Speaker 1: That Jay Weber Podcast is presented by Creative Planning, helping
Speaker 1: clients simplify their journey to financial wellness, one personalized plan
Speaker 1: at a time. That j Weber Podcast is a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2: Good Day, Welcome to the Jay Weber Podcast. Today. I
Speaker 2: want to talk about all sorts of things. How about
Speaker 2: the fight over our national identity as we mark America's
Speaker 2: two hundred and fiftieth anniversary this summer. Also how New
Speaker 2: York democrats obsession with race is going to hobble their
Speaker 2: efforts to redraw their district map. That's an interesting story.
Speaker 2: Also why gas prices will be a bigger issue than
Speaker 2: normal this fall. But first, I see that our governor
Speaker 2: in the great state of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, has come
Speaker 2: to a deal with Republican leaders to finally, finally give
Speaker 2: taxpayers some of their money back. Governor Evers, Robin Voss,
Speaker 2: Devin Lemiheue. They're the Republicans in charge of the Assembly
Speaker 2: and the Senate there. They're all retiring at the end
Speaker 2: of the year, and so they obviously decided that they
Speaker 2: have a rare window here to resolve a long time fight.
Speaker 2: What to do with all of the money that the
Speaker 2: state government has taken out of our paychecks unnecessarily. Wisconsin,
Speaker 2: thanks to Republican budgets for over a decade, has run
Speaker 2: two to three million dollars or billion dollar surplus every year.
Speaker 2: And this is money that they haven't needed to run
Speaker 2: state government over the last decade. They've given it back
Speaker 2: to us in different ways over the years, but there's
Speaker 2: about a three billion or so dollar surplus, and I
Speaker 2: think the level and they've decided now that they're going
Speaker 2: to give us some of that money back. I think
Speaker 2: the level of refund is pathetic given the size of
Speaker 2: the surplus. It would be three hundred dollars back for
Speaker 2: individuals and six hundred dollars for married couples. But they're
Speaker 2: also agreeing to dump even more money into Wisconsin public
Speaker 2: schools and special ad while ending state income taxes and
Speaker 2: taxes over time. So overall, both sides get something. I
Speaker 2: understand Producer Gregory John that Congressman Tom Tiffany was on
Speaker 2: Benjamin the Ount Show on WISN this morning, and you
Speaker 2: have a bit of an exclusive here. Tiffany was saying
Speaker 2: that he would not sign this agreement if he was governor.
Speaker 2: He doesn't like the agreement because he thinks we could
Speaker 2: do better. Is that right?
Speaker 3: Yep?
Speaker 4: I would not vote for it. I think that Governor
Speaker 4: Evers has failed the people the state of Wisconsin once again.
Speaker 4: I mean, remember, he's got the ultimate authority here. The
Speaker 4: governor in the state of Wisconsin had the most powerful
Speaker 4: veto pen perhaps of any governor in these states. And
Speaker 4: plus with the Evers the market line decision, which gave
Speaker 4: him even more executive authority. I mean, he really has
Speaker 4: unrivaled authority amongst governors across the country. And he could
Speaker 4: have put in here the repeal of the four hundred
Speaker 4: year property tax increase, and he did not. All he
Speaker 4: wanted in there for the relief was a sugar high
Speaker 4: for a year. Now. I understand why Republicans may support
Speaker 4: this because they're at least getting something and being in
Speaker 4: a tough position with an executive that has so much power,
Speaker 4: some of it given to them by to the governor
Speaker 4: by the state Supreme Court. I get it why they
Speaker 4: would want to take a victory here. But we need
Speaker 4: long term systemic tax relief here in Wisconsin, and it
Speaker 4: starts by repealing the four hundred year property tax increase.
Speaker 5: Which, by the.
Speaker 4: Way, remember when Governor Evers told us to deal with it.
Speaker 4: I mean that's how he views the taxpayer's money. It's
Speaker 4: ours in Madison, and we'll give you a little bit
Speaker 4: for a year. We should have long term systemic relief,
Speaker 4: make no doubt about it. I want the money returned
Speaker 4: to the taxpayers of the state of Wisconsin. But elect
Speaker 4: me in November and you'll get far more than this.
Speaker 4: We will end the four hundred year of property tax increase.
Speaker 4: We'll get control of your utility bills that have went
Speaker 4: up two billion dollars under Governor Evers. I think about
Speaker 4: the livestock citing our livestock inspection fee where Governor Evers
Speaker 4: proposed raising it from four hundred and fifty dollars to
Speaker 4: seven thousand dollars. Now they settled for a little bit less,
Speaker 4: but it was a huge increase. So they're nickel and
Speaker 4: diming the taxpayers at the State of Wisconsin. And then
Speaker 4: they want to give them a little bit of money back.
Speaker 4: And this is ultimately where I have the objection. To
Speaker 4: give people a little bit of money back temporarily, but
Speaker 4: it is not long term. And the taxpayers of the
Speaker 4: state of Wisconsin should expect to have tax relief, including
Speaker 4: property tax relief, that continues not just this year, but
Speaker 4: for the foreseeable future, so life can be affordable in
Speaker 4: our state.
Speaker 2: Tom Tiffany makes a lot of good points there, I think,
Speaker 2: but this also strikes me. You know, this is a
Speaker 2: deal where both sides get a little something, and you've
Speaker 2: got guys that are retiring trying to be a little
Speaker 2: more diplomatic and work together, as the taxpayers and the
Speaker 2: voters always claim they want to see. So as a
Speaker 2: politician running for office this year, you'd be pretty stupid
Speaker 2: to oppose this at the same time, wouldn't you. I
Speaker 2: understand Governor Tiffany is pointing out that we can do
Speaker 2: a lot better. But on the other side of the aisle,
Speaker 2: the Democrats that are running to oppose him are shooting
Speaker 2: this down because they don't want to give up the money.
Speaker 2: You'd think it's smart to stand in the way of
Speaker 2: voters and taxpayers getting some of their money back in
Speaker 2: an election year. So far, it's nearly all the Democrat
Speaker 2: candidates for governor Kelda roy Is, Francesco Hong, David Crowley, etc.
Speaker 2: Who have come out against this. Tom Tiffany isn't necessarily
Speaker 2: against the tax return. He's just saying I could do
Speaker 2: a better bill. I wouldn't sign this bill because we
Speaker 2: could do better. I don't know, Greg. It's only six
Speaker 2: hundred bucks for you and Dorothy, but do you want
Speaker 2: some of your money back?
Speaker 5: I was teasing Ben earlier this morning about that. Sez
Speaker 5: I liked about six hundred dollars, and we talked about that.
Speaker 5: In Tom's right, it's a sugar high. You still have
Speaker 5: the four hundred year property tax increase in.
Speaker 2: This You're right. And the Democrats' reaction to it is
Speaker 2: that we shouldn't give anyone anything back. We got to
Speaker 2: keep it all for ourselves. Is an interesting response, and
Speaker 2: it just shows you again how this era's Democrats are
Speaker 2: really moving right into socialism. They're big government socialists. The
Speaker 2: deeper analysis here is the reflexive reaction by those Democrat
Speaker 2: candidates to immediately oppose anything that's good for the taxpayers
Speaker 2: or has big government loosening its grip on our wallets.
Speaker 2: I think is interesting. It's a great example of how
Speaker 2: today's Democrats really are big government socialists. Past Dems would
Speaker 2: have at least realized that this is the taxpayer's money
Speaker 2: taken from them out of their paychecks. Unnecessarily, we took
Speaker 2: too much. But today's Democrat leaders really do think that
Speaker 2: all of your money is really their money, and people
Speaker 2: like Hong and Calderoy's can't even pretend otherwise. If you're
Speaker 2: a socialist like Hong or Roy's, why would the dumb
Speaker 2: donkeys who send you a chunk of their paycheck every
Speaker 2: week deserve any relief or consideration. This really is how
Speaker 2: today's Democrat thinks. Since your money is really their money,
Speaker 2: they talk openly about heaping higher and higher taxes on you,
Speaker 2: and hell no, you don't deserve anything back. They get
Speaker 2: to decide how your money is spent. It's infuriating, and
Speaker 2: it's why it's harder and harder to save for your
Speaker 2: own retirement nest egg and plan for your own retirement.
