Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Todcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
Speaker 1: frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, artisonal pastries, and
Speaker 1: fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
Speaker 1: five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild
Speaker 1: Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a
Speaker 1: slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on
Speaker 1: your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
Speaker 1: nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The
Speaker 1: Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their
Speaker 1: variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box,
Speaker 1: and a new protein box. I will tell you I
Speaker 1: have done the gluten free box. I have done it
Speaker 1: a second time. I have also used the code, the
Speaker 1: todcast code. If you use the promo code toodcast at checkout,
Speaker 1: you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as
Speaker 1: a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It
Speaker 1: is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic.
Speaker 1: They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this.
Speaker 1: There is nothing like having an artesian bakery in your
Speaker 1: freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the
Speaker 1: best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade
Speaker 1: meals with Wildgrain. I obviously highly recommend it. It is
Speaker 1: worth giving Wildgrain to try. Right now, Wildgrain is offering
Speaker 1: my listeners thirty dollars off your first box plus free
Speaker 1: croissants for life. Come on when you go to wildgrain
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today. That's
Speaker 1: thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants for
Speaker 1: life when you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or
Speaker 1: simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This is
Speaker 1: a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code. So
Speaker 1: I've been covering politics now, going back to nineteen ninety two.
Speaker 2: More elusive.
Speaker 1: Things to find in American politics is a calif Moderate
Speaker 1: and I say that part of it is the system.
Speaker 1: Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to create a system that would then
Speaker 1: incentivize the Center to be the governing force of California politics.
Speaker 1: Of course, center depends on where you sit. Those from
Speaker 1: outside of California may look at a Gavenuwommer in Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi and say they're liberal. Those that live in San
Speaker 1: Francisco would say they're centrist, So some of it is
Speaker 1: sometimes perspective. My guest today is John Slavitt, and he
Speaker 1: intrigues me because he's trying to do what arguably nobody
Speaker 1: other than Arnold Schwarzenegger has been able to do, which
Speaker 1: is essentially owned the center lane in a California gubernatorial
Speaker 1: race and pull this off. We have seen many attempt
Speaker 1: and he also has a background in Silicon Valley. This
Speaker 1: is also in theory should be a strength and in
Speaker 1: practice in the past has been a bit of a
Speaker 1: hurdle himself. So I'm very intrigued why I invited him
Speaker 1: on the podcast, because I think the California governor's race
Speaker 1: is so wide open, and I think we still don't
Speaker 1: know all the candidates that are going to be running,
Speaker 1: filing deadline still a couple months away. But John Slavit
Speaker 1: is a I think he described himself at one point
Speaker 1: a lifelong Democrat now becoming a Republican, but really trying
Speaker 1: to see if there is a center lane to straddle.
Speaker 2: So let's have that conversation. John, Welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Chuck. Nice to see you.
Speaker 1: So let me start Well, first of all, let me
Speaker 1: just start with why are you doing this? Why politics?
Speaker 1: And when was the first time you ever thought you'd
Speaker 1: get into politics?
Speaker 3: Well, first time I ever thought i'd get into politics
Speaker 3: and really seriously decided to run a few months ago.
Speaker 3: I've been interested in politics. I've been a student of politics.
Speaker 3: I've been a bit of a political and news junkie
Speaker 3: for a long long time. I started my career actually
Speaker 3: in media. I came to California at Third Right Sorry Scene,
Speaker 3: which was sort of an early tech meeta company. Well
Speaker 3: it was. I didn't work for see Ed, but I
Speaker 3: worked for a company that joint ventured with them, so
Speaker 3: you got it partially right. I worked for the founder
Speaker 3: of the entertainment a guy named Yarroman used to be
Speaker 3: Lee Masters. He was the former CEO of NPR before
Speaker 3: the current CEO. So I came out to California to
Speaker 3: work for the founders of Wired magazine nineteen ninety five,
Speaker 3: prior to the Internet actually being a thing. So interested
Speaker 3: in politics, interested in media for a long long time.
Speaker 3: But I'd say that becoming a civic entrepreneur, which I've
Speaker 3: done the last year with my own podcast really gave
Speaker 3: me access to people in the state, Republicans, Democrats, independence activists.
Speaker 3: I mean, I've had journalists like you on my podcast,
Speaker 3: to Alex Michaelson that really got me underneath the issues
Speaker 3: out in the state, traveling the state every week and
Speaker 3: talking about what ails the state, and my passion initially
Speaker 3: was to create a forum to have serious conversations about
Speaker 3: problem solution in California. I'd say it was death by
Speaker 3: a thousand cuts to decide to run, because you know,
Speaker 3: it's it's a fraught time to actually run for something.
Speaker 3: It's it's crazy, it's dangerous on multiple levels and difficult, and.
Speaker 1: Its reputationally damaging to you even even no matter if
Speaker 1: you do everything correctly.
Speaker 2: And that's not.
Speaker 1: Fair, but it's just the way Paul could be. It's
Speaker 1: becomes so huge holistic.
Speaker 3: Sure, I have my eyes wide open, but I'd say
Speaker 3: that it was death by a thousand cuts, Chuck. There
Speaker 3: wasn't one thing. It was many things. And in California,
Speaker 3: I think the challenge, like many states, is civic engagement, right,
Speaker 3: just the number of people who actually care. I think
Speaker 3: in California right now, unfortunately, there are more people who
Speaker 3: care about national politics, and some of those fights, you know,
Speaker 3: the Newsom Trump fight, right, so much energy, but it
Speaker 3: doesn't actually have anything to do with what's ailing the state.
Speaker 3: And then people care about some of their local stuff.
Speaker 3: But the reality is what happens at the state level
Speaker 3: has a bigger impact on people's lives than anything else.
Speaker 2: It's true in every state.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you an example of sort of that
Speaker 1: frustration you're expressing about the lack of interest in state civics.
Speaker 1: I was when I first started as political director at NBC.
Speaker 1: I was and even before then, when I was at
Speaker 1: the Hotline, I was really excited about getting to know
Speaker 1: all the political reporters at all the NBC local affiliates
Speaker 1: just around the country, and I thought, boy, what a
Speaker 1: powerful I had my own thought of what this could be.
Speaker 1: And then you come to find out there are like
Speaker 1: there were like ten local news stations in the country
Speaker 1: that bother to have a full time political reporter, let
Speaker 1: alone a political producer, And in fact, I believe there
Speaker 1: was only one in the state of California. And Kevin
Speaker 1: Riggs I think was his name at KCRA in Sacramento
Speaker 1: was sort of a Soccermano being the state capital, that
Speaker 1: would make sense. But I remember, you know, you've got
Speaker 1: you got my buddy Colin Conan Nolan down in LA
Speaker 1: who you know, and you you brought up like Michaelson.
Speaker 1: But it is shocking to me the and this is
Speaker 1: look we have. Local media is now in a different
Speaker 1: place because of the whole media disruption, But even before
Speaker 1: sort of media disruption of legacy media in general and
Speaker 1: linear television, there was always a lack of interest in
Speaker 1: local in state politics in California.
Speaker 2: It's always been nationalized.
Speaker 1: And I didn't know if that was because of how
Speaker 1: poorly we on the East Coast report on the West coast.
Speaker 1: You know, I've never understood that. But how long have
Speaker 1: you lived in California and how long have you experienced that?
Speaker 3: Well? Actually, I was going to say, we've got the
Speaker 3: California Post about about to launch, right New York Posts
Speaker 3: California Post.
Speaker 2: I mean, so an East Coast news. You know, I'm
Speaker 2: not I'm skeptic.
Speaker 1: Look, I'm skeptical that it's going to help teach people
Speaker 1: about what's happening in California. I think it's just going
Speaker 1: to be page six for California. But we'll find out, right, well.
