Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Alright, Jesus right, yeah, Sames America and Jeri for one Nation.
Yes is wrong.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
This is Columbia's Morning News with Gary David and Christopher
Thompson on one O three point five FM and five
sixty AM w VOC and.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Good morning to you. It is sixteen minutes after six.
It's Thursday, April third. Welcome to it. It doesn't feel
like April outside this morning, by the way.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
You know it doesn't.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
What is it?
Speaker 4 (00:40):
What is the temperature is? It's in the seventies.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Yeah, we're at seventy one here at the radio ram Peez.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Yeah at six o'clock in the morning.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Yeah. Crazy, Yeah, where it's the low seventies all across
the Midlins this morning. Yeah, it's kind of nuts.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
It makes you wonder what summer is going to be.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Like, yeah, exactly right. But hey, let me make a
look here. For example, next Wednesday morning, we're gonna wake
up to tempts in the emper thirties. So we're on
that roller coaster right now, friends, in more ways than one.
By the way, let's get right to it, because there's
(01:15):
a lot going on. The rundown, the big stories, the
hot topics for April third, let's start at home. When
the boy all the headlines are screaming about this proposed
flat tax here, I'm not sure this was the way
that when they first rolled this thing out they thought
(01:37):
it would be reacted to. But again, as we've dug
deeper and deeper into this and we've seen what I
guess right now, the big question is this kind of
like with the tariffs, short term pain, long term gain.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
That's the cell now m hm.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
But there are no guarantees. So you've got well, the
quote unquote hardline conservatives questioning the wisdom of all this.
They have been from the now number one. They wanted
to They would have liked it to gone further that
they got luck to go onto you know, you know,
a no income tax state. And wouldn't we all really,
(02:25):
I mean come on, well maybe not everybody, but I would.
You got the American Action Fund now putting in money
of this urging opposition of this plan, so we got
things to talk about here. Basically, at least in the
short term, this would be a middle class income tax hike.
(02:45):
The numbers aren't real pretty in the short term.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
The state newspaper's editorial board is on the same Porial
Board of One is on the same page as the
House Freedom Caucus.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Yeah, how crazy is that? Huhuh?
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Tells you how how upside down this is.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
It really is really, I know, we've talked a lot
about it. We'll talk more about it today. Now the
Senate is well, Larry Grooms wants to go through with this.
He wants the Senate to take up a vote to
remove Curtis Loftis from office.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
And this whole process it almost reminds you of the
impeachment process at the national level, at the federal level. Yeah,
because the Senate, I guess, will as a whole, as
an entire group, meet and judge Curtis Loftis.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
It'll take a two thirds majority to remove them from office.
But unlike the impeachment route that we normally see, there's
been no indictment from the House of Representatives here, which
up on Capitol Hill you'd have to have first. So
this goes right to the Senate. So Larry Grioms is
continuing his crusade against Loftis, who, well, up until like
(03:58):
a day or two ago, we were under the impression
because he'd said so that he wasn't going to run
for reelection. But I think I mentioned this the other day,
you know, with all this going on, he just might
reconsider that, and apparently he has.
Speaker 4 (04:10):
He is running again.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Loftus is running again. So this is going to get
real interesting. I don't Again, I don't know there's the
appetite from two thirds of the senators, especially because the
governor doesn't think it's a good idea. Although the governors
in the state don't hold a lot of sway over
the members of the House, the State House certainly, but
we'll see. Now. The House meantime passing H thirty nine
(04:36):
to twenty seven. That's the bill that restricts or bans
dei initiatives and local agencies. Now this is a bit
toned down from what the original idea was in that
it doesn't go after outside private businesses who do business
with the state, as it was originally intended to do,
but it does restrict dei or band dei when it
(04:58):
comes to a state agency. So they have have passed that. Meanwhile,
the State had our day in front of the High
Court in the Land yesterday and on the line the
future of uh well, oh, I love this. The state
papers opening line the future of reproductive healthcare provider Planned Parenthood. Okay,
(05:21):
now I know they do things other than abortion, but
let's just just say what it is. It's it's the
future of abortion. So arguments yesterday, Well, the court seems
to be somewhat divided on this, just based on the
reaction of the questioning from the just time. We'll get
into that. Nancy Mace not happy after prosecutors in d
(05:42):
C dropped the case against the man who was accused
of assaulting her. Remember this was a couple of months
back outside the Capitol building. It turned out it was
an they called it an aggressive handshake, James McIntyre, but
earlier pleted not guilty. The out legation was that he
shook her hand in an exaggerated aggressive manner last year.
(06:07):
All right, prosecutor there says, you know what, We're not
wasting our time on this. Mas not happy, Okay, place
your bets spin the wheel. Liberation Day arrived yesterday.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
The tariffs and there are a lot. I mean, it's
it's we don't have time to go down the list
of all the tariffs. Now this these announcements coming down
late in the day as the markets were closing, but
after hours trading pre market trading. Again, If you've been
(06:42):
up for a little while and listening, you've already heard
that it ain't pretty. Dow futures have dropped a couple
hundred more points since I first checked. A few minutes
agos Dow futures are down one another, back up again.
Well anyway, Dow future is down eleven hundred points.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
So, I mean, we all knew this was coming, so
you would think the market sees this. Yeah, you know
that there's the ringing of hands and then should settle down?
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Should? Yes? That should?
Speaker 4 (07:13):
That's not my investment advice to you. It's just what
your hope happens.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Well, yeah, and what's I guess what's kind of surprising
is that the markets usually these things are baked in
the cake, right, they know what's common. But yeah, the
reaction is not good. Overseas markets are down a big time.