Speaker 2: So this is where I say, have you heard about
Speaker 2: Creative Planning? They're one of the nation's largest independent wealth
Speaker 2: management firms, offering fully integrated financial and retirement planning, investment management,
Speaker 2: estate planning, tax strategies, business services, and international wealth management,
Speaker 2: all in house and coordinated through your wealth manager. Their
Speaker 2: fiduciary wealth managers are here. To help you navigate every
Speaker 2: piece of your financial life. Visit creative Planning dot com
Speaker 2: to schedule your introductory meeting. That's Creative Planning dot com
Speaker 2: your team always. Thanks for by Creative Planning and SEC
Speaker 2: Registered Investment advisor. The speaker's statements are not an endorsement
Speaker 2: of the firm. We are moving into the summer of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six and moving closer and closer to the
Speaker 2: official two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of
Speaker 2: this nation. President Trump and Congress are promising all sorts
Speaker 2: of special and wonderful celebrations related to it. And I love,
Speaker 2: I really love and appreciate the fact that Donald Trump
Speaker 2: happens to be our president right now because he's put
Speaker 2: an importance on cleaning up, renovating, and doing long term
Speaker 2: deferred maintenance on our new national monuments and institutions and
Speaker 2: Washington d C in general. Sincerely, if Kamala Harris or
Speaker 2: any other Democrat or Republican leader was sitting in the
Speaker 2: White House right now, do you think we'd have seen
Speaker 2: an effort to get Washington d C all spruced up
Speaker 2: for the two hundred and fiftieth underway. I convertually guarantee
Speaker 2: you we wouldn't, and we wouldn't because sadly, no one
Speaker 2: else would have thought of it. I don't think anyone
Speaker 2: else alive or in politics today really thinks this way.
Speaker 2: It had to be Trump. Only Trump would drive through
Speaker 2: DC and say, my god, we need to fix these fountains.
Speaker 2: It's an embarrassment that they sit in decay. My god.
Speaker 2: How can this be the road leading to the White House.
Speaker 2: It's all rutted and crumbling. We must replace this, my god.
Speaker 2: How can the reflecting pool in the National Mall not
Speaker 2: be holding water some days and covered over with LGA
Speaker 2: other days. We thank god President Trump is restoring some
Speaker 2: pride and dignity to our important public spaces. I can
Speaker 2: guarantee you Kamala wouldn't be doing it, neither Barack nor
Speaker 2: old Dementia Joe drove around in the decay and decided
Speaker 2: we should really do something about this. We are president,
Speaker 2: after all. It had to be Trump. But at a
Speaker 2: deeper level, having at last four or five administrations simply
Speaker 2: allow our national monuments to decay along with our national pride,
Speaker 2: it should be disturbing to all of us. The physical
Speaker 2: decay seems to mirror a general decay when it comes
Speaker 2: to American pride and greatness. It just disturbs me. We're
Speaker 2: such a divided and very different country now than we
Speaker 2: were back in nineteen seventy six when the country celebrated
Speaker 2: its bi centennial. A lot of us were around to
Speaker 2: see that and the display of greatness and independence that
Speaker 2: was celebrated back then too. Yeah, I was a kid,
Speaker 2: but I can firmly say, based on both personal experiences
Speaker 2: at the time and the history I've read about it since,
Speaker 2: the bi centennial celebration in nineteen seventy six was genuinely
Speaker 2: a moment of great national pride and a coming together
Speaker 2: of both parties as everyone, regardless of political affiliation, race, ethnicity,
Speaker 2: everyone celebrated the greatness of this country, celebrated the promises
Speaker 2: of the constitution, proudly waived the American flag, not because
Speaker 2: we were a perfect country, but because we had gotten
Speaker 2: closer to achieving that than any other country or society
Speaker 2: and human history. That is the promise of the nation
Speaker 2: after all. Right. In the most important founding document, the
Speaker 2: founders make it clear this is an effort to form
Speaker 2: a more perfect union, a more fair and perfect society, etc.
Speaker 2: And right through the nineteen seventies, I'd say, actually, right
Speaker 2: up until about nineteen ninety, we had people on both
Speaker 2: sides of the isle, both leaders and voters on both
Speaker 2: the Democrat and Republican side of the isle, who really
Speaker 2: loved and appreciated the greatness of this country and the
Speaker 2: promises of this country, and they only really argued over
Speaker 2: the best ways in which to achieve that more fair
Speaker 2: or perfect union. Then came the modern left, and now
Speaker 2: we find ourselves a country battling over a national identity.
Speaker 2: And trust me, if Donald Trump wouldn't have won in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four, we'd be seeing a very different version
Speaker 2: of America two hundred and fifty years later. If Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris would have won, many of us would have marked
Speaker 2: America's two hundred and fiftieth year and been wondering, is
Speaker 2: this as long as America lasted? Because we'd have a
Speaker 2: nitwit in the White House who liked Abigail Spanberger or
Speaker 2: Kathy Hokl or Chuck Schumer wouldn't have been strong enough
Speaker 2: to push back on the socialism. Kamala would have been
Speaker 2: giving into every last one of their radical activist ideas.
Speaker 2: And there'd be no doubt that this country was on
Speaker 2: a path to socialism as it marked two hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty years of existence. There is no doubt in my
Speaker 2: mind that had Kamala won, we in the pundit class
Speaker 2: would have spent the entire summer and fall this year
Speaker 2: mulling over those questions. The Roman Empire lasted nearly fifteen
Speaker 2: hundred years, the Egyptian Empire lasted nearly three thousand. The
Speaker 2: American Republic only lasted about two hundred and fifty years. Really,
Speaker 2: we started down the clear path towards socialism in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four, and so market the most important promises of
Speaker 2: the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were
Speaker 2: taken away from us in less than two hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty years. That's all the longer we would sustain it.
Speaker 2: And I'm simplifying and amplifying to some extent here. A
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris regime wouldn't have meant instant socialism, but the
Speaker 2: destruction of another four years of having the bullying America
Speaker 2: haters of the Obama and Biden eras in charge would
Speaker 2: have very likely meant this a significant amount of destruction
Speaker 2: that the public couldn't have bounced back from as it is.
Speaker 2: The socialist made gains. You've got Zorn Mamdani, an open
Speaker 2: socialist in charge of New York City and all sorts
Speaker 2: of council seats and mayorships at the local level in
Speaker 2: the Blue States, turning socialist. Back in nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 2: when we were all wearing our red, white and blue
Speaker 2: and celebrating this wonderful thing we were gifted from our founders,
Speaker 2: no one would have imagined the sort of divided and
Speaker 2: angry and disparate country that we've become in the decades.
Speaker 2: Since this really is a nation battling over a national
Speaker 2: identity right now. And what's making everything more difficult is
Speaker 2: that nearly half of the people in this country no
Speaker 2: longer seem to believe in God, family, and education, or
Speaker 2: that they make for a stronger society. I found this
Speaker 2: blurb not long ago and set it aside. I'd credit
Speaker 2: the author if I still had his or her name,
Speaker 2: but I couldn't agree with it more. The most grievous
Speaker 2: cultural wound has been the loss of a shared moral order.
Speaker 2: We told multiple generations to come up with their own
Speaker 2: individual values. It has left us morally inarticulate and uninformed.
