July 10, 2026 • 33 mins
Michael Mische Gas Prices
Susan Crabtree on Newsom’s “Circle of Corruption”
Susan Shelley on the Local Taxpayer Protection Act
A tax proposal lost at the ballot
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can I AM six forty you're listening to the John
Cobelt podcast on the iHeartRadio app AM six forty more
stimulating talk radio John Cobelt Show. How are you here?
We are subscribe become a member YouTube dot com, slash
at John Cobelt's show and also we're a podcast just
(00:21):
after six o'clock same as the radio show John Cobelt
Show on demand. All right, let's get to Michael mcche
Gas prices are falling, obviously, since it looks like they're
slowly grinding towards some kind of deal with Iran. But
here are some things you ought to know. California's current
(00:44):
prices as of today June twenty second, forty two percent
higher than the US average, sixty four percent higher than Texas,
fifty four percent higher than Florida. California is thirty eight
percent higher than Utah. Yes, all those terrible red states
have far far cheaper gasoline than the boobs are playing
(01:09):
than the blue boobs are paying here in California. Let's
get Michael MChE on. Michael, thank you terrific to be here.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
John.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
So we're going down, I guess at the same rate
as the rest of the country. Is that accurate?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yeah, that's very accurate. I mean, if you take a
look at what happened since the Iranian conflict began, California
prices are thirty percent higher than the US price, and
from the overall January fifth to fifteenth period about thirty
two percent higher. So it moved in the exact correlation
(01:49):
that we expected. So here we go. The problem is
that we have this wild card of ordinarily heavy reliance
now on foreign crude oil imports, even though we have
significant oil in our state and a huge amount of
(02:11):
gasoline and jet fuel will coming in from places like
the Bahamas, Iraq, South Korea, and India.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
And.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Our gas tax is going up on July first, is it, Ditch?
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Yeah, sure is because that tax, the state exercise tax,
john has nothing to do with the amount of fuel
you burn or the amount of cars on the road
or the amount of miles you drive. It was and
is index to the California consumer price index. So it's
going to go up about three point six percent to
(02:50):
sixty three point four cents a gallon. And then with
that we'll go to county and local taxes will also
increase about three point you know, percent to you know,
another thirteen to fifteen cents again.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
All right, all right, So even though our gas prices
are so high, the state gas tax is going up,
the county and local gas tax is going up. And
then this this this greenhouse gas tax, I call it,
I know it's officially called capit investment, but these are
the taxes on the on the on the oil industry
(03:25):
that is going to go up as well, another three cents.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Actually, yeah, it's going to go up another three cents
to probably about thirty one to thirty three cents a gallum.
And and so these these taxes and costs and environmental programs, right,
they go up automatically on July first and thereafter. Okay,
there's there's a calendar associated with them. But think about that,
in light of increasing gasoline prices, of supply uchies, of
(03:55):
heavy reliance on foreign suppliers, the governor in the legislature
or want to increase the taxes and the consumer prices
will go up irrespective of what happens in the market.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
And refining production in the state, gas refining production down
twenty two percent under Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yes, since twenty nineteen, most recently, you know, eighteen percent
of that comes from the refinery closures in the last
eighteen months, but c relatively from twenty nineteen to twenty
twenty six. To date it's about twenty one twenty two percent.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
And then you know when you take a look at
our crew to oil production, it's dropped through the floor. Uh.
Take out that ading two thirty seven stuff that was
passed and you know, we can talk about that if
you want. Drilling permanents under Gavin Nussim went down over
ninety five percent since twenty nineteen. Uh So the state is,
(04:56):
even though it has the fourth or fifth or even
sixth largest reserves in the United States, is the most
heavily dependent on foreign oil of all states in the
United States.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
It is. And you never know, but if this piece
agreement is the right type of agreement and it sticks,
how low can the gas prices go here in California?
What would be our bottom compared to the rest of
the country.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
You know, they'll drop considerably, John, but they're not going
to be anywhere near you know, the rest of the country. Okay,
So for the you know, we averaged before the Iranian conflict,
the price of gas was averaged around five dollars and
sixty three cents a gallon in California, and the US
(05:50):
average was four dollars and thirty thirty two cents a gallon.
So don't come down, there's no question about that. The
issue is as as the price of oil comes down
and the price of gasoline comes down, California relatory costs
go up. So honestly, if you wave the magic wand
(06:13):
and you said the price of crude went to zero
it was free, California would still have the highest gasoline
prices in the United States. Do the regulatory costs, and
then you compound that with the supply issues and the
growing dependency on foreign suppliers for jet fuel and gasoline
(06:33):
coming places from South Korea, India, Iraq didn't get their
oil from the Middle East, and actually some of that
oil comes from Russia.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
The story they give is that all these taxes and
seasoned regulations, or do you give us cleaner energy save
the climate. It's counteracted to a very large extent by
much dirtier oil being drilled for in these other countries
who have far less strict environmental regulations. Plus we send
(07:06):
them on these tankers on oceans around the world. Which
also send out their emissions. So I don't know what
if there's any net benefit. But we're such a tiny
piece of the world. In actuality, we've had no efflect
effect on the climate whatsoever. So what is the point
of this is this is this all a cover for,
(07:27):
you know, some kind of massive green energy racket, a
scam that that that is not getting investigated and publicized.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Well, you know, there's no doubt John that you know,
California's influence on global greenhouse emissions is miniscule. It's in
material California on a global basis, you know, produces less
than one half I'm sorry, less than one percent of
global emissions. If you took that off the table, it
wouldn't have an impact on global emissions. So you have
(08:00):
to look at what Jamie Rector at Berkeley, my co author,
has coined as the green industrial complex. Rather than the
military industrial complex that Eisenhower came up with, Rectors come
up with the green industrial complex. It's big money. It's
big business in the sense now is that you know,
(08:22):
California has bitten into this apple. It's not letting go
a bit. And in fact, if you take a look
at the actions of the legislature and the governor, they
actually will increase the price of gasoline over the forthcoming years.