The whole world's down right now as a result of
these announcements of Liberation Day. Okay, we'll talk more about
(07:42):
this again, short term pain versus long term game. But
how short term will the pain be and will the
long term pay off? And what does this mean for
the midterms. Well, we'll get into all that. The Senate,
by the way, passing a resolution yesterday last night that
would would halt the president's ability to impose tariffs on Canada.
(08:06):
Four Republicans joined in with all the Democrats to support this.
They were well, some of the usual suspects, Lisa mccowski
and Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, and Ran Paul who's not
a fan of these tariffs either, does Uncovering more waste? Boy,
how about this one? We talked the other day about
that online survey that the DOE says the government you me,
(08:31):
taxpayers paid what a billion dollars for it could have
been done for maybe ten thousand. Well, now, uncovering the
Department of Veterans Affairs is paying close to four hundred
thousand dollars a month for minor website modifications. Three hundred
and eighty thousand dollars a month is what it is.
(08:53):
The DOE says, this is the same moric that's right
now being executed by one internal VA software engineer spending
about ten hours a week, so for about forty hours
a month, shelling out close to four hundred thousand month
for minor modifications of the VIA website. This is just
it's insane. Uh okay, we got that. We've got some
(09:16):
some woke news to pass along as well. Well, uh
anti woke for Seattle. But Colorado is just really going
down this. I don't know what is it with Colorado.
We'll tell what they're up to here a few that
and more on this the Thursday morning edition of Columbia's
Morning News. Good to have you here here about it.
(09:37):
A week to wake up as the country talk about it.
This is this is here evil.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
One old three point five FFM and five sixty AM
w VOC. This is Columbia's Morning News with Gary David
and Christopher Thompson on one O three point five FM
and five sixty AM w VOC.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Six forty one. Good morning. It is a Thursday, April
third Liberation Day plus one. We're talking more about that
and the reaction to it coming up in the next
half hour. You know, it's one thing when a business
decides or decided to go woke. It's one thing when
you know when they're timin conglomerate like Disney, for example,
(10:21):
decided to go woke, and well you have options, right,
you don't have to patronize that business. You don't have
to go see the snow White remake, and people aren't,
by the way. But when government's municipalities the entire states
decide to go woke, not a whole lot you can
(10:42):
do about that is there, and the results are never good.
Case in points Seattle, Washington, one of the most liberal
cities in the country, they've finally figured out now, after
(11:04):
gosh how many years of wokeness when it came to
police and taking care of their citizenry, Seattle has now
deciding to honor all first responders again and to ditch
the defund the police initiatives. And this was introduced this
(11:31):
resolution by a Guy council member named Robert Soaka, who
once wore a Black Lawyers Matter T shirt to a
George Floyd protest, talked of his belief in the principles
of both the American Flag and the Black Lives Matter movement.
(11:52):
He's now a change of heart when it comes to
the anti cop thing, saying he now sees anti cop
rhetoric is very divisive. It took him a while to
come around to that idea, but he finally did, and
he's the one who introduced this resolution again, a resolution
(12:15):
recognizing the vital work done by all first responders, in
particular affirming the essential services provided by the police department.
A news release from Seattle City Council adding that the
resolution explicitly reverses any prior commitment or pledged by cass
(12:35):
by past councils to defund or abolish the Seattle Police Department,
and it describe such efforts as a failure. Your residents
have known this all along, and they've had to bear
the brunt of your wokeness. I say, there's not a
(12:55):
lot you can do. Well, you can leave and go
somewhere else, but these are people who you know, this
is their home, born and raised. This resolution also noting
that anti cop measures were routinely cited by departing police
personnel as a reason for leaving this Since the city
(13:15):
first embraced defund the police, that was back in twenty twenty,
in the wake of George Floyd. So it took it
took them five years to figure this out, and crimes
have sowored more than doubled. So Seattle finally coming around
to some common sense. And for how many years did
(13:40):
these council members here from the constituents. There were some
members who said, yeah, I've been hearing for a while
from our constituents about this. This is not working, this
is making the situation worse. Well, okay, they finally come around.
I guess all right, So Seattle's backing off. But Coleradlado,
(14:04):
how much dopes being smoked in Colorado by people who
make decisions about how the state should be run.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
Huh, Well, it is not only legal there, but a
big part of the lifestyle.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
The Rocky Mountain High Colorado. Who just again recently, as
we talked about last week, you had state leaders suggesting
that they could save money by funding abortion, that it
was cheaper to kill a baby than it was to
have a baby. Now, Democrats in Colorado were advancing legislation
(14:35):
that would classify misgendering and dead naming as child abuse.
So here's the deal. If they pass this and the
state legislature is controlled by Democrats in Colorado, any parent
who dares to refer to a transvestic child using the
(14:57):
name that they gave the.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
Child, or even saying get over here, little girl, if
the little girl now identifies as a little.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Boy, mispronouning or whatever you call it, that that those
parents could lose custody. Wow, Okay, now we know of
the you know all the things that the governments do
to grab things like your money. But you raise a child,
(15:34):
you give a child a name based on their birth
gender at some point, and who knows, I mean, I
don't think they even say here how young this could be.
But let's just pick a number. Let's tell you've got
a twelve year old, maybe a ten year old who,
(15:54):
no doubt, you know, going to these liberal public schools
and Colorado with these activist teachers trying to convince Susie
that Susie is really Johnny. And you refuse to call
Susie Johnny your own child who you have raised, then
(16:16):
the state would come in and take the child away
from you. This but this sounds like some kind of
a bad horror the horror exactly. I was going to
say that exactly, some kind of bad horror movie that
you'd see it a drive through in the seventies. Really,
the state would have the right to come in or
(16:37):
h Yeah, it's still mentioned if you refer to you know,
your little baby girl that you was born and you've
raised as her instead of him, because somehow her has
been convinced that her is a hymn. The state could
come and take that child away from you. This is insane.
