And, This is Steve Bannon

Gavin is joined by host of the WarRoom podcast, former Trump White House chief strategist and MAGA architect Steve Bannon. 
IG: @GavinNewsom
TikTok: @GavinNewsom

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
This is Gavin Newsom and this is Steve Bannett. Well, Steve,
thanks so much for taking the time to be here.
And I want to take this opportunity to sort of,
you know, go back a little bit and talk about
your history, a little bit about your motivations and where
you see this country and for that matter, of the

(00:29):
world going. But it's impossible not to note the world
that we're living in a relationship to everything happening with
the markets, everything happening with the with tariffs, everything happening
UH with c R and a potential government.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
Don't don't don't be given tariffs think. I don't want
to start off with you giving a stink. I already.
Well we'll streuss a I'm a tariff guy.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
I appreciate that. And well we'll see, we'll see, we'll stress.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
The purpose I want to do this is I want
to convert you to be a tariff guy. Also, this
is this is part of the process to unwind you
from being a globalist, to make you a populist nationalist.
It's a long journey. It's a long journey. It's a
long journey, but I think you'll get there.

Speaker 1 (01:09):
This is part of the deprogramming, is it. I appreciate
And by the way, for the record, I'm going down
your rabbit hole right here. I'm not an absolutists as
it relates to being against terrorists by any stretched the imagination.
And I thought it interesting where we what I think
Biden tripled tariffs on illumined and steel, which is getting
a lot of attention in this country today as relates

(01:30):
to Canada, and Democrats weren't screaming and yelling about that
so well.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
I mean, Fetterman, look you've got you know. By the way,
thanks Governor for doing this. I really appreciate it. One
to have this conversation for a long time. You know,
two of the of the three best economic populists in
the Democratic Party, who I think are kind of on
an island. One of the best is Roquahanna Rose. Economic patriotism,

(01:55):
which we always kid him is just ripping off Navarre
and my economic nationalism is is you know, he's an
economic populist. So is Fetterman. Fetterman just announced, you know
we're here today during the CR. Freederman just announced he
would support the CR if it came in as a
Fetterman is a populist and then shared Brown. Sharon Brown

(02:16):
I think has been an economic populist for a long time.
So there are very strong voices in the Democratic Party.
I think now unfortunately as a populist, I think they're
kind of on an island because it really hasn't been
the center of the conversation with the Democratic Party. But
I think those three are are pretty good as far
as populist and.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
See I mean in terms of populism, then it's a
good segue. How do you define that?

Speaker 2 (02:39):
Then?

Speaker 1 (02:40):
What's I mean? Is it a principle? Is right? Obviously
maybe a component part, But how do you define populism,
particularly in a relationship to their reflective lens in terms of.

Speaker 2 (02:49):
What populism Obviously we believe in subsidiary, We believe in
bringing power back to the grassroots level. Right. We're very
anti elitist, and one of the reasons is we think
the elites in this country, you know, the highly educated elites,
the political class, the Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, all
of it, have really forgotten the underlying kind of principles

(03:09):
of the country and kind of left working class people,
regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference. You know,
you pick it, they've kind of forgotten. And that's why
such a big push for kind of these populous economic
policies that look to put the lens is not just
America first, but American citizens first, and goes with tax policy,

(03:30):
it goes with tariffs, it goes to bringing manufacturing jobs back.
It's nationalistic in the fact that not isolationists, but understanding
that we've got to make it right for American citizens
and particularly for the greatest resource we've had or ever had,
which is the American working men and woman. So it's
to push every decision as down low as possible and
to get everything back to a grassroots level. And one

(03:53):
of the keys to populism kind of about the sovereign
will is that the use of human agency. That just
don't sit there and say, you know, somebody else's got
congressman's got to do something, or a senator's got to
do something, or governor's got to do something. Of that,
you have to use your agency only. And I see
this in the Democratic Party now, the people saying do something,

(04:13):
do something. I think that's a lesson that we learned
after President Trump. And look, you know, we disagree on this,
but President Trump won the twenty twenty election, and we
were kind of shattered as a movement when he left Washington,
d C. And we had to go back to basics
to say, you know, it can't be somebody else do something.
You know, we had to do something, and that's where
we went back to really a pure populist movement, to

(04:34):
go at the grassroots, the precinct strategy and kind of
rebuild ourselves from there.

Speaker 1 (04:38):
Well, and I appreciate the notion of agency, that we're
not bystanders in the world. It's decisions, not conditions that
determine our fade in future, and that that that fundamental
notion of agency, I think is important more broadly, and
I think that goes to some of the issues around,
you know, victimization, and I see a lot of that,
respectively on the right increasingly, even with Trump often reaching

(05:00):
things from that sort of mindset.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
Do you what do you mean? What do you mean?
What do you mean? For Trump?

Speaker 1 (05:04):
I think there's sort of the grievance narrative that comes
from Trump, this this notion there is there sort of
a victim.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
But they did try to they did try they did
try to put him in prison for three hundred years right,
they did try to bangrupt, So that's a guy it
never had ever had a set of grievances. They did
steal according to us, and we're firm believes it is
the twenty twenty election, which I think worked out better
that providentially that he was able to come back with
that gap, because I think you're seeing a a much

(05:32):
more uh not just do and improved, but somebody that's
much more in command of these decisions and really stepping
up in a way that we could have never done before.
But no, I don't think it's grievances. I think it's reality.
I mean, they tried to. No one in American history
has the system ever come after. And I think that's
one of the problems that the Democrats you've got in
a position of having to defense. Remember I come from

(05:53):
a working class Democratic family.

Speaker 1 (05:56):
Kennedy Democratic family, Kennedy a Democrat.

Speaker 2 (05:58):
I was telling some people last night, I said, we
didn't know any Republicans. There were just we were Irish, Catholic,
working class phone company firemen, you know, a navy enlisted people.
You didn't know any Republicans. They just weren't in your
you know, we were in the South also, which is
all you know, machine democratic politics. So you didn't know anybody.

(06:18):
You didn't know anybody then, and so to see what
President Trump had to go through and to see how
we've actively changed the Republican Party to actually the working
class party in this country. You know, it was a
poll done last spring that showed that we as a
Republican Party at the working class party and viewed as such,
and that President Trump's the leader of that working class party,

(06:39):
and the Democrats have become both not just the Wall
Street elitist but also kind of the credential class with
the poor underneath it, of which we're now trying to
obviously recruit not just the working poor, but actually the
poor it self to join our broadening coalition.