And I think that's, you know, based on the governor's
representations of using the market power of California to you know,
(08:43):
force the adoption of evs. I think that's sort of
the agenda that a lot of people need to come
to grips with.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
But the market California car owners have rejected evs to
a very large extent. It has a niche, but that's all.
And this has been going on now for many years.
On the whole people don't want him, and he hasn't
budged an inch.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Oh. One of the provesties of some of the reports
you get from the CEC and the government's offices when
we're midway through the energy transition, Well, how can you
be midway through the energy transition when over ninety percent
of your vehicles still use liquid fuels? Doesn't make any sense. Now,
it's true that California has the highest number of evs
(09:31):
registered of any state. Okay, that's fine, but they still
are not approaching the estimates of both the California Resource
Board and the California Energy Commission with respect to new registrations.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Well, we've got more cars than the rest of the country,
so of course we'll have more evy vehicles, right.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
But on proportion we still have over ninety percent of
the cars on the road. Vehicles on the road require
liquid fuels. So, you know, saying we're halfway through the transition,
I think is the math doesn't creconcile.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Yeah, with the fact it's just a lot. All right, Michael,
thank you for coming on.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Always happy to be with you. John.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
All right, Michael Miche professor at USC. It's you know
what the analogy is, This green energy racket is analogous
to the homeless racket. The cover story is we worry
about the climate. The truth is we're not having any
effect on the climate. This is just making a lot
(10:34):
of companies in the green energy industry rich and somehow
Newsome in his crowd get kickbacks from that.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Can't I am six forty more stimulating talk radio on
the John Covelt Show, and we are on from three
to six after six o'clock. You could hear the podcast
John Cobelt Show on demand and then YouTube dot com
slash at John Cobelt Show to subscribe and become a
member YouTube dot com slash at John Cobelt Show. All right,
let's go right to Susan Crabtree. Here. Susan, we've had
(11:13):
on the show. She's for a great book, a couple
about a year and a half ago, called Fool's Gold,
and it covers a lot of the recent historical corruption
in California. Quite a bit of it was on Gavin Newsom.
And she has an article out that was in the
California Post, among other places. She wrote it with the
(11:36):
Christopher Rufo and Jed mcfetter, and it's about Gavin Newsom's
circle of corruption ten. They highlight ten different people who
worked for Newsom or was appointed by Newsom, and if
you go through the brief rundown of each official here,
(11:57):
the word fraud pops up over and over again. Many
of them were involved in criminal fraud cases and they
all had tight connections with Newsom. Susan Crabtree, Welcome, How
are you.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
I'm doing great, John, how are you?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (12:14):
This is quite a list. Just give us an overview
to start with here, and then we'll go into a
couple of the examples.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Yes, well, this is a long trail of new Gavin
Newsom's corruption ties. It's connections to unsavory characters. Interestingly enough,
you think that Dana Williamson, we all know that his
most recent chief of staff last year or just last
month bleeded guilty at two public corruption charges, taking siphoning
(12:47):
more than two hundred thousand out of Javier Bessara's dormant
campaign account to benefit who Javier Besara's top aid at
the Health and Human Services Department there. But where are
the chances, John, Where are the chances of his deputy
chief of staff when he was mayor dealing with pending
(13:09):
criminal charges for public corruption at the same time that
Dana Williamson is What do you think the chances are.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
That that would? You'd think astronomical. So his deputy chief
of staff when he was mayor and then his chief
of staff when he's governor, they were both up on
corruption charges at the same time.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Yeah, this one. His name is Dwayne Jones. He was
his deputy chief of staff when he was mayor from
two thousand and four to two thousand and ten, and
not a short time he is right now, the charges
are pending against him. He's a waiting trial for misappropriation
of public funds, bribery and aiding and embtting financial conflicts
(13:51):
of interest. This is just one of the ten. Now,
we actually narrowed it down because I was domestic battery
charges against his former spokesperson and we took that off
the list because it wasn't public corruption. But yes, I see,
this is allow doubtas.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
So we're excluding personal problems. This is just criminal public corruption.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
H correct, talk.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
To me about Here's another one, Mohammad nurou We have
another uh former official under Newsome when he was mayor,
and again the charges involved bribery.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
Yes, that he is probably the most interesting, fascinating case.
He actually dated for a time San Francisco Mayor London
breed the previous mayor of Sancisco, David Louri. Now it's
the mayor. But if this individual takes the cake, because
he's serving seven years on bribery and corruption scandal, on
(14:57):
bribery charges for taking bribes and soliciting them as the
chief the depth, I think it's the chief deputy of
the public works program. He was before his grand fall
from grace. And but yet you know he was involved
in something even I think it's deeply concerning. Even more concerning,
(15:19):
in two thousand and three, he got to know Gavin
Newsom even before he was mayor when he volunteered on
Newsom's mayoral campaign while serving in the city government, and
he was he was involved in orchestrating a coercive voting
scheme through what is known as You're not You're not
(15:39):
gonna believe this. The San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners,
or they call themselves slug not kidding the.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
League of Urban Gardeners. Is this a union?
Speaker 3 (15:52):
This It sounds like a union to me, but guess what.
It's a nonprofit led by the Samisco City government Public
Works program, which Nurou headed. And so you had people
being basically commissioned into service for Gavin Newsom's campaign, even
if they didn't want to be. These are street cleaners,
(16:15):
they yeah, street cleaners in San Francisco were made to
go out and canvas for Gavin Newsom and collect here's
the keyword, absentee ballots. And this is I'm not kidding you.
And this they complained. They lodged a formal complaint with
the city one of the city commissions and the city
(16:38):
attorney found that this was true, that they were coerced
into action. And guess what, Gavin Newsom run nearly by
twenty six thousand absentee votes. And this this is documented.
It's all the city attorney said, this slug group can
(16:58):
no longer work with the city government. That was their termination.
