duke are wanting to ask Duke, hey,
Speaker 9: what are you going to do when the stadium is
Speaker 9: empty this upcoming season?
Speaker 7: Because everyone's so mad?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, our season ticket holders.
Speaker 1: This is like, this is like some big event, like
Speaker 1: Duke Tobin is going to be here from ten to
Speaker 1: ten to ten fifteen. Answering the tough question from the
Speaker 1: Cincinnati medias like, you know, we just look at Tennessee, right.
Speaker 1: Their ownership put this whole plan together to the state,
Speaker 1: to the fans and saying here's what the plan is.
Speaker 1: This is what we're doing. The statement we got from
Speaker 1: Mike Brown was what we're keeping. We're giving to the coach.
Speaker 7: And general statement that you could ever.
Speaker 1: We trust these guys men, We trust them. You got
Speaker 1: to the super Bowl once in twenty eight years.
Speaker 7: And we need to stop talking about that Super Bowl
Speaker 7: enough that was light.
Speaker 2: Years ago, which also looking like that was an outlier.
Speaker 2: Like literally, I.
Speaker 7: Can talk about the big red machine from fifty years ago.
Speaker 1: Right, there's no dynasty there is, Like it feels like
Speaker 1: at this point now you stumbled into that is what
Speaker 1: it looks like.
Speaker 9: Dunt dunk dum and Joe Burrow being very careful with
Speaker 9: his words and that final press conference after the game
Speaker 9: on Sunday when they asked him about you know, what
Speaker 9: do you think is needed in the off season, Like
Speaker 9: what are the changes you want to see?
Speaker 7: Joe is a great leader. He's not going to throw
Speaker 7: anyone under the bus.
Speaker 2: Oh he's not.
Speaker 9: Anyway, they got the tenth pick. We'll see what they
Speaker 9: do because we know that they're so good at drafting.
Speaker 9: It's just like a vicious circle around here.
Speaker 2: What if they don't make the playoffs next year?
Speaker 7: Four years in a row. We got problems.
Speaker 1: That's fine to get you know what we are We
Speaker 1: need a little more time.
Speaker 7: Well, just extend Zach for another couple of years.
Speaker 1: Right now, they're renovating pay court. They need to renovate
Speaker 1: the front office is what they need to do.
Speaker 9: Take that money from the convention center whatever you're doing,
Speaker 9: the money and just.
Speaker 2: Fix it down.
Speaker 7: You got fixed.
Speaker 2: The Brown family has enough money. We're good.
Speaker 7: He's a what is it, He's one of the top
Speaker 7: five riches people. It's in the track.
Speaker 2: We need to give them more money. Yeah, no, you don't.
Speaker 1: You need to get your head out of your ass
Speaker 1: and do something you haven't done in a few years.
Speaker 1: It's like when you went lean into free agency. That
Speaker 1: worked out for you and then we got away from that.
Speaker 1: Why well, we got more problems.
Speaker 9: We got, we got, we got. I understand that as
Speaker 9: you should be. All Bengals fans should be very frustrated
Speaker 9: with what's going on. You should hate that they ended
Speaker 9: the season at six and eleven, the season losing to
Speaker 9: the Browns.
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, man, but they're not helping themselves
Speaker 1: when the perception is they don't care about the fans,
Speaker 1: and did they do.
Speaker 7: This look at the snowy seats.
Speaker 2: We don't care about the fans.
Speaker 7: We care about the fans, and apparently over the weekend.
Speaker 2: Or we do in the stadium, isn't that good? Well yeah,
Speaker 2: but we're paying for that.
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 9: Somebody told me over the weekend, someone that has club
Speaker 9: seats that the club level area, the ac was or
Speaker 9: the heat was out, so it was very cold in there.
Speaker 7: Yeah, so that wasn't fit exactly.
Speaker 9: We got more problems though, Cam Taylor Britt doing some
Speaker 9: time in jail and straight to the off season to
Speaker 9: the Hamilton County jail.
Speaker 7: I guess reckless driving, running some stop lights.
Speaker 1: In this time, having like two thousand miles an hour
Speaker 1: up and down Vine Street.
Speaker 2: What are you doing?
Speaker 9: Chelsea's sick over at Local twelve has all of the details.
Speaker 9: She was the one media person in that room yesterday
Speaker 9: when Cam Taylor Britt was at the home.
Speaker 1: She brings that same attitude to the Duke Tobin thing, Yeah,
Speaker 1: can we get Chelsea sick to the press or on Friday.
Speaker 7: She's all over it.