Speaker 1 (06:56):
Well, I appreciate it. I want to and i'll I
want to talk more about that because I think it's interesting,
just as one of the points of contrast with you, Anne, Frankly,
Trump himself right now is on some of the issues
of tax policy in relationship this notion of who are
you fo And you've been pretty critical about the proposed
tax the extension of the existing tax cuts that disproportionately

(07:18):
favor the wealthiest, and you were making the point that
it should disproportionately focus on the middle class and work.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
You know, Governor, I'm not so sure. Let me get there.
So in seventeen I was a big advocate of that
in the first Trump tax plan of actually raising the
rates on the upper bracket and doing actually more to
the lower bracket of corporations. And it was not just
what I thought was right, but also politically expedient at
that time. In the spring of twenty seventeen, it was

(07:50):
really Bernie Sanders and the Pocahontas that was going to
be the number one in Elizabeth is going to be
pocahon as we called going to be the challengers coming
from the populace left, and I thought it was very
important to nip that in the by the time and
raise the brackets. Now, I think history shows that they

(08:12):
can show you the math that they're doing. All of
that actually worked in Unison and got us that great
you know, twenty nineteen. Today, in President Trump, I think
invest in are pretty upfront that this is the last
chance we're going to get it. A supply side cut
of that four trillion dollars. I think the two point
six trillion dollars of joint you know, four hundred thousand

(08:33):
below of couples, and I think you add another couple
one hundred billion dollars for maybe the pass throughs to
the LLCs. The entrepreneurs get caught up. But that additional
trillion dollars unless it's going to be shown mathematically, and
I think people are working on this that they consume.
You know, right now, I think the top three percent
consumer almost fifty percent of what's going to the country.

(08:55):
Unless that you're concerned that that would kick you into
a major recession of that one away, I am. I'm
pretty adamant about that. You shouldn't the upper bracket shouldn't
get it, and even some of the corporations shouldn't get
it if they're just going to do stock buybacks. But
additional tax cuts should go as President Trump promised, no
tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and particularly no

(09:15):
tax on social security. Yeah anything.

Speaker 1 (09:17):
His current proposal done that up. Then in that respect
well as the deficit and continues those corporate tax cuts
and continues the tax cuts to the wealthiest. So it runs.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
And I think we're not to be argumentative, no appreciate
it we want to have an open dialog. I think
when you look at Besson, and Charlie Gasparino had a
pretty good piece in the New York Post today about this.
If you add in, if you look at the growth
rates and it's predicating on growth. You look at a
growth rate two and a half to three percent, right,

(09:46):
if you look at what we're trying to do in
cutting federal spending in addition doze which is the way
frauden abuse, and you look at additional revenues externally from
tariffs you can get to and what Besson's trying to
do is take the deficit from six and a half
percent of GDP down to three and a half percent
of GDP. So this is not this out of control
explosion of two trillion dollars in deficits which we as

(10:09):
Republicans are about to sign off on today. Just so
your audience understands this cr today, the House will approve
the Biden Kamala Harris spending for this year, locking it in,
locking it in.

Speaker 1 (10:22):
And that's how you can't be I mean, how are
you out there supporting that?

Speaker 2 (10:25):
Then? Well, because right now I think with everything at
do and by the way, it's just it's that plus
it's a two tran dollar deficit. Okay. I think the
reason we're doing it is that the House has not
gotten their act together to get these single subject appropriations
bills done. They are committed to do that working with
Democrats in the spring and some of this year for

(10:46):
fiscal year twenty six. And I think to keep the
to keep the government open, to keep President Trump hitting
on alls, there's to keep doze at work in federal
court overnight, the federal courts are coming after this is
on at least information. We expect many more lawsuits about that.
But I think in the effort to do it, we're prepared,

(11:07):
and you know, we hate, we hate any cr this
one we've hated for a long time. We're prepared to
go along with the Presiden says he needs it. What
I love about Johnson for the first time, they just
announced that they're going to vote on it this afternoon.
He thinks he's got the votes in the House to
do it. Then they're going on recess. They're send it
over to the Democratic Senate with that play me or

(11:28):
trade me.

Speaker 1 (11:29):
It's right, and they need seven votes on the Senate
side in order to get this done. Otherwise we've got
a government shut down, it yet another one. What is
your over under on the prospects of that.

Speaker 2 (11:37):
I think it's interesting. I think the Democrats have to
make a decision of whether they think it's better to
keep it going and keep the resistance they've got in
the legislative part, but also in the courts or let
elon musk, you know, the potentially unchaining h with the
DOSEE groups, on on who's you know, who's who's a
necessary employee versus who's an unnecessary employee. I think it's

(11:59):
the first time because traditionally the Democrats have always been
for keeping the government open. I think they put him
in a real conjurary, and I think this is Johnson's
It's going to be high stakes poker. I think this afternoon.
But people should understand this is a this is a
bitter pill to swallow for us, because we have argued
this is the whole reason. Kevin McCarthy, a guy you
know very well from California, we got turfed out his speaker.

(12:21):
It was all over. It was the deal he cut
with Biden that gave President Biden two years and unlimited
no debt ceiling to spend and run up, and McCarthy
then didn't deliver on the single subject appropriations bills and
he got turfed out. So your audience understand, these are
huge fights on our side of the football all the

(12:42):
time about spending.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
So locking in the Biden era budget or at least
extending it and kicking it out. It's the last thing
I expected to see coming from your side of the aisle,
or at least in the MAGA movement. But also even
you saying something complimentary about Speaker Johnson, you've been pretty critical.
I've been very critical.

Speaker 2 (13:05):
I think we're I think we're I've been very up
until today, I've been very critical about we're in this
job because of over promising and underperforming. And I think
you've got in leadership, I think now, and I think
it's a long way from him being out of the woods.
Is that now? Because you got you got only he's
got six months now he's got to deliver like a
real budget with real cuts. Because just back for your audience,

(13:28):
the doge effort is waste for an abuse. Okay, they're
kind of like shock troops or special forces, and people
can either say they're great or whatever. I would like
to see a little more definition of what they've actually found. Okay,
all of us Wouldsparency, I agree with you, more more transparency,
but I think but that doesn't to me get to
the to the to the the meat of it, because

(13:50):
I think you're going to have to have programmatic cuts,
and I've been a big proponent that those programmatic cuts
have to start in the Defense department. I was a
naval officer for a years. My daughter went to West Points.
I'm not a dove, but I think I've been a
big critic of the tree. And we're at a trillion
dollars now, and that's one of the reasons of this
postwar international rules based order. We just can't continue on

(14:12):
with NATO. We got to have allies that really pitch
in here. But you got to start in the Defense
department program at you have to do programs and bills
to get to get the budget deficit to three and
a half percent of GDP roughly under a trellion dollars,
so that we can start somehow we can begin to
finance this because right now that's the driver of inflation,
you know, Biden, the they just restated their numbers from

(14:35):
the fourth quarter. And traditionally the Biden thing has always
been the labored number has always been different, right, It's been,
you know, one thing and then, and we've criticized that
for a long time. This one the shocker, and I
don't think that. And I've said this that the guys
in the economic team did enough for President trumpet pushing this.
The inflation number went from two point two percent to
four point two percent, and it really didn't even get

(14:57):
mentioned in the Business for US. And I said, that
shows you the underlying kind of burning inflation. And the
reason that is the finance. You have to finance now
essentially a third of the debt every year, so you're talking,
I don't know, ten twelve trellion dollars, the government securities
you have to sell at higher interest rates. That's what's
driving inflation. Plus I think a two loose federal reserves,