They didn't they didn't do anything to Mohammad Nuru at
the time at all. No, they didn't have any punishment.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
So all right, so he's he's got that. He he
had these of strength cleaners uh uh, harvesting absentee ballots
door to door to get Newsom elected. Mohammed Newru we're
talking about here. And then, according to US Attorney Stephanie Hines,
Newru shook down contractors who wanted city business, uh training,
(17:32):
his authority and influence for millions of dollars in cash,
construction work, travel, meals and gifts. Yeah, that's all right.
We only went to went to a couple here we
come back, we'll look at somewhere. This is Gavin Newsom's
circle of corruption. All the people who worked under, worked
with was appointed by Gavin Newsom who got into serious
(17:56):
uh criminal activity. Uh. And it's it's the same themes.
It's bribery, it's corruption, money disappearing, votes being harvested.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Six forty John Cobelt Show kf I AM six forty
Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. We're on from three
to six after six o'clock John Cobelt Show on demand
the podcast and become a member or subscribe by going
to YouTube dot com slash at John Cobelt Show YouTube
dot com slash at John Cobelt Show. Right now, though,
(18:35):
we're going to switch to a constitutional amendment that you're
going to vote on in November. It's extremely important. We're
going to speak now with Susan Shelley. He's frequently on
our show. She's not only a vice president with the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, she's a frequent columnist and she
(18:56):
posts on social media a lot of informative stuff regarding
the government and taxation. This is what's going to appear
on the ballot November is constitutional amendment called ACA thirteen,
and it is going to require for local special taxes.
(19:20):
Only a two thirds vote will get it passed. So
if this wins in November. Then for all local special taxes,
there has to be two thirds of the voters saying yes.
Let's get to Susan Shelley on Susan, how are you?
Speaker 5 (19:35):
I'm good John, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
I know there was a lot of negotiations and back
and forth between John Coopaul and your organization and various
lobbying groups and the legislature, but this is where everybody
settled and it's a good thing. Rather than go into
all the complex details, I want to focus on November.
(19:58):
What do we have in November? What is this thing
going to say specifically and explain why people should should
vote for it, because this stuff is hard for a
lot of people to understand.
Speaker 5 (20:08):
It really is. But what we have on the ballot
is something that makes it harder to raise taxes. So
this is a good thing. And even better, with the
negotiations that were conducted at the eleventh hour, we were
able to get something removed from the ballot that was
a poison pill designed to stop this measure from passing.
It would have required our taxpayer measure to reach a
(20:29):
higher vote threshold in order to pass than all the
other measures on the ballot, just because it was trying
to make it harder to raise taxes, which doesn't even
seem like it should be legal, but that's what they
had done. They put a constitutional amendment on the ballot
as a poison pill. It was sitting there waiting for us,
and it would have made it there. If it had passed,
it would have made it very difficult, ever again to
(20:50):
pass something like Prop. Thirteen or this measure which makes
it harder to raise local taxes. So we got that
off the ballot. That was the big achievement, and we
slightly we rewrote our measure which is the one that
everyone was collecting signatures for. It's exactly the same, except
without the piece that relates to transfer taxes, real estate
transfer taxes. So what we have now is a measure
(21:12):
that guarantees that all local special taxes need a two
thirds vote, no exceptions for when the firefighters decide to
write their own tax increase and oh that can pass
with a majority. No, no, no, all special taxes will
need a two thirds vote. Really important to close that
court created loophole.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
And that's for all future tax increase attempts, not any
retroactive taxes.
Speaker 5 (21:38):
Exactly for the future and it's for special taxes, when
the money is earmarked for a particular special interest. That's
where the abuse has been.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Right, And wasn't that originally part of Prop thirteen back
in nineteen seventy eight.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
It sure was, And the courts have been erasing pieces
of Prop thirteen and we are putting them back. But
it's absolut true that if you look at the Constitution
right now, it's in there. Special taxes needed two thirds vote.
So what happened, Well, in twenty seventeen, the state Supreme
Court decided that if quote, the citizens wanted to raise
their own taxes, the Constitution doesn't apply. And that allowed
(22:16):
special interests to write their own tax increase and call
themselves quote citizens even though they were really government workers
in many cases.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
All Right, So the way this is written for November,
this is going to block out any meddling by the legislature,
any meddling by judges. This is this is going to
be like an iron wall, and nobody's going to be
able to dismantle this particular referendum network voting on exactly.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
That's my understanding. This is rock solid. And when the
voters approve this, all local special taxes will require the
two thirds vote. No more of this loophole for petitions
where special interests are writing their own tax increase, which
is what happened with the sales tax increase in La
County in twenty twenty four. That was a special interest
quote citizens tax increase and it didn't need to get
(23:07):
to two thirds even though it was for a special
purpose almost the services. So the county wide sales tax
went up half a percent and it shouldn't have because
it didn't reach a two thirds fat This is the
loophole that we're crising.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
And you're talking about like one of the homeless taxes right.
Speaker 5 (23:23):
Exactly, the sales tax increase for homeless services in November
twenty twenty four. Well, it was one of these loophole taxes.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
We have been getting bombarded with these half cent sales taxes,
stacked up one on top of the other, one on
top of another, and you know it adds up to
like a just in the past couple of years, I
think it'll be like an extra two percent in taxes
and they don't even win by much, but now they'd
have to win by two thirds exactly.
Speaker 5 (23:49):
Yeah, when the money is earmarked for a special purpose,
it must get a two thirds fot, which is a
much steeper climb, much harder to steal if that's what's happening,
much harder to steal two thirds of the votes.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
Oh, with the ballot harvesting going on now, it absolutely
is happening. I'm full blown into these local elections are
are are being stolen because because the ballot harvesting is
just it's just a cancer on our entire system. But
you have made the bar here so high they'd have
to get up to two thirds, and so they'd have
to do a lot of harvesting. They're going to have
to have a big bumper crop to get in the
(24:21):
way of that. And I imagine polling is, now, what
do you need fifty percent plus one to get this passed?
Speaker 5 (24:29):
Exactly, we need fifty percent plus one. But you know,
the real triumph for taxpayers here is that the legislature
wanted this deal, so they voted more than two thirds
in each house in favor of making it harder to
raise taxes. That's a complete reversal from where they were
a couple of years ago when they were voting to
make it easier to raise taxes. And this time we
(24:50):
pressured them so much that they had to vote against
against their gut. They certainly didn't want to, but they
had to vote to make it harder to raise taxes.