Speaker 2: It created a naked public square where there was no
Speaker 2: broad agreement about what was true, beautiful, and good. Without
Speaker 2: shared standards of right and wrong, it's impossible to settle disputes,
Speaker 2: it's impossible to maintain social cohesion and trust. Every healthy
Speaker 2: society rests on some shared conception of the sacred, sacred heroes,
Speaker 2: sacred text, sacred ideals. And when that goes away, anxiety, atomization,
Speaker 2: and a slow descent toward barbarism are the natural results.
Speaker 2: And if that doesn't describe America and the Western world today,
Speaker 2: I don't know what does. Where a nation founded on
Speaker 2: individual freedom, equality and self determination, specific principles and moral values,
Speaker 2: and now only half of the country seems to believe
Speaker 2: in those things. The very lessons of the founding documents
Speaker 2: have been lost on today's younger generations and leaders. It's
Speaker 2: clear that Alexandria Ocassio Cortez has no idea zero, how
Speaker 2: or why our nation was founded. You've probably heard the
Speaker 2: clip in which she claims America's founders were trying to
Speaker 2: get away from the controlling billionaires of their day.
Speaker 6: The American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time,
Speaker 6: and we were declaring independence from such an extreme marriage
Speaker 6: of wealth and power and the state.
Speaker 2: That is some of the dumbest crap I've ever heard
Speaker 2: in an elected official utter. And I'm not kidding. All
Speaker 2: sorts of people hopped on social media and blasted her
Speaker 2: for naked ignorance, and I was one of them. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I pointed out what actually motivated the Founders was they
Speaker 2: wanted to break away from an intrusive, abusive, highly taxing
Speaker 2: government of the sort that AOC and her party members
Speaker 2: want to force onto us. Talk about irony. The Founders
Speaker 2: wanted to break away from a bullying monarch that, by
Speaker 2: modern standards, was laughably meek. If you want to compare
Speaker 2: King George and his reign to Marxism and the socialist
Speaker 2: and communist desires to control absolutely every aspect of our lives,
Speaker 2: there's no comparison. Give me England in the seventeen seventies
Speaker 2: over modern socialism or communism any day. And if AOC
Speaker 2: repris sence a young, spoiled, arrogant, ignorant class of Americans,
Speaker 2: and she does, then yeah, this country is battling over
Speaker 2: its national identity. IPSOS just conducted a poll and found
Speaker 2: only thirty nine percent of millennials and gen zers agree
Speaker 2: that being an American is an important part of how
Speaker 2: I think about myself, compared to sixty five percent of
Speaker 2: baby boomers. In a twenty twenty three Gallop pole, only
Speaker 2: eighteen percent of Americans aged eighteen to thirty four said
Speaker 2: they were extremely proud to be an American. That compared
Speaker 2: to fifty percent of adults over fifty five. Asked by
Speaker 2: Democracy Fund if the Founders would be better described as
Speaker 2: villains or heroes, forty percent of gen Zers picked villains.
Speaker 2: Only ten percent of boomers did I guess those are
Speaker 2: the old crackpot hippies. But in a Ugov pole, nearly
Speaker 2: one third of young voters agreed that quote democracy is
Speaker 2: no longer a viable system and Americans should explore alternative
Speaker 2: forms of government. Only five percent of those over the
Speaker 2: age of sixty five did you can say these are
Speaker 2: just misguided youth? But who misguided them? This is reflective
Speaker 2: of a country whose educational system was taken over by
Speaker 2: left wing America haters decades ago and is now indoctrinated
Speaker 2: at least two generations of young people into hating or
Speaker 2: at least putting no value on the founding ideals of
Speaker 2: this country or anything that is seen as American. And
Speaker 2: they do this even though the country has never been greater,
Speaker 2: or more prosperous, or more fair. This is a nation
Speaker 2: of grievance mongers and complainers, even though the country has
Speaker 2: by and large greatly lived up to the promises the
Speaker 2: founders made sure. There are social inequities, and there always
Speaker 2: have been. But trust me, despite what the leftists and
Speaker 2: America haters tell you, the social inequities here in America
Speaker 2: aren't even close to those that you'd find virtually anywhere
Speaker 2: else on the globe. There are one hundred and ninety
Speaker 2: countries on this planet, and in the vast majority of
Speaker 2: them you'll find a rich dictating class, a poor underclass,
Speaker 2: and very little in between. Even better, you'll also find
Speaker 2: that the promises of this nation are as possible and
Speaker 2: there as happening as regularly as ever. Two hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty years later. The left and their accomplished media members
Speaker 2: don't want you to know this or hear this, but
Speaker 2: the vast majority of Americans are still moving up and
Speaker 2: through the social classes, and just a generation or two
Speaker 2: in this country every day, every year every decade. We
Speaker 2: still see people moving from poverty into the lower middle
Speaker 2: class or firm middle class. We still see people moving
Speaker 2: from the lower middle class to the upper middle class,
Speaker 2: people moving from middle class to rich, etc. It is
Speaker 2: still the untold greatness of America occurring every day, and
Speaker 2: it drives the America haters so crazy they need to
Speaker 2: lie about it and try to indoctrinate our children into
Speaker 2: a different, false reality. Bernie and AOC and virtually all
Speaker 2: of today's Democrat officeholders and pundits genuinely believe that America
Speaker 2: has a shrinking middle class because the so called super
Speaker 2: rich have sucked up all of the money in the
Speaker 2: resources from the middle class, and so we have more
Speaker 2: Americans in poverty than ever. Everything about that is false everything.
Speaker 2: First of all, we simply don't have true poverty in
Speaker 2: America anymore. And if you doubt that, just do some
Speaker 2: traveling and look around. We don't have acres and acres
Speaker 2: of wooden shacks built on muddy hillsides with starving children
Speaker 2: hanging around every door. We don't have one room cabins
Speaker 2: in the woods with no running water and six dirty children,
Speaker 2: barefoot and nearly naked, hanging out on the porch looking
Speaker 2: at the world through dead eyes. America's so called poor
Speaker 2: have on average twelve hundred square feet of living space, food, clothing, heat,
Speaker 2: and power. Some of that they paid for themselves, a
Speaker 2: lot of it's been provided by us, the taxpayers. But
Speaker 2: no one is poor or starving in America anymore. We're
Speaker 2: the only country that has a terrible obesity problem among
Speaker 2: our poor. Sincerely, in America, the larger obesity problem is
Speaker 2: among those on the lowest rungs, not the highest. In short,
Speaker 2: it isn't our so called rich who are fat, it's
Speaker 2: our poor people. Only in America would leaders say our
Speaker 2: fattest class of people are starving or food insecure. Earlier
Speaker 2: this year, a study at the American Enterprise Institute got
Speaker 2: some attention, and it did because it showed that, yes,
Speaker 2: America's middle class has been shrinking, but only because more
Speaker 2: so called middle class Americans are moving up into the
Speaker 2: higher classes, not because we have more poor people or
Speaker 2: because we have a hollowed out middle class. And this
Speaker 2: is the truth, not the crappier average lefty teacher or
Speaker 2: morons like AOC are telling you. These researchers divided households
Speaker 2: into five categories poor or near poor, lower middle class,
Speaker 2: core middle class, upper middle class, and rich. Technically, the
Speaker 2: middle class has been getting smaller, they say, but that's
Speaker 2: only because more families have ascended the income ladder.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: We find that the core middle class has shrunk, but
Speaker 2: so too as the share of Americans with income too
Speaker 2: low to reach the middle class. The authors say the
Speaker 2: shrinking core middle class is due to a booming upper
Speaker 2: middle class. They say, in nineteen seventy nine, the upper
Speaker 2: middle class was ten percent of all families. Now it's
Speaker 2: thirty one percent. One third of the country is upper
Speaker 2: middle class. That's impressive, they say. Over the same period,
Speaker 2: between nineteen seventy nine and twenty twenty four, quote, family
Speaker 2: incomes rose significantly across the entire income distribution, pushing more
Speaker 2: families into higher income categories. Other studies show similar patterns. Quote. Yes,
Speaker 2: the rich have gotten richer over the decades, but so
Speaker 2: have the non rich. Everybody is doing better, and yet
Speaker 2: the relentless lying by Democrats like Joe Biden and Bernie
Speaker 2: Sanders have most Americans convinced that we have a hollowed
Speaker 2: out middle class. And it's a terrible thing. It means
Speaker 2: more people in poverty, etc. It doesn't and that isn't
Speaker 2: what has happened. The Democrats have been lying to you
Speaker 2: for decades, and now that flat out socialists are leading
Speaker 2: their party, the perpetual misinformation machine is only going to
Speaker 2: get worse. Is it any wonder that more and more
Speaker 2: Americans are leaving the negativity and dysfunction of the Blue
Speaker 2: states and moving into the Red states. We've been talking
Speaker 2: about this on the podcast, and Kim Strassel of The
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal has a good blurb on it this week,
Speaker 2: saying the contrast between New York living and Florida living
Speaker 2: has never been greater, and she's correct. She says in Florida,
Speaker 2: Miami Dade County has experienced booming growth, with working people
Speaker 2: flocking to chase an explosion of business, jobs and better lives.