(17:05):
State law right now in Colorado requires that courts making
child custody decisions and accordance with the best interest of
the child must consider reports of coercive control lodged against
the parties involved. Well, this bill would modify the definition
of one type of course of control and add another,
(17:29):
and that would be this. This is crazy. Now what
is dead naming? Oh well, dead naming or misgendering. Okay,
another form of course of control. This bill is.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Said, dead naming is Stevie instead of Susie.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Yeah, because Susie's dead, I guess, And Stevie is what
Susie used to be. Oh my goodness. Uh, you know,
with things like that, I can't even the most Maybe
I don't know if at any conservative left in.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Colorado shut off the lights on your way out exactly.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
I'm having a hard time grasping this one, a real
hard time grasping it. We've gone from the idea of
the schools, for example, knowing better how to raise your
child than you do as a parent. That was bad
enough to this. Now the state apparatus taking a chot
(18:38):
away from you for this. Oh my.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
If you're listening to Columbia's Morning News on one oh
three point five FM on five sixty am WVOC, once again,
here's Gary David and Christopher Thompson.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
I can tell you how the markets are reacting. Not well,
which was to be expected, but well how long will this?
Will this go?
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Here?
Speaker 3 (19:05):
We'll get into the Liberation Day plus one a little
bit later on this morning. Good to have you along.
It's Thursday, April third, fifteen, after seventh the time now,
and we appreciate you joining us. I'm Gary David. That
is Christopher Thompson right over there. Good morning. So what
seven years after the executive vote was signed by the
governor McMaster, the cases finally made it to the High
(19:29):
Court in the land. The US Supreme Court heard oral
arguments yesterday. As lawyers for our state and for the DOJ,
we're up against a Planned parenthoods South Atlantic and well,
the future of Planned Parenthood's ability to operate in our
state is on the line here, and some say it
(19:51):
may hinge over just two words may obtain whether those
words which are in the Federal Medicaid Act, which governs
how states dispense Medicaid funds. Whether the words may obtain
guarantee Medicaid recipients the right to choose their provider. It
(20:14):
doesn't say shall obtain or will it pay obtain or
most definitely will obtain, but may obtain. So does that
leave some word does that also mean that you may
not obtain? Well, that apparently is This is what it
may come down to. Okay, So, yes, planned parenthood. They
(20:38):
do more than just abortions, and they want they want
you to talk about the abortion part. They want them
about all the other things they do. Okay. The court
seems to be somewhat divided, as expected. The legal question
(20:59):
well they're considering here could have some more broad effects,
those effects being whether or not Medicaid patients can continue
to sue states over the right to choose their own
qualified provider. Here in South Carolina, we say those lawsuits
are not allowed and that barring them would save public money,
(21:20):
taxpayer money, and legal fees. And some on the court
seem to be open to that argument. Brett Kavanaugh, for example,
saying there's been confusion in lower courts and one of
his goals coming out of this is to revive the
clarity when it comes to it. Amy Cony Barrett, who
has been on the wrong side of MAGA, recently had
questions about whether this would work for low income patients
(21:46):
who'd have to risk paying out of pocket before they
could appeal for reimbursement. Okay, don't know when a decision
will come down. There'd be no time soon there it is.
The arguments have been made. Now back at home, we
(22:07):
have never had a statewide elected official kicked out office.
It's never happened.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
That's hard to believe in itself, isn't it though?
Speaker 3 (22:19):
But yesterday state senators, led of course by Larry Groomes,
put forth a resolution to remove Curtis Loftis from that
position that he's held for more than ten years now.
So this is not quite impeachment in the typical sense
we hear it, right. I mean impeachment, as we know,
(22:39):
at least at the federal level, requires the House of
Representatives to hold hearings to indict and for the Senate
to serve as the jury. But here it's the Senate
that will be judge and jury.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
Apparently, Yeah, because Grooms and his committee are essentially presenting
with the case that the House usually presents right, so that.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Bypassing leaving the house all of this all together here
now Loftis will have the chance to defend himself. Looks
like this hearing is scheduled for what about two weeks
or so from now. So the way it's going to
(23:26):
come down, apparently, is that Grooms and Stephen Goldfinch we'll
make the case. There'll be the prosecutors here, Loftus will
have a chance to respond, and then Grooms of Goldfinch
will get a rebuttal. Then there'll be some questions. Each
(23:46):
senator will be allowed up to ten minutes to ask
both sides ques. This could go on forever.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
And why why two weeks from now? If this is
so urgent, why not do this today? I don't know,
but nothing's going to change in two weeks.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
No, but remember this will take a two thirds majority
vote of the Senate to remove office from office. There
was a resolution what was it last year, to try
to punish Loftis by reducing his salary just one dollar.
They couldn't get two thirds of the Senators to vote
for that. Will they really get two thirds to vote
(24:30):
to remove him totally from office? Or I don't know,
but you can expect a whole lot of fireworks when
this hearing does finally happen. And remember, all along Loftus
has said that he doesn't intend to run for reelection,
but now he's changed his mind, even mentioned this the
(24:50):
other day. He just may be so fed up with
all this and so ticked off at these people that
he's going to stick it to them and run for reelection.
Speaker 4 (24:59):
And did he say he wasn't running or did we
just think he wasn't running?
Speaker 3 (25:03):
I want to I know he is. He had said
he wouldn't.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Run, Okay, now I think he said it during that
hearing last year.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
Yeah. Well, now he's decided he's going to run again. Okay,
so he has lost his re election bid. Is that
even if he gets removed this time around? You wonder? Yeah?