That's a huge victory.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Is there a simple reason explain what they were afraid of,
because this is something they almost never do back off
a major tax proposal.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
You know, it's a good question.
Speaker 5 (25:09):
It was very clear that in the governor's office they
did not want the Howard Jarvis Measure to be on
the fall ballot. We qualified it, We put in one
point three million signatures. It was eligible and qualified for
the ballot, but they wanted to get it off. This
happened with Prop thirty six, if you remember, the government
was trying to get that off the ballot. So it
was the same thing here.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
But they kept, they kept trying to.
Speaker 5 (25:31):
Make these offers as if we were going to negotiate
something that was worse for taxpayers, And of course Jean
Coupaul would not do that, No one of Howard Jarvis
would do that. So we had to fight to get
something that was better than what we had, and what
was better was getting rid of that poison pill, because
that would have made it very difficult all right.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
Susan Shelley, thank you very much, very well explained, Thanks
so much. Joon all right, vice president with the Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association, also newspaper communists for the Southern California Newsgroup,
and she posts a lot on social media. You ought
to follower and frequent guest on our show when we
come back. Oh, Temper, did you hear a major tax
(26:11):
increase lost at the ballots? The returns just came in.
Speaker 5 (26:17):
Are you kidding?
Speaker 2 (26:18):
No?
Speaker 1 (26:18):
In La County, a major and it lost by a
margin I've never seen before. All Right, Thank hey, I'm
excited you like that. Yeah, of course I can tease
them just as well as you do.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:31):
You're listening to John cobelts on demand from KFI AM
sixty can Fine Am six.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. We were on
from three to six after six John Cobelt Show on
demand YouTube dot com slash at John Cobelt Show to
become a member or subscribe. Well, this is great news
and I don't know if I've ever seen anything like
this before. We have most our street lights in Los
(27:01):
Angeles out they're dark because Karen Bass and the La
City Council and the LA Police Department allow thieves, gang
members and vagrants to steal all the copper wire that
keeps the lights on the street lights on. And of
course the street lights are effective in deterring crime. It's
(27:24):
a lot easier to steal stuff when it's absolutely dark.
And it is absolutely dark in a lot of neighborhoods
and bass and you know, she cuts the money for
everything that we need to stay safe. She cuts the
money to the fire department, the police department, She cuts
the money for the street lights, which I think help
(27:46):
out the police department. Usually you don't see all those
vagrant arsonists camped under a street light. Well, she stopped
fund the street lights. She allowed the copper thieves to
steal everything, it seems. And then when people started complaining,
(28:10):
it's like, oh, I don't have any money, Well, because
you gave it to the vagrants, and the vagrants do
a lot of the stealing. You see this evil circle.
She set up most destructive woman, most destructive woman in
Los Angeles history. Then she and the city council come
(28:33):
up with an idea, Oh, well you want street lights,
Well you're going to have to pay one hundred and
twenty five million dollars a year extra in taxes. Seriously,
one hundred and twenty five million dollars. Now, how are
they going to raise those taxes? Well, they came up
with a special ballot and you didn't see it on
(28:57):
the Judne second primary day because this was a ballot
mailed to the homes of homeowners. It's only homeowners got
to vote because the homeowners would be taxed. So this
was something you filled out at your kitchen table. They
(29:18):
were going to create a street lighting maintenance assessment district.
They want to raise one hundred and twenty five million dollars.
They sent the ballot to six hundred thousand property owners
and guess what, nearly eighty percent of the ballots opposed
to measure eighty percent. Only eighteen point seven percent were
(29:41):
in favor. That is the most overwhelming lopsided super landslide
I've ever seen the La City Council. It shows you
how little they represent the people, and it also shows
you how little people are paying attention. The La City
Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of this last month. There
(30:05):
was only one no vote but the assessment. Even though
the city council has supported it cannot take effect because
the majority of return ballots are against it. The proposed
assessment has failed. The city may not impose an assessment,
(30:30):
said city officials. It would have increased assessments based on
property size, land use, lighting type. The average single family
homeowner would pay about one hundred and forty four dollars
a year. If it was a multifamily or commercial property
would have paid more. City officials said the funding was
desperately needed because there's two hundred and twenty thousand street
(30:53):
lights and a lot of them are out repair times.
Do you know how long it takes to get a
street light repaired? Deborah? Just guess how on you call
in today? When do you think that street light will
be repaired? I would say a year and a half.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
You are in the.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Ballpark, it's over a year. Yes, thousands and thousands of
lights are dark because Karen Bass lets the thieves steal
the copper wire. It's not replaced. These were weighted ballots.
Each ballot weighted according to the dollar amount of the
proposed assessment on that property. You notice how some taxes pass,
(31:32):
especially if you have those fake ballot harvesting votes. But
when you go to property owners who are the most successful,
responsible people, these things don't pass. You don't votch for
these taxes. It's all the losers, people who don't own property,
people who don't own property, maybe people who don't have jobs,
(31:52):
people who live in the streets and they have some
nonprofit voting for them. That's who votes for these taxes.
When do you go to the people who actually have
to pay, and in this case pay a disproportionate amount.
It's like, no way, get out of here. You're a
bunch of thieves. Most properties pay about fifty three dollars
a year based on a nineteen ninety six assessment. Newer
(32:18):
districts pay about ninety five. This was going to raise
it to one hundred and forty four. The Bureau of
Street Lighting thought that the properties should should vote for
it because you get a direct benefit. No, we had
a direct benefit. Karen Bass lets the thieves steal the
copper wire, and she wastes money on all the homeless
(32:41):
who also steal the copper wire. No, we don't pay
more in tax.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
Stick it, stuff it.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Thank you. Debra Mark Lydon the KFI twenty four hour newsroom.