Speaker 3: We'll find out. I think I think that maybe it
Speaker 3: instigates some good trouble to borrow a phrase, and we
Speaker 3: need more good trouble in California. I've been here thirty years,
Speaker 3: so I moved here to follow, you know, my California dream. Sure,
Speaker 3: as I mentioned, to work for the founders of Wired magazine.
Speaker 3: And you know, I've worked in three different sectors in California.
Speaker 3: Uh and and had five kids along the way. And
Speaker 3: to answer your question in terms of just California, do
Speaker 3: people care? You know, why isn't more California state coverage
Speaker 3: a thing? I think it's becoming more of a thing.
Speaker 3: And I think that if I look at my own
Speaker 3: podcast upwards, if half our audience is outside of California
Speaker 3: and depends on the episode, so there's just a ton
Speaker 3: of interest in California, as you know, from outside California
Speaker 3: looking in. If we could replicate that with the passion
Speaker 3: and interest of people inside CALIFORNI we want to get
Speaker 3: involved to change the state will do great. But I
Speaker 3: think it's actually happening. I think that Ashley Zavala, who
Speaker 3: is an amazing local reporter and Sacramento is becoming iconic
Speaker 3: for actually pressing elected officials to get to the bottom
Speaker 3: of issues. For instance, the California State Capital. You may
Speaker 3: be familiar with this boondoggle that's happened where there's a
Speaker 3: renovation project going on in the state capitol. So elected
Speaker 3: officials is going to have a better home to work in,
Speaker 3: which is fine. It was supposed to cost a few
Speaker 3: hundred million. Now apparently it's over a billion and two
Speaker 3: thousand people under NDA on the projects of people are
Speaker 3: actually can't muffle to actually talk about it. So there's
Speaker 3: a ton to talk about. In California. We have the
Speaker 3: most interesting opportunity and interesting people and it's a shame
Speaker 3: there's not more coverage.
Speaker 2: Can pet peeve of.
Speaker 1: You brought up NDAs and Donald Trump does this in
Speaker 1: the federal government level.
Speaker 2: You just brought it up there.
Speaker 1: If taxpayer dollars are involved, the NDA should be illegal.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't understand. I mean, I just think
Speaker 1: it should pure and simple. If the if you are
Speaker 1: getting compensated by federal tax any taxpayer, state or federal
Speaker 1: right the government, you.
Speaker 2: Shouldn't be able to hide an audit from the public
Speaker 2: in any form.
Speaker 3: Well, you bring up a good point. There's there's an
Speaker 3: assemblyman named Joe Patterson who's in the California State Assembly,
Speaker 3: who I had in my podcast a while ago, and
Speaker 3: he actually is the number one, I guess instigator for transparency,
Speaker 3: and he created legislation to ban the use of NDAs
Speaker 3: with elected officials in California when they're you know, discussing
Speaker 3: debating important issues for the state. Knewso signed it to
Speaker 3: his credit. So there is some movement for transparency in California.
Speaker 3: But it's not retroactive. It's not like it's un sealing
Speaker 3: every NDA sign.
Speaker 1: Oh look, I get that, and I understand. Look, you've
Speaker 1: been in business. You know that you can't have every
Speaker 1: meeting in public in the sometimes you need to have.
Speaker 2: Space to make a decision. But eventually there.
Speaker 1: Should be available to the public, right, Like I think
Speaker 1: you can agree, Okay, you know within a year, it
Speaker 1: should be public within you know, a reasonable period of time.
Speaker 1: I mean, I understand the need for some discretion, not secrecy, discretion,
Speaker 1: but like I assume common sense that actually create better
Speaker 1: legislation on that.
Speaker 3: I'll say one other thing on this, and then I'm
Speaker 3: sure you're going to go lots of places that you
Speaker 3: want to go in this conversation. But I've said a
Speaker 3: few times now since I announced for governor that I
Speaker 3: would do the major negotiations with third parties with lights
Speaker 3: on and cameras rolling. I think that there should be
Speaker 3: much more transparency on the major discussions that the governor
Speaker 3: and team have with counterparties. One of the biggest examples
Speaker 3: is with the very powerful unions in California that exert
Speaker 3: such huge influence. You know, public sector unions in California.
Speaker 3: They raise about a billion dollars in dues and they're
Speaker 3: donating three hundred million dollars in California annually to buy, sell,
Speaker 3: and trade politicians. And mostly what they've done is cow
Speaker 3: Democrats who are so afraid to oppose them, you know,
Speaker 3: in legislation. And so I would actually have these counterparties
Speaker 3: across the table, put my priorities on the table and
Speaker 3: show it.
Speaker 1: Let me let's talk about your political evolution, because you
Speaker 1: talk about yourself as a lifelong Democrat. You say you've
Speaker 1: never voted for Donald Trump. Now you want his endorsement.
Speaker 1: What has he done now that has convinced you? Do
Speaker 1: you think it was a mistake that you didn't vote
Speaker 1: for him the first three times.
Speaker 3: Well, let me say this, you're correct and what you
Speaker 3: said so far. You know, Republicans in California have been
Speaker 3: very cute about the Trump endorsement. I think Steve Hilton
Speaker 3: and Chad Bianco, the other two serious Republicans in the
Speaker 3: race who we can talk about, they've said different things
Speaker 3: about endorsed by Trump. I think Chad Bianca said, well,
Speaker 3: I accept it in private, so that's all just weird cuteness. Yeah,
Speaker 3: President of the United States wants to endorse the Republican running.
Speaker 3: You accept the endorsement, But I think it's unlikely Trump
Speaker 3: endorses me because I'm the only Republican who's going to
Speaker 3: call balls and strikes about where I agree and disagree.
Speaker 3: And we can get into that. But if Trump endorsed me,
Speaker 3: it would be because he endorses where I agree and
Speaker 3: where I have very independent minded ideas that may be
Speaker 3: at odds with his ideas.
Speaker 1: You know, I had Steve Klubeck on here about nine
Speaker 1: months ago before he dropped that, and while while your
Speaker 1: personalities might be different, he was sort of preaching the
Speaker 1: same thing.
Speaker 2: Well, and he had his own way. Yeah, he had
Speaker 2: his own way.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, and I get this with Trump, right,
Speaker 1: there's always parts of Trump You're like, you know, he
Speaker 1: doesn't know how to build something, but he was correct
Speaker 1: to knock something down, right, Like I've always thought that,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump, the disruptor is the necessity, but he
Speaker 1: may himself not have any good answers on what to
Speaker 1: put in after you've done the disruption, right, And I
Speaker 1: think that's always been I think that's the struggle that
Speaker 1: change agents, whether they're on the left or the right,
Speaker 1: who want to take some of Trump right, but but
Speaker 1: not be associated with all of Trump. That is that
Speaker 1: sort of where your head is.
Speaker 3: At, Well take some of Trump, Listen. I think we
Speaker 3: have to focus on policy. So I mean, for instance, uh,
Speaker 3: you know, there are there are many areas on policy
Speaker 3: where I agree, but I think I have a much better.
Speaker 2: Uh like what is tell me what he's doing and style?
Speaker 3: Well, listen, I'm gonna I'm going to use a California
Speaker 3: frame here, Chuck, because I'm running in California. Should I'm
Speaker 3: not gonna. I'm not gonna, you know, go global and
Speaker 3: judge every single and going on.