Well yeah, I don't know. I mean, for for.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Fans of Curtis Loftus, and he's got many of them,
this is good. This is only going to make them
like him more.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
Exactly. Yeah, this is you know, this is this is
this is like the whole Trump thing, right. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:43):
The more you the more you criticize or impeach him,
the more loyals get.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
Yeah. Yeah, And I suspect Lofts is probably feeling that
right now. He told the state paper right now, the
greatest threat to our state's financial stability isn't external from
power hungry politicians who never rest in their relentless, politically
motivated attacks on my office. Yeah, he said he's mad
(26:11):
with his investigation. That's one of the reasons why he
wants another four years. And he also wants to preserve
his legacy.
Speaker 4 (26:20):
So is if Larry Grooms doesn't have the votes? I mean,
is he going to spend the next two weeks campaigning
or does he eventually.
Speaker 3 (26:28):
Well that's why that's why two weeks from now, or
does he eventually just call this off? He's got he's
got to count votes now, right You think he'd already
done that. I guess the full Court press will beyond
now for the next two weeks to convince enough Senators
to remove the Loftice from office. Maybe that's why it's
two weeks from now. But yeah, what happens if you
(26:49):
don't get that two thirds majority? Is case over? Or
you're still going to continue to prosecute the war against
Loftus because that should be case closed right there? Right?
This is it. You're firing your big shot here, right,
and if it's not successful, you've got to move on. Right.
Speaker 4 (27:06):
You would think I would think we would have ordered
and moved on. But why do I think they won't?
Speaker 3 (27:12):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
I mean I get the feeling a lot more people
are upset with this proposed tax plan and and what
it could do to to most of us than they
are about Yeah. I mean people it eventually. It originally
raised eyebrows when we were told there was money that
was missing, but then when we eventually figured out, okay,
(27:34):
we weren't missing money, it was never there to begin with.
I think a lot of people just kind of tuned out.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
I think so too. And I think if it hadn't
been for you know, certain individuals and they're you know,
proclaimed war on the guy. Yeah that this I think
the general public has moved on.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
Yes, should there be accountability, yes, absolute, but yeah, get
on with it.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
Yeah, on.
Speaker 4 (27:59):
The check in while you work for the very latest.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
One Old three point five FM and five sixty am
double VOC. This is Columbia's morning news with Gary David
and Christopher Thompson on one O three point five FM
and five sixty am w VOC.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
It's seven forty one. Good morning. It is Thursday, April third.
We brought this topic up briefly early this morning in
the Rundown and in a student observation by mister Thompson
over there, this is that flat tax idea. The debate
will probably be get on the House floor next week.
(28:43):
Until pointed out that, Wow, who would have ever thought
we'd get to the day when the state newspaper editorial
board would actually be in agreement with the Freedom Caucus.
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Yeah, they wrote a I guess it's in today's quote
unquote digital date, a middle class income income tax like
of hundreds of dollars in South Carolina.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
Stop the insanity, stop the madness. Yeah, Matthew T. Hall,
who is the editorial board of the state paper siding
with the You know again we fought. I think we
(29:27):
all thought when this was first announced last week that
the all the the focus would be on low income
earners here in South Carolina. How this wouldn't be fair
of these folks who aren't paying income tax right now,
which is not.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Fair by the way, you get the usual arguments about
the rich aren't paying enough, and now you're.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
Putting on the back of the poor, and so these
people hadn't had to pay anything, We'll have to pay something,
and YadA, YadA, YadA, And then we we thought that
was where all the bullback was going to be. Brace
yourselves for that. But actually the focus has not really
been on that. It's been on middle class South Carolinians,
which most of us are. And so now that we
(30:12):
know the ramifications this tax cut has on middle class
South Carolinians, making it a tax increase, suddenly this doesn't
sound so good. It doesn't.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
And what you're saying is not the part is an argument.
This is the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office
put out a statement on the impact of this particular bill. Yes,
and you go through it and it's pretty easy to
find where your tax bracket's going to be and how
much you're going to wind up paying.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
At least.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
For the immediate future. And we don't know how long
that's going to go.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
That's the problem, right, That analysis from the Office of
Revenue and Fiscal Affairs saying that this switch to the
flat tax would lead to a nearly sick will need
to nearly sixty percent of income tax filers and are
stay paying more at least for the first year. And
again a lot of this has to do with the
(31:13):
whole switch and how they base the taxes on as
opposed to currently after your federal income with reductions and
credits and you know, the all that stuff you get
out on this bottom line number. Well, this new number
would be based on that top number, the AGI justin
gross income. So yeah, you wind up with a rate
(31:37):
that's lower, but with a bill that's higher. We've talked
at nausea about that. But yeah, the goal is to
eventually reach a two point four to nine percent rate,
which at that point close to eight out of ten
files would see a decrease of what they're paying compared
to a three point nine nine percent rate. But that's
the question when do you get there or do you
(31:58):
ever get there?
Speaker 4 (32:01):
Well, there's no assurances, I mean there are not depends
on state revenue.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
It's dependent upon that. Yes, this would require income tax
revenue in our state to continue to grow by at
least five percent a year. Making that change would take
(32:30):
well at least six years, I think. Now, Okay, on
one side, we've got more and more people coming into
the state, so the the the idea that income tax
revenue could continue to grow in the state by at
least five percent of a year. Maybe a safe bet.
(32:50):
Maybe just the fact that you've got middle class families
and again, what about sixty percent of tax files in
our state who are gonna wind up paying more than Yeah? Uh,
maybe tax revenue do continue to go by five percent
of you're easy, possibly, But what if they don't.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
Then we then we keep paying more, we being the
middle class, and you know, all the CEOs they're trying
to lure keep paying less. Well, that's that's great. I
understand they're trying to recruit business here and make it
more business friendly, but you know what, and it's going
(33:29):
to rest on our backs. I'm not saying the middle
class shouldn't have to pay its fair share, but this
is just this is this is a strange argument from
the quote unquote Republican leadership. And I'm maybe they didn't
think they were going to get a big.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
Pushback, Maybe they didn't understand it. Maybe maybe they they
hadn't seen then out that the numbers actually shake out.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
But they've seen the numbers now and they're still pushing it.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
Well, yeah, no, they got it right there. Trinke back Now, right, Okay,
we put it out that we can't back off now.