You've been listening to The John Cobelt Show podcast. You
can always hear the show live ONKFI AM six forty
from three to six pm every Monday through Friday, and
of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app. K
f I a M six stimulating talk
Can I AM six forty you're listening to the John
Cobelt podcast on the iHeartRadio app AM six forty more
stimulating talk radio John Cobelt Show. How are you here?
We are subscribe become a member YouTube dot com, slash
at John Cobelt's show and also we're a podcast just
(00:21):
after six o'clock same as the radio show John Cobelt
Show on demand. All right, let's get to Michael mcche
Gas prices are falling, obviously, since it looks like they're
slowly grinding towards some kind of deal with Iran. But
here are some things you ought to know. California's current
(00:44):
prices as of today June twenty second, forty two percent
higher than the US average, sixty four percent higher than Texas,
fifty four percent higher than Florida. California is thirty eight
percent higher than Utah. Yes, all those terrible red states
have far far cheaper gasoline than the boobs are playing
(01:09):
than the blue boobs are paying here in California. Let's
get Michael MChE on. Michael, thank you terrific to be here.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
John.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
So we're going down, I guess at the same rate
as the rest of the country. Is that accurate?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yeah, that's very accurate. I mean, if you take a
look at what happened since the Iranian conflict began, California
prices are thirty percent higher than the US price, and
from the overall January fifth to fifteenth period about thirty
two percent higher. So it moved in the exact correlation
(01:49):
that we expected. So here we go. The problem is
that we have this wild card of ordinarily heavy reliance
now on foreign crude oil imports, even though we have
significant oil in our state and a huge amount of
(02:11):
gasoline and jet fuel will coming in from places like
the Bahamas, Iraq, South Korea, and India.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
And.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Our gas tax is going up on July first, is it, Ditch?
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Yeah, sure is because that tax, the state exercise tax,
john has nothing to do with the amount of fuel
you burn or the amount of cars on the road
or the amount of miles you drive. It was and
is index to the California consumer price index. So it's
going to go up about three point six percent to
(02:50):
sixty three point four cents a gallon. And then with
that we'll go to county and local taxes will also
increase about three point you know, percent to you know,
another thirteen to fifteen cents again.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
All right, all right, So even though our gas prices
are so high, the state gas tax is going up,
the county and local gas tax is going up. And
then this this this greenhouse gas tax, I call it,
I know it's officially called capit investment, but these are
the taxes on the on the on the oil industry
(03:25):
that is going to go up as well, another three cents.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Actually, yeah, it's going to go up another three cents
to probably about thirty one to thirty three cents a gallum.
And and so these these taxes and costs and environmental programs, right,
they go up automatically on July first and thereafter. Okay,
there's there's a calendar associated with them. But think about that,
in light of increasing gasoline prices, of supply uchies, of
(03:55):
heavy reliance on foreign suppliers, the governor in the legislature
or want to increase the taxes and the consumer prices
will go up irrespective of what happens in the market.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
And refining production in the state, gas refining production down
twenty two percent under Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yes, since twenty nineteen, most recently, you know, eighteen percent
of that comes from the refinery closures in the last
eighteen months, but c relatively from twenty nineteen to twenty
twenty six. To date it's about twenty one twenty two percent.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
And then you know when you take a look at
our crew to oil production, it's dropped through the floor. Uh.
Take out that ading two thirty seven stuff that was
passed and you know, we can talk about that if
you want. Drilling permanents under Gavin Nussim went down over
ninety five percent since twenty nineteen. Uh So the state is,
(04:56):
even though it has the fourth or fifth or even
sixth largest reserves in the United States, is the most
heavily dependent on foreign oil of all states in the
United States.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
It is. And you never know, but if this piece
agreement is the right type of agreement and it sticks,
how low can the gas prices go here in California?
What would be our bottom compared to the rest of
the country.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
You know, they'll drop considerably, John, but they're not going
to be anywhere near you know, the rest of the country. Okay,
So for the you know, we averaged before the Iranian conflict,
the price of gas was averaged around five dollars and
sixty three cents a gallon in California, and the US
(05:50):
average was four dollars and thirty thirty two cents a gallon.
So don't come down, there's no question about that. The
issue is as as the price of oil comes down
and the price of gasoline comes down, California relatory costs
go up. So honestly, if you wave the magic wand
(06:13):
and you said the price of crude went to zero
it was free, California would still have the highest gasoline
prices in the United States. Do the regulatory costs, and
then you compound that with the supply issues and the
growing dependency on foreign suppliers for jet fuel and gasoline
(06:33):
coming places from South Korea, India, Iraq didn't get their
oil from the Middle East, and actually some of that
oil comes from Russia.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
The story they give is that all these taxes and
seasoned regulations, or do you give us cleaner energy save
the climate. It's counteracted to a very large extent by
much dirtier oil being drilled for in these other countries
who have far less strict environmental regulations. Plus we send
(07:06):
them on these tankers on oceans around the world. Which
also send out their emissions. So I don't know what
if there's any net benefit. But we're such a tiny
piece of the world. In actuality, we've had no efflect
effect on the climate whatsoever. So what is the point
of this is this is this all a cover for,
(07:27):
you know, some kind of massive green energy racket, a
scam that that that is not getting investigated and publicized.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Well, you know, there's no doubt John that you know,
California's influence on global greenhouse emissions is miniscule. It's in
material California on a global basis, you know, produces less
than one half I'm sorry, less than one percent of
global emissions. If you took that off the table, it
wouldn't have an impact on global emissions. So you have
(08:00):
to look at what Jamie Rector at Berkeley, my co author,
has coined as the green industrial complex. Rather than the
military industrial complex that Eisenhower came up with, Rectors come
up with the green industrial complex. It's big money. It's
big business in the sense now is that you know,
(08:22):
California has bitten into this apple. It's not letting go
a bit. And in fact, if you take a look
at the actions of the legislature and the governor, they
actually will increase the price of gasoline over the forthcoming years.
And I think that's, you know, based on the governor's
representations of using the market power of California to you know,
(08:43):
force the adoption of evs. I think that's sort of
the agenda that a lot of people need to come
to grips with.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
But the market California car owners have rejected evs to
a very large extent. It has a niche, but that's all.