Speaker 9: But yeah, these charges go all the way back to June,
Speaker 9: and then he was cited again in September not having
Speaker 9: a valid license.
Speaker 7: I mean, it's crazy.
Speaker 4: What do you doing?
Speaker 2: Go through your mind?
Speaker 7: It's like you can't celebrate, you should have your stuff
Speaker 7: to go.
Speaker 2: But it's also like I don't need to get a license.
Speaker 2: What what the hell you think? What are you doing?
Speaker 9: Why are you running red lights? Fans are out and about.
Speaker 9: This was right after a game. I don't understand his
Speaker 9: whole purpose behind this, but yeah, so his mugshot is
Speaker 9: trending all over social media today.
Speaker 1: So apparently getting a driver's lives not only the only responsibility.
Speaker 2: Shirk so.
Speaker 9: Not the best examples for our young kiddos that look
Speaker 9: up to the Bengals players here.
Speaker 2: He's not gonna be back anyway.
Speaker 7: I don't think so. I think I'm done with CTB. Yeah,
Speaker 7: I've seen enough.
Speaker 2: I've seen enough. We don't want to say anymore. There's
Speaker 2: like three guys I keep on. I think that's it.
Speaker 7: Please bring back Dalton Reisner. That's something that's trending on
Speaker 7: social media. Dalton really wants to stick at the angles.
Speaker 7: I would like to see that happened for him as well.
Speaker 7: So Joe Burrow on social media, this is trending. He
Speaker 7: posted on Instagram.
Speaker 9: Yesterday a big carousel of photos, some being throughout the season,
Speaker 9: him being injured, and then his Joker costume from Halloween,
Speaker 9: and he captioned it twenty twenty five was dot adversity?
Speaker 7: Yes it was, Yes it was.
Speaker 9: So go check out Joe's posts and all the comments
Speaker 9: they do not disappoint Bengals fans are so funny. A
Speaker 9: lot of girls asking him to marry them, you know,
Speaker 9: the same old salele God. It's like, why are we
Speaker 9: taking advantage of Emo Joe? Like Jo, Well, he doesn't
Speaker 9: want you, Okay, he doesn't watch six and eleven. All
Speaker 9: this man cares about is football. Okay, that brain, fashion
Speaker 9: and fossils. I guess that's what he gifted his O
Speaker 9: line this year for Christmas.
Speaker 7: Fossils. Last year was the samuraized Swords. Yeah, now they
Speaker 7: got rocks.
Speaker 2: I think Bengals have enough fossils.
Speaker 7: We got to and that's the problem. Like we got.
Speaker 2: Ladies are great, Joe, marry me, marry me.
Speaker 7: Here's some rocks.
Speaker 9: Mean, while Pat Mahomes is like based on personalized rolex.
Speaker 2: Was you marry Joe?
Speaker 1: Based on some of the stuff he wears for his
Speaker 1: pregame fit, you could double your wardrobe, ladies.
Speaker 7: I'll wear the sweatsuits.
Speaker 9: Those are some nice sweatsuits, T shirt and shirts I
Speaker 9: you did cozy in the would.
Speaker 2: Come in and it's just like they look like I
Speaker 2: don't care.
Speaker 7: They really did not care. This year.
Speaker 9: I wasn't blown away with the fashion by you can't
Speaker 9: be flashy when you're six and a line.
Speaker 2: Focus on that nonsense.
Speaker 7: Wear the suits when you go undefeated, when you can
Speaker 7: win a few games in a row.
Speaker 2: Okay, will you walk with a little swagger now, with
Speaker 2: your tail the two of your legs.
Speaker 7: Let's move on.
Speaker 1: I think I'll to wear work shirts with their name
Speaker 1: out like they were in a garage, you know, And
Speaker 1: it's just just as Joe or like bowling shirts something.
Speaker 1: It looks like I'm going to work.
Speaker 9: We're going to move on to ruds because we are
Speaker 9: less than eighty days away until opening down what until
Speaker 9: all the fun starts up again? Okay, I don't know,
Speaker 9: get excited about Sunshine, about Sunshine, Tito warm Weather, Ellie Day,
Speaker 9: La Cruz not coming to Reds Fest. They released all
Speaker 9: the names of the people that are going to be there.
Speaker 9: He's not on that list, and I would like to
Speaker 9: know why. I don't know why either, And what's he doing?
Speaker 9: Why can't he be there?
Speaker 2: Winter ball? I don't know what.