I mean I I've just let that, Let the House
floor debate kill it off. If it's gonna get killed off,
we're not going to do it ourselves.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
I've disagreed with a lot of the House Freedom Caucus.
I think it's it's so much is just a stunt,
and so much is just show, and you know it's
not really advancing the concern. But here I absolutely agree
with them.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
Yeah, and why let me ask this question too? Why
tease us, you know, in the in the in the
week or two leading up to this announcement, Why tease
us with someone over there, including the governors, saying yeah,
that'd be a good idea with basically what would be
the fair tax proposal from what fifteen years ago? Why
(34:41):
tease us, well, you know, maybe we can just raise
you know, sales tax and just do oil state income
tax altogether. Why tease us with that and then turn
around and hand us this Maybe you should have reminded
us about that before you did this. I anyway, So, yeah,
the the resistance is what does al Sharpins say?
Speaker 4 (35:05):
Much as much we resist, this has fun out of
control in a hurry, Boy, it has in a hurry,
so it will be volatile when this does hit the
House for for debate coming up next week.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
At least that's the plan.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
You're listening to Columbia's Morning News on one oh three
point five FM on five sixty am WVOC. Once again,
here's Gary David and Christopher Thompson.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
For decades, the United States slash trade barriers or other countries,
while those nations placed massive tariffs on our products and
created outrageous non monetary barriers to decimate our industries, and
in many cases the non monetary barriers were worse than
the monetary ones.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
Just about sixteen a halfter eight o'clock, the President there
yesterday in his address from the Rose Garden that you
heard here alive during the Hannity Show w VOC. It's
a Thursday, April third. You know, it's not quite when
when the kids were younger living at the house, there
was always a there was a game every year, a
(36:13):
contest to sey who would get in the pool earliest,
and we make a you know, a scia that sits
what I think. March third was the earliest date they
jumped in, right, I'm not quite ready there. It's April third,
I'm not ready for that yet. I'm more like a
June kind of guy. But I've been thinking, I don't know,
this weekend temper of the night. I might try, you know,
(36:34):
but when you get in that pool that well anytime, really,
I mean, how cold is that water, how deep is
that water? You know, you want to kind of test
it out a little bit maybe first. But we just
jumped in with both feet man in the deep end
with Liberation Day and the announcements for the president yesterday.
So here we are, and we are all in this
together now in the deep end. You know, I've had
(37:00):
thought that, you know, maybe just maybe I don't know,
you know, I'm I'm kind of teetering on this one.
Maybe a gradual roll in here on this. I think
the idea from Trump is, you know what, I'm rolling
all this out. I'm lowering the boom here and uh,
(37:23):
this is going to start to you know, it's going
to roll the markets, not just here but globally, and
then people who've been taking advantage of us for a
long time are going to stop taking advantage of us,
so it will roll this back. It's a gamble, it's
a risk, and yes, expected markets and This surprises me
(37:44):
a little bit. It's not like we didn't know this
was coming. We have known for weeks now that April
the second was going to be the day the reciprocal
tarists were rolled out. This didn't this didn't come from like,
you know, deep left field here all wha what what? No.
Markets are usually pretty good about, you know, factory in things,
especially when they know about it ahead of time. But
(38:05):
man Dow's down twelve hundred plus right now pre market trading.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
Maybe the markets thought he might do what he did
with the Mexico and Canada tariffs at the beginning was
you know, he talked to the leaders and they got
delayed for a little while. Maybe they thought this might
get delayed.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
Okay, well I'm not gonna bother to go through all
the teriffs because we don't have time for that. Okay,
I did. There was an interesting piece I read, and
yeah it was in Politico by Victoria Guida with this
headline this could get much early uglier rather the fatal
flaw in Trump's trade war. She does bring up a
(38:46):
couple of good points, mainly this and remember the tariffs
are designed to do two things. Number one to at
the level of playing field. And it's true countries have
been charging US tariffs for a long time and you've
not been charging them alight terifor any tariff at all.
So there's no fairness in that, obviously. But the other
(39:07):
intent is to bring manufacturing back here to the United
States of America. If this works, this is going to
be fantastic. And given time, this is the gamble. But
given time, it will work and it will be much
(39:30):
to our benefit here. But kind of like we had
our discussion last half hour about the flat tax in
South Carolina, there are no guarantees and what's the time
frame like now the idea of bringing more manufacturing jobs
back to this country, that doesn't happen overnight. And this
(39:56):
is one of the goals here is to to force
these companies to move production here back here or here
for the first time. But in this piece of Victoria
Gwada said she'd talked to multiple corporate execs recently and
they say they really can't answer that question right now.
(40:18):
This is not going to be quick. We're talking about
you know, major investments, major decisions by these companies, and
that's not going to happen overnight. So then we get
to the political question. It's April third. Yeah, we're a
(40:38):
long way away from the midterm elections, but not that far.
What are we a year and a half away?
Speaker 4 (40:49):
Roughly?
Speaker 3 (40:50):
Yeah, roughly almost to the day, I guess. So here's
here's the interesting part here. How how far do we
have to go in getting to the goal? Here? At
what point the American people say, yep, that was a
fantastic idea, we won't be to that point. The potential
(41:19):
top end of this thing, what it can do for
this country is going to play out over an extended
amount of time here. It's not going to play out
by November of twenty twenty six. Hopefully we're well on
our way and the American people will see that, because
right now, in the short term, there's going to be
some pain if the midterms were held this year. This
(41:43):
is not something Drum could of done. But I'll give
him credit for this. He is thinking like a business
perd which is just the way he thinks. Here. Is
he taking a risk, Yeah, sure, but he's taking a
(42:06):
risk that he's pretty confident will pay off. So you
can't blame him for that. You can't say, you know what,
because this is what happens so often in this country.