And this has been going on now for many years.
On the whole people don't want him, and he hasn't
budged an inch.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Oh. One of the provesties of some of the reports
you get from the CEC and the government's offices when
we're midway through the energy transition, Well, how can you
be midway through the energy transition when over ninety percent
of your vehicles still use liquid fuels? Doesn't make any sense. Now,
it's true that California has the highest number of evs
(09:31):
registered of any state. Okay, that's fine, but they still
are not approaching the estimates of both the California Resource
Board and the California Energy Commission with respect to new registrations.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Well, we've got more cars than the rest of the country,
so of course we'll have more evy vehicles, right.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
But on proportion we still have over ninety percent of
the cars on the road. Vehicles on the road require
liquid fuels. So, you know, saying we're halfway through the transition,
I think is the math doesn't creconcile.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Yeah, with the fact it's just a lot. All right, Michael,
thank you for coming on.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Always happy to be with you. John.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
All right, Michael Miche professor at USC. It's you know
what the analogy is, This green energy racket is analogous
to the homeless racket. The cover story is we worry
about the climate. The truth is we're not having any
effect on the climate. This is just making a lot
(10:34):
of companies in the green energy industry rich and somehow
Newsome in his crowd get kickbacks from that.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Can't I am six forty more stimulating talk radio on
the John Covelt Show, and we are on from three
to six after six o'clock. You could hear the podcast
John Cobelt Show on demand and then YouTube dot com
slash at John Cobelt Show to subscribe and become a
member YouTube dot com slash at John Cobelt Show. All right,
let's go right to Susan Crabtree. Here. Susan, we've had
(11:13):
on the show. She's for a great book, a couple
about a year and a half ago, called Fool's Gold,
and it covers a lot of the recent historical corruption
in California. Quite a bit of it was on Gavin Newsom.
And she has an article out that was in the
California Post, among other places. She wrote it with the
(11:36):
Christopher Rufo and Jed mcfetter, and it's about Gavin Newsom's
circle of corruption ten. They highlight ten different people who
worked for Newsom or was appointed by Newsom, and if
you go through the brief rundown of each official here,
(11:57):
the word fraud pops up over and over again. Many
of them were involved in criminal fraud cases and they
all had tight connections with Newsom. Susan Crabtree, Welcome, How
are you.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
I'm doing great, John, how are you?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (12:14):
This is quite a list. Just give us an overview
to start with here, and then we'll go into a
couple of the examples.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Yes, well, this is a long trail of new Gavin
Newsom's corruption ties. It's connections to unsavory characters. Interestingly enough,
you think that Dana Williamson, we all know that his
most recent chief of staff last year or just last
month bleeded guilty at two public corruption charges, taking siphoning
(12:47):
more than two hundred thousand out of Javier Bessara's dormant
campaign account to benefit who Javier Besara's top aid at
the Health and Human Services Department there. But where are
the chances, John, Where are the chances of his deputy
chief of staff when he was mayor dealing with pending
(13:09):
criminal charges for public corruption at the same time that
Dana Williamson is What do you think the chances are.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
That that would? You'd think astronomical. So his deputy chief
of staff when he was mayor and then his chief
of staff when he's governor, they were both up on
corruption charges at the same time.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Yeah, this one. His name is Dwayne Jones. He was
his deputy chief of staff when he was mayor from
two thousand and four to two thousand and ten, and
not a short time he is right now, the charges
are pending against him. He's a waiting trial for misappropriation
of public funds, bribery and aiding and embtting financial conflicts
(13:51):
of interest. This is just one of the ten. Now,
we actually narrowed it down because I was domestic battery
charges against his former spokesperson and we took that off
the list because it wasn't public corruption. But yes, I see,
this is allow doubtas.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
So we're excluding personal problems. This is just criminal public corruption.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
H correct, talk.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
To me about Here's another one, Mohammad nurou We have
another uh former official under Newsome when he was mayor,
and again the charges involved bribery.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
Yes, that he is probably the most interesting, fascinating case.
He actually dated for a time San Francisco Mayor London
breed the previous mayor of Sancisco, David Louri. Now it's
the mayor. But if this individual takes the cake, because
he's serving seven years on bribery and corruption scandal, on
(14:57):
bribery charges for taking bribes and soliciting them as the
chief the depth, I think it's the chief deputy of
the public works program. He was before his grand fall
from grace. And but yet you know he was involved
in something even I think it's deeply concerning. Even more concerning,
(15:19):
in two thousand and three, he got to know Gavin
Newsom even before he was mayor when he volunteered on
Newsom's mayoral campaign while serving in the city government, and
he was he was involved in orchestrating a coercive voting
scheme through what is known as You're not You're not
(15:39):
gonna believe this. The San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners,
or they call themselves slug not kidding the.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
League of Urban Gardeners. Is this a union?
Speaker 3 (15:52):
This It sounds like a union to me, but guess what.
It's a nonprofit led by the Samisco City government Public
Works program, which Nurou headed. And so you had people
being basically commissioned into service for Gavin Newsom's campaign, even
if they didn't want to be. These are street cleaners,
(16:15):
they yeah, street cleaners in San Francisco were made to
go out and canvas for Gavin Newsom and collect here's
the keyword, absentee ballots. And this is I'm not kidding you.
And this they complained. They lodged a formal complaint with
the city one of the city commissions and the city
(16:38):
attorney found that this was true, that they were coerced
into action. And guess what, Gavin Newsom run nearly by
twenty six thousand absentee votes. And this this is documented.
It's all the city attorney said, this slug group can
(16:58):
no longer work with the city government. That was their termination.
They didn't they didn't do anything to Mohammad Nuru at
the time at all. No, they didn't have any punishment.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
So all right, so he's he's got that. He he
had these of strength cleaners uh uh, harvesting absentee ballots
door to door to get Newsom elected. Mohammed Newru we're
talking about here. And then, according to US Attorney Stephanie Hines,
Newru shook down contractors who wanted city business, uh training,
(17:32):
his authority and influence for millions of dollars in cash,
construction work, travel, meals and gifts. Yeah, that's all right.