Speaker 1: By the way, I don't think the governor of California
Speaker 1: needs to have a position on NATO right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, listen, there are lots
Speaker 3: of policies that will positively impact California that people may
Speaker 3: not know about. So, for instance, under Trump, HUD actually
Speaker 3: came out with a radical new policy on homelessness and
Speaker 3: funding for homelessness. This is a national policy, but will
Speaker 3: dramatically impact California in a positive way. I think since
Speaker 3: they announced it, they've kind of pulled it back and
Speaker 3: are tweaking it, but just on homelessness. As you know,
Speaker 3: as everyone knows, we lead the nation to homelessness. Twenty
Speaker 3: five percent of the nation's homeless, one hundred and ninety
Speaker 3: thousand of our brothers and sisters basically living and dying
Speaker 3: on the street. It's a total moral tragedy. And what
Speaker 3: HUD said under Trump is that they're going to totally
Speaker 3: flip the script on the way that funding for homelessness
Speaker 3: is granted to states. To date, the way it's been done,
Speaker 3: and this is a part of democratic ideology. In many
Speaker 3: states and also in California, funding for homeless blessness has
Speaker 3: been targeted at what's called permanent housing. Permanent housing is
Speaker 3: generally a affordable housing unit in an apartment building. The
Speaker 3: problem is in California that takes ten years to build
Speaker 3: and cost a million dollars. We can get into why
Speaker 3: it's insane. The Trump administration flipped that and said, listen,
Speaker 3: instead of eighty percent of the money going to long
Speaker 3: term permanent housing, eighty percent of the money should go
Speaker 3: to temporary housing. And I want to give credit to
Speaker 3: Mayor Matt Mahon, who's a Democrat moderate in San Jose,
Speaker 3: who I really like because he's actually working with Dignity Moves,
Speaker 3: the founder of which is an advisor to me. Dignity
Speaker 3: Moves is the number one organization in California deploying the
Speaker 3: tiny home communities. And you've probably seen these in various states,
Speaker 3: and other states have done this really well, particularly Texas
Speaker 3: in Houston and Austin. But essentially, you get a crane
Speaker 3: and you drop in a small unit that locks from
Speaker 3: the inside, and you do one hundred and one hundred and
Speaker 3: fifty these on a site. Usually the land is donated
Speaker 3: by a wealthy landowner who can get a tax right
Speaker 3: off for leasing that land to the city for a
Speaker 3: dollar a year, can write off the taxes, and then
Speaker 3: you bring in the services that are needed in that
Speaker 3: site at mental health, services, security, et cetera, and you
Speaker 3: triage people who actually can live in a tiny home
Speaker 3: versus need the mental health system, which unfortunately is more
Speaker 3: than half of our homeless in California. And the reason
Speaker 3: that that is opposed by what I would call the
Speaker 3: homeless industrial complex in California is the set of incentives
Speaker 3: for the structures and then nonprofits in California to serve
Speaker 3: that population are very much oriented to building long term
Speaker 3: permanent housing. But what we need is to get people
Speaker 3: off the street tomorrow, chuck. Because in California, day one,
Speaker 3: a homeless person seventeen percent or mentally ill. By day thirty,
Speaker 3: thirty five percent or mentally ill because they have to
Speaker 3: get on a drug to stay awake, to not get
Speaker 3: raped or robbed or beaten or stolen from. So that's
Speaker 3: an example where Trump has it completely right. He just
Speaker 3: came out with another policy on real estate that I
Speaker 3: really agree with what's kind of progressive, which is to
Speaker 3: ban the huge funds from buying up all the single
Speaker 3: family homes. That's another example. You know, there are many
Speaker 3: others I think that I think that being generally pro
Speaker 3: business is a good thing. And in California. California has
Speaker 3: an inferiority complex about being pro business.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Quints and I love me some Quints. New Year,
Speaker 1: colder days. This is the moment your winter wardrobe really
Speaker 1: has to deliver. If you're craving a winter reset, start
Speaker 1: with pieces truly made to last season after season. Quint
Speaker 1: springs together premium materials, thoughtful design, and enduring quality so
Speaker 1: you stay warm, look sharp, and fill your best all season.
Speaker 1: Law Quin's everything you need. Men's Mongolian cashmere sweaters.
Speaker 2: I have one.
Speaker 1: I have to say, really into it. They have wool coats, leather,
Speaker 1: and swayed outerwear that actually hold up to daily wear
Speaker 1: and still look good. Their outerwear is especially impressive. Think
Speaker 1: down jackets, wool coats, and Italian leather outerwear that keep
Speaker 1: you warm when it's actually cold. Each piece made from
Speaker 1: premium materials, Quince delivers the same quality as luxury brands
Speaker 1: at a fraction of the price. The result is classic
Speaker 1: styles you'll love that hold up year after year. You
Speaker 1: know me, I love me my quarter zips. Quinn says
Speaker 1: quite a few of them. They're great, They're both light
Speaker 1: and warm. There's nothing harder than business casual.
Speaker 2: Right, you get these things?
Speaker 1: What can I wear? What can you wear a meeting?
Speaker 1: What do you wear on a zoom? I have to
Speaker 1: say it's as if Quinn sort of says, hey, look,
Speaker 1: we've got the modern sort of working wardrobe ready for you,
Speaker 1: clothing that looks stylish, looks good, but is actually practical
Speaker 1: and isn't going to break the bank. So refresher winter
Speaker 1: war rope with quints go to quins dot com slash
Speaker 1: chuck for free shipping on your order and three hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty five day returns. And it's also available in Canada.
Speaker 1: That's qui nce dot com, slash chuck, free shipping and
Speaker 1: three hundred and sixty five day returns quints dot com
Speaker 1: slash chuck. So let me ask you about that, because
Speaker 1: I vacillate about California myself, and I sort of I
Speaker 1: would align myself with the times. It feels overly bureaucratic
Speaker 1: at times, and at the end of the day though
Speaker 1: it's still the best. It seems to be a great
Speaker 1: place to build a business, still seems a great place
Speaker 1: to find a workforce. So you've been a very successful entrepreneur.
Speaker 1: Do you think you could have been as successful in
Speaker 1: another state was there was California. You've you've had all
Speaker 1: your success in California. You know the state must be
Speaker 1: doing something right. What are they doing right that you
Speaker 1: think has helped you succeed?
Speaker 3: That's a great question. Well, I did do it in California,
Speaker 3: so I can't speak to whether I could have done
Speaker 3: it anywhere else. I mean, I've done it in California.
Speaker 3: I have California to thank for lots of things, including
Speaker 3: my kids and you know, my professional life. So I'm
Speaker 3: hugely grateful to California, and despite all of our problems,
Speaker 3: I wouldn't live anywhere else. You know. I think anyone
Speaker 3: who says, though that they've not considered moving out of
Speaker 3: the state is lying, because even I have, everyone has.
Speaker 3: But you know, I want to make my life here
Speaker 3: and help turn the state around. So I'm staying to
Speaker 3: your point. I made an analogy the other day that
Speaker 3: that sunshine is to California like old spices to many
Speaker 3: men's under arms. It's basically just it's covered up all
Speaker 3: the bad.
Speaker 1: I think if deltorizes everything else is what you're saying.
Speaker 3: You know, if we had. If we had the year
Speaker 3: round weather of Seattle in Portland, we would have lost
Speaker 3: half our people. So so yes, people love living here.
Speaker 3: We have an amazing climate, we have I think the
Speaker 3: most talented people, industry, geography, to we have all of it.
Speaker 2: It's a great university system.
Speaker 1: A great use I mean for both the system right
Speaker 1: for by the way, I think sometimes the UC system
Speaker 1: is a bit overrated. I say this versus the cal State.
Speaker 1: You know that aspect. I mean that is affordable first gen.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's an impressive state university system as well well.
Speaker 3: And we have we have Pat Brown to thank for
Speaker 3: a lot of these things, you know, Jerry's dad, who
Speaker 3: was I think, by all accounts a great, great governor,
Speaker 3: and I would give that praise. But here's the problem. Shock.