You know, a politician is so concerned. And again for Trump,
well let's be at least via the constitution. He can't
run again, but to upset the apple card to the
point where he could lose the House and Senate in
(42:29):
November of twenty twenty six and spend the last two
years of his term fighting a never ending battle with Congress,
like he's fighting the never ending battle with these activist
judges right now.
Speaker 4 (42:42):
It's a gamble.
Speaker 3 (42:43):
If that was his concern, he wouldn't have done this.
We're just not used to politicians doing things like this
because they're too concerned about saving their own hide. So
credit given where credit is due for that. But of
course the pawns in this game are or us right, okay,
and the markets right. Just check it again, down down
(43:06):
eleven twenty nine, Okay, it's gonna be that. How long
does this this is your four oh one? K okay?
How long does this last? How far the prices go up?
Nobody really knows? Could it get uglier? Yeah it could,
could a lot of countries go You know, again, the
(43:27):
idea is a ward of a war of attrition here, right,
we're better positioned to outlast any other country on God's
green Earth when it comes to this, some will last
longer than others. But this is a this is something
we're not used to here. This is an international trade war.
And I don't did anybody, did anybody come out unscathing
(43:49):
this thing. Interesting that the Senate passed a resolution last
night on uh to to to the thwart the president's
ability to impost harriffs on Canada, and there were four
Republicans who voted with all the Democrats to do this.
Those four Republicans Murkowski, Collins, McConnell, and ran Paul. Ran
(44:13):
Paul not a favor, not not not a fan favorite
of tariffs, at least for Canada. He's been very outspoken
about that. It's uh yeah, it's a gamble and here
we go. If it pays off, Trump will be seen
(44:35):
as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
Speaker 4 (44:38):
But you're right, if it doesn't, the House and Senate
are the first things that may go right, and that
may be followed by the White House in four years.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
Yeah, so hold on to your hats. It's going to
be a ride, and at least for right now, that
right is gonna be going downhill from an economic standpoint,
How deep is the hill and how quickly do we
get to that upslope?
Speaker 2 (45:05):
Here this is Columbia's Morning News with Gary David and
Christopher Thompson on one O three point five FM and
five sixty am w VOC.
Speaker 3 (45:17):
Final thoughts today forty Here on a Thursday morning. Well,
Nancy Mace is upset because federal prosecutors in DC have
dropped their case against James McIntyre. This is the man
who was accused of assaulting her. You may recall this
(45:40):
just a couple of months ago outside the Capitol, actually
inside the Rayburn House office building, when she accused this
guy of assault. Witnesses say it was a.
Speaker 4 (45:56):
Handshake, just an aggressive handshake.
Speaker 3 (46:00):
Aggravate, exaggerated, aggressive manner. So this guy faced a misdemeanor
charge of assaulting a government official. He was scheduled to
be in a hearing today, but two days ago government lawyers, Uh,
so they would no longer prosecute. They didn't explain their.
Speaker 4 (46:18):
Decision because they didn't they didn't have a case against him.
Speaker 3 (46:24):
I think that's probably what it was. This, This is this,
This is another one of these examples. I remember at
the time she said, this was all about her stance
against you know, transgenders. But this is the this is
(46:44):
the m O for mace. Okay, guy shows up and
uh and her words at an exaggerated aggressive manner shaking
her hand. So then she pops up with an order
ice or arm in a sling over a handshake. She
(47:12):
has a strange way of well maybe not a strange
way of getting getting attention. She gets attention. But the
downside of this, maybe people may be look at these
things and say, Okay, wait, okay, this this is all
just a stunt, an aggressive handshake. Okay, but you wind
up with your arm on a sling and wearing a
(47:32):
wrist brace and splashing all over social media. Was it
really that bad?
Speaker 4 (47:38):
Apparently officials don't think so.
Speaker 3 (47:40):
Apparently they don't. Again, you had a number of witnesses
who disputed her allegations. They said all they saw was
a handshake after a reception. No one did state that
(48:01):
the told police that the suspect violently shook her hands,
but made and made threats. But the nature of those
was not to I have no doubt that that probably happened,
but to rise to the level of you know, assault
on a on a congress person or not that Apparently
the progress of the Prosecutor's office doesn't think so. Okay,
(48:29):
I mean, did she really need again trying to milk
the situation while I was where it shows up with
it was her arminous ling.
Speaker 4 (48:37):
Wow, Okay, as you said, that's HERMO, that's her m O.
Speaker 3 (48:41):
A sophomoric. And I think if she if she doesn't
have plans to ruw, wouldn't we should we have heard
this by night? Didn't she say she was gonna say
the next month or two and that has been at
least two not more months ago, but running for governor,
we've heard really nothing since. Okay. New survey dumped yesterday
showing Republicans in Congress have a net negative thirteen point
(49:05):
favorability rating. In other words, third thirty nine percent say eh,
we like what Republicans are doing. Fifty two percent don't.
That's typical, I guess for Congress Democrats, on the other hand,
thirty one percent view and favorably sixty percent view of negatives.
They're underwater twenty nine points to the Republicans thirteen. Now
(49:31):
that may change, that will change. Okay, this is the
roller coaster ride but still Democrats are viewed less favorably,
at least for now in Congress and our republic. Of course,
we never view Congress. We is the last time that
Congress itself had a positive favorability rating.
Speaker 4 (49:54):
That's a good question. We would have to go back
a way a prong time.
Speaker 3 (49:59):
Yeah, it would probably maybe a wartime situation, quite honestly.