We only went to went to a couple here we
come back, we'll look at somewhere. This is Gavin Newsom's
circle of corruption. All the people who worked under, worked
with was appointed by Gavin Newsom who got into serious
(17:56):
uh criminal activity. Uh. And it's it's the same themes.
It's bribery, it's corruption, money disappearing, votes being harvested.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Six forty John Cobelt Show kf I AM six forty
Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. We're on from three
to six after six o'clock John Cobelt Show on demand
the podcast and become a member or subscribe by going
to YouTube dot com slash at John Cobelt Show YouTube
dot com slash at John Cobelt Show. Right now, though,
(18:35):
we're going to switch to a constitutional amendment that you're
going to vote on in November. It's extremely important. We're
going to speak now with Susan Shelley. He's frequently on
our show. She's not only a vice president with the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, she's a frequent columnist and she
(18:56):
posts on social media a lot of informative stuff regarding
the government and taxation. This is what's going to appear
on the ballot November is constitutional amendment called ACA thirteen,
and it is going to require for local special taxes.
(19:20):
Only a two thirds vote will get it passed. So
if this wins in November. Then for all local special taxes,
there has to be two thirds of the voters saying yes.
Let's get to Susan Shelley on Susan, how are you?
Speaker 5 (19:35):
I'm good John, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
I know there was a lot of negotiations and back
and forth between John Coopaul and your organization and various
lobbying groups and the legislature, but this is where everybody
settled and it's a good thing. Rather than go into
all the complex details, I want to focus on November.
(19:58):
What do we have in November? What is this thing
going to say specifically and explain why people should should
vote for it, because this stuff is hard for a
lot of people to understand.
Speaker 5 (20:08):
It really is. But what we have on the ballot
is something that makes it harder to raise taxes. So
this is a good thing. And even better, with the
negotiations that were conducted at the eleventh hour, we were
able to get something removed from the ballot that was
a poison pill designed to stop this measure from passing.
It would have required our taxpayer measure to reach a
(20:29):
higher vote threshold in order to pass than all the
other measures on the ballot, just because it was trying
to make it harder to raise taxes, which doesn't even
seem like it should be legal, but that's what they
had done. They put a constitutional amendment on the ballot
as a poison pill. It was sitting there waiting for us,
and it would have made it there. If it had passed,
it would have made it very difficult, ever again to
(20:50):
pass something like Prop. Thirteen or this measure which makes
it harder to raise local taxes. So we got that
off the ballot. That was the big achievement, and we
slightly we rewrote our measure which is the one that
everyone was collecting signatures for. It's exactly the same, except
without the piece that relates to transfer taxes, real estate
transfer taxes. So what we have now is a measure
(21:12):
that guarantees that all local special taxes need a two
thirds vote, no exceptions for when the firefighters decide to
write their own tax increase and oh that can pass
with a majority. No, no, no, all special taxes will
need a two thirds vote. Really important to close that
court created loophole.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
And that's for all future tax increase attempts, not any
retroactive taxes.
Speaker 5 (21:38):
Exactly for the future and it's for special taxes, when
the money is earmarked for a particular special interest. That's
where the abuse has been.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Right, And wasn't that originally part of Prop thirteen back
in nineteen seventy eight.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
It sure was, And the courts have been erasing pieces
of Prop thirteen and we are putting them back. But
it's absolut true that if you look at the Constitution
right now, it's in there. Special taxes needed two thirds vote.
So what happened, Well, in twenty seventeen, the state Supreme
Court decided that if quote, the citizens wanted to raise
their own taxes, the Constitution doesn't apply. And that allowed
(22:16):
special interests to write their own tax increase and call
themselves quote citizens even though they were really government workers
in many cases.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
All Right, So the way this is written for November,
this is going to block out any meddling by the legislature,
any meddling by judges. This is this is going to
be like an iron wall, and nobody's going to be
able to dismantle this particular referendum network voting on exactly.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
That's my understanding. This is rock solid. And when the
voters approve this, all local special taxes will require the
two thirds vote. No more of this loophole for petitions
where special interests are writing their own tax increase, which
is what happened with the sales tax increase in La
County in twenty twenty four. That was a special interest
quote citizens tax increase and it didn't need to get
(23:07):
to two thirds even though it was for a special
purpose almost the services. So the county wide sales tax
went up half a percent and it shouldn't have because
it didn't reach a two thirds fat This is the
loophole that we're crising.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
And you're talking about like one of the homeless taxes right.
Speaker 5 (23:23):
Exactly, the sales tax increase for homeless services in November
twenty twenty four. Well, it was one of these loophole taxes.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
We have been getting bombarded with these half cent sales taxes,
stacked up one on top of the other, one on
top of another, and you know it adds up to
like a just in the past couple of years, I
think it'll be like an extra two percent in taxes
and they don't even win by much, but now they'd
have to win by two thirds exactly.
Speaker 5 (23:49):
Yeah, when the money is earmarked for a special purpose,
it must get a two thirds fot, which is a
much steeper climb, much harder to steal if that's what's happening,
much harder to steal two thirds of the votes.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
Oh, with the ballot harvesting going on now, it absolutely
is happening. I'm full blown into these local elections are
are are being stolen because because the ballot harvesting is
just it's just a cancer on our entire system. But
you have made the bar here so high they'd have
to get up to two thirds, and so they'd have
to do a lot of harvesting. They're going to have
to have a big bumper crop to get in the
(24:21):
way of that. And I imagine polling is, now, what
do you need fifty percent plus one to get this passed?
Speaker 5 (24:29):
Exactly, we need fifty percent plus one. But you know,
the real triumph for taxpayers here is that the legislature
wanted this deal, so they voted more than two thirds
in each house in favor of making it harder to
raise taxes. That's a complete reversal from where they were
a couple of years ago when they were voting to
make it easier to raise taxes. And this time we
(24:50):
pressured them so much that they had to vote against
against their gut. They certainly didn't want to, but they
had to vote to make it harder to raise taxes.