Speaker 2: Its schools are better than New York's, Its housing and
Speaker 2: rent half as expense of its utilities, more affordable, it's cleaner,
Speaker 2: it isn't teeming with vagrants, and you can even visit
Speaker 2: a Walmart. Miami residents get all this because of not
Speaker 2: in spite of zero state income taxes, zero with state
Speaker 2: taxes and manageable seven percent sales tax, reasonable property taxes,
Speaker 2: and corporate taxes. Those policies drive growth and revenue. Strassel says,
Speaker 2: New Yorker's, by contrast, stagger under tax and cost burdens
Speaker 2: a combined state and local income tax of as much
Speaker 2: as fifteen percent, a state and city sales tax of
Speaker 2: nearly nine percent, property taxes, a heaving corporate income tax,
Speaker 2: all for the joy of crummy schools, insane rent, costly utilities,
Speaker 2: and a collapsing transit infrastructure. More than one hundred thousand
Speaker 2: people fled the Big Apple last year. Strassel correctly says,
Speaker 2: this is the divide and at accelerating. It's accelerating across
Speaker 2: the country. Red states are racing each other to compete
Speaker 2: for growth, cutting taxes, slashing regulations, and acting government union reforms.
Speaker 2: South Carolina is the latest to join the flat or
Speaker 2: zero tax movement, the ninth state to do so since
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one. Those cities are vying to become finance
Speaker 2: and tech hubs, she says. By contrast, progressives are doubling
Speaker 2: down on taxes and redistribution. At least eight states now
Speaker 2: have a millionaire's tax, while at least a dozen more
Speaker 2: sprint to adopt one Blue states are promising even bigger handouts,
Speaker 2: more crackdowns on business, greater union power, fewer cops, even
Speaker 2: as crime rages, schools fail, and the cost of living
Speaker 2: keeps increasing. She concludes, the chasm between these two approaches
Speaker 2: is now too wide for businesses or average Americans to ignore.
Speaker 2: She's right, and she says, is what's providing those fascinating
Speaker 2: real time results. Whereas working folks in the past mainly
Speaker 2: relocated for weather or the occasional job switch, Americans are
Speaker 2: moving aggressively on the basis of economic policy. Now they're
Speaker 2: flocking to Florida, Texas, Utah, Tennessee, Georgia, and the Carolinas.
Speaker 2: They're draining out of New York, Illinois, New Mexico, Massachusetts,
Speaker 2: New Jersey, California, and Hawaii. The obvious success of one
Speaker 2: model and the obvious failure of the other is documented
Speaker 2: with every one way you hold rental. Kim Strassel could
Speaker 2: not be more right about that, and some of us
Speaker 2: have been pointing this out for decades now. There is
Speaker 2: no contest between these two models of government control and taxation.
Speaker 2: Then consider what we covered last week that with proud
Speaker 2: socialists like Zoororn Mamdani winning elections and taking over America's
Speaker 2: biggest cities. The speed of decay and social rot is
Speaker 2: only going to accelerate and push even more people to
Speaker 2: the Red States. I'll end here with about two minutes
Speaker 2: of Stuart Varney on Fox. Remember, over the last three
Speaker 2: years alone, nearly a million people have fled Florida, Illinois,
Speaker 2: and New York, the Democrats' three most populous blue states.
Speaker 2: That's just over the last three years. Varney is talking
Speaker 2: about an estimate that says nearly that number, about eight
Speaker 2: hundred thousand people are going to leave every year. Now,
Speaker 2: eight hundred thousand people are expected to flee from the
Speaker 2: Blue States to the Red States over the next three
Speaker 2: or four years alone.
Speaker 7: Let the exodus begin. Oh, actually it started already. We're
Speaker 7: talking about mass migration within the United States from one
Speaker 7: group of states to an This is America, and we move.
Speaker 3: But you ain't seen nothing yet. Consider this.
Speaker 7: In each of the next three years, eight hundred thousand
Speaker 7: people will leave California and New York. That's eight hundred
Speaker 7: thousand a year. Another five hundred thousand will leave Connecticut,
Speaker 7: New Jersey and Minnesota. These numbers are from economists Art
Speaker 7: Laffer and Stephen Moore quote, millions of people, thousands of businesses,
Speaker 7: and tens of billions of net income will flee high
Speaker 7: tax blue states for low tax red states.
Speaker 3: That's the important point.
Speaker 7: People and money and jobs moving out of Democrat states
Speaker 7: and moving two Republican states.
Speaker 3: Taxes are what's doing this.
Speaker 7: As we've said many times, you make good money in
Speaker 7: a high tax Democrat state and this new tax law
Speaker 7: will kill you financially. This is terrible news for blue states.
Speaker 7: It is a bonanza for low tax Texas, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee,
Speaker 7: Utah and others. Imagine what this migration actually means. Strong
Speaker 7: demand for real estate of all kinds. In low tax areas.
Speaker 7: People with money will be flooding in, more jobs and
Speaker 7: business openings, stronger state revenues. They may even be able
Speaker 7: to cut taxes. Imagine that. But for the high tax
Speaker 7: states it is a disaster. Would you move to say,
Speaker 7: New York to take a new job if you'll get
Speaker 7: hit with a tax fike, you will think twice. For
Speaker 7: years we've been seeing migration. Now get ready for mass migration.
Speaker 7: I'll conclude the way Laugher and more end their article
Speaker 7: quote delusional liberal interest groups want blue states to respond
Speaker 7: by soaking their rich residents even more.
Speaker 3: If that happens, Our.
Speaker 7: Best advice to blue state residence is simple, get while
Speaker 7: the getting's good.