(15:19):
so you had both a fiscal overspending and a monetary
loose money. We've got an inflation problem that's not going
to be easily solved. The way to solve inflation is
you have to cut I believe federal spending dramatically. You
have a canesy and kind of stimulus all the time,
and you have to do it, and that's going to
lead to painful conversations. It just is because if dose

(15:40):
doesn't find all this waste for an abuse right and
they're saying now they think they can get a trellion dollars,
which would cut the deficit in half.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
Either you can't get a tree and back to your
point without significant programmatic cuts. And I appreciate the defense frame,
which is anathema. I mean the cring increases the defense
spending and in a higher rate, but you can't get
there without cuts to something that you, to your credit,
have said. You know, you can't put a quote unquote mee.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
I came, I came to medicaid, I came out of
the Pentagon. And this is why I was adamant about
Elon Musk what we called crossing the Potomac. There's a
point in time that people were saying, well, let Pete
Hexath handle the Pentagon. Elie I said no to get
if you're going to get prog first off waste fard
in reviews. I think everybody has to get everyone, and
not just that the Pentagon's got to step up. People
have to know that if the way because it's always rumored.

(16:31):
You know this, they can't pass an audit. It's two
trillion dollars of.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
Two trillion just for the damn F thirty five, which
gets programmatically.

Speaker 2 (16:39):
But there's two training on the audit. I think there's
true training and assets they can't put their hands on.
John Stewart was just lighting up one of the Undersecretary's
defense I think a couple of weeks ago about this.
So you have to do that. But then programmatically, and
this is why I think President Trump's hemisphere, the shift
to hemispheric defense, which is from Greenland to the Panama
canal more of a naval strategy in the It's the

(17:01):
three island chains and really the the vast desert of
the Pacific is really the American heartland. That's our defensive barrier.
That to me, should restructure the entire Pentagon and armed
forces to that. To force structure around that. I think
Pete hex has got to move immediately. I think there
should be significant cuts to the Defense Department, and then
that would give you the political cover to then say

(17:23):
on medicaid, you know, we got to be sensible here
right now with the economic distress, there's a lot of
MAGA on Medicaid and a lot.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
Of overwhelming opposition to cut in it, and and.

Speaker 2 (17:34):
And I think by you know, the illegal aliens and
and and UH and obviously the waste, fraud and abuse
and and some of the things about you know, a
block granting it back to a governor like yourself in
the California UH. To figure it out has to happen.
And how the social programs. This is not going to
be painless to we've been so out of control and
so and it's both parties. The Republican Party has been

(17:56):
controlled opposition. They have not had these tough fights. That's
the tough fights we're going to have to happen.

Speaker 1 (18:01):
And to be fair, so people understand, and it's not
an indictment to your point about both parties. But you know,
another eight point four trillion dollars went to the debt
under Trump administration. And to be fair, COVID had a
huge part of that, but it's three trillion even before
COVID hit to your point, And I remember talking by
the way, you'll appreciate this, Steve. I remember being in
Marine one talking to Trump, President Trump about the issue

(18:22):
of the deficit, and he literally looks at me, and
he goes like this with his hands and he said
printing press, printing press, and literally dismissed it.

Speaker 2 (18:30):
He was kidding, he was kidding.

Speaker 1 (18:31):
Yeah, well, I'm not the way he governed the first
four years. I'm not sure you know that first.

Speaker 2 (18:35):
By the way, the first couple of years, the first
couple of years, the deficits were under I think four
or five hundred million dollars. We came very close to
actually trying to balance it if we went back to
pre COVID spending. I mean, Scott Beston says this all
the time. We don't have a revenue problem, and this
is a verber I would think about having to increase your taxes.
We have a spending problem. I mean, post COVID, we've
had explosion of some of these programs. I think he

(18:57):
got to get your arms around him. But once again,
these are going to be huge fights and they're not
going to be painless. What I like about Johnson today
for the first time, because I think he's tapped us
along and over promise and now we're in a situation that,
you know, we have to do a cr which we hate.
If you think that the Magabase and our show. We
represent the hardest core of the hardcore. If you think

(19:19):
we like sitting here and basically not lighting up the
phones and accepting Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's budget, it's
a tough pill.

Speaker 1 (19:28):
And it's a tell of a thing. I mean, I'm
enjoying watching this in some respects.

Speaker 2 (19:31):
No, but what I liked about what I liked about him.
He's voting and going home. He's going to put it
right on the Democrats about shutting down the government and not.
And I think you're going to have a real firestorm
in the Senate, and I think a fascinating debate about
the direction of the country. And I think we're going
to see that. I think we're going to see that coming.
I think we'll see voices like Fetterman and others start
to step up and take a much more prominent role

(19:53):
in Democratic Party. Because one thing I keep saying all
the time, if you'd watch MSNBC and CNN, you never
really see the populist on the economic side. You don't
see the Roe Qahannas getting the time. You don't see
fetter men really getting the time. Sharon Brown and Shure
didn't want to do national TV, But you never see
really the economic populist ever really get They kind of

(20:13):
roll out Bernie Sanders, who I'm not a fan of,
but they don't really ever get to the other guys.
I think that's all going to come quite different in
the in the days and weeks ahead.

Speaker 1 (20:21):
Well, I think just you know, listening on those of
you that that may have some familiarity to you, but
never have taken the time to actually listen to you
or tune into the war room. I mean the idea
that you're even talking about the corporate tax rate and
the tax rate for the wealthiest among us and having
I mean the fact that you're having this, we're having
this dialogue about your different approach. I mean, in some

(20:44):
ways it's the California tax policy as it relates to
more progressive tax policy that favors the working class that we.

Speaker 2 (20:50):
Would never take any we would never take anything from California.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
Understand what I'm just I'm challenging you then.

Speaker 2 (20:57):
But you're over you're grossly over taxed in California.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
We want to cut we have we have moderate income
taxes for middle class working folks. It's the top tax
rate which you're arguing for a little higher tax rate,
which I appreciate the corporate tax side. I don't know
if it's completely dissimilar. I don't want to get you
in trouble. But on the issue of terrorists, I want
to go back to that because you're a big you know,
you're a big supporter of terrorists. I mean, right now this,

(21:22):
you know, this tit for tat. What's going on in Ontario.
We doubled another twenty five percent. Uh, back to illuminum
steel up in Canada, we're already seeing I think we're increasing.

Speaker 2 (21:32):
I think we're increasing aluminum still. I think he said
today one hundred percent. There was another truth. So I
think it was a true social not that it's tit
for tat, but there was a true social right came
by the.

Speaker 1 (21:44):
Way, I think there were one hundred, literally one hundred
true social posts. Uh. And you know, with respect on
terror policy, it seems a little chaotic. There's no stability.
The markets are reflecting that. I used to say the
most powerful force in the world was mother nature. Now
I say the markets. I mean, people, there's this now
you're seeing even well, I will trust session you're seeing Trump.

