Speaker 1: Hey, America, is Peter Schweitzer sitting next to me as
Speaker 1: Eric Eggers and we are filling in for Sean joined
Speaker 1: the conversation at one eight hundred nine four one seven
Speaker 1: three two six one eight hundred nine four one seven
Speaker 1: three two six. I'm looking at front of me some
Speaker 1: really disastrous numbers. Latest Gallup poll approval rating for Congress
Speaker 1: fifteen percent, not fifty percent. Fifteen percent. I'm also noticing
Speaker 1: that fifty three members of Congress are going to be
Speaker 1: not seeking reelection in the twenty twenty six midterm elections.
Speaker 1: That's pretty devastating for the institution.
Speaker 2: So why do you consider that to be devastating news?
Speaker 2: Number One? If Congress is so bad that they're approved
Speaker 2: written is only fifteen percent, then maybe swapping out over
Speaker 2: ten percent of it's not the worst idea. Maybe we
Speaker 2: just got to get the roster better. It's like, you know,
Speaker 2: the Jets and the Giants have had terrible years, so
Speaker 2: I would expect a few of those team members to
Speaker 2: come back. But I do think it's it's telling because
Speaker 2: you know some people are leaving Congress to want to
Speaker 2: go out out and you know they're gonna run for
Speaker 2: different officers. Like Chip Roy's running for age in Texas,
Speaker 2: Wesley Hunts winner for Senate, so as Jasmincrockett. But you
Speaker 2: hear rumors, and we've been hearing it for some time,
Speaker 2: there's a growing sense of dissatisfaction in specifically the House
Speaker 2: GOP Caucus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's exactly right. You know, it's a very razor
Speaker 1: thin majority and a lot of people are frustrated. Seems
Speaker 1: to be dysfunctional. You've got people like Marjorie Taylor Green
Speaker 1: that make noise and kind of disrupt everything. So we
Speaker 1: wanted to talk to somebody who's actually been there. Our
Speaker 1: good friend Jason Chafis. He was the chairman of the
Speaker 1: House Oversight Committee, very powerful committee serving Congress representing Utah,
Speaker 1: and he's also a distinguished fellow with the Government Accountability Institute.
Speaker 3: Where we work.
Speaker 1: Jason makes sense of these numbers. I mean, why are
Speaker 1: the numbers fifteen percent, which is historically low, and why
Speaker 1: do you think so many people are leaving Congress at
Speaker 1: this point in time.
Speaker 4: You're asking me to make sense of Congress. Listen and
Speaker 4: look honored to be with you. A happy new year. Look,
Speaker 4: it's a I think members are very frustrated and it's not.
Speaker 4: It's on both sides of the aisle. It is not
Speaker 4: solely a Republican situation. But members feel like they can't
Speaker 4: do their jobs, and people buy start to glaze over
Speaker 4: when you talk about regular order. But the way the
Speaker 4: appropriations process is supposed to work is that we have
Speaker 4: twelve appropriations built and every member can offer an amendment
Speaker 4: or a striking amendment and participate in the process. But
Speaker 4: the entire eight years that I was there, and even
Speaker 4: the eight years since I've left, never, not once, have
Speaker 4: they gone through a quote unquote regular order. So I
Speaker 4: you know, I joke with people, I say, you know,
Speaker 4: it's exhausting doing nothing, because what happens is they go
Speaker 4: through all the process, they go through all the hearings,
Speaker 4: they go through all the rigmarole, and then they want
Speaker 4: to craft a bill and then it just gets superseded
Speaker 4: by a continuing resolution and they flush all that good
Speaker 4: work down the drain, and that get that wears on
Speaker 4: people when you've been away from your family and all
Speaker 4: the other opportunity costs, and people get set up with it.
Speaker 2: No, that actually makes a lot of sense, and it
Speaker 2: actually casts the people who are leaving Congress in a
Speaker 2: positive light, no joking around, because it means like to
Speaker 2: your point, like you know, you want your life to
Speaker 2: matter and you want what you do to do something.
Speaker 2: And it also kind of suggests that if given the
Speaker 2: frustrations you run into on a daily basis of doing
Speaker 2: that job, then the only reason why you might want
Speaker 2: to stay in that job is if you're making money
Speaker 2: doing something else, and so you then they get rid
Speaker 2: of the inside of trading in Congress, which is something
Speaker 2: that we expect them to vote on, but it doesn't
Speaker 2: suggests like, hey, like why are we actually even here?