Speaker 3: I think when you work in the tech sector or
Speaker 3: certain aspects of the real estate sector, like I did,
Speaker 3: you have great advantages because because you're not in tech,
Speaker 3: for an instance, we don't suffer in tech from a
Speaker 3: lot of the regulations that impact other real world because you're.
Speaker 1: Still I mean, you're still a youthful industry. In that
Speaker 1: there was a lot of exemptions given to the tech
Speaker 1: industry by the state legislature right for years in order
Speaker 1: to help the tech inducess.
Speaker 3: Yes, quite unfettered, and mostly for good reasons. And if
Speaker 3: you've got people in capital, you know you can you
Speaker 3: know you can thrive. Having said that, there are many
Speaker 3: tech companies that are moving out of California for different reasons.
Speaker 3: But here's the thing. California is a tale of two worlds.
Speaker 3: If you have money and you work in certain industries,
Speaker 3: you're doing great. But if you are working poor, working class,
Speaker 3: middle class, the people we need to focus on you
Speaker 3: are hurting in California. And if you look.
Speaker 1: You're describing, you just describe the economy for the entire country.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the current. This is why everybody,
Speaker 1: this is why the polling shows that people hate this
Speaker 1: economy because it does feel as if the halves are
Speaker 1: surviving and in some cases thriving, but they have not
Speaker 1: to have like there's no rung on the ladder to
Speaker 1: even grab right now.
Speaker 3: Well, it's very tough. And again speaking for California, if
Speaker 3: you look at all the metrics that matter, I mean,
Speaker 3: despite the fact that we've got sunshine, Hollywood beaches and
Speaker 3: you can you know, you can go skiing, you know,
Speaker 3: in the morning one day and being on the beach
Speaker 3: in the afternoon on the same day. In California, again,
Speaker 3: if you're in the seventy three percent of people in
Speaker 3: the middle working class that think the state's going in
Speaker 3: the wrong direction, which is what our polling shows and
Speaker 3: is just sort of common sense, the reason is, and
Speaker 3: it's in the headlines every day because California is in
Speaker 3: the bottom of every metric that matters, despite the fact
Speaker 3: that we're the world's fourth largest economy. So if I
Speaker 3: hear another person in California who's elected say that we're
Speaker 3: the fourth largest economy, my head's going to explode. Because
Speaker 3: education outcomes number one in poverty, number one in homelessness,
Speaker 3: number one in energy costs, number one in housing costs.
Speaker 3: There are reasons why, chuck, which we can get into.
Speaker 3: So it's really a tale of two world worlds in California.
Speaker 1: So let's let's talk about that. What you're an advocate
Speaker 1: of the flat tax.
Speaker 3: How do not, actually, I've not actually advocated for a
Speaker 3: flat tax?
Speaker 1: You haven't, Okay, how would you describe your advocation of
Speaker 1: a It sounds like a flatter tax is what you're
Speaker 1: looking for.
Speaker 3: Well, I've not Actually, I've not actually spoken about tax
Speaker 3: policy overtly yet. But my view is that if you
Speaker 3: look at California, you know, we've got the highest marginal
Speaker 3: rate in the country at thirteen point three percent. And the
Speaker 3: reality is that in California, half of our people work
Speaker 3: for small to medium sized companies. The national average a
Speaker 3: little bit bigger, California a little little smaller because we
Speaker 3: have such what such huge companies operating out of California
Speaker 3: as well, it sort of reduces the average. But half
Speaker 3: of our people work in small businesses, and small businesses
Speaker 3: of the engine of that you know, middle class upward mobility, uh,
Speaker 3: and small businesses that are over taxed and overregulated can't
Speaker 3: can't grow. That's the story of California right now. So
Speaker 3: I think that we need a tax holiday for small
Speaker 3: businesses for several years. Well I'm not going to put
Speaker 3: out the specifics now we're thinking about it, but I
Speaker 3: think I think if you are a small business under
Speaker 3: one hundred people, again, for which employ fifty percent of
Speaker 3: California residents, I think we should dramatically reduce your taxes
Speaker 3: over the next few years to get things moving again.
Speaker 2: Where do you find Look, I'm.
Speaker 1: You know, the the Gray Davis's governorship sort of imploded
Speaker 1: in part because of this massive deficit at the time
Speaker 1: that had happened, and you know, obviously Enrun was a
Speaker 1: part of it as well, but there was this budget
Speaker 1: deficit that seemed impossible to fix in some ways. That
Speaker 1: was Arnold Schwarzenegger's entire goal was to try to figure
Speaker 1: out how to fix this. And then Jerry Brown sort of,
Speaker 1: you know, became sort of more of a centrist compared
Speaker 1: to the rest of his party, and that happened. Where
Speaker 1: do you find the revenue that is going to be
Speaker 1: lost because being the fourth largest state, that's a huge
Speaker 1: budget and it is not easy to balance.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, listen, here are the facts. When Newsom was
Speaker 3: elected seven years ago, the budget for the state of
Speaker 3: California annually, annually lose two hundred billion dollars. Today, at
Speaker 3: sixty percent higher, it's three hundred and twenty two billion dollars.
Speaker 1: That all co Is that all since COVID How much
Speaker 1: of that through sort of COVID North.
Speaker 3: It's been it's been a it's been a steady increase
Speaker 3: year after year. Chuck, it's not it's not been sort
Speaker 3: of a one year massive pickup. So we've grown sixty
Speaker 3: percent in our state budget since since twenty nineteen, and
Speaker 3: we're worse off for it. So, you know, I think
Speaker 3: that the story of California is that more money doesn't
Speaker 3: mean less problems. It's actually been more money, more problems.
Speaker 3: That that's a line from a great, great song too.
Speaker 3: So so where do we find Where do we find
Speaker 3: the money? Listen, there are so many projects, chuck, and
Speaker 3: I'll throw out a few that are bad ideas that
Speaker 3: we should stop doing. And there are a whole set
Speaker 3: of taxes that as governor I would also put the
Speaker 3: kebaj on. So here are a couple of the bad ideas.
Speaker 3: The train to Nowhere, the pejorative for the high speed
Speaker 3: rail project that was really kicked off, you know, sort
Speaker 3: of Newsome has has really promoted. We've spent sixteen billion dollars,
Speaker 3: We've not laid any track. The project is now budget
Speaker 3: one hundred and thirty five billion dollars started it I
Speaker 3: think thirty forty billion dollars and is a complete boondoggle.
Speaker 3: I mean, by the time that project would come to fruition,
Speaker 3: we'll have flying taxis. Let me ask you that should
Speaker 3: there should it be one example.
Speaker 2: I agree that that boom, that thing has just been.
Speaker 3: There are many other there's been.
Speaker 1: In a perfect world, Is there high speed rail from
Speaker 1: laed to San Francisco.
Speaker 3: In a perfect world? In a perfect world, Chuck, I'm
Speaker 3: not sure I can speak to a perfect world. All right?
Speaker 1: How about in your version of California after two terms,
Speaker 1: would you like to create the conditions that would allow
Speaker 1: for it to happen? Or is it just something that
Speaker 1: government can't afford to do these days?
Speaker 3: I think I think that twenty twenty seven January firefighting.
Speaker 3: I mean twenty twenty seven January, it's a full court
Speaker 3: press to just stabilize California. Stabilize the budget, stop the bleeding,
Speaker 3: a series of executive orders, and work with the legislature
Speaker 3: to work off of a affordability emergency and enact policies
Speaker 3: to actually bring down costs on energy, on gas, on housing,
Speaker 3: a whole range of things that we can talk about.