Speaker 2 (22:05):
I say that the bond market, the bond market more
than the stock market. The bond market has turfed out
more governments than Howartzer's. If you look over the last
couple of years, Liz Trust in England, really the Assembly
in France on the Macrone, the Germans right, the Italians
are probably close to a sovereign debt crisis. Spain, England's
been to a couple of governments even starmers under under

(22:27):
real pressure. So no, the global copple markets, particularly when
you have to borrow this much money. The ten year
treasury is you know, Bob Rubin used to run the
country on the Clinton and this is why Carvel said,
I want to come back. As I come back, I
want to come back as as a ten year bond
or the bond market those set that that ten year
bond sets everybody's economic you know, underpinnings, and so it's

(22:48):
very important. But I think with President Trump it's it's
both a gross strategy and part of his tariffs. You know, Governor,
it shouldn't be lost that the tariffs have many different
aspects to a number one. He wants to get back
at least some back to more of the American plan.
From Alexander Hamilton McKinley. Before the early nineteen hundreds, driven
by the earthquake in San Francisco. In the fire, we

(23:10):
had a massive financial panic and that led to really
the internal revenue service and people focusing more on getting
off American domosile companies and American citizens. President Trump wants
to go back to more external revenue. That's part of
the terriffs. He looks at the US as a premium market,
and so you would pay a premium to get access
to here, like you would get a skybox at a

(23:32):
sporting event or sit in the front row of a concert.
And he's got a but he's got an out if
you want an out, because the tariffs are going to
be substantial, right and particularly in Mexico and Canada, so
you can't game the system manufacturing, manufacturing wise and against China.
Just look over the last you know, he's been there
forty days. I think over the last three or four weeks,

(23:53):
you've had almost a trillion dollars. I think it's eight
hundred million dollars from Honda, from Siemens, from app if
a five hundred bion dollars taiwan A semiconductor, you know,
one hundred billion dollars in four years. These are massive
capital investments in top grade. This is not some sovereign
wealth fund saying I'm a coming. It's not mascles on

(24:15):
it's soft bank saying I'm going to throw one hundred
million dollars. These are companies that are relocating here, and
a big part of that is the terriffs. They say, look,
we want to get into the United States, we want
to manufacture domestically. It's got a logistics supply chain we
can control. It's got you know, it's got the rule
of law. But most importantly done half terriffs, and it's
got lower energy costs. That's the new economic model, and

(24:37):
it's going to go through some choppy water to get there.
So these are just not twenty five percent tariff on
an avocado coming from Mexico or some part under the
hood from from Canada. It's much more systematic. Now I
understand the way it was rolled out because of the
emergency nature of it. The focus was on fentanyl and
this chemical warfare.

Speaker 1 (24:56):
Yeah, which is a little a little bs, isn't it.
I mean you a larger economic populism frame here. Let's
just be honest with folks that had nothing to do
with the tyrannical nature of prime minister or fifty first
governor of America. Uh, justin Trudeau's no, no, but but

(25:16):
hold it.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
The Canadians have been The Canadians are one of the tough.
This is why I recip when he talked about reciprocy
on August. On April second, you're going to have reciprocity
and tariffs in India and Canada.

Speaker 1 (25:28):
Is that any you think that's going to go in
effect in April? You think you mean with all the uncertainty,
the market uncertainty, the Trump slump, all of the stress
and the anxiety that people are feeling all the day.

Speaker 2 (25:38):
I don't call it the I don't call it the
Trump slump.

Speaker 1 (25:39):
Listen, others.

Speaker 2 (25:41):
No. Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett's who's a big Democrat and
a supporter of many Democratic politicians, cause you know him
very well. He went to cash. He's sitting on three
hundred and fifty bion dollars in cash. A couple months ago.
I think he realized that a lot of the market,
particularly equity markets, were driven by Navidia and other a.
All this Ai first kind of stage, there was a

(26:02):
lot of fluff in that. So I think with President Trump,
I do think they're coming in because I think he's
he's changing the geostrategic model of the United States back
to a hemispheric defense, away from the post war international
rules based order, which has really gut at the United States.
It was great for a while.

Speaker 1 (26:19):
Eighty years of relative peace and prosperity in America dominated.
I mean, I mean, there's a lot of to do.

Speaker 2 (26:24):
But it got it. But he got it the middle class, remember,
in the working class, and at the end of the day,
we had allies that were taking advantage of it. Let's
give me a second.

Speaker 1 (26:33):
This.

Speaker 2 (26:34):
If you take the rim of the Eurasian landmash, you
got Western Europe, the Persian Gulf, the Golf emer It's
Middle East. Then you've got the Straits of Malacca, the
South China Sea, and then up to Korea and Japan.
Those four nodes we have commercial relationships, trade deals, capital markets, integration,
some cultural interface, but it's it's an American security guarantee.

(26:56):
This is how whether it's NATO or the Middle East
or a South China or are up with Japan and Korea.
We have combat troops there. You know, we have one
hundred and fifty thousand troops deployed today and I think
one hundred and fifteen countries. This is one of the
reasons people talk about foreign aid with usaid, which I'm
against a lot of this stuff going on, but it

(27:16):
pales in comparison to what we're underwriting for countries that
were upside down on every trade deal. Our trade deficit
in I think in January low was a record trade deficit.
I think it's one hundred billion dollars, so not to
so we have budget deficits, we have trade deficits, and
are kind of inter strictly link because we've got it
all the manufacturing jobs, we've all shored those. And I

(27:36):
think Trump's geoeconomic strategy is a massive rearshuring process. And
I think you're seeing this now. And I might note,
and I don't want to take a cheap shop. A
lot of those tradition would go back to California, but
they're going to Arizona and Texas because I think they're
looking at red states now as having lower regulation, lower taxes,

(27:57):
and people are going there. And I think this is
going to change a massive the demographic change in the
United States, as you have Trump's reshowing come back to
the United States, and so you'll be fair tied to
that's tied to getting unwinding the post war international rules
based order. We're going to tell people that, hey, we're
not going to be everywhere. Kids from California are not

(28:19):
going to be on carry battle groups. You know, guys
deployed from San Diego and kids that live in the
Inland Empire are not going to be deployed in the
Red Sea with two carry battle groups. They keep the
Suez Canal open so that Europe can get you know,
can get energy resources from the Persian Gulf. I think
those days are kind of over. We'll pick and choose
as we as we as we pull back and look

(28:41):
at hemispheric defense, not retreat from the world, not be isolationists,
but kind of take care of the homeland first, and
particularly take care of the people in the homeland, the
working class, in middle class.

Speaker 1 (28:57):
I appreciate how you laid all that out. What you know,
I think there's risk in the context of the argument
to move into multipolar world and obviously the security umbrellas
that will radically reorganize themselves. You've already seen now with
Mertz in Germany, in the relationship with obviously Britain and France,
but also I worry about Japan and South Korea and
that relationship. I worry about the nature of our broader influence.