Speaker 4: Then well, look, I think the body has to implement
Speaker 4: and do and pass into law. It's not a constitutional
Speaker 4: amendment to have term limits, get and get out. The
Speaker 4: people you should worry about most are the ones that
Speaker 4: stay there in perpetuity and never ever leave there. They're
Speaker 4: a decade after decade. I when I left, there were
Speaker 4: kind of three groups. There were people there, Hey, I
Speaker 4: got nothing better to do, and it's a cool business
Speaker 4: card and it's kind of fun. Number two is pretty
Speaker 4: pretty weird, like they're they're all about the power and
Speaker 4: maybe doing something that's pretty sketch. And then the third group,
Speaker 4: I put myself in there. But there are really good
Speaker 4: people who wanted to get in get work done, you know,
Speaker 4: And I served with a number of those people, Trey
Speaker 4: Goudie and John Ratcliffe and those types of people. Pulci
Speaker 4: Gabbard was one of those people. You know. Now there
Speaker 4: many of them are in the administration. But they they
Speaker 4: got in, they served, and they got out, and you've
Speaker 4: got to kind of force that. The other thing I
Speaker 4: would do is get rid of the Appropriations Committee. I
Speaker 4: would just totally flush it down the toilet, get rid
Speaker 4: of it. It is totally worthless, top to bottom. You
Speaker 4: have all these authorizing committees, they hold hearings, they know
Speaker 4: natural resources, and then the appropriators come in and by
Speaker 4: the hundreds fund programs that were never authorized by the
Speaker 4: authorising committees. It's the craziest thing you've ever seen. And
Speaker 4: so that again gets really frustrated. Hey, we held hearings.
Speaker 4: And the other thing Congress never does is flex its muscles.
Speaker 4: It never ever uses the power of the purse. That's
Speaker 4: the one thing that Congress can do. It's like, you know,
Speaker 4: all these daycare centers in Minnesota and all that, well,
Speaker 4: there should be consequences, but Congress is feckless, and so
Speaker 4: members are tired of taking those questions and they're like,
Speaker 4: I can't change it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, Jason, that's really as I hear you
Speaker 1: talking about this, and I've known you for a while,
Speaker 1: you're sincere in it. I think your analysis is right.
Speaker 1: And then you wonder, like, so, this is this a
Speaker 1: problem of leadership?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, this problem didn't just sort of like land
Speaker 1: on people's laps. Somebody is responsible for this dysfunction. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it's one person. I'm not even saying it's
Speaker 1: half a dozen people. But is this a leadership problem?
Speaker 1: I mean, you talked about some structural reforms, getting rid
Speaker 1: of the committee, et cetera. But is it a leadership issue?
Speaker 1: Do the wrong people rise to the top or why
Speaker 1: do we get leaders that don't seem to be able
Speaker 1: to tame this beast and get it to do the
Speaker 1: things that's supposed to do.
Speaker 4: You know, it's interesting because I have long sought to
Speaker 4: redefine the role of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Speaker 4: I think Mike Johnson is a fabulous person. He is
Speaker 4: a man of integrity, of nothing but good things to
Speaker 4: say about him. He has the most impossible jobs. We
Speaker 4: give him no tools to actually do it. The expectation
Speaker 4: is that he can herd all these cats and move
Speaker 4: them in the right direction. We got rid of ear marks.
Speaker 4: I was proud of the fact that I, you know,
Speaker 4: I played a big role in that and say no,
Speaker 4: we're done with ear marks, even though everybody in the
Speaker 4: Utah delegation when I came there was supportive of it,
Speaker 4: and I kind of forced him and shamed him into
Speaker 4: getting rid of them. Well, that was the political candy
Speaker 4: that made everything go down easier. And so when you
Speaker 4: get rid of earmarks, what tools does the speaker have
Speaker 4: to actually cajole and move people. I don't think you
Speaker 4: necessarily want to. The role that speakers should be totally different.
Speaker 4: But the body as the whole and the American people
Speaker 4: have to force this issue. And it's not the sexiest
Speaker 4: thing to say, all right, we're reconfiguring this. No more
Speaker 4: appropriations committees, no more. But it's broken now and it
Speaker 4: needs fixing. And term limits is I think one of
Speaker 4: the very first steps a balanced budget amendment would go
Speaker 4: a long way. Voter ID you know Mike Lee's, you know,
Speaker 4: Dave acts to make sure we have voter identification because
Speaker 4: you literally have more than a dozen seats in Congress
Speaker 4: that are essentially illegal aliens that get representations. So these
Speaker 4: things I think would make a difference.
Speaker 3: Let me let me ask you this, Jason.
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems to me, and everything I've heard
Speaker 1: about Speaker Johnson is the same, just high quality individual,
Speaker 1: but seems to me, you look over the last twenty years,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi was absolutely had a spine of steel. She
Speaker 1: could get all the Democrats to stay in line. Republicans
Speaker 1: don't seem to be able to do that.
Speaker 4: Why she controlled the money. If you wanted to raise
Speaker 4: money and have a political future, look at Tim Ryan
Speaker 4: out of Ohio, and when he went up against Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 4: he was done. We never talk about him anymore. So
Speaker 4: she ruled that iron fist, and she was darn good
Speaker 4: at it. And look, conceptually they were lemmings. They really
Speaker 4: did believe in centralized government. Where Republicans talk about freedom, liberty, dealth, determination.