Speaker 2: That about says it all, and it helps illustrate this
Speaker 2: divide as America hits his two hundred and fiftieth birthday
Speaker 2: and fights over a national identity. The divide is along moral, ethical, political,
Speaker 2: and social lines, and increasingly it's between the faithful and
Speaker 2: the godless, And in the short term, it's likely to
Speaker 2: get worse before it gets better. Somewhere along the line,
Speaker 2: when we weren't looking, Ukraine started to win this war
Speaker 2: with Russia. This is the sort of conflict that's easy
Speaker 2: to lose sight of or lose interest in, since it's
Speaker 2: half a world away and it really doesn't affect America
Speaker 2: much directly. But it's the sort of thing that's really
Speaker 2: easy for the news media to start ignoring as sexier
Speaker 2: and more interesting news events push it further and further
Speaker 2: out of the back page. It's pretty safe to say
Speaker 2: that nearly all Americans have lost sight of what's going
Speaker 2: on over there. Well, it sounds like Ukraine has gotten
Speaker 2: the upper hand since its leaders finally started to engage
Speaker 2: in missile strikes into Russia. For the bulk of this war,
Speaker 2: Ukraine's western allies, the countries providing nearly other weapons and
Speaker 2: war supplies, insisted that as one condition Ukraine basically only
Speaker 2: played defense, don't take the war into Russia, and that
Speaker 2: at some point that changed and Ukraine was allowed to
Speaker 2: start sending drones and missiles into Russia in certain instances, etc.
Speaker 2: Long story short, it turns out that at this point
Speaker 2: of the war, Ukraine has started to do better again,
Speaker 2: win territory back rattle Putin. In March and April, the
Speaker 2: Ukrainian army actually took more ground and had more battlefield
Speaker 2: success than the Russians did, which hasn't happened since the
Speaker 2: war started. In April, Russian forces recorded their first territorial
Speaker 2: losses in years, apparently. Quote The Institute for the Study
Speaker 2: of War assessed that Moscow seated control of about forty
Speaker 2: five square miles across the front in April. In the
Speaker 2: first four months of twenty twenty five, Russian forces seized
Speaker 2: an average of about four square miles per day. In
Speaker 2: twenty six, that figure fell to about one square mile
Speaker 2: per day. Now Ukraine is taking more land back than
Speaker 2: it's giving up. Moreover, they say, Ukraine's drone campaign has
Speaker 2: expanded into a sustained strategic instrument, reaching deep inside Russian territory.
Speaker 2: Strikes on drilling platforms and pumping stations, oil depots, and
Speaker 2: repeated hits on the Black Sea export terminal have allowed
Speaker 2: Ukraine to bring the war to Russia territory. Reuters says
Speaker 2: these cumulative strikes have cost Russia access to roughly forty
Speaker 2: percent of its possible oil export revenues, with Ukraine degrading
Speaker 2: the capacity to move at least two million barrels per day.
Speaker 2: That is a significant blow to Putin and the Russian economy.
Speaker 2: And as for the human toll, estimates are that Putin
Speaker 2: was handed more than thirty five thousand Russian casualties in
Speaker 2: April alone, and the Ukrainians claim more than sixty percent
Speaker 2: of that number represents deaths, as in, they're killing sixty
Speaker 2: percent of the fighters Russia is marking as casualties in war. Obviously,
Speaker 2: dead means taken off the battlefield permanently. There's no chance
Speaker 2: that those soldiers are going to be sent back to
Speaker 2: Moscow for rehab and then sent back to Ukraine to
Speaker 2: rejoin the fight. That is a high death rate, and
Speaker 2: it's significantly higher than most war analysts expected to see.
Speaker 2: This recent Ukrainian success has Putin in an increased panic,
Speaker 2: if you believe various news reports. Not only is he
Speaker 2: fearing more and more for his own safety and now
Speaker 2: sheltering himself behind more, behind more and more walls for safety,
Speaker 2: but he's downplaying Russia's Victory Day celebrations this year. This
Speaker 2: yearly display of Russian military might normally plays a huge
Speaker 2: part of his political propping and the machine. Apparently not
Speaker 2: this year. This year, they saw generic threats and saber
Speaker 2: rattling from the Ukrainian side, suggesting there might be a
Speaker 2: military strike on Putin's big parade. Ukrainian leaders went so
Speaker 2: far as to warn political leaders and dignitaries in other
Speaker 2: countries you might want to decline Putin's invitation this year,
Speaker 2: and at the very least, now they're in Vlad's head.
Speaker 2: There's no doubt that Ukraine's reach in. Ukraine's recent successes
Speaker 2: have Putin rattled. And here's an interesting bit of trivia.
Speaker 2: This war for Russia has now lasted longer than their
Speaker 2: military campaign did in World War II, and we're entering
Speaker 2: here four of this quagmire that Putin's generals insisted would
Speaker 2: only take a matter of days, maybe a week. Remember,
Speaker 2: Russia's war planners were certain they'd invade Ukraine and they'd
Speaker 2: be rolling into Kiev just a few days later, having
Speaker 2: taken control of the country. It was an easy the
Speaker 2: first step in Putin's grand plan to reconstitute Mother Russia
Speaker 2: before he dies. What was supposed to take three or
Speaker 2: four days is now entering year four. Meanwhile, back at home,
Speaker 2: President Trump's war with Iran is only in its third month,
Speaker 2: but everyone's freaking out over how long it's taking. Why
Speaker 2: isn't this wrapped up yet? Really? Trump and Netanya, who
Speaker 2: have already raised a forty five year old global terror
Speaker 2: threat in about three months, and that's not fast enough
Speaker 2: for people? Good grief. It's worth noting that even as
Speaker 2: better than expected jobs numbers were released last week, the
Speaker 2: lefty media was insisting more doom and gloom is coming
Speaker 2: for the US economy because of this war, especially if
Speaker 2: Trump doesn't wrap up his war soon. His war, let's
Speaker 2: emphasize the numbers first, because yet again they were surprising
Speaker 2: to the so called experts who are supposed to be
Speaker 2: the great predictors of our economy. One hundred and fifteen
Speaker 2: thousand jobs were added in April, which isn't a huge number,
Speaker 2: but it's more than double what the so called experts
Speaker 2: were expecting to see. The prognosticators, who are heavily left
Speaker 2: in if they're associated with the media outlet, they were
Speaker 2: predicting only fifty five thousand jobs would be created in
Speaker 2: Trump's horrible economy in April. Instead, one hundred and fifteen
Speaker 2: thousand jobs were and not in government. Let's stress this too.
Speaker 2: Not only were the Obama and Biden eras significant for
Speaker 2: creating mostly low paying and part time jobs, but it
Speaker 2: was government hiring that seemed to be the biggest chunk
Speaker 2: of the full time jobs that were being created in
Speaker 2: those presidencies. Well, government work isn't work that's productive to
Speaker 2: an economy. Now under Trump, he's already fired three hundred
Speaker 2: thousand federal workers and isn't hiring new and so it's
Speaker 2: worth noting that these one hundred and fifteen thousand jobs
Speaker 2: that were added in April were mostly full time and
Speaker 2: in good private sector parts of the economy. And they
Speaker 2: come on top of one hundred and eighty five thousand
Speaker 2: such jobs added in March, and it means something that
Speaker 2: their jobs that are being created in nearly all sectors
Speaker 2: of the economy. April and March saw tens of thousands
Speaker 2: of jobs added in healthcare and manufacturing and transportation and
Speaker 2: warehousing and retail across the board. Tech continues to be
Speaker 2: slow due to the transition to AI. Also, the percentage
Speaker 2: of people who are working part time but want to
Speaker 2: be working full time is also up, which the Left
Speaker 2: is going to spin as well, there aren't enough full
Speaker 2: time jobs. What it really means is we have increasing
Speaker 2: numbers of Americans wanting to work full time Again, We've
Speaker 2: got fewer Americans lazing around on food stamps and or
Speaker 2: wanting to only do the minimum post COVID. But this
Speaker 2: is positive stuff. And still these experts can only see
Speaker 2: the doom and gloom ahead. And yes, we're still in
Speaker 2: an era of unsettled employment as we transition from the
Speaker 2: fraudulent Biden economy to a more honest and stable Trump economy. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we're still in a period in which many employers are
Speaker 2: still reluctant to hire more full timers.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: First Trump's tariffs and now Trump's war with Iran have
Speaker 2: kept the economy from more fully stabilizing as promised. But
Speaker 2: we are going in the right direction.