(29:22):
But I want to step back. There was a lot
that influenced a lot of those companies you said that
are coming back to the United States of America. Do
you not agree that the industrial policies of the Biden
administration as it relates to the Infrastructure Bill, aspects of
the IRA, aspects of the Chips and Science Act, were
they not determinative from an industrial worker center policy perspective?

(29:45):
Were they not also influential in the decision for people
to begin into quote unquote reshore or they pray.

Speaker 2 (29:51):
It might have been at the beginning, but it was
President Trump they announcedore in President Trump's term. If President
Trump had not won this election, he just had common
those companies.

Speaker 1 (30:02):
Now, I mean, do you know record does but there
was record investments in coming back during the.

Speaker 2 (30:07):
I think about it, correct me if I'm wrong. I
think Biden in the tire four years is one point
seven trillion dollars of capital investment back here from I
think companies, not just private.

Speaker 1 (30:16):
Ectory from the private sector, from the private sector.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
Right, not just saying but Trump's almost at a trillion
dollars in four weeks. And these are Apple because they
understand that Trump represents a populist nationalist that's only growing
and only going to expand, right, And and people are
now focused on this. And that's why I think you
have Honda, you have Siemens, you have you know, the

(30:41):
semiconductor company is huge, you know, the most advanced, I
would say, semiconductor manufacturer in the world. The other thing,
I think it's quite interesting that traditionally our tech area
in one twenty eight in Boston, in Silicon Valley are
built around great engineering schools built around Berkeley and Stanford,
are built around Harvard and MIT. You know, when you
start relocating to Arizona on something that's both an art

(31:03):
and a science like advanced chip design, and you know,
I love my crow at Arizona State. He's a buddy
of mine in Universey. Arizona's a great square. I love Arizona.
They're not exactly m I, t or Or or Stanford.
And I think it's showing you that the Red States
have done such a great job. Texas being the lead
of actually making these amenable to people's needs as companies.

(31:26):
That they're coming back there and I think is going
to have a huge political impact and a huge demographic
But they didn't come in Biden Harris, and if Kamala
Harris won, certainly they wouldn't have come because she's still
a globalist. It's not prepared to disrupt the global supply chains.
President Trump's prepared to do that because reashoring. They're not
going to come back here unless you incentivize them to

(31:46):
come back here. And part of that's a carrot, which
is what uh, But you know Trump's Trump's better with
a stick, and you need to You need a carrot
and a stick a those.

Speaker 1 (32:01):
And I appreciate the stick, but let's talk about those
red states. Aren't they disproportioned the ones impacted by these tariffs.
I mean, there's to your point, there's going to be
some tears here. And I appreciate the larger geopolitical and
what you're trying to argue for ultimately coming out on
the other side, but this transition is not overnight. The
transition will come at real cost and consequence. Let's just

(32:21):
be pragmatic up in Minnesota, Michigan, in New York. They're
looking at one hundred dollars more a month on electricity
bills as it relates to reality nature.

Speaker 2 (32:29):
Look, but that's a threat that's if it goes through something.

Speaker 1 (32:33):
That's just one example. I mean there's not every economist
looks at the impacts of these TIFFs, but California will
be disproportion held.

Speaker 2 (32:40):
We did this, Governor. We did the most significant terrorists
we've ever done on the Chinese Comties Party in President
Trump's first term, and and and.

Speaker 1 (32:49):
Biden held the line on a lot of this that.

Speaker 2 (32:52):
Held the line one number one because I think geopolitically
he realized that, you know, you've got to stand up
to the CCP. And I think although you wouldn't have
you wouldn't have heard it from the media that what
President Trump did was the beginning stage of something that
had to be done to get the attention to the
Chinese Congress Party that you just can't continue to game
the system. And President Trump went out of his way.

(33:12):
By May of nineteen Lightheiser Navarro had that deal that
went to every seven of the categories they had to
resolve to really integrate with the Western economy of really
the world's economy, including the state owned industries, and they
just tore the deal up and walked away right and
said screw you. And so that's when these terriffs, and
the terriffs didn't increase prices. So when people say they
increased prices, I don't actually think. You have some economists

(33:36):
saying theoretically, but when we look at practically back to
the golden year of twenty nineteen, you don't actually see it.
And I think there may be some dislocations in the
short term, but in the intermediate term, I think it's
really the way you get to the sunlit uplands of
really having back to the American plan of remember world

(33:57):
class industrial manufacturing. So many other operas.

Speaker 1 (34:01):
Think it's a mutual goal for all of us. But
industrial policy, which I think is missing a little bit
from the Trump agenda. With targeted tariffs, I understand, but
broad tariffs without an industrial policy where I start.

Speaker 2 (34:15):
To loss sustain The key is broad sustained. If you
have broad and sustained tariffs and people can make capital
allocation decisions, particularly small and medium manufacturers. Remember in the
Chicago area, I think between nineteen ninety eight and two
thousand and five we lost five thousand small manufacturers and
a couple of million jobs because we shipped it all

(34:37):
to China, and those guys are bigging all the time.
These are not the apples and it's not the Taiwan
manufacturing some are manufacturing. These are small, you know, the
companies employed under one hundred people, which I think is
the life run. In fact, there's a guy in Laguna Beach,
John Gardner, who's kind of the leader of this effort
to bring the small manufacturing folks back to more craftsmanship

(34:58):
type of of manufacturing. We have to do that. We
have to become a manufacturing powerhouse again. Uh, we have
to do it quickly. And it's Wall Street is not
going to love it because they're all neoliberal, neo cons
They want to be they want to be invading everywhere
and the and they and they they hate populism. One
of the reasons people should understand is the is the

(35:21):
is the is a blowback among the donor class in
Wall Street. Is not just that the they perceive the
economics and not to their benefit because they've concent you've
concentrated well so dramatically here since the financial crash of
two thousand and eight. But they hate the fact, and
this shows you the Democratic Party. They hate the fact
that they're empowering the populist. If we start to win

(35:43):
on these tariffs, and we start to win on bringing
these back, our movement is going to get bigger and
bigger and bigger. Remember we got thirty nine percent of
African American men. I think first time we've got uh
majority of near majority of Hispanics. Because working class people
see the opportunities there, and Wall Street understands this, and
the corporatis understands. I can't. Corporate America is my enemy

(36:05):
number one. They're the leader in the woke movement in
this country, but they're also the greed and avarice has
always been for the leaders. In fact that the tax
cuts they take, and one of the reasons I hate
allowing them to do stock buy backs is they gained
the system to drive up stock prices to dry the
warrant package and the thing, and they don't put in
a capital equipment. Thank you to me.

Speaker 1 (36:25):
If you tell your president that, Steve, you got to
tell your president that the president presend the status president.