Speaker 4: That just counter to oh okay, our leader says we're
Speaker 4: going over here, so everybody get on board. The closest
Speaker 4: I've seened actual you know, driving and moving everybody together
Speaker 4: in the same direction as Donald Trump, and he does
Speaker 4: it because he will when he lets know that that's
Speaker 4: what he wants done, he is going to he is
Speaker 4: going to make his way known. But you know he's
Speaker 4: doing it the right way, the political way. But it's
Speaker 4: going to probably take the outside groups, maybe some other
Speaker 4: structural changes. But it is not functional right now, and
Speaker 4: it's not serving the American people. Well, they're showing up
Speaker 4: in the poll numbers.
Speaker 2: We're talking to former Member of Congress Jason Chaffits. He's
Speaker 2: also the former chair of the House Oversight Committee. Jason,
Speaker 2: what grade would you give James Comer for the last
Speaker 2: year and if you could request or sort of predict
Speaker 2: one thing he will do next year, what would it be?
Speaker 4: I give him an A plus. I think he will
Speaker 4: ultimately end up running for governor of Kentucky, and I
Speaker 4: think he'll be a fabulous governor. He has his hands full.
Speaker 4: You know, we transformed that committee. He used to be
Speaker 4: a committee nobody wanted on when I was there, and
Speaker 4: you know, after we got done, it's the most popular
Speaker 4: committee out there. The frustrating thing for I think for
Speaker 4: the American public is they don't give Congress handcuffs, and
Speaker 4: so it was a frustration because we point out all
Speaker 4: the waste, the fraud, the abuse they have, the hearings,
Speaker 4: you got people under oath, and you make a recommendation,
Speaker 4: it goes over to the Department of Justice and it's
Speaker 4: crickets and and that's that's the frustration. And uh, something's
Speaker 4: got to give because I think the American people that
Speaker 4: are doing things right, they're working hard, paying their taxes,
Speaker 4: got a job taking care of that, they feel like
Speaker 4: chumps right now. They just feel like they feel like
Speaker 4: they're chumps, Like why should I do this? You know,
Speaker 4: you see what's going on in Minnesota and other places.
Speaker 1: You know who thinks James Comer's doing a lousy job?
Speaker 1: Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, here, here's here's here's a guy, really the
Speaker 1: first government official who said we are going to subpoena
Speaker 1: you and you were going to sit before the Congressional Committee.
Speaker 3: How do you think that's all going to end up? Jason?
Speaker 1: Do you think the Clinton's are actually going to have
Speaker 1: to sit before this committee?
Speaker 3: I'm not sure they can avoid it.
Speaker 4: You know, Trey Goudy, I think said it out loud first.
Speaker 4: He said, you your subpoena is only good as your
Speaker 4: ability to enforce it. I went down that path, but
Speaker 4: I had a speaker in Paul Ryan, who's no way
Speaker 4: going to support that. You had an attorney general and
Speaker 4: Jeff Sessions who told me, if it's Clinton's I'm doing nothing.
Speaker 4: You know, it's in large bar why I left and so,
Speaker 4: and then prior to that, it was the Obama administration.
Speaker 4: So you know, good luck with you know, Loretta Lynch
Speaker 4: and Eric Holder and that crew. So I think he
Speaker 4: now finally probably has somebody in a Pam Bondi and
Speaker 4: a judge Janine who's the US attorney for the District
Speaker 4: of Columbia. But they're actually going to be able to
Speaker 4: force the issue, and that showdown is going to be
Speaker 4: a big one. But I think they're going to have
Speaker 4: to come testify, I raise their hands and go under oath.
Speaker 2: So every two years as an election year, obviously, but
Speaker 2: this year, with especially tight majority of the Republicans are
Speaker 2: holding How much does that impact how Congress operates? Does
Speaker 2: it impact in terms of, like, hey, we're more willing
Speaker 2: to hold hearings because we think it's better for you know,
Speaker 2: there's only thirty seats that are kind of up for grabs.
Speaker 2: How much does that impact just the way they do
Speaker 2: their day to day business, Oh, one hundred percent.
Speaker 4: I mean the last six months of this term, I
Speaker 4: think is being dishonest if you don't think that that
Speaker 4: has a big you know, their political ramifications. Look, a
Speaker 4: lot of it depends on the economy, A lot of
Speaker 4: it depends on some of these important court rulings of birthright, citizenship,
Speaker 4: those types of things. There're gonna be some really big
Speaker 4: rulings coming out of the court that will affect that.
Speaker 4: But yeah, Congress has got to get it back together.
Speaker 4: They get another shot at reconciliation and so you know
Speaker 4: what can they couple together that will make a difference
Speaker 4: in people's lives. Yeah, Congress has it's full because there
Speaker 4: is nowhere He's come so far in the first it's
Speaker 4: hard to believe it's been less than twelve months of
Speaker 4: Donald Trump here in his term. But yeah, there's a
Speaker 4: lot that people want to see in terms of affordability, healthcare,
Speaker 4: those types of things.
Speaker 1: Well, Jason, we understand why you left Congress. Kind of
Speaker 1: wish you hadn't because we need people like you in there.