Speaker 9: I have seen him playing some ball out in Arizona,
Speaker 9: but it's like, hello, get on a plane, you can
Speaker 9: make it in three hours. I think everybody should have
Speaker 9: to be there. I think it's a volunteered thing. Guess
Speaker 9: what Allie said, no pay right, minimum wage, minimum effort,
Speaker 9: SAT just raised minimum.
Speaker 2: The players are coming though, Yeah, we'll.
Speaker 9: See a lot of those guys, broadcasters things like that.
Speaker 9: So it all starts Friday night and then all day Saturday.
Speaker 9: Saturday is also the Reds Poker Tournament benefiting the Reds
Speaker 9: Community Fund. I will be playing in that thing, and
Speaker 9: I'm very excited about it. I'm sorry if I'm at
Speaker 9: your table, like, imagine being so excited that you're gonna
Speaker 9: have like a Reds player at your table and it's
Speaker 9: right me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wouldn't do that. You know you should.
Speaker 1: You should just say wait, why don't we just why
Speaker 1: don't we just start them and say changing the format
Speaker 1: there it's going to be strip poker.
Speaker 7: Oh stop, nobody wants to see that. Come on, let's
Speaker 7: keep it. But can you imagine these.
Speaker 2: Former former Reds players taking our shirts off.
Speaker 9: I feel bad for the people that have to get
Speaker 9: me at their table, Like, I'm sorry to disappoint. I
Speaker 9: know you spent like two hundred dollars to play in
Speaker 9: this journey and you're hoping that like a legit celebrity
Speaker 9: is at your table.
Speaker 2: For Red Strip Poker.
Speaker 7: That's a whole nother website that that has nothing to
Speaker 7: do with me.
Speaker 2: See Sarah's only fans anyway.
Speaker 7: Anyways, that's what's trending on social media.
Speaker 1: You're also cringing, So you know I'm going to talk
Speaker 1: more about Please don't Red strip poker.
Speaker 9: Please don't, because I'm thinking about the dudes in that
Speaker 9: room and no.
Speaker 2: Gapper Wado Gapper takes us know what this something that.
Speaker 9: I want to find out in twenty twenty six? What
Speaker 9: exactly is Gapper? Is he a bear? Is he a bird?
Speaker 9: Is he a combo?
Speaker 2: Like a Philly fanatic?
Speaker 9: It's like it's it's really weird Jilly fanatic at the
Speaker 9: Bristol Speedway thing.
Speaker 7: And he's odd, a little creepy, is a little creepy,
Speaker 7: all right.
Speaker 9: Apparently the dude that plays him as creepy, So explain
Speaker 9: some things.
Speaker 7: Hey, I used to be the Easter Bunny at Trike
Speaker 7: County Mall. I understand it. You gotta have a little
Speaker 7: creep about creep Yeah, exactly. You gotta be a little weird.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 7: So there's not that respect.
Speaker 2: Bengals.
Speaker 9: We got the Reds and we have Miami university killing
Speaker 9: it with basketball and the EHL strike is over.
Speaker 2: So last like three days.
Speaker 9: It was three days, and I guess they'll eventually make
Speaker 9: up those games. Not sure when those makeup games will
Speaker 9: be announced. But glad that cycling hockey is bad.
Speaker 1: Well I tell you watching it's that there's a chant
Speaker 1: and it had that going on for a period of
Speaker 1: time a few weeks.
Speaker 9: That might have been the end of the Yeah, so
Speaker 9: glad that those guys are going to get exactly what
Speaker 9: they were striking about.
Speaker 7: Treatment. Yay, Miami, let's go red hooks baby sixteen to no.
Speaker 2: You know it's bad.
Speaker 1: When we got to go to Oxford for sports, nobody
Speaker 1: cares about Miami until they did. They're good, right, It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, I've always cared XU. It's like, yeah, they
Speaker 1: well what about Miami.
Speaker 7: Oh yeah, they've your place tonight. They're in Milwaukee.
Speaker 1: If if the wheels fall off Miami with you, hope
Speaker 1: they don't, But then what do you do you owe?
Speaker 2: You you go to Dayton.
Speaker 7: This is this is when we just look forward to
Speaker 7: Opening day, NonStop countdowns.
Speaker 1: Yeah, nothing like this New Year's depression to go on
Speaker 1: here with our sports teams because there's no just no
Speaker 1: good news.
Speaker 7: Miami, Miami.
Speaker 1: That's it, all right, Sarah at least trying to make
Speaker 1: sure you go to a reds dot com and the
Speaker 1: REDS Community Fund sign up for Sarah Stripto.
Speaker 7: It's just regular poker.
Speaker 2: Spread the rumors you're a poker with Sarah seven