Speaker 2 (36:32):
The president knows this already his tax but he go
after the carried interest now as he going after corporate subsidies.
I'm going to I'm going to break some news here, Governor.
I believe that one of the leading things you're going
to see in President Trump's tax bill when it comes out,
that he's going to take on carried interest and President
Trump is finding how.

Speaker 1 (36:49):
To be that's a that's it. That's my kind of doge.
That's one point three billion dollars small ball, but it's
symbolic and subsidence. What about the three billion dollars in
oil gas subsidies. I mean, that's ultimate corporate welfare.

Speaker 2 (37:00):
What do you mean. We've gotta we gotta drill, baby drill,
and we need to.

Speaker 1 (37:03):
We're already were thirteen and a half billion barrels a million.

Speaker 2 (37:06):
Yes, today we have we need we have to have
lower energy costs. And one of the reasons all these
companies are coming back. We're never What we got to
do is stop. Look you see this in Germany. Germany
had this maniacal and you and I are not going
to agree on this or even close, but they had
this this fetish. They made a mistake carbon zero. They've
de industrialized themselves on the Greta Thunberg model, they're three

(37:30):
five percent.

Speaker 1 (37:31):
They get pretty Gretath of Thumberg, she wasn't even bored.
But I appreciate your friend, you know.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
But they didn't. There's deindustrializing Germany. We don't want that
to happen here in the nice Now we're.

Speaker 1 (37:41):
On the same page on that. It's just how we
achieve the goal. And by the way, one hundred percent
a line on industrial policy bringing manufacturing back, that's workers
centered one hundred percent. By the way, I say that
as governor of the largest manufacturing state in America, a
state that has more corporate headquarters God bless forgive me
than any other state in America, more than we've had
in over a decade, and that dominates in the innovative

(38:03):
space in terms of scientists and researcher.

Speaker 2 (38:06):
Hang hang out. You've allowed alcohol. But hang on second,
Hang a second. You've also allowed and this you've also
allowed the oligarchy of Silicon Valley. And let's talk about
Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley is on apartheight state, Okay, within
within you're one of the most progressive leaders in this country.
Right we disagree probably on everything on the cultural side,

(38:27):
but you're you're one of the leaders, you're on the
leaders elected officials of the most progressive state, and you're,
you know, the leader of that element of the democratic.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
Techno feudalism and feudalism. What do you mean by that exactly?

Speaker 2 (38:41):
Well, here's what I mean is that two things happen
around two thousand and eight to two thousand and ten.

Speaker 1 (38:52):
By the way, that's sort of the Tea Party. That's
the Wall Street the bailout.

Speaker 2 (38:55):
So the bailout, the financial crash of two thousand and eight.
And this is why I considered President Obama kind of
a tragic figure. Right. He came in as an anti
war populace, and I'm opposed to the war in Iraq
and every in Afghanistan. My daughter served after West Point
in Iraq. And I can tell you as a parent,
you realize that you have no control over anything when
your kid goes over for you know, defending their country,

(39:16):
represent their country. It's you understand, you know, how insignificant
you are. But the financial crash, you know, Geidner and
BERNANKI went to a classic Wall Street bailout. You know,
we didn't let capitalism, you know, Goldman Sacks got b
held at AIG. No corporate guys ever went to prison
on the worst bailout. We had the greatest concentration of
wealth until the pandemic happened with the one percent, because

(39:39):
you know, the Federal reserves balance sheet went from eight
hundred and eighty bion dollars to I think four and
a half, right, and and all that liquidity went to
bailout real assets and corporate stocks at the same time
with Obama when they when they you know, when Obama
got this heads up kind of I think it was
on Facebook the San Francisco airport, this briefing about how
social media his his weapon to take on the Clinton

(40:00):
mafia because he was a relatively unknown guy taking on
the most embedded political apparatus in the Democratic Party in
modern history. And he took it all with using social media.
That was his first thing. And there was a deal,
kind of made a Faustian bargain that we wouldn't pursue
anti trust, we wouldn't pursue FTC or the Justice Department.

(40:22):
We would allow the the tech oligarchs in the age
of the algorithm, the algorithmic age, to to basically dominate
and dominate in every one of these these verticals, right,
with no real anti anti trust, and what we allowed
him to become the most powerful people on earth. Uh
And And but what proved out is that both on
social media with TikTok, uh and and then with Deep

(40:45):
Seek in the AI space, that the Faucian bargain that
as a hedge of mind, we said, just give us
the commanding heights, and that didn't happen. In fact, you
say it's kind of an utter failure that that the
social media is all kind of clunky. It's very dominant, right,
but as clunky compared to TikTok. If you look at
Ai and whether Deep Seek you think it's a Chinese

(41:06):
syop or it's a spot Nick moment. We clearly we
clearly you know, you don't hear a lot of talking
about that carbon zero when this thing needs ten times
more on the data center, sid it in the in
the in the in the in the thing because it's
kind of brute force computing.

Speaker 1 (41:22):
Has it has resuscitated the nuclear question, which is interesting.
So they're exactly because they're still in command, they haven't
completely thrown out, uh fully, the commitment to low carbon
green growth. But your point.

Speaker 2 (41:32):
Direction governor don't get there, you know, because they don't
have the power, they don't have their business model. Now
for that epic fail, what's the and they've gotten away
from capitalism is about markets and profits. Okay, they are
now about digital platforms in rent their rent seekers, and
they don't believe in even open borders. These guys are

(41:54):
techno feudalists. That you have a digital platform, you had
kind of digital serfs that that serve that, uh, and
you add it to AI. And what they want to
do in advanced AI of cutting out all the you know,
entry level managerial, administrative, low tech work we're going to have.
We're gonna have a massive problem about unemployment. And they're
just on the merry way. And here's what Just like

(42:15):
the lords of easy money on Wall Street came to
the Federal Reserve and the Treasury for a bailout, and
no working class or middle class people you know this
in California got a bailout. They paid for the bailout
through the taxes. What's the first thing to do? Silicon
Valley comes. The first thing they come for is we
need a new Marcury program, we need a Marshall program,

(42:36):
we need five hundred billion dollars, and they need to
turn over the Lawrence Livermore weapons lab in California, San Dia.
We need to take control of all the national labs,
and we need a five hundred billion dollar bailout because
of the spot Nick moment, so they come back to
the taxpurs this way. I think these guys are very
dangerous and it's created in the Silicon Valley, and I
understand the beginning there was rationale for this, but now

(42:58):
it's not and it's got to be And I think
you've got to be one of the leaders of it
for ever to get a control of the oligarchs. You,
as Governor and as quite frankly the leader of that
wing of the party, have got to work with us
to say, hey, this can't go on any longer. We
first thing we need is Lena Kahan, and I we.

Speaker 1 (43:18):
Got rid of her. So I was going to ask you,
I had someone who was actually starting to deal with
some of these issues and then truck threw him out
throughout correct me.

Speaker 2 (43:26):
If I'm wrong, Governor. I don't think Kamala Harris, I
don't think Lena Khan's name ever crossed the lips of
Kamala Harrison. I don't recall, but they never had her back.
She's the first one to say that they never had
her back. She's a neo Brandeisian after Louis Brandeis, which
always warrant against the concentration of private power.