Speaker 1: But we appreciate you joining us. We appreciate the work
Speaker 1: you're doing with us at the Government Accountability Institute and
Speaker 1: also the work you're doing with the Oversight Project. And
Speaker 1: we will have to wait and see how the midterms
Speaker 1: roll out. So happy New Year to you, Jason, and
Speaker 1: we will continue to watch this story closely in terms
Speaker 1: of these midterms and how things are going to turn out.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Eric, if you have any thoughts on that.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: I like Jason Chafis. Not only does he go on
Speaker 2: TV all the time as a fill and host for
Speaker 2: many these programs, but he's just making news now. You
Speaker 2: heard him say he thinks James Comer leaves Congress, joins
Speaker 2: this ground swell of people trying to get out of Washington,
Speaker 2: d C. And runs for governor Kentucky. That's the first
Speaker 2: time I've heard that. You agree with that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, no, it's it's gonna be interesting to see
Speaker 1: how that shakes out. It's going to be interesting to
Speaker 1: see how all this jerrymandering affects the outcome of the
Speaker 1: elections in November. I'm Peter Schweizer. That's Eric Eggers. We're
Speaker 1: filling in on the Hannity Show. We'll be back right
Speaker 1: after this break.
Speaker 5: The world is a wait wait and watching President Trump's
Speaker 5: every move.
Speaker 4: I will fight for you. And they're well rested too
Speaker 4: after four years of sleepy Joel.
Speaker 2: This is a Sean Hannity show.
Speaker 5: My folks, time to talk about real money gold and silver.
Speaker 5: Now the analyst, you know, the guy's buying closed doors,
Speaker 5: digging deep into the data. Well, they are making big
Speaker 5: predictions for twenty twenty six. Now they now see gold
Speaker 5: hitting five thousand dollars and ounce. Wow, how about silver?
Speaker 5: We're talking about silver surging toward an unbel believable one
Speaker 5: hundred dollars an ounce. I'm gonna tell you what. I'm
Speaker 5: not waiting until I see these prices in the headlines.
Speaker 5: I'm taking action out. That's why I am a customer
Speaker 5: of the best in the business, and that is Gold Co.
Speaker 5: They are my number one pick for gold and silver.
Speaker 5: I trust them to help diversify and protect my retirement savings.
Speaker 5: Right now, they're offering you a free twenty twenty six
Speaker 5: gold and silver kit, plus a limited time offer where
Speaker 5: you can get ten percent instant match in bonus gold
Speaker 5: or silver just for getting started. Call now eight five
Speaker 5: five eight one five gold or just go to Hannitigold
Speaker 5: dot com. That's eight five five eight one five go
Speaker 5: o ld or hannitigold one word dot com. Hey, if
Speaker 5: you ever thought about upgrading your Windows treatments but didn't
Speaker 5: want the hassle, our friends at blinds dot Com are
Speaker 5: here to change the game. They are the only company
Speaker 5: that lets you shop for custom blinds and shades online.
Speaker 5: You just go to blinds dot Com. You can skip
Speaker 5: the stress. Blinds dot Com makes it easy to get
Speaker 5: that designer look without that showroom mark up. Now you
Speaker 5: get the same quality, the same service you would at
Speaker 5: other high end stores, but you get it at a
Speaker 5: fraction of the price. Now samples, They'll send them to
Speaker 5: your door directly. Now more than just blinds, blinds dot
Speaker 5: Com carries everything from bamboo shades to shutters, outdoor shades
Speaker 5: for your patio, and much much more. All blinds dot
Speaker 5: Com orders are back with their one hundred percent satisfaction guaranteed.
Speaker 5: Right now, blinds dot Com is giving you my listeners
Speaker 5: and exclusive fifty dollars off offer when you spend five
Speaker 5: hundred bucks or more. This is the promo coach sewn
Speaker 5: Sea and when you check out, it's the limited timeoffer.
Speaker 5: Does go to blinds dot com for details. Rules and
Speaker 5: restrictions may apply.
Speaker 2: It's Friday, January second. Welcome back to the Sean Handy
Speaker 2: Show on Mark Edgers. This is Peter Schweitzer. Alongside with me,
Speaker 2: we co host a podcast called The Drill Down with
Speaker 2: Peter Schweizer, which you can find at the Drilldown dot com.
Speaker 2: Happy to be filled in for Sean yet again on
Speaker 2: this first live show of the year twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2: Peter that you do quite well because you're a best
Speaker 2: selling author, but you live in Floridas. You don't have
Speaker 2: this problem if you are as successful as Peter, if
Speaker 2: you are a billionaire who lives in California, I have
Speaker 2: terrible news for you. You're on the hook for some
Speaker 2: really potentially expensive taxes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you are. And look, we have to remind ourselves.
Speaker 1: We have a federal system in America. So Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: in the White House, Republicans control of the House, they
Speaker 1: control the Senate, but there's a lot of states they're making.
Speaker 3: Their own decisions.