Speaker 3: I think for twenty forty seven, I think California needs
Speaker 3: a strategic plan to actually lead in a bunch of areas,
Speaker 3: including energy, infrastructure, including a plan for water because we're
Speaker 3: hopefully grow as a population, including growth for technology, and
Speaker 3: doing all the things to restore the dream for the
Speaker 3: next generation of kids who are basically moving out of California.
Speaker 3: The high speed rail project is not in the top
Speaker 3: few for me.
Speaker 1: I got you, how are there enough of these projects
Speaker 1: that you think you can save a significant you know
Speaker 1: a lot of times these projects. I've done this a
Speaker 1: long time and I'm not trying to pick on you. You
Speaker 1: can have some high profile projects, but they actually don't
Speaker 1: add up to it isn't enough money to do some
Speaker 1: of the cuts that you're going to want to do.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's enough money there in project cuts
Speaker 1: to pull this off?
Speaker 3: Well, I think I think there's enough if you look
Speaker 3: at several areas and it's not. It's not just one.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you look at the number one line
Speaker 3: item in the California budget, not surprisingly is healthcare. Okay,
Speaker 3: so it's about one hundred and sixty billion dollars. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's larger than the annual budget of the City of
Speaker 3: New York. Okay, the next line item.
Speaker 1: Remember, General Motors is a healthcare company that makes cars. Right,
Speaker 1: this is health The cost of health care is a
Speaker 1: is a problem on every level of government or business.
Speaker 2: It's the largest right.
Speaker 3: Just like our federal government is a is a healthcare
Speaker 3: organization with an army. So California is not that different.
Speaker 3: One hundred and sixty billion on healthcare. It's estimated by
Speaker 3: the federal government. And this is not just you know,
Speaker 3: this is well before Trump that Medicare fraud is at
Speaker 3: least ten to fifteen percent. Okay, So we suffer from
Speaker 3: that in California as well. So out of that one
Speaker 3: hundred and sixty billion, thirty billion of which comes from
Speaker 3: the California State General Fund, one hundred and thirty billion
Speaker 3: of which comes from the Feds. There's a huge amount
Speaker 3: of fraud which we should get to the bottom of.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: I know that this is a common talking point, but
Speaker 3: it's a it's a real issa fraud an abuse.
Speaker 1: My friend, I've heard waste, fraud and abuse as a phrase.
Speaker 1: I'm sure phrase going back to New Cambridge.
Speaker 3: Of course, of course, and it's a real.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton in fairness they would say right of and
Speaker 1: advocated it, of.
Speaker 3: Course, And it's real. And with AI, with all of
Speaker 3: the huge some of the risk of AI, we have
Speaker 3: a real opportunity to sick the right models on our
Speaker 3: state budget and really get to the bottom of what's
Speaker 3: going on. And actually I'm going to be putting out
Speaker 3: some policy and some suggestions on exactly how we do that.
Speaker 3: So I think healthcare is a big area. We've mentioned
Speaker 3: the trained and nowhere. The train to nowhere right now
Speaker 3: is about one hundred and twenty billion over the next
Speaker 3: fifteen years. Because we've spent We've spent sixteen it's going
Speaker 3: to cost over one hundred and thirty It's a huge
Speaker 3: amount of money. It's ten to fifteen billion a year.
Speaker 3: The next area is climate taxes chuck, So it's called
Speaker 3: cap and invest Now in California, cap and trade is
Speaker 3: what it used to be called. Most citizens don't understand
Speaker 3: what it means. It's been about thirty three billion in
Speaker 3: taxes on California residents over the last number of years.
Speaker 3: And so the way it works is, if you produced
Speaker 3: energy in California, you get taxed. So if you emit right,
Speaker 3: carbon emissions get taxed in California uniquely. So if you
Speaker 3: produce electricity, you refine petroleum, for gas, you name it.
Speaker 3: Those taxes end up getting passed along to the consumer.
Speaker 3: So the energy producers have to have to mark up
Speaker 3: their prices to the California customer, they don't eat it.
Speaker 3: They mark it up just like it's like a tariff.
Speaker 3: And so in California, our average gas if you're at
Speaker 3: ninety one unleaded, if you drive a gas powered car,
Speaker 3: you're paying five dollars. If you're lucky, maybe five to
Speaker 3: fifty six dollars in a ritzy town. If you're in
Speaker 3: eighty nine unleaded, you're paying four four fifty. Right, my
Speaker 3: mom in Boston pays to eighty nine and north of Boston,
Speaker 3: and so that dollar and a half extra is pure tax.
Speaker 3: And we also have a custom fuel mix, two seasons
Speaker 3: of a custom fuel mix that our refiners have to refine,
Speaker 3: which is state impost. Northern State does this check. None
Speaker 3: of the other forty nine states have a custom fuel mix.
Speaker 3: So all of these things, they're taxes and they get
Speaker 3: imposed on our citizens and we can and those there
Speaker 3: are many examples. We've also, Chuck, we've added fifty thousand
Speaker 3: full time workers in California over the News administration. So
Speaker 3: we started at about two hundred and ten thousand. Now
Speaker 3: we're about two hundred and sixty thousand full time workers
Speaker 3: in California, not including contractors. We're spending huge amounts of
Speaker 3: money on people in the keyboard economy when we have
Speaker 3: technology that can help do the work. I'm not saying
Speaker 3: I would mass fire people, okay, but when people come
Speaker 3: to the point where they're going to leave the workforce
Speaker 3: or not performing, we shouldn't backfill that role. We should
Speaker 3: actually start reducing the size of the state government. It's insane.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about your political identity. Why aren't you running
Speaker 1: as an independent? You've not really made a case to
Speaker 1: me that you're a Republican. And I don't mean that
Speaker 1: as a pejorative or anything, but sort of where today's
Speaker 1: Republican look for good or for bad. Both parties to
Speaker 1: me are defined more by their bases to a large
Speaker 1: majority of people than they are by their differences.
Speaker 2: Right, I grew up in a world.
Speaker 1: I think one of our problems is that there's no
Speaker 1: we don't have ideological diversity within the two parties like
Speaker 1: we did when you and I were growing up. There
Speaker 1: were conservative Democrats, liberal Democrats, there were liberal Republicans and
Speaker 1: conservative Republicans. You know, let me ask the social questions,
Speaker 1: because ultimately that has been the distinguishing characteristic of the
Speaker 1: California Republican over the years, sort of a low tax,
Speaker 1: you know, fiscal conservative, but social liberal.
Speaker 2: Is that how you would.
Speaker 3: Describe yourself, I'd say that I'm a radical moderate marriage
Speaker 3: I'm quoting. I'm quoting Dan Schneur when I said.
Speaker 2: I love that. I know Dan a little bit.
Speaker 1: I was once kind of uh, somebody called me a
Speaker 1: radical centrist and I said thank you, and they didn't
Speaker 1: mean it as a as a compliment. But where are
Speaker 1: you on the on the sort of those you know,
Speaker 1: those those sure, those those key social issues that you know,
Speaker 1: for some people become non starters, right guns, abortion, same
Speaker 1: sex marriage.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's see same sex marriage. People should marry who
Speaker 3: they love. I mean, I think that's uh. I think
Speaker 3: we're way beyond that.
Speaker 2: I hope.
Speaker 3: And actually, in my experience, Chuck, the Republicans that I meet,
Speaker 3: and I actually went to my first two state conventions
Speaker 3: March in September. I had never gone to a convention
Speaker 3: of any party, and the people I met were very
Speaker 3: accepting of of people gay, straight, It doesn't matter. Listen
Speaker 3: on the subject of abortion, you know, deeply personal and
Speaker 3: moral issue. I have very strong, personally held beliefs, but
Speaker 3: we have settled law in California which which I would
Speaker 3: strongly support. Women have reproductive freedom in California. I would
Speaker 3: support that because it's the law. Uh. And I have
Speaker 3: many friends in the pro life community who have very
Speaker 3: strong convictions. What the governor in California can do on
Speaker 3: that subject is focus on where we can all agree,
Speaker 3: which is which I think is parental notification if a child,
Speaker 3: you know, under each child is pregnant, counseling and support
Speaker 3: for healthy outcomes, safe pregnancy, adoption, if if if a
Speaker 3: kid is you know can be led down that path.