Speaker 1 (43:43):
Also celebrated citizenship, which I appreciate, active non inert citizenship,
exact most human powerful office.

Speaker 2 (43:50):
And he was he was a big believer in human agency.
And with Gil Slater, gil Slater's deputy, with with Andrew Ferguson,
also Mike Davis and Rachel On Beauvart on the outside,
we are the most we want to break up. In fact,
you've see the suits right now in Northern Virginia and
d C against Google. I mean, the hardcore, populous wing

(44:13):
of the Mega movement really wants to target them up.

Speaker 1 (44:17):
And look, I appreciate that, and you've been consistent on
that for years and obviously goes to you know, I
imagine some of your issues with with Elon and we
haven't even gotten to that. And I know that's all.

Speaker 2 (44:28):
Have any issues, have any issues?

Speaker 1 (44:29):
I know what you called him evil, You called him
a racist. Uh, you have a inherent parasitic illegal alien.
I think was your exact phrase. Your phrase, not mine,
though we may share some commonality in terms of concern
about what he's doing. But that said, let me.

Speaker 2 (44:47):
Just hold it. No, hang on, hang concern. You guys
loved to see you loved all the oligarchs in particularly
Elon until they flip. And remember all the rest of
these oligarchs were all progressive Democrats until eleven people they're
progressive liberty.

Speaker 1 (45:03):
I would I refer to him as libertarian. And I
know these guys intimately known them for decades.

Speaker 2 (45:08):
So you know the danger we're dealing with, you know, knowing.

Speaker 1 (45:11):
Look, but what why doesn't Donald Trump? Why doesn't President
Trump the leader of the movement? Trump isn't without Trump.
I don't mean maybe maybe it's MAGA, it's the work
you're doing in that populist base. But why isn't he
pushing back? He brings someone in from Trump Treasury puts
a Commerce secretary and only reinforces.

Speaker 2 (45:29):
The first off at Treasury. I think you're seeing a
very smart analysis about M and A and about the oligarchs.
I think look with Gil Slater Andrew Ferguson, I mean,
these are one notch down and maybe not as well
known as Lena Khan, but they're in the same they're
in the same Uh, they're in the same uh school
of thought of Neo brandeisian of this concept of concern

(45:51):
about the concentration, the tremendous concentration of private power. I
think in prison, Trump's working through this right now. Look,
all these guys just became their damna scene moment was
eleven pm Eastern Standard time on the fifth of November,
when Pennsylvania was called for Trump. Once that all of them,
Zuckerbergh and they all moved. They became maga, you know, Zuckerberg.
Zuckerberg started growing the hair, working out doing.

Speaker 1 (46:13):
Elon was there a little bit before, it seemed. Lelon
was there before after he dumped DeSantis.

Speaker 2 (46:19):
Elon I think, very smartly, this goes back to the precinct,
and I get I give him Trenda's credit. He saw
the math of what we were doing as grassroots of
this precinct strategy canvassing. He backed to play. I mean,
and look, no one's ever written a two hundred and
fifty million dollar check when they tell me, you know, I.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
Think it's more, but I but that's just my humble opinion.

Speaker 2 (46:38):
It may be more eventually. I think it's up to
two eighty. But he backed it on the least sexy aspect,
which is backing grassroots, going door to door, and particularly
he would go up and campaign in Pennsylvania, Michigan and
wascond just.

Speaker 1 (46:52):
And forgive me. But what's his end game? I mean,
you know, I know, you look, he wants to be
the first trillion air in the world. I mean, what's
his endgame here?

Speaker 2 (46:58):
Well, you know it. You guys created a governor. I mean,
you got a way.

Speaker 1 (47:02):
In many respects California did. It was our regulatory process
and our subsidies to create this market. You're one hundred
percent right. I think you're right about He.

Speaker 2 (47:11):
Left Canada to come to California. That was, you know said, and.

Speaker 1 (47:15):
Then a big and then a big check from the
federal government from everybody watching that backed his play early
on when he was in deep need. He paid it
back relatively quickly. But he's been the beneficiary of billions
and billions and billions of dollars.

Speaker 2 (47:28):
Thirty loans, thirty thirty eight loans, I think thirty.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
What do you seriously want him to take over the
starlink to take over the FAA and the air traffic
control system.

Speaker 2 (47:39):
Here's is that. Here's where listen. I late at this
concept at SEAPAC in seventeen that that was going to
be you know, populous economics and the economic nationalism America. First,
national security, and the third was a deconstruction the administrative state.
What Elon Musk has done. And I think this is
the engineer, you know, the best angels of Elon, that

(48:01):
engineer's brain. I think he kicked in when he saw
the strategy of how we actually win and building a
coalition of working class people. He supported that in President Trump,
I think now and this is why I think he
jumped on it. He sees that we have an apparatus,
and I think you'd be the first amit the administrative
state that's kind of anti democratic. It's there, and I
don't care if AOC or Gavin Newsom or Bernie Sanders

(48:23):
walks into the oval office president United States. The deep
state and the apparatus is going to do what they're
going to do. They're going to look at you as
just passing through.

Speaker 1 (48:31):
Now we refer to it in you know, in non Pejorita.
But there's a clay layer of bureaucracy, and you're right,
unaccountable folks making a lot of decisions. And I don't
think that's wrong, but your yours is a much you know.

Speaker 2 (48:42):
What, I just had an idea we should invite Elon
because you know these guys better your personal friends with you, guys,
Elon ought to take a California Doge sit down with
you so you can get the guard.

Speaker 1 (48:52):
And we've been doing it for going but going, But
our approach, Steve, is more like rego. We already did
this one hundred and forty billion dollars of saving on
a one point four trillion dollars budget. That was real savings,
and we did it the right way, not to people
with people fo one hundred thousand positions the administry.

Speaker 2 (49:09):
Let let your favorite, let Elon come out. Let Elon
come out and verify that. I think for the nation
to be good. And because he.

Speaker 1 (49:16):
Has done, let's just a restlessness to let's go back.

Speaker 2 (49:19):
Let's go back to do. What he's trying to do
is get the waste, fraud and abuse and identified. He
has identified USAID, which people have been working on for years.
But he's done a good job there. The others is
twenty billion dollars in city corps. You know where it went.
I think people are going to, you know, eventually need
more details. I think he said he's going to provide
more details. They just went to federal court last night.

(49:40):
A judge ruled.

Speaker 1 (49:41):
And I love Steve. I love that you're defending him now.
By the way, he's been knocked on you, hang on,
hang on. He hasn't attacked you back, which is interesting
to me. He's marginally attacked you back. You must be muted.
I'm curious your private thoughts on that. Why do you
think he's a little scared of you?

Speaker 2 (49:58):
Isn't he?

Speaker 1 (49:58):
No?

Speaker 2 (49:59):
I don't think he.