Speaker 1: So we're going to talk in a little bit here
Speaker 1: about the proposed wealth tax in California. There's not a
Speaker 1: tax on income, there's not a property tax. This is
Speaker 1: you're worth how much money, We're gonna take five percent
Speaker 1: of it, and we're going to learn about some other
Speaker 1: really bizarre woke laws, including ones involving horses. Coming up
Speaker 1: in the next segment. We've got to remind ourselves there's
Speaker 1: crazy things going on at the state level by the
Speaker 1: woke mafia.
Speaker 3: Even right now.
Speaker 2: We'd love to hear from you. Give us a call,
Speaker 2: Join the Conversation one eight hundred and nine four one
Speaker 2: seven three tiour one. Shawn will take your calls and
Speaker 2: tell you crazy things about horses and billionaires. Right after this,
Speaker 2: he's Peter Schweitzer. I'm Eric Eggers. This is Sean Handy
Speaker 2: Radio Show, Sean Hennedy.
Speaker 1: That is Eric Eggers, and I'm Peter Schweitzer, and we
Speaker 1: are filling in for Sean, who is getting a well
Speaker 1: deserved break. Join the Conversation wearning eighte hundred ninet four
Speaker 1: one seven three two six one eight hundred nine four
Speaker 1: one seven three two six. You know, Donald Trump's done
Speaker 1: a lot of the first years we talked about earlier
Speaker 1: in the segment, changing a lot of things, but at
Speaker 1: the state level there still is a lot of craziness, uh,
Speaker 1: and some things that are really going to affect a
Speaker 1: lot of people.
Speaker 2: We're quite lucky because we both live in the Free
Speaker 2: State of Florida, and so you know, we're we've got
Speaker 2: people talking about getting rid of property taxes. Roon de
Speaker 2: Sants has done a great job, but other states, to
Speaker 2: your point, have maybe gone the other way on that's
Speaker 2: as that kind of fells a little short of conservative
Speaker 2: fiscal and social policy initiatives.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is a very interesting article by Camden Molder
Speaker 1: in the National Review talking about what's going on some
Speaker 1: of the blue state laws in twenty twenty five. Some
Speaker 1: of them are obviously predictable. California mandates gender neutral bathrooms
Speaker 1: in K through twelve schools. You're mandated, mandated required to
Speaker 1: have them, whether it's a charter school or a public school.
Speaker 1: And by the way, taxpayers will pay for all of
Speaker 1: those renovations. But some of them are just downright crazy
Speaker 1: if you ask me. In Washington State, they have now
Speaker 1: mandated hate crime work leave, hate crime work leave.
Speaker 2: That is to say, you get to leave work if
Speaker 2: you've been a victim of a hate crime.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you have experienced a hate crime, your boss
Speaker 1: is now required to give you ample time off to
Speaker 1: heal and recover from the experience. Now, I can certainly
Speaker 1: understand if you are attacked in the street, somebody beats
Speaker 1: you up, you're gonna need.
Speaker 3: Some time off.
Speaker 1: But this covers everything. So if you are harassed online
Speaker 1: or on social media, or somebody calls you a name
Speaker 1: in in you know, online media, your employers required to
Speaker 1: give you the time off without penalty to quote get
Speaker 1: your affairs in order.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: The real irony of that is, like, if you are
Speaker 2: subjected to a hate crime as a Washington State resident,
Speaker 2: the odds are that happened because you're goofing off at
Speaker 2: work Online. You're probably just hanging on Reddit or something
Speaker 2: and in too many of your comment's got down vote
Speaker 2: and you're like, I'm triggering. I'm out, yes, and you're
Speaker 2: taking some time off. You're rewarded for being a bad employee.
Speaker 3: I like that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: In the state of Connecticut, they have banned this is bizarre.
Speaker 1: They have banned hostile infrastructure that deters unhoused people from
Speaker 1: sleeping on benches, sidewalks, et cetera. So this is public
Speaker 1: Act twenty five, Dash forty nine.
Speaker 3: A component of the.
Speaker 1: Bill says that unhoused citizens now are allowed to sleep
Speaker 1: where they can, and in fact, it bans hostile architecture.
Speaker 2: Now, so do you know what that like. We actually
Speaker 2: have examples of that in the city that we live in.
Speaker 2: There's a lake that's not too far from our office
Speaker 2: where we're doing the show from, and they put in
Speaker 2: benches because there was an unhoused population problem. Too many
Speaker 2: people are kind of accosting the families and stuff. So
Speaker 2: they put in little bars in the middle of the bench,
Speaker 2: like a little spiky thing, you know, you could it's
Speaker 2: like a little armrest, maybe, yeah, but it's meant to
Speaker 2: keep people from sleeping on the benches. So that would
Speaker 2: be a crime in Connecticut.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: In fact, armrests in the middle of a bench are
Speaker 1: considered hostile architecture and are now banned in the state
Speaker 1: of Connecticut. The bill, of course, passed with no Republican support.