Speaker 3: But I support women's rights under the law. In terms
Speaker 3: of guns, I'm a gun owner. I sport shoot. I
Speaker 3: support Second Amendment rights. I think that California has these
Speaker 3: Rickst gun laws on the books and they are enforced.
Speaker 3: I know that as a gun owner going through the
Speaker 3: process of owning and training, and you thik.
Speaker 1: Their good laws. Would you get rid of any of them?
Speaker 1: Are you comfortable with what's on the books?
Speaker 3: Uh? I think that's an area where the majority of
Speaker 3: Californians support the laws that are on the books.
Speaker 2: You worded that very much like the politician John Well.
Speaker 3: I think it's I think it's I have I have
Speaker 3: personal beliefs, but as an elected official, you've got it.
Speaker 3: You've got you you sorry, right hand, you take another.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I always remind people were in a representative democracy, right
Speaker 1: that ultimately that was the design that our founders had,
Speaker 1: which is you know, and there's a fine line, and
Speaker 1: let me ask you, you know, can you is there
Speaker 1: an issue where you would go against the majority in
Speaker 1: your state?
Speaker 3: And is any issue? Yeah, an issue where I'd go
Speaker 3: against the majority of my state. Well, listen, I'll give
Speaker 3: you one. It's very present and just happened Prop fifty.
Speaker 3: So participating, Yeah, Prop fifty past overwhelming. I was sixty
Speaker 3: five percent. So when Prop fifty was bubbling, I came
Speaker 3: out very strongly against it on my podcast as a
Speaker 3: no on fifty, meaning against the Jerry manderin just permit me,
Speaker 3: I'll speak for one minute on this. We actually did
Speaker 3: a documentary called the Big Rig, and we put that
Speaker 3: out on State of Gold and I interviewed, I sat
Speaker 3: down with twenty different leaders across the state, experts and
Speaker 3: redistricting and politicians, you name it. And it was a
Speaker 3: classic example of what to me was a power grab
Speaker 3: in the name of fighting Trump, and I opposed what
Speaker 3: happened in Texas. You know, some Republicans say, oh, well,
Speaker 3: Texas is different to me de facto, when the majority
Speaker 3: party bludgeons the minority party to death, it's bad Texas
Speaker 3: started then California. By the way, the Democrats that were
Speaker 3: pro Prop fifty raised one hundred and twenty million dollars,
Speaker 3: spent a little bit more than the majority of it,
Speaker 3: but have that money in the coffers to do what
Speaker 3: they want to do for the next campaign. And we
Speaker 3: spawned all kinds of bad behavior across the country. Thankfully,
Speaker 3: there are some Republican legislators, legislatures and leaders resisting doing
Speaker 3: that as well. I think it's bad for democracy. And
Speaker 3: so that's an example where I came out and made
Speaker 3: my case, which is counter to what most people in
Speaker 3: California think. But how will democrats feel when Republicans take
Speaker 3: control of the state, which will happen at some point
Speaker 3: in California, hopefully soon. How will Republicans treat Democrats in California?
Speaker 3: And I think we should be a shining beacon of
Speaker 3: a constitutional, functioning democracy in California, not a hack job.
Speaker 1: Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
Speaker 1: personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
Speaker 1: We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
Speaker 1: the best shape. My mother single mother, now widow, myself
Speaker 1: sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
Speaker 1: pay for college and lo and behold. My dad had
Speaker 1: one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,
Speaker 1: but it was important at the time, and it's why
Speaker 1: I was able to go to college. Little did he
Speaker 1: know how important that would be in that moment. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what. That's why I am here to tell you
Speaker 1: about Etho's life. They can provide you with peace of
Speaker 1: mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst
Speaker 1: comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes
Speaker 1: getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect
Speaker 1: your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated
Speaker 1: process and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical
Speaker 1: exam require you just answer a few health questions online.
Speaker 1: You can get a quote in as little as ten minutes,
Speaker 1: and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving
Speaker 1: your home. You can get up to three million dollars
Speaker 1: in coverage, and some policies start as low as two
Speaker 1: dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of
Speaker 1: March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number
Speaker 1: one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect
Speaker 1: your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free
Speaker 1: quoted ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos
Speaker 1: dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary, and the
Speaker 1: rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life
Speaker 1: insurance is something you should really think about, especially if
Speaker 1: you've got a growing family. I was one of those
Speaker 1: I didn't understand. I understood the political decision.
Speaker 2: That California Democrats.
Speaker 1: Made, Okay, I understood the political argument. The problem I
Speaker 1: had is, I, if you believe voters are being disenfranchised
Speaker 1: in Texas, why is the answer to disenfranchised voters in
Speaker 1: another state?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: The principle of it sort of bothered me.
Speaker 1: And I understand that everything you know, unfortunately too much
Speaker 1: of politics as a zero sum game to people. Right,
Speaker 1: you know, so and so wins, then we lose, we lose,
Speaker 1: we win, then they lose, and it's like, you know,
Speaker 1: the law of unattended consequences always bite you always bite
Speaker 1: you in the you know where.
Speaker 3: But let me ask you a question. Because you ask
Speaker 3: me why I'm not independent, I want to answer the
Speaker 3: question directly because it's a really good question. There actually
Speaker 3: is an independent running named Ethan Penner, who's a good,
Speaker 3: smart guy and got some interesting ideas. Just there's no
Speaker 3: independent party, Chuck, there's no independent.
Speaker 1: Party, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Look, the beauty of the top two.
Speaker 1: Let me answer, though, was to make it so you
Speaker 1: didn't have to join a party.
Speaker 3: Well, well, okay, but that's not the reality. I think.
Speaker 3: I think that people organize around parties still in America,
Speaker 3: and they organize around two parties. And I think it's
Speaker 3: a long way off before we have an independent party
Speaker 3: in California or in the nation. And there's a lot
Speaker 3: of things that need to happen right to set the
Speaker 3: stage for that. We have a lot of things to
Speaker 3: sort out, Chuck, don't we and our body politic before
Speaker 3: that can happen. But for me, I'm an old school Republican.
Speaker 3: I describe myself more as a Reagan Republican, which is
Speaker 3: looking at government very skeptically and what is the role
Speaker 3: of government, What can government really be good at? Is
Speaker 3: an orientation around freedom and property rights. It's a respect
Speaker 3: for business being a prime engine of opportunity creation in society.
Speaker 3: It's those kinds of things. And I think if you
Speaker 3: look in California at where the better ideas are for
Speaker 3: turning the state around, it's more on the Republican side
Speaker 3: than the Democrat side. And again, I'm not in this
Speaker 3: to bash Democrats. Most of my family or Democrats, they've
Speaker 3: all come out saying, John, how could you? How could
Speaker 3: you be a Republican? Trump? Trump? Trump? And what I
Speaker 3: tell them is put Trump aside. California's problems are not
Speaker 3: because of Trump. This is an own goal in California.
Speaker 3: So I'm a Republican really based on policy and philosophy.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about though, the result of Prop fifty.
Speaker 1: I actually didn't think it was going to be the
Speaker 1: blowout at first, right, and then you saw I said,
Speaker 1: oh boy, this turned into a Trump referendum.
Speaker 2: Right. And the minute it turned into a Trump referendum,
Speaker 2: it was over. Sure.