Speaker 1 (50:00):
I think he is. That's my personal opinion.

Speaker 2 (50:03):
I'm just I'm just a mick that yells into a microphone.
But but Governor, No, here's I think it's important and
any and this is why I think, let's get back
to why President Trump won again. You have basically working
class people, in middle class and particularly lower down the change.
They've seen the bailouts on Wall Street, they've seen the
oligarchs be made. They don't think they have agency. And

(50:25):
in a global, you know, global supply chain, they think
they're just a cog in the machine, that their voice
is not heard. Right, they're kind of dismiss culturally. They're
considering and I don't care if you're black, Hispanic or
white working class. It's not a race thing. It's it's ethnicity.
It's you're just dismissed as not being important. Now, with
AI coming up, they see that even their children that
went to college in that in that important ten years

(50:47):
that you get out of school, administrative, tech, managerial, are
probably not going to be there or be there in
some dramatically different way than you came up and your
dad came up, and my dad and myself. So I
think they see that in the institutions that were supposed
to be there to be protective people questioning. The polling
shows this categorican. That's why a guy like Trump. Trump

(51:08):
comes up and he says, look in DC, not in
the room, not in the deal, and I'm going to
put you in the room. And people feel comfortable. That's
why they love this kind of days of thunder and
every day flood the zone. What President Trump is doing.
And President Trump and you know, because you know him
very well, he has a visceral connection with working class
people that people in politics haven't had, you know, for generations.

(51:31):
He just has this work working class in middle class.
They trust him and they believe in him, and he's
designated Elon. I've got a lot of problems with Elon,
and you know that Elon knows it. But what I
do admire is that he is trying to get this
situation to get the waste, fraud and abuse out. I
hope it gets to a trillion dollars. I'm his biggest
support of that. I don't think we're going to get
there now.

Speaker 1 (51:51):
And I think back to your point, that's deep programmatic cuts.

Speaker 2 (51:54):
We're going to end your consequences and people this summer,
and I keep telling people like all these corporacy as
it come to Tront to mar Lago in the tech
bros and the brologarchs and all of them came to
the all of them came to the inauguration. They're all
party in their tux sis. I said, this is all
great celebratory, but we're going to go through a firestorm.
And I think part of this firestorm is not this CR.

(52:14):
I think the CR gets kicked down, but this summer,
when you start to go through the programmatic changes that
you have to have. We have to get control of
federal spending. If we don't, we're never going to get
rid of inflation. That is going to be the acid test.
When you talk about defense, you're going to have the
Hawks and a lot of other people in the neo
kons in your grill. When you talk about what has
to happen to medicate, you know are going there. When

(52:37):
you talk about the social programs, you talk about SNAP,
you talk about these, we are about to have a
national conversation that we've never had. We've never and there's
no easy alternatives. All the easy alternatives we left, you know,
a decade or a couple of decades ago. This is
going to get down to say, hey, we need to
get the deficit to under tree and dollars or like
three and a half percent. We're never going to People

(52:59):
should in this, your audience should understand something. We will
never pay off one penny of the face amount of
the debt as we increase this now about every hundred
days of another tree and dollars. It's just the interest
right now, it's the gross interest charge. I think a
tree and four, which is the way it's got to
be looked not net because they kind of take the
they take the interest on the bonds we sell ourselves,

(53:20):
and they net it out, which I think is unfair account.
And you got to look at the gross right now.
It's significantly over the Defense Department. And I would tell
people too, as we kind of wrap up or get
close to wrap up. In the history of countries, no
countries ever come back economically that it's GDP, that its
debts above its GDP, and we are now at that

(53:40):
at that space. In additional, no nation a national security
has ever survived as a major power when the interest
payments on their debt go above what they pay for
national security. The tree and dollars we are now over
our national security right now is one trellion dollars. You're

(54:00):
thinking about a tree in two to train four an
interest payments alone. Yeah. Money.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
But Steve, that's why this tax cuts, extending the tax
cuts is reckless in this respect.

Speaker 2 (54:09):
I don't agree with that. I think, if if you
want to have.

Speaker 1 (54:14):
A governor, where how do you by definition, if you
want to get out, if you want to have.

Speaker 2 (54:19):
A shot, if you want to have a shot to
get to three and a half four percent, growth. You've
got to have a supply side tax Hutch. You just
and by the way, for people, it's just keeping the
tax cut they have today for for people.

Speaker 1 (54:30):
This is that's the frame. Though you want to see
it increased on corporations in the one percent.

Speaker 2 (54:34):
I want to see corporations stay. I don't want to
see a cut, but on the upper on the upper brackets,
I don't want to say. I don't want to see extension.
I want them to go back to the old rates
and they have to pay the old rates. And then additionally,
if they can't help us get this under control, I'm
all for increasing taxes on the They will have a
tax increase if President Trump doesn't extend it. But then

(54:54):
I think we'll have another, have another tax increase the
one percent, the top three percent, unless because they control
Washington d C. Unless they work together with working class
and middle class people to get this spending out of
control and get all the corporate welfare out of this,
because we hate corporate We hate crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

Speaker 1 (55:13):
Except for oil and gas. Apparently, Steve, that's not three
billion right there.

Speaker 2 (55:17):
You've got to generate. You've got to generate lower energy
costs their exceptions. First off, you finally admitted for the
first time, the net carbon fetish is admitted.

Speaker 1 (55:29):
I've been I've been pretty pletty clear on this whole frame,
but I'm not naive about it. But also, by the way,
we're not I don't know what more evidence you guys
need of Mother Nature's fury and then we've had in
the last year. But that's another conversation for another thing,
and that's not fanaticism. Eventually, pragmaticially, eventually.

Speaker 2 (55:48):
Eventually, uh, you work with roe Quahanna and Feederman, you'll
become You'll become more of a populous nationalist, and then
you'll probably have a bright future.

Speaker 1 (55:59):
Hey, Steve, I really enjoy this conversation. I think is
incredibly valuable. And I appreciate the spirit to which we
were able to engage and and I hope we can
continue the conversation and and uh, and I hope we
get out of this week without any further disruptions. It's
been a hell of a hell of a beginning of administration.
And I appreciate your your advocacy. I also appreciate that

(56:20):
you call balls and strikes as it relates to what
you're seeing, uh, with administration.

Speaker 2 (56:25):
I also think that for your audience. You know, there's
a saying that there are decades in which nothing happens
in there are weeks in which decades happen. We're living
in that time right now. So whatever happens this week,
next week is going to be quite intense. We have
a mate, we have an economy turn around. Geostrategically, the
beginning of the kinetic part of the Third World War
has got to be stopped. So it's we're we're living

(56:46):
history every day. And uh, I'm just honored you had
me on here, and uh, you know we were able
to conduct this in some level of decency.

Speaker 1 (56:55):
I appreciate Steve, thanks for joining us.

Speaker 2 (56:57):
Thank you, Governor, appreciate you. The Bangaga the song of
podm