Speaker 2: Well, I will say this, you know, if I'm sympathetic
Speaker 2: to any of them, I might be sympathetic to that,
Speaker 2: because if you're a homeless person in Connecticut, your problem
Speaker 2: is not architecture. Your problem is the cold. Like I
Speaker 2: respect to you for being a homeless person in Connecticut.
Speaker 2: You're tough.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Well, also in the state of Illinois, they
Speaker 1: pass a law that insurance plans now must cover therapeutic
Speaker 1: horse riding. So this is in August, Governor JB. Prisker
Speaker 1: signed to Senate Bill sixty nine into law. It requires
Speaker 1: insurance companies to cover hippotherapy. Now, I'd never heard of hippotherapy.
Speaker 1: That's apparently therapy with horses. But this mandates that insurance
Speaker 1: plans cover horse therapy for physical or occupational or speech therapy.
Speaker 1: Through the interacting where they horse.
Speaker 2: Illinois so corrupt and transactional. Remember Rod Bogoyvitch was like,
Speaker 2: I have a Senate seat to sell. I'm about to
Speaker 2: make so much money off of this. So when you
Speaker 2: tell me that, it makes me think that the horse
Speaker 2: lobby is that they got their finger on the pulse
Speaker 2: of the legislature there, Like we got all these horses and
Speaker 2: nobody's trying to ride it to cold in Chicago. We
Speaker 2: need to get on the horse therapy game.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and again people wonder why their health's insurance rates
Speaker 1: go up. I'm not saying it's just things, but there
Speaker 1: are a lot of crazy things that get embedded. Where
Speaker 1: states require insurance companies to cover things, their cost go up.
Speaker 3: They're going to raise their their prices.
Speaker 2: So those are laws that actually passed. A law that
Speaker 2: has been proposed is a valid initiative that would impose
Speaker 2: a one time five percent tax on anyone in the
Speaker 2: state of California worth a billion dollars the service employers
Speaker 2: in International Union. The SEIU has proposed this. Now, of
Speaker 2: course it's California, so there's always other stuff going on.
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom seems to loom large over this idea. What
Speaker 2: do you think about this proposed one time five percent
Speaker 2: wealth tax on billionaires.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, one time. I mean, come on,
Speaker 1: they say it's one time. If they actually pull it
Speaker 1: off and they get some revenue, even though a lot
Speaker 1: of people are gonna leave, they're gonna do it again.
Speaker 1: It's a shakedown. Once you give into a shakedown one time,
Speaker 1: you're gonna get it more often. But this is I
Speaker 1: think a major escalation and taxation in America is because
Speaker 1: you're not talking about taxing somebody's home or you know,
Speaker 1: they're commercial real estate and a property tax or an
Speaker 1: income tax that we've had, you know, for the last
Speaker 1: century in the United States. You're saying all the money
Speaker 1: that you've saved up over the course of however long
Speaker 1: your career is, even if it's a billion dollars, we're
Speaker 1: gonna take five percent of a chunk of that and
Speaker 1: we are going to use it to fix the fiscal
Speaker 1: crisis that California is in, because after all, the problem
Speaker 1: in California is that people do not pay enough taxes.
Speaker 1: And if we just get more tax revenue, things are
Speaker 1: going to get better in California.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that's the problem with California. Not enough revenue
Speaker 2: the real problem.
Speaker 1: But here's the contrast. By the way we live in Florida.
Speaker 1: Texas is considering the same thing. Big states. California is
Speaker 1: the biggest, but we're in big states. Our two states. Well,
Speaker 1: in the state of Florida, I should say, we have
Speaker 1: no state income tax. They are actually considering eliminating property
Speaker 1: taxes on your primary residents. And they say they can
Speaker 1: do this and there will be no cutbacks. And yet California,
Speaker 1: which has the highest state income tax in the country,
Speaker 1: and you know, has all these fiscal problems which we
Speaker 1: don't have in Florida. They're just going to now implement
Speaker 1: a new tax. Apparently, if this thing actually passes as
Speaker 1: a state initiative.
Speaker 2: Well, by the way, the tax on your net worth
Speaker 2: is worth pointing out, would happen because you've accumulated that
Speaker 2: net worth after paying taxes on your income. So you're
Speaker 2: gonna be paying taxes again on money that you got
Speaker 2: to keep after being taxed the first time. So major
Speaker 2: problems there. I would suggest that the reason why California
Speaker 2: is in this difficult problem that they need to raise
Speaker 2: enough money from this proposal is because of how expensive
Speaker 2: it is to be in California. Now remember this, We've
Speaker 2: talked about this on a podcast before, but for four
Speaker 2: years in a row, California had the largest net loss
Speaker 2: of one way movers that don't take my worth word,
Speaker 2: that's U haul U hauls. Like no, we literally run
Speaker 2: out of U hauls in California because people are doing
Speaker 2: too many one way they get the U haul in California,
Speaker 2: they take it anywhere else, Yeah, anywhere else that it's
Speaker 2: much cheaper. And so you know, Gaven Newsom at one
Speaker 2: point had a ninety eight billion dollar budget surplus because
Speaker 2: of all the federal COVID subsidies, and he managed Gavin
Speaker 2: Newsom did this is the potential presidential front right for
Speaker 2: the Democrat Party to turn a ninety eight billion dollars
Speaker 2: for a plus to do a forty five billion dollar
Speaker 2: budget deficit.