That's a huge victory.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Is there a simple reason explain what they were afraid of,
because this is something they almost never do back off
a major tax proposal.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
You know, it's a good question.
Speaker 5 (25:09):
It was very clear that in the governor's office they
did not want the Howard Jarvis Measure to be on
the fall ballot. We qualified it, We put in one
point three million signatures. It was eligible and qualified for
the ballot, but they wanted to get it off. This
happened with Prop thirty six, if you remember, the government
was trying to get that off the ballot. So it
was the same thing here.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
But they kept, they kept trying to.
Speaker 5 (25:31):
Make these offers as if we were going to negotiate
something that was worse for taxpayers, And of course Jean
Coupaul would not do that, No one of Howard Jarvis
would do that. So we had to fight to get
something that was better than what we had, and what
was better was getting rid of that poison pill, because
that would have made it very difficult all right.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
Susan Shelley, thank you very much, very well explained, Thanks
so much. Joon all right, vice president with the Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association, also newspaper communists for the Southern California Newsgroup,
and she posts a lot on social media. You ought
to follower and frequent guest on our show when we
come back. Oh, Temper, did you hear a major tax
(26:11):
increase lost at the ballots? The returns just came in.
Speaker 5 (26:17):
Are you kidding?
Speaker 2 (26:18):
No?
Speaker 1 (26:18):
In La County, a major and it lost by a
margin I've never seen before. All Right, Thank hey, I'm
excited you like that. Yeah, of course I can tease
them just as well as you do.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:31):
You're listening to John cobelts on demand from KFI AM
sixty can Fine Am six.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. We were on
from three to six after six John Cobelt Show on
demand YouTube dot com slash at John Cobelt Show to
become a member or subscribe. Well, this is great news
and I don't know if I've ever seen anything like
this before. We have most our street lights in Los
(27:01):
Angeles out they're dark because Karen Bass and the La
City Council and the LA Police Department allow thieves, gang
members and vagrants to steal all the copper wire that
keeps the lights on the street lights on. And of
course the street lights are effective in deterring crime. It's
(27:24):
a lot easier to steal stuff when it's absolutely dark.
And it is absolutely dark in a lot of neighborhoods
and bass and you know, she cuts the money for
everything that we need to stay safe. She cuts the
money to the fire department, the police department, She cuts
the money for the street lights, which I think help
(27:46):
out the police department. Usually you don't see all those
vagrant arsonists camped under a street light. Well, she stopped
fund the street lights. She allowed the copper thieves to
steal everything, it seems. And then when people started complaining,
(28:10):
it's like, oh, I don't have any money, Well, because
you gave it to the vagrants, and the vagrants do
a lot of the stealing. You see this evil circle.
She set up most destructive woman, most destructive woman in
Los Angeles history. Then she and the city council come
(28:33):
up with an idea, Oh, well you want street lights,
Well you're going to have to pay one hundred and
twenty five million dollars a year extra in taxes. Seriously,
one hundred and twenty five million dollars. Now, how are
they going to raise those taxes? Well, they came up
with a special ballot and you didn't see it on
(28:57):
the Judne second primary day because this was a ballot
mailed to the homes of homeowners. It's only homeowners got
to vote because the homeowners would be taxed. So this
was something you filled out at your kitchen table. They
(29:18):
were going to create a street lighting maintenance assessment district.
They want to raise one hundred and twenty five million dollars.
They sent the ballot to six hundred thousand property owners
and guess what, nearly eighty percent of the ballots opposed
to measure eighty percent. Only eighteen point seven percent were
(29:41):
in favor. That is the most overwhelming lopsided super landslide
I've ever seen the La City Council. It shows you
how little they represent the people, and it also shows
you how little people are paying attention. The La City
Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of this last month. There
(30:05):
was only one no vote but the assessment. Even though
the city council has supported it cannot take effect because
the majority of return ballots are against it. The proposed
assessment has failed. The city may not impose an assessment,
(30:30):
said city officials. It would have increased assessments based on
property size, land use, lighting type. The average single family
homeowner would pay about one hundred and forty four dollars
a year. If it was a multifamily or commercial property
would have paid more. City officials said the funding was
desperately needed because there's two hundred and twenty thousand street
(30:53):
lights and a lot of them are out repair times.
Do you know how long it takes to get a
street light repaired? Deborah? Just guess how on you call
in today? When do you think that street light will
be repaired? I would say a year and a half.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
You are in the.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Ballpark, it's over a year. Yes, thousands and thousands of
lights are dark because Karen Bass lets the thieves steal
the copper wire. It's not replaced. These were weighted ballots.
Each ballot weighted according to the dollar amount of the
proposed assessment on that property. You notice how some taxes pass,
(31:32):
especially if you have those fake ballot harvesting votes. But
when you go to property owners who are the most successful,
responsible people, these things don't pass. You don't votch for
these taxes. It's all the losers, people who don't own property,
people who don't own property, maybe people who don't have jobs,
(31:52):
people who live in the streets and they have some
nonprofit voting for them. That's who votes for these taxes.
When do you go to the people who actually have
to pay, and in this case pay a disproportionate amount.
It's like, no way, get out of here. You're a
bunch of thieves. Most properties pay about fifty three dollars
a year based on a nineteen ninety six assessment. Newer
(32:18):
districts pay about ninety five. This was going to raise
it to one hundred and forty four. The Bureau of
Street Lighting thought that the properties should should vote for
it because you get a direct benefit. No, we had
a direct benefit. Karen Bass lets the thieves steal the
copper wire, and she wastes money on all the homeless
(32:41):
who also steal the copper wire. No, we don't pay
more in tax.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
Stick it, stuff it.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Thank you. Debra Mark Lydon the KFI twenty four hour newsroom.
You've been listening to The John Cobelt Show podcast. You
can always hear the show live ONKFI AM six forty
from three to six pm every Monday through Friday, and
of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app. K
f I a M six stimulating talk
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.