Speaker 3: People.
Speaker 2: If you remember four or six months ago, the big
Speaker 2: question was, well, how much does the Fed need to
Speaker 2: cut interest rates in our to stabilize the shaky jobs market.
Speaker 2: No one's asking that question anymore. We don't have a
Speaker 2: shaky jobs market. Instead, we have a rather stable and
Speaker 2: slightly rising stock market that should have these so called
Speaker 2: experts more worried about inflation than jobs losses. It brings
Speaker 2: us back to the political reality that even with the
Speaker 2: bold tariff gambit and the hard decision to finally deal
Speaker 2: with Iran, Trump's team has been improving the economy. It
Speaker 2: also brings us to the harsh reality that we've been
Speaker 2: talking about over the last few weeks, that the American
Speaker 2: voters need to see and feel their personal financial situations
Speaker 2: improving or they're going to vote Republicans out of office
Speaker 2: and fall. And so far, the early going in Trump's
Speaker 2: second term here has been so unsettled that the vast
Speaker 2: majority of Americans aren't seeing it. Most Americans don't perceive
Speaker 2: their economic situation is getting better because we still have
Speaker 2: high gas and grocery prices. And hey, given all of
Speaker 2: the economic promises that Donald Trump and the Republicans gave
Speaker 2: to the American people when they were running for office
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four, wrong for voters to want to
Speaker 2: see and feel progress. It's one reason I said it
Speaker 2: was stupid to promise lower grocery prices in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: because inflation doesn't work that way. The high prices tend
Speaker 2: to stick and they don't go back down quickly. As
Speaker 2: for gas, Trump's moves did have gas prices dropping rapidly.
Speaker 2: The three p fifty or four dollars per gallon gasoline
Speaker 2: that was the hallmark of the Biden presidency was suddenly
Speaker 2: backed down under three dollars and hanging around more like
Speaker 2: two point fifty. Fantastic. Trump had won some goodwill from
Speaker 2: the voters with that move. Then came the Iran War
Speaker 2: and now gases around four to fifty a gallon, and
Speaker 2: most Americans are viewing this as worse than Biden. It's not,
Speaker 2: by the way, It's temporary, but it's hard to rationalize
Speaker 2: with the American people because most of them don't really
Speaker 2: follow along or pay attention. It's why I've been saying
Speaker 2: Trump needs to explain this directly to the American people.
Speaker 2: I've suggested he make a prime time address to be
Speaker 2: followed up by his team of cabinet members and other
Speaker 2: Republicans doing several rounds of interviews, explain the high gas
Speaker 2: prices to the U American people, reassure them it's temporary,
Speaker 2: ask for their help because, frankly, in the absence of
Speaker 2: anything else for Democrats to moan and whine about, over
Speaker 2: the next few months, gas prices are going to become
Speaker 2: amplified as important to voters. And I know it's unfair.
Speaker 2: The double standard here is infuriating and it's glaring. When
Speaker 2: a Democrat is in office, we're told to ignore gas
Speaker 2: prices or just deal with it. But when a Republican
Speaker 2: is in office, gas prices are suddenly the big issue.
Speaker 2: But in Fall, a couple of things are working to
Speaker 2: make this the case. A couple of things are working
Speaker 2: to amplify this issue and elevate it as a key
Speaker 2: consideration for voters. The first is Trump promised lower gas prices.
Speaker 2: He even gave them to us temporarily. He and the
Speaker 2: gup ran on them and promised relief. Voter perception will
Speaker 2: be we aren't getting it, promise not kept. The second is, honestly,
Speaker 2: everything else in the second Trump era is going so well.
Speaker 2: There's nothing else for the Democrats to moan and whine
Speaker 2: about that might actually move voters that I know. Any
Speaker 2: liberal listening now has their hair on fire curious about this.
Speaker 2: Democrats are always going to whine and moan, and their
Speaker 2: media accomplices are always going to make a huge deal
Speaker 2: about something to bash Trump. But Trump has lowered crime,
Speaker 2: defund the police's idiotic Trump has ended DEI and trans bullying.
Speaker 2: The people are with him on that. The economy hasn't crumbled.
Speaker 2: The stock market is bouncing around fifty thousand. My god,
Speaker 2: what is there to complain about? Really? Again, they'll complain
Speaker 2: and moan and spin and trash and bash, But what
Speaker 2: is there to complain about? What can the Democrats possibly
Speaker 2: find to rally around as an issue that the American
Speaker 2: people might really care about? What promise hasn't Donald Trump kept?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 2: Gas prices. It's why I've been saying President Trump shouldn't
Speaker 2: just blow this off or think that saying it's the
Speaker 2: Iran war is enough of a message to voters. Hold
Speaker 2: the prime time speech. Explain how you were finally dealing
Speaker 2: with a global tara threat that the past five presidents
Speaker 2: allowed to grow more dangerous. Explain how close Iran was
Speaker 2: to getting nuclear weapons, and how this global threat could
Speaker 2: no longer be ignored. Then ask the American people to
Speaker 2: make this simple sacrifice. And I really do believe this
Speaker 2: is a messaging win. This is messaging that could bring
Speaker 2: the country's voters together because a sense of collective sacrifice
Speaker 2: can do that. And it starts with Trump acknowledging this
Speaker 2: isn't much of a sacrifice. We're not putting troops on
Speaker 2: the ground in Iran. We're not putting your sons or
Speaker 2: daughters in harm's way. We aren't asking that of you,
Speaker 2: Thank Heaven. In World War Two, Americans back home, we're
Speaker 2: asked to cut back, collect metal and rubber, put up
Speaker 2: with blackouts at night to help the war effort, etc.
Speaker 2: All we're asking this time is please put up with
Speaker 2: the temporarily high gas prices. Trump could easily say prices
Speaker 2: will be back down by Thanksgiving or Christmas, maybe even Halloween.
Speaker 2: But please make this little sacrifice as we deal with
Speaker 2: a nearly fifty year global terror and national security threat.
Speaker 2: I strongly believe the American people would embrace that and
Speaker 2: screw the Democrats and their lefty media members and how
Speaker 2: they'd spin it. Let them spin that whichever way they're
Speaker 2: going to it. Who cares. There is still power in
Speaker 2: having a president speak directly to the American people and
Speaker 2: ask for their help. Trump should do it, and then
Speaker 2: have his cabinet members and other Republicans carry the message
Speaker 2: out all summer. I've been suggesting this for a while.
Speaker 2: Now I see that the Great Molly Hemingway from the
Speaker 2: Federalist is now suggesting it on Fox. But it also
Speaker 2: occurs to me that this is another good example of
Speaker 2: how living within our system of government makes it often
Speaker 2: harder to deal with the problems that we face and
Speaker 2: the crises that pop up. It's far easier for dictators
Speaker 2: to get things done than it is for democracies to
Speaker 2: get things done. And it isn't only because well, presidents
Speaker 2: can't just order it be done like dictators can. Presidents
Speaker 2: can't just ignore the will of the people. It's far
Speaker 2: more complicated than that. It's mostly because in democracies, elected
Speaker 2: leaders are now constantly worried about the next election. History
Speaker 2: is replete with instances of US and European lawmakers not
Speaker 2: going bold, not doing the right thing because they were
Speaker 2: worried about upsetting voters and losing the next election. And
Speaker 2: I don't think Donald Trump is overly worried about it
Speaker 2: or obsessed over those calculations. But he needs to be
Speaker 2: at least somewhat cognizant of it as someone who wants
Speaker 2: to keep Congressional control in his final two years in office,
Speaker 2: and as someone who is trying to build a political
Speaker 2: legacy for the party beyond him. And so of course
Speaker 2: this is a consideration. And so far Trump's kurt and
Speaker 2: somewhat grumpy explanations on high gas prices are falling flat.