Speaker 1: Hey, not everybody has a great year, right m M yeah, No,
Speaker 1: it's it's what's going to be interesting to watch in
Speaker 1: this whole debate is I don't think Gavin Newsom has
Speaker 1: taken a public position on this tax, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: is being pushed by the Service Employees International Union. What
Speaker 1: does this have to do with union organizing?
Speaker 3: Nothing?
Speaker 1: I mean, this is just pure political activism. But Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom's in a dilemma because he's going to run for president.
Speaker 1: That seems pretty clear he needs the progressives. They have
Speaker 1: the energy in the party. That's clearly the center of
Speaker 1: gravity in the party. Anybody who campaigns is a moderate
Speaker 1: for president is going to have a hard time getting
Speaker 1: the nomination. But if you go into Crazyville, right, you
Speaker 1: go too far to the left, Ala Bernie Sanders or
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: You're gonna lose. You're gonna lose.
Speaker 1: Because that's not where the center of gravity of the
Speaker 1: of the country is. So he's got to straddle this.
Speaker 1: He doesn't want to offend the progressives. But on the
Speaker 1: other hand. He knows this is a stupid idea, because
Speaker 1: the New York Times is reported that already Sergey Brinn
Speaker 1: and Peter Tiel, these Silicon Valley billionaire investor made plans
Speaker 1: last year in twenty twenty five to change their residents
Speaker 1: in anticipation of this bill. Because, by the way, what's
Speaker 1: interesting is this is a referendum to be held in
Speaker 1: November of twenty twenty six. It's retroactive. So if you
Speaker 1: live there today on January the second, and you've got
Speaker 1: that kind of money and this thing passes, it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter where you move, they're going to come after you.
Speaker 2: Well, it turns out the billionaires they part of the
Speaker 2: reason that they become billionaires is they pay lawyers and accountants.
Speaker 2: So I guess they had a bit of a heads
Speaker 2: up on this. But I want to follow up on
Speaker 2: something you just said, because you're right, the center of gravity,
Speaker 2: the energy for Democrats running for president, the presidential primary
Speaker 2: certainly is the progressive There's no doubt about that. So
Speaker 2: you need them to be successful in a presidential campaign,
Speaker 2: but you also need money, and you need then the
Speaker 2: support of progressive billionaires. So you wrote a book called
Speaker 2: Extortion and you introduced this idea. It is brilliant back
Speaker 2: in the time. Came out in twenty thirteen, but it
Speaker 2: was this idea that members of Congress will introduce legislation
Speaker 2: that they don't actually intend for it to pass, but
Speaker 2: they use it as a vehicle to do what.
Speaker 1: To extort money? Right in other words, Oh, this real
Speaker 1: and I go here where you're going with this? And
Speaker 1: it's really a great point for Gavin Newsom. This is
Speaker 1: a way to get progressive billionaires to back him because
Speaker 1: he's the only guy that can stop this, right, he's
Speaker 1: the only guy. It's the classic you know, the mafia
Speaker 1: shows up at the corner deli in town and they say, oh,
Speaker 1: it'd be a shame if this place burned down. I've
Speaker 1: got fire insurance. I'll protect you. That's essentially what the
Speaker 1: move could be here and that that's a great point.
Speaker 1: I mean, if he's trying to shore up the fundraising
Speaker 1: for a twenty eight presidential campaign, this is the way
Speaker 1: that Gavin Newsom can get a lot.
Speaker 3: Of that back.
Speaker 2: And he comes to you, he said, listen, I'm the
Speaker 2: only thing staying between you and a five percent tax
Speaker 2: on your net worth. California residents and so give me.
Speaker 3: Two percent of your network and you'll come up three percent.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's a great idea, but I'm in
Speaker 2: this weird spot because I'm gavin news to him and
Speaker 2: I went, I pivoted from having Steve Bannon on podcasts
Speaker 2: and now I'm like, you know, back in support of
Speaker 2: all these progressive ideas, and I'm trolling Donald Trump, and
Speaker 2: I'm you know, I delivered the biggest actual win in
Speaker 2: terms of the redistricting initiative in California, so like, people
Speaker 2: aren't so much concerned about the fact that California is
Speaker 2: a failed state with multi billion dollar budget deficits because
Speaker 2: I did this thing that seems like it's helping to
Speaker 2: fight Donald Trump. I just think he's very smart politically, Yes,
Speaker 2: And it wouldn't shock me if this is part of
Speaker 2: his larger plan to position himself, because yeah, how can
Speaker 2: you kind of straddle it? Hey, Look, we want to
Speaker 2: be you know, we want to fight against people, but
Speaker 2: I also need the support. So I think this is
Speaker 2: part of his presidential campaign.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton had back in the day in nineteen ninety two,
Speaker 1: the so called Sister Soldia Moment.
