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