Speaker 4 (50:03):
Which is sad because next to our local legislature, that's
that's our closest Yeah, that's the closest feeling we have
to our own government. Yeah, that's the closest ties we
have to Washington, d C. Is the local legislators that
we elect.
Speaker 3 (50:27):
Suddenly, the coming out of the woodwork here mentioned a
couple of days ago as there's a there's a there's
a new book out and this is uh, this is
going to be interesting here. Okay, Ron Klain, who was
Biden's chief of staff, He's got a lot to say.
(50:53):
A couple of days ago, we were talking that I'm
related though, that Obama was not a fan of Kamala
Harris taking Joe Biden's place. He didn't thinks you could win,
and he was right. But now we're starting to hear
the stories about how out of touch Biden was. Now
(51:15):
Clain is blaming Senior AIDS for that poor debate performance.
He was interviewed for a new book, It's not his book,
and in the book he tells well a devastating picture
of Biden's ability, noting that the former president didn't know
(51:35):
what Trump had been saying and couldn't keep up with
the back and forth. Now, he clarified his comments to Politico,
saying that he thought the framing of the article was wrong.
So my point wasn't the president lacked mental acuity. He
was out of it because he had been sidelined, not
because he lacked capacity. He blamed the AIDS for this,
(51:55):
that Biden had been solely focused on foreign affairs. Well,
there's a problem right there after what this country had
been going through, and he was solely focused on foreign affairs.
What But the story is told of of a fatigued, befuddled,
disengaged president. This is what the article claimed. That they
(52:18):
claimed fear the debate with Trump would be a nationally
televised disaster, and it was that. They actually called off
the first training session for the debate about halfway through.
It was scheduled to run for an hour and a half,
about forty five minutes in, they called it off because
Biden was not grasping foreign a foreign a domestic policy,
(52:40):
not grasping domestic.
Speaker 4 (52:41):
Wow, and didn't they At one point they decided their
strategy was going to be, you know, Trump would say
something outlandish and Biden would give that perplexed look. And
they realized that Biden all too often had that perplexed
look on his face.
Speaker 3 (52:58):
It was looked for everything. Yeah, at one point during
debate prep, he just got up, threw his hands up
in the air, went outside, set by the pool, and
went to sleep. Wow. And those uh, you know again,
we keep hearing stories that Elon Musk will be departing
dose sometime soon. Don't know if that's really true or not.
But in the meantime they continue. And I said, those
(53:21):
you'll continue past Elon Musk. Okay, it's not that those
you're going to full up shop go home. But the
latest waste of taxpayer dollars. They found out that the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA, was paying three hundred
and eighty thousand dollars a month for minor website modifications.
(53:42):
Three hundred and eighty grand a month. The contract, by
the way, has not been renewed. So now that work
that this company was doing for the VA on their
website is being done by one VA software engineer, spending
about ten hours a week doing it. So forty hours
(54:04):
in any given month is how much time this one
software engineer is spending on minor modifications the VIA website.
And at least whoever had the contract before was getting
three hundred and eighty thousand dollars for that little bit
of work. Yeah, don't talk to me about those wants
(54:27):
to cut Social Security. This is the kind of crap
Doose wants to cut out. And those numbers are starting
to grow and grow and grow. How much money we've
been just tossing away here, you and I taxpayers all
these years
Alright, Jesus right, yeah, Sames America and Jeri for one Nation.
Yes is wrong.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
This is Columbia's Morning News with Gary David and Christopher
Thompson on one O three point five FM and five
sixty AM w VOC and.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Good morning to you. It is sixteen minutes after six.
It's Thursday, April third. Welcome to it. It doesn't feel
like April outside this morning, by the way.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
You know it doesn't.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
What is it?
Speaker 4 (00:40):
What is the temperature is? It's in the seventies.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Yeah, we're at seventy one here at the radio ram Peez.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Yeah at six o'clock in the morning.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Yeah. Crazy, Yeah, where it's the low seventies all across
the Midlins this morning. Yeah, it's kind of nuts.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
It makes you wonder what summer is going to be.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Like, yeah, exactly right. But hey, let me make a
look here. For example, next Wednesday morning, we're gonna wake
up to tempts in the emper thirties. So we're on
that roller coaster right now, friends, in more ways than one.
By the way, let's get right to it, because there's
(01:15):
a lot going on. The rundown, the big stories, the
hot topics for April third, let's start at home. When
the boy all the headlines are screaming about this proposed
flat tax here, I'm not sure this was the way
that when they first rolled this thing out they thought
(01:37):
it would be reacted to. But again, as we've dug
deeper and deeper into this and we've seen what I
guess right now, the big question is this kind of
like with the tariffs, short term pain, long term gain.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
That's the cell now m hm.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
But there are no guarantees. So you've got well, the
quote unquote hardline conservatives questioning the wisdom of all this.
They have been from the now number one. They wanted
to They would have liked it to gone further that
they got luck to go onto you know, you know,
a no income tax state. And wouldn't we all really,
(02:25):
I mean come on, well maybe not everybody, but I would.
You got the American Action Fund now putting in money
of this urging opposition of this plan, so we got
things to talk about here. Basically, at least in the
short term, this would be a middle class income tax hike.
(02:45):
The numbers aren't real pretty in the short term.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
The state newspaper's editorial board is on the same Porial
Board of One is on the same page as the
House Freedom Caucus.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Yeah, how crazy is that? Huhuh?
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Tells you how how upside down this is.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
It really is really, I know, we've talked a lot
about it. We'll talk more about it today. Now the
Senate is well, Larry Grooms wants to go through with this.
He wants the Senate to take up a vote to
remove Curtis Loftis from office.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
And this whole process it almost reminds you of the
impeachment process at the national level, at the federal level. Yeah,
because the Senate, I guess, will as a whole, as
an entire group, meet and judge Curtis Loftis.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
It'll take a two thirds majority to remove them from office.