Speaker 2: He clearly believes an end to this Iran stand office close,
Speaker 2: but he can buy himself some time by giving the
Speaker 2: speech and making it clear I am not going to
Speaker 2: half ask the end of this war because gas prices
Speaker 2: will stay higher until it's over. That's what the Democrats
Speaker 2: and their media accomplices, as well as a growing number
Speaker 2: of squishy Republicans want him to do. They're pressuring him
Speaker 2: to accept any resolution to this war just to get
Speaker 2: gas prices back under four dollars a gallon again before
Speaker 2: the election. That's silly. President Trump appears to understand that,
Speaker 2: So give the speech boy another week. Another series of
Speaker 2: twists in the redistricting saka over the last few days.
Speaker 2: The Virginia Supreme Court shot down the democrats bullying move there,
Speaker 2: obviously as I suggested they would. Meanwhile, the Trump administrations
Speaker 2: expanded its notion of which red states should redraw their maps.
Speaker 2: Following the Supreme Court's decision that ends racial jerrymandering, Trump's
Speaker 2: team is now pushing South Carolina and Indiana to maybe
Speaker 2: redo their maps for twenty twenty eight at least. And
Speaker 2: we've reached a point at which even left wing Politico
Speaker 2: is admitting the Democrats have lost the twenty twenty six
Speaker 2: redistricting wars. We'll get to that, but I want to
Speaker 2: start with the Virginia Supreme Court decision only to clarify something.
Speaker 2: Clarify what it is they decided and why the Virginia
Speaker 2: Supreme Court shot down that map. I'm doing so because,
Speaker 2: based on what I've seen in the way of news
Speaker 2: media coverage and social media posts, the average American isn't
Speaker 2: clear on what those court justices did and didn't do. Apparently,
Speaker 2: it's just an article of faith on the left that
Speaker 2: the members of the Virginia Supreme Court have ignored the
Speaker 2: will of Virginians and taken away rights. Boloney a single
Speaker 2: Virginia voter who doesn't still have every one of the
Speaker 2: voting rights that they had before this Supreme Court decision.
Speaker 2: The Court also didn't ignore the will of the people,
Speaker 2: and very importantly, this court also didn't specifically reject that
Speaker 2: ten to one heavily jerrymandered map. What the Virginia Supreme
Speaker 2: Court did, on a four to three decision was reject
Speaker 2: the process by which Virginia's unhinged, bullying democrats rammed that
Speaker 2: map into place. The justices ruled that Virginia's democrats ignored
Speaker 2: the state's constitutional process, ignored a map's commission that the
Speaker 2: people of the Commonwealth said should be used to draw
Speaker 2: these maps, ignored various legislative procedural hurdles to get a
Speaker 2: rigged quickie map. The Virginia Supreme Court justice is ruled basically,
Speaker 2: you can't cheat on process. They did not reject either
Speaker 2: the extreme gerrymander or that specific ten to one map,
Speaker 2: which means by the way that if the Democrats controlling
Speaker 2: Virginia really wanted to double down and by God force
Speaker 2: that map into place, all they need to do is gee,
Speaker 2: take a step back and actually follow the slower and
Speaker 2: more careful procedure in order to make their actions more
Speaker 2: legal and defensible. Folks, something not being emphasized is that
Speaker 2: the Democrats in Virginia could do a reset here and
Speaker 2: still try to force this map onto the people of Virginia.
Speaker 2: And I'm assuming that at some point they will. But
Speaker 2: for now their scummy attempt to ram a new map
Speaker 2: into place has failed. And yes, that State Supreme Court
Speaker 2: ruling is going to stand. I know Hakim Jeffreys wants
Speaker 2: to insist it won't. I know volumes of angry lefties
Speaker 2: on Blue Sky and x and other social media are
Speaker 2: insisting Virginia's lawmakers simply ignore the ruling, which is, genuinely,
Speaker 2: by the way, a republic killing move. I'll say something
Speaker 2: I've said for years, America won't fall to the Chinese
Speaker 2: or some sort of outside invading force. America falls when
Speaker 2: one side of the aisle or the other decides that
Speaker 2: they on their side just aren't going to follow the
Speaker 2: rules of the Republic that our founders and our generations
Speaker 2: of forefathers have laid out for us. This country crumbles
Speaker 2: if the Democrats decide they simply don't like the rules
Speaker 2: and the laws that we're all being asked to live
Speaker 2: by and go rogue. And so to have even a
Speaker 2: small legion of people on Blue Sky saying just ignore
Speaker 2: the ruling should be shocking and unacceptable to all of us.
Speaker 2: There's also an effort underway by the Democrats to move
Speaker 2: this all into the federal court system and or get
Speaker 2: the U. S. Supreme Court to block or strike down
Speaker 2: the Virginia Supreme Court's decision. That's not going to happen either,
Speaker 2: and not because it's a conservative federal Supreme Court, but
Speaker 2: because our US Supreme Court, since its founding, has always
Speaker 2: made it clear the states have their own constitutions and
Speaker 2: Supreme Courts, and they govern themselves, and they govern their
Speaker 2: own elections. The U. S. Supreme Court is not going
Speaker 2: to step in and decide that the Democrats in Virginia
Speaker 2: don't need to follow their own procedures or state constitution,
Speaker 2: and that a group of state judges got it all
Speaker 2: wrong when they said follow the procedure. Come on so
Speaker 2: that's also not going to happen. As one column put it,
Speaker 2: the Democrats in Virginia blew by any number of legal
Speaker 2: obstacles to draw the most absurdly lopsided map in the
Speaker 2: country and then congratulated themselves on their audacity. That's a
Speaker 2: pretty good summary. These Democrats were so smug in their
Speaker 2: self satisfaction after ramming that map into place a few
Speaker 2: weeks ago that it makes their defeat all the more delicious. Now.
Speaker 2: They took a map that was actually quite fair and
Speaker 2: representational for the voting patterns of that state. There was
Speaker 2: a six or five Democrat advantage, and they tried to
Speaker 2: force total Democrat dominance and a ten to one map.
Speaker 2: And I'll emphasize again that they actually could have gotten
Speaker 2: away with it if they'd followed procedures. Look around. There
Speaker 2: are nine blue states, nine that don't have a single
Speaker 2: Republican congressional district, even though their voters vote at about
Speaker 2: a forty to forty five percent Republican level. There are
Speaker 2: several more Blue states and at least a few red
Speaker 2: states that only have one or two Democrat districts. So
Speaker 2: we already have extremely gerrymandered statewide maps but we do
Speaker 2: because the lawmakers who drew them in those states followed
Speaker 2: the laws and the constitutions when they drew them and
Speaker 2: put them into place. That is not what Virginia did.
Speaker 2: And now that the map has been shot down, now
Speaker 2: we learn that Virginia's new horrid socialistic governor, Abigail Spanberger
Speaker 2: and her new team knew they were ignoring all procedures
Speaker 2: and the Virginia Constitution, and they even argued about it
Speaker 2: behind the scenes. But the Trump derangement bullies won out,
Speaker 2: and they rammed ahead, and they spent tens of millions
Speaker 2: of dollars and exhausted all sorts of credibility and political capital,
Speaker 2: only to be slapped back and embarrassed. Fantastic, and they
Speaker 2: blew through so many barriers that it's why I said
Speaker 2: the day after the map was put into place, the
Speaker 2: members of the State Supreme Court are out of their
Speaker 2: mind if they ignore all the procedural cheating and allow
Speaker 2: this to stand. My contention was, no one can call
Speaker 2: themselves a fair minded judge and allow this map to
Speaker 2: be put into place. And it turned out to be right.