Speaker 3: There was a musical performer Sister Soldier.
Speaker 1: I think she was a rapper and some you know,
Speaker 1: raunchy lyrics at least back in the day. And Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton denounced her and said this is cultural rot. We
Speaker 1: can't have this in the country. He took criticism from
Speaker 1: some people in Democratic Party but sort of centered his
Speaker 1: reputation as somebody that was prepared to police both sides.
Speaker 1: So this would be the move for Gavin Newsome, and
Speaker 1: it makes a lot of sense, and it could be
Speaker 1: very very effective going up to twenty twenty eight, at
Speaker 1: least in terms of getting the Democratic nomination and doing
Speaker 1: so by not having to go so far to the
Speaker 1: left that he alienates too many voters in the middle.
Speaker 2: It'd be really interesting to see what happens. And you know,
Speaker 2: there's been a lot of talk about the Minnesota Somali fraud,
Speaker 2: and we're going to talk to former Governor Tim Paulenti
Speaker 2: in the five o'clock hour about that and just kind
Speaker 2: of how Minnesota developed into what it's become where you've
Speaker 2: had one party rule for twenty years. But Minnesota, I
Speaker 2: think is the latest iteration of California. California was at
Speaker 2: one point, as you well know, a Republican was governor
Speaker 2: of California at one point, and I mean, when was
Speaker 2: the last time Republican won statewide office in California? And
Speaker 2: you and for as much talk about the ten billion
Speaker 2: dollars in fraud in Minnesota, there's a recent report that
Speaker 2: it could be one hundred billion dollars of fraud in California.
Speaker 2: I think eight different agencies failed this audit. So, I mean,
Speaker 2: California is like Minnesota, but blown up in a bigger way.
Speaker 2: And you know, that's not a conversation Gavin Newson wants
Speaker 2: to have. But I do think that that's like when
Speaker 2: you start peeking under the hood, people are gonna ask
Speaker 2: real questions about just how badly it's been run.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and here's the thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, fraud happens everywhere, right, Corruption happens everywhere. But
Speaker 1: what we're basically arguing, and I think it's true, is
Speaker 1: that this is politically supported fraud in California and in Minnesota.
Speaker 1: I mean, in other words, they kind of have a
Speaker 1: sense that it's going on. We're gonna be playing an
Speaker 1: audio tape in the next hour of an audio tape
Speaker 1: of the twenty twenty one conversation that the Attorney General
Speaker 1: of Minnesota had with some Somali businessmen. They're just gonna
Speaker 1: shock you and illustrate this point that we're making.
Speaker 2: No, it's absolutely stay tuned for that conversation. Plus, we'll
Speaker 2: take your calls. It's one eight hundred ninety four one Sean,
Speaker 2: one one hundred ninety for one Sean. He's Peter Schweizer,
Speaker 2: I'm Eric Eggers. We're feeling in for the Sean handy raisers.
Speaker 2: We'll be back right after this.
Speaker 1: Hi speaker. Schweitzer is sitting next to me Xerich Eggers
Speaker 1: and we are filling in for Sean. Hannerty joined the
Speaker 1: conversation one eight hundred and nine four one seven, three
Speaker 1: two six. Let's take a caller. Let's go to Lisa,
Speaker 1: who wants to talk about Mam Donnie in New York.
Speaker 3: Hey, Lisa, how are you?
Speaker 6: I'm good? How are y'all?
Speaker 3: We are great? Happy New Year to you.
Speaker 6: Well, happy new year.
Speaker 3: So what do you want to tell us about Mamdannie.
Speaker 6: Well, I happen to be reading some you know, some
Speaker 6: information today and I came across this new act that's
Speaker 6: being implemented in New York City is called COPA CEE
Speaker 6: as in kat Os in Orange pas and paul A
Speaker 6: is in Apple Copa Act, which it says a law that.
Speaker 4: Would force homeowners to offer their.
Speaker 6: Property to the government or in geos before they can.
Speaker 4: Sell it freely.
Speaker 1: Wow, that's amazing. That's a huge infringe on property right now.
Speaker 2: And I would say that's exactly an example of something
Speaker 2: you heard Carol Markowitz talk about earlier in this program
Speaker 2: about hey, there are some real limits to what mom
Speaker 2: Donnie can do, but then there's some stuff that he
Speaker 2: can do, and like that seems like an example of
Speaker 2: like allowing big government to take over potentially in you know, nonprofits.
Speaker 2: We've seen this really bizarre relationship between nonprofits and the
Speaker 2: government in these progressive areas. We're going to talk to
Speaker 2: Tim Paul Lenty, the former government Minnesota, about exactly that
Speaker 2: and what's going on in his former state. We write back,
Speaker 2: He's Piercechwiz are America Edgers. This is the Shawan Handy Show,
Speaker 2: right