Speaker 1: I'm just look, I'm just being honest with you. Campaign
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six in a blue state. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't see the path for any I say this. I
Speaker 1: don't know how a Republican wins statewide in this political
Speaker 1: environment with Donald Trump and the White House.
Speaker 2: Why am I wrong?
Speaker 3: Well, we'll see. I understand that skepticism. I think it's
Speaker 3: it's warranted, to be honest, and the truth is that
Speaker 3: the Republican Party in California historically, in the recent history,
Speaker 3: has not done itself the favors, you know, running on
Speaker 3: certain cultural issues versus running on policy, running.
Speaker 2: By the identity crisis.
Speaker 1: Right like, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the most successful Republican governor
Speaker 1: arguably since Ronald Reagan. And good luck finding a Republican
Speaker 1: that wants to emulate Arnold Schwarzenegger these days.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, because people have gone to their corners. And
Speaker 3: to be honest, though I love Arnold, I mean I
Speaker 3: love him as a guy, but there are certain policies
Speaker 3: that have led us in the wrong direction. I mentioned
Speaker 3: the climate regime is his policy, right, Well, he's the
Speaker 3: one who you know. I think he figured out early
Speaker 3: on he wanted to be known as a climate governor.
Speaker 3: And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We
Speaker 3: have the best environmental laws on the books of any state.
Speaker 3: We should enforce them. The environmental movement started here in
Speaker 3: the seventies. That was a good thing. The problem is
Speaker 3: it was perverted and hijacked in law to facto to
Speaker 3: block a lot of good things, a lot of growth
Speaker 3: and housing and energy production that we need while we
Speaker 3: figure out how to protect the environment. So I think
Speaker 3: it kind of got perverted unintentionally. But you ask, how
Speaker 3: do you win? You know, they're credible polls chuck from
Speaker 3: from mid to late last year that showed that half
Speaker 3: of the state would vote for the right kind of
Speaker 3: Republican I.
Speaker 1: Believe, and people always it's that I can always get
Speaker 1: you that poll result. Some people want to always want
Speaker 1: to come across as reasonable, but you know they do
Speaker 1: end up voting the same way that they vote seventy
Speaker 1: five percent of the time.
Speaker 3: Well, we'll see. I think. I think in California it's
Speaker 3: darkest before the dawn. I think that if you my
Speaker 3: grammar research, we had lots of pulling the grammar research
Speaker 3: is so much frustration, so much disaffection. Yeah, and I
Speaker 3: think the way this is going to game out on
Speaker 3: the left or on the Democratic side, I really think
Speaker 3: the energy is more further left. I think it's more
Speaker 3: in the Katie Porter wing than than others, right, and
Speaker 3: there're different characters.
Speaker 2: And I don't know where you go. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: funny you bring that up.
Speaker 1: If Rick Caruso gets in this race, and I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people assume w'k Cruso is getting in
Speaker 1: this race. He's the former Republican now running as a Democrat.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well so he's a very successful guy. Love his
Speaker 3: real estate projects as a consumer. But Chuck, that game
Speaker 3: has been played in California before we had we had,
Speaker 3: you know, someone named Whitman, we had someone named Huffington.
Speaker 3: We've had billionaires. That's not me. I mean, I get
Speaker 3: up early in the morning and I change diapers, and
Speaker 3: I do dishes and I drive kids to school. And yes,
Speaker 3: I've been successful, but I live in a nice neighborhood
Speaker 3: in a fairly regular house. And I'm not that guy.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm in the world. Okay. I don't think a
Speaker 3: billionaire buys his or her way into the election in California.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's the California style, the California.
Speaker 2: Way it worked, asked ALCHECKI.
Speaker 3: And there's Alcheckie. Yeah, there there's Alcheckie, who was actually
Speaker 3: a friend of my dad's funny enough way back in
Speaker 3: the day.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: But here's the thing I think that I think to
Speaker 3: your point, if you look at the Emerson polls, which
Speaker 3: are most often quoted and cited in California, last one
Speaker 3: showed thirty one percent undecided, the one before that forty
Speaker 3: four percent undecided, it's wide open. It's complete wide open,
Speaker 3: and I think people want something different. A lot of
Speaker 3: the Democrats are how did I put this politely, been
Speaker 3: in politics a long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, careers, yeah, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 3: And the two Republicans who are running. I like them
Speaker 3: both as men. I like Steve and I like Chad.
Speaker 3: I've had them on my podcast, spen all the time
Speaker 3: with them. They're good men. I don't think either has
Speaker 3: the right background to turn the state around.
Speaker 1: Let's I want to close with Silicon Valley, and it
Speaker 1: goes to what I think is going to be a
Speaker 1: struggle for you if you win, which is, on one hand,
Speaker 1: I think you want to make it easier to do
Speaker 1: business in California. On the other hand, I think there's
Speaker 1: a lot of people who think the tech companies have
Speaker 1: too much free ring right, and that actually, you know,
Speaker 1: while generally there might be too much red tape for
Speaker 1: the average person starting a small to mid size business.
Speaker 1: I could argue there's not enough red tape and the
Speaker 1: enough guardrails with Silicon Valley given look at what social
Speaker 1: media did to society and now there's very few guardrails
Speaker 1: on AI. I struggle with this because I want to
Speaker 1: see advancement and I also see, well, you can't trust
Speaker 1: them without some sort of minder there. Where are you
Speaker 1: on do you think Silicon Valley has been regulated enough?
Speaker 3: Well? I think that California.
Speaker 2: Gave away my bias there on that one.
Speaker 1: I did, and it's part of it is to sort
Speaker 1: of spark a conversation for what it's worth.
Speaker 2: But it is.
Speaker 1: And I think I'm not alone here, right there's people
Speaker 1: that think there's too much regulation and big tech has
Speaker 1: too much power.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, big tech is also a huge driver for innovation, employment,
Speaker 3: wealth building, and God help us, and we need to
Speaker 3: keep that in California. There's a lot of movement outside
Speaker 3: of California. You can listen, you can run a tech
Speaker 3: company from anywhere in the world. You can run it
Speaker 3: from the mountains, you can run it from the beach,
Speaker 3: you can run it from anywhere. So California needs to
Speaker 3: remain the most welcoming and the most positive place for
Speaker 3: tech companies of all sizes to want to do business.
Speaker 3: If you look at the AI business, Chuck, one of
Speaker 3: the singular reasons that Dan Lurie has been able to
Speaker 3: tell a comeback story in San Francisco is because of AI,
Speaker 3: because of the employment, because of the leases that have
Speaker 3: been signed in downtown to bring human beings back into
Speaker 3: the city to actually be a part of the tech base.
Speaker 3: So God bless AI and God blessed the tech industry.
Speaker 3: California has passed AI legislation. California has been one of
Speaker 3: the states to pioneer passing legislation that provides some guardrails
Speaker 3: to AI that the rest of the nation is actually modeling.
Speaker 3: Of course, Trump now is threatening to have federal legislation
Speaker 3: that stomps down all of this regulation. We've got to
Speaker 3: find a happy medium. I do think they're legitimate concerns
Speaker 3: on on you know, for human beings and for kids
Speaker 3: about technology and AI. But here's where I generally rest, Chuck,
Speaker 3: and I'll use the analogy of the big gulp in Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: You remember the Yeah, you remember that.
Speaker 1: I allow that it's the Trump Health secretary that seems
Speaker 1: to be anti big Gulp these days.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm sort of like left his right right.
Speaker 3: And I love that part. I love that part of
Speaker 3: rfk's agenda. I love getting rid of the red dye
Speaker 3: number eight, and I love copying more of what Europe
Speaker 3: does in a good way when it comes to our
Speaker 3: supply chain for food. I also believe in science, okay,
Speaker 3: and and and and and you know, in the right vaccine.