Speaker 2: Looking past all the cheating was something that at least
Speaker 2: four of the seven Virginia Supreme Court justices simply couldn't
Speaker 2: bring themselves to do. And by the way, the justice
Speaker 2: who wrote the opinion was appointed by a Democrat governor
Speaker 2: and is a fellow lefty, a lefty with some personal integrity,
Speaker 2: as it turns out. But that leaves us with Republicans
Speaker 2: in the Red States and the Trump political team angling
Speaker 2: to create somewhere between five and fourteen new Republican seats
Speaker 2: before twenty twenty eight. And since we know the Democrats
Speaker 2: are going to triple and quadruple down on their efforts
Speaker 2: to engage in even more extreme gerrymanders in their states,
Speaker 2: we may as well talk about the projections on their
Speaker 2: side as well. How many of these new seats are
Speaker 2: actually in place by fall is a big question mark,
Speaker 2: given that every attempt to redraw a map is going
Speaker 2: to lead to litigation and court delays and legal jockeying.
Speaker 2: So the level of Republican advantage by fall is still
Speaker 2: in question, but I can't imagine that it's going to
Speaker 2: be more than four or five seats. If we look
Speaker 2: at twenty twenty eight, well we could see as many
Speaker 2: as fourteen new Republican congressional districts and as many as
Speaker 2: six or seven Democrat districts, if you believe the experts.
Speaker 2: We've talked about, how most Democrat run states are all
Speaker 2: ready so extremely gerrymandered that there aren't as many options
Speaker 2: for them, in contrast to the southern red states, whose
Speaker 2: leaders have literally been forced for decades by federal law
Speaker 2: to make sure there are at least a few deep
Speaker 2: blue districts that minority candidates could win. And this is
Speaker 2: the most basic difference here when you start to look
Speaker 2: at it. The Voter Rights Act worked to guarantee that
Speaker 2: Democrats had a certain number of freebe districts handed to
Speaker 2: them by the courts in the Red States, even as
Speaker 2: those same Democrats had free reign to draw Republicans completely
Speaker 2: out of the picture any way they wanted to in
Speaker 2: other states. And so, of course a releveling of this
Speaker 2: playing field is going to mean a Republican advantage. But
Speaker 2: by twenty twenty eight we could have as many as
Speaker 2: twelve or fourteen new Republican congressmen. And then comes the
Speaker 2: twenty thirty census, which is going to more formally count
Speaker 2: the number of citizens who have migrated out of the
Speaker 2: Blue states and into the red states. The twenty thirty
Speaker 2: census is terrifying the Democrats right now. The twenty thirty
Speaker 2: census is expected to cause several Blue star states to
Speaker 2: lose at least one or two congressional seats and hand
Speaker 2: even more seats to Republicans. So I think you can
Speaker 2: see why the Democrats and their strategists are having absolute
Speaker 2: meltdowns over this map war and the fact that they're
Speaker 2: losing it. It's also why I assume Virginia's Democrats are
Speaker 2: going to be under heavy pressure to put aside their
Speaker 2: SmackDown regroup and try to actually follow procedure to get
Speaker 2: that different map into place by twenty twenty eight. We'll
Speaker 2: see how it plays out. The only other solid blue
Speaker 2: state that seems to have any real room for adjustment
Speaker 2: is New York, and this is fun. The California and
Speaker 2: Illinois maps are already extreme gerrymanders. Obviously, nine of the
Speaker 2: other blue states are completely blue, as in, they couldn't
Speaker 2: find a Republican congressman to steal a seat from if
Speaker 2: they'd tried. All of New England. All those states are
Speaker 2: already shockingly unfair. Their state constituents vote around forty to
Speaker 2: forty five percent Republican, but not a single Republican is
Speaker 2: sent to Washington to represent them. New England's already a
Speaker 2: sea of blue cheating, as is Hawaii. And so it
Speaker 2: turns out that the state of New York is really
Speaker 2: the only other state that could be used to create
Speaker 2: several new Democrat districts as in three four five. Right now,
Speaker 2: the New York state map includes nineteen Democrats and seven Republicans.
Speaker 2: And so, as a lefty you look at that and
Speaker 2: you say, oh, you know, we could erase virtually every
Speaker 2: Republican seat and pick up five or six more. The
Speaker 2: problem is, and again this is just delicious. The problem
Speaker 2: with that notion is several of the current Democrat districts
Speaker 2: only exist because of the race based jerrymandering that the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court just shot down. Fantastic, folks, It turns out
Speaker 2: that the district of Haakim Jeffreys is a racially jerrymandered district. Well,
Speaker 2: he's the clown who's the Democrat leader in the House.
Speaker 2: His district is a racial cheat. So what are Kathy
Speaker 2: Holkal and New York Democrats going to do? Take away
Speaker 2: the black guys district and he isn't the only one
Speaker 2: in jeopardy. If these New York Democrats decide to start
Speaker 2: really drawing their map for political advantage instead of racial advantage.
Speaker 2: It's a wonderful iron a twist that over the years
Speaker 2: New York Democrats have based their map so heavily on
Speaker 2: racial cheating that if they actually try to do it
Speaker 2: now in favor of a map that is nakedly political
Speaker 2: instead of nakedly racial, they're going to be erasing all
Speaker 2: sorts of racially protected Democrats. Tell me, this isn't fun.
Speaker 2: This has political reporting that Kathy Holkl and other Democrats
Speaker 2: who run the state of New York are not inclined
Speaker 2: to step into this racial minefield, and if they don't,
Speaker 2: it's going to limit how much they can really further
Speaker 2: cheat that map. Could Hokal and New York Democrats come
Speaker 2: up with a map that gives them three or four
Speaker 2: more seats? Yeah, but six or seven?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 2: I don't think we want to roll back protections for
Speaker 2: minority communities in New York, a state Senate leader said
Speaker 2: this week. Okay, well, there are at least three districts
Speaker 2: that are protecting a black congressman, including Hakeem Jeffreys, their
Speaker 2: House leader. There's at least one protecting a female Asian congresswoman.
Speaker 2: Just try to take that one away. And then there's
Speaker 2: at least two or three protecting Hispanics congressmen, including AOC's district. Now,
Speaker 2: come on, do you think that New York State Democrats
Speaker 2: are going to draw one of their parties so called
Speaker 2: superstars out of her district? Are Kathy Hochl and state
Speaker 2: Dems in New York going to put AOC out of
Speaker 2: a job and force her back into bartending?
Speaker 3: Not a chance.
Speaker 2: And so this is the wonderful jam that the Democrats
Speaker 2: in New York are in as the one state that
Speaker 2: could actually redraw its maps again and provide multiple new
Speaker 2: Democrat seats. I hope you have a better sense of
Speaker 2: why even Politico is saying the Democrats have lost the
Speaker 2: maps war, and that's just the map's war for twenty
Speaker 2: twenty six and twenty eight. These lefty insiders know what
Speaker 2: twenty thirty and the new census will bring, and they
Speaker 2: are mortified. It is increasingly likely that the twenty thirties
Speaker 2: are an era of conservative control in DC, or at
Speaker 2: least shared control in DC, where the Liberals can't move
Speaker 2: their radical left agenda, and it's because the Democrats of
Speaker 2: the early two thousands have increasingly been pushing working class
Speaker 2: and productive voters out of their states and into the
Speaker 2: Republican led states. That's fantastic. The coming maps crisis of
Speaker 2: the twenty thirties is all the Democrats fault, and most
Speaker 2: of them know it.
Speaker 1: The Jayweber Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio podcasts, produced
Speaker 1: and engineered by Gregory John. The Jayweber Podcast is presented
Speaker 1: by Creative Planning, helping clients simplify their journey to financial wellness,
Speaker 1: one personalized plan at a time. Listen to all of
Speaker 1: Jayweber's podcasts, available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.