Speaker 3: So so I think there's a balance, Chuck. But I
Speaker 3: am I am an anti nanny state guy. I do
Speaker 3: not believe that the government should be telling the private
Speaker 3: sector and individual people how to do what they do
Speaker 3: in general. But yes, some basic guardrails.
Speaker 2: So let me.
Speaker 1: I'm just let me throwing out there banning social media
Speaker 1: for under sixteen year olds.
Speaker 2: Would you sign that legislation?
Speaker 3: Well, listen, Australia did it. I think it's a joke
Speaker 3: because there are so many workarounds to get around that.
Speaker 3: Life So I think, to facto it's a joke. You
Speaker 3: can waive that kind of law round say you're doing something.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, Chuck, it comes down
Speaker 3: to are parents involved in their kids' lives? So, for instance,
Speaker 3: my kids didn't have phones until they were thirteen, and
Speaker 3: the reason they got it is because they were taking
Speaker 3: the train to school and needed a way to communicate. Okay,
Speaker 3: they but all their friends had phones starting at god
Speaker 3: knows what it. So I think parents need to get
Speaker 3: involved with their kids and parent them, and that's really
Speaker 3: where we should we should focus, as opposed to the
Speaker 3: government telling parents or children when to have technology.
Speaker 1: Well, I hear you there, but we did put a
Speaker 1: age limit on smoking, and if we've decided this is bad,
Speaker 1: we think this is bad for mental health of young brains,
Speaker 1: and so it is. Is there any movement for you
Speaker 1: on that?
Speaker 3: Again, here's the thing these A pack of cigarettes, okay,
Speaker 3: is readily accessible for any kid who can get someone
Speaker 3: to sneak it and buy it. And whatever number of bucks,
Speaker 3: I don't buy cigarettes. I'm not sure what they cost
Speaker 3: per pack these days. A piece of technology that we're
Speaker 3: talking about, an Apple watch or a phone, is a
Speaker 3: considered purchase for the vast majority of people in California.
Speaker 3: So it's not like kids are running around at a
Speaker 3: young age buying these technologies and putting them in their
Speaker 3: palm or on their wrists. So I really think it
Speaker 3: comes down to parents being smart and involved.
Speaker 2: Would you ban them in public schools?
Speaker 3: Well, I think I don't believe in universal bands like this.
Speaker 3: I think it's a good idea, though. What certain school
Speaker 3: districts have started to do is say that you cannot
Speaker 3: have have your phone, uh, you know, in your hand
Speaker 3: or you know.
Speaker 1: In my kids' school had pouches at the beginning of
Speaker 1: the class and you put your phone in your pouch
Speaker 1: and you weren't until you know, and then you sat
Speaker 1: down right.
Speaker 3: It's like it's like it's what government officials do befo
Speaker 3: they go into a secure site.
Speaker 2: So Skiff exactly.
Speaker 3: I think these kinds of ideas are good. I think
Speaker 3: they they should be locally determined. I don't believe in
Speaker 3: the State of California imposing things like that on school
Speaker 3: districts or kids or parents.
Speaker 1: Let me get you out of here on this. There's
Speaker 1: a wealth tax coming on the ballot. Huh, there certainly is.
Speaker 1: I imagine it. I know where you stand on this.
Speaker 1: It's probably going to be popular. So how do you
Speaker 1: convince somebody who says, yeah, but you know what, you
Speaker 1: don't pay enough taxes.
Speaker 2: You guys have all the loopholes you have this or that.
Speaker 1: It's it's tough being a defender of the quote wealthy
Speaker 1: on this right, we know the pitchforks have been sharpened,
Speaker 1: and the pitchforks are in both parties you and have.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not a just on.
Speaker 2: The left thing.
Speaker 1: These this is this is the most interesting divide in
Speaker 1: America I think is this is this a bit of
Speaker 1: the on the socioeconomic front. Make the case to a
Speaker 1: working class person that the wealth tax is a bad idea.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm against all new taxes, and in California, including
Speaker 3: this this this billionaire tax in California, which I know
Speaker 3: this happens in other states, huck. There is a hidden
Speaker 3: system of what are called special funds. So a county
Speaker 3: or the state will say, hey, we have a huge need,
Speaker 3: for example, a big beautiful bill cut healthcare spending. We
Speaker 3: want to initiate a new tax, a sales tax. It's
Speaker 3: a tenth of a percent. You're not going to notice it.
Speaker 3: It's going to it's gonna accrue the county five hundred
Speaker 3: million dollars over the next four years, and we're going
Speaker 3: to use that money to pay for healthcare. What happens
Speaker 3: that money is raised and it is shifted into the
Speaker 3: general fund of the county or the state to be
Speaker 3: spent on anything. Chuck, this is the bait and switch
Speaker 3: that happens with taxpayers, and we're already over taxed. This
Speaker 3: is like a slippery slope. It's lots of other ideas
Speaker 3: of taking more money from taxpayers giving it to government
Speaker 3: to spend on dumb shit or stuff that doesn't work.
Speaker 3: That's my argument.
Speaker 1: If you get elected, you know you're going to be
Speaker 1: dealing with a democratic legislature, perhaps a super majority. But
Speaker 1: then again, if you get elected, I probably mean so,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't a super majority. I think this is assuming
Speaker 1: you make it into the top two. It's tough to
Speaker 1: be bipartisan these days.
Speaker 2: How would you do it?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I'll give a quick anecdote from Willie Brown,
Speaker 3: who I sat down with from my podcast last July.
Speaker 3: This is prior to commute.
Speaker 1: Nobody more fun to talk to. I think he's all
Speaker 1: the five. I think he's one of the five most
Speaker 1: accomplished politicians in the twentieth century.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe right.
Speaker 1: The fact that he stayed Speaker of the House with
Speaker 1: the party change tell me another leader that could pull
Speaker 1: that off.
Speaker 3: Well. Actually, he told the story that when he was
Speaker 3: elected speaker, more Republicans voted him in than Democrats, which
Speaker 3: you may know because you're such a student of politics.
Speaker 1: Such a great story. A movie should be made about it.
Speaker 1: But anyways, it's a great story.
Speaker 3: And there are plenty of areas of disagreement I might
Speaker 3: have with Willie Brown down in policies in California. But
Speaker 3: I asked him, what's the biggest lesson you learned when
Speaker 3: you were a mayor or the speaker? And he tugged
Speaker 3: his ear and he said, I listened, and he said,
Speaker 3: I was just as likely to have dinner into Larry,
Speaker 3: which is, you know, farm country here in California. As
Speaker 3: I was San Francisco, I spent time with people. I
Speaker 3: formed relationships with people, and I cut deals with people.
Speaker 3: And to quote Jerry Brown, who I have plenty of
Speaker 3: policy disagreements with, he said, you know, if you want
Speaker 3: to make a canu goo straight, sometimes you paddle on
Speaker 3: the left and sometimes you paddle on the right. Okay,
Speaker 3: I'm quoting two Democrats. What I would say is that
Speaker 3: you got to be practical, you got to cut deals,
Speaker 3: but sometimes you stand on principle. Sometimes you use executive order,
Speaker 3: sometimes you use the bully pulpit, sometimes you negotiate. But
Speaker 3: we've got to do it together, Chuck. There's only one way.
Speaker 1: Well, I think we're all trying to figure out if
Speaker 1: pragmatism isn't it is allowed anymore in our politics, to
Speaker 1: say that it gets punished by the political basis, that's
Speaker 1: for sure.
Speaker 2: Hey, John, it's good to get to know you.
Speaker 3: I appreciate Thank you very much, Chuck,