But unlike the impeachment route that we normally see, there's
been no indictment from the House of Representatives here, which
up on Capitol Hill you'd have to have first. So
this goes right to the Senate. So Larry Grioms is
continuing his crusade against Loftis, who, well, up until like
(03:58):
a day or two ago, we were under the impression
because he'd said so that he wasn't going to run
for reelection. But I think I mentioned this the other day,
you know, with all this going on, he just might
reconsider that, and apparently he has.
Speaker 4 (04:10):
He is running again.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Loftus is running again. So this is going to get
real interesting. I don't Again, I don't know there's the
appetite from two thirds of the senators, especially because the
governor doesn't think it's a good idea. Although the governors
in the state don't hold a lot of sway over
the members of the House, the State House certainly, but
we'll see. Now. The House meantime passing H thirty nine
(04:36):
to twenty seven. That's the bill that restricts or bans
dei initiatives and local agencies. Now this is a bit
toned down from what the original idea was in that
it doesn't go after outside private businesses who do business
with the state, as it was originally intended to do,
but it does restrict dei or band dei when it
(04:58):
comes to a state agency. So they have have passed that. Meanwhile,
the State had our day in front of the High
Court in the Land yesterday and on the line the
future of uh well, oh, I love this. The state
papers opening line the future of reproductive healthcare provider Planned Parenthood. Okay,
(05:21):
now I know they do things other than abortion, but
let's just just say what it is. It's it's the
future of abortion. So arguments yesterday, Well, the court seems
to be somewhat divided on this, just based on the
reaction of the questioning from the just time. We'll get
into that. Nancy Mace not happy after prosecutors in d
(05:42):
C dropped the case against the man who was accused
of assaulting her. Remember this was a couple of months
back outside the Capitol building. It turned out it was
an they called it an aggressive handshake, James McIntyre, but
earlier pleted not guilty. The out legation was that he
shook her hand in an exaggerated aggressive manner last year.
(06:07):
All right, prosecutor there says, you know what, We're not
wasting our time on this. Mas not happy, Okay, place
your bets spin the wheel. Liberation Day arrived yesterday.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
The tariffs and there are a lot. I mean, it's
it's we don't have time to go down the list
of all the tariffs. Now this these announcements coming down
late in the day as the markets were closing, but
after hours trading pre market trading. Again, If you've been
(06:42):
up for a little while and listening, you've already heard
that it ain't pretty. Dow futures have dropped a couple
hundred more points since I first checked. A few minutes
agos Dow futures are down one another, back up again.
Well anyway, Dow future is down eleven hundred points.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
So, I mean, we all knew this was coming, so
you would think the market sees this. Yeah, you know
that there's the ringing of hands and then should settle down?
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Should? Yes? That should?
Speaker 4 (07:13):
That's not my investment advice to you. It's just what
your hope happens.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Well, yeah, and what's I guess what's kind of surprising
is that the markets usually these things are baked in
the cake, right, they know what's common. But yeah, the
reaction is not good. Overseas markets are down a big time.
The whole world's down right now as a result of
these announcements of Liberation Day. Okay, we'll talk more about
(07:42):
this again, short term pain versus long term game. But
how short term will the pain be and will the
long term pay off? And what does this mean for
the midterms. Well, we'll get into all that. The Senate,
by the way, passing a resolution yesterday last night that
would would halt the president's ability to impose tariffs on Canada.
(08:06):
Four Republicans joined in with all the Democrats to support this.
They were well, some of the usual suspects, Lisa mccowski
and Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, and Ran Paul who's not
a fan of these tariffs either, does Uncovering more waste? Boy,
how about this one? We talked the other day about
that online survey that the DOE says the government you me,
(08:31):
taxpayers paid what a billion dollars for it could have
been done for maybe ten thousand. Well, now, uncovering the
Department of Veterans Affairs is paying close to four hundred
thousand dollars a month for minor website modifications. Three hundred
and eighty thousand dollars a month is what it is.
(08:53):
The DOE says, this is the same moric that's right
now being executed by one internal VA software engineer spending
about ten hours a week, so for about forty hours
a month, shelling out close to four hundred thousand month
for minor modifications of the VIA website. This is just
it's insane. Uh okay, we got that. We've got some
(09:16):
some woke news to pass along as well. Well, uh
anti woke for Seattle. But Colorado is just really going
down this. I don't know what is it with Colorado.
We'll tell what they're up to here a few that
and more on this the Thursday morning edition of Columbia's
Morning News. Good to have you here here about it.
(09:37):
A week to wake up as the country talk about it.
This is this is here evil.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
One old three point five FFM and five sixty AM
w VOC. This is Columbia's Morning News with Gary David
and Christopher Thompson on one O three point five FM
and five sixty AM w VOC.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Six forty one. Good morning. It is a Thursday, April
third Liberation Day plus one. We're talking more about that
and the reaction to it coming up in the next
half hour. You know, it's one thing when a business
decides or decided to go woke. It's one thing when
you know when they're timin conglomerate like Disney, for example,
(10:21):
decided to go woke, and well you have options, right,
you don't have to patronize that business. You don't have
to go see the snow White remake, and people aren't,
by the way. But when government's municipalities the entire states
decide to go woke, not a whole lot you can
(10:42):
do about that is there, and the results are never good.
Case in points Seattle, Washington, one of the most liberal
cities in the country, they've finally figured out now, after
(11:04):
gosh how many years of wokeness when it came to
police and taking care of their citizenry, Seattle has now
deciding to honor all first responders again and to ditch
the defund the police initiatives. And this was introduced this
(11:31):
resolution by a Guy council member named Robert Soaka, who
once wore a Black Lawyers Matter T shirt to a
George Floyd protest, talked of his belief in the principles
of both the American Flag and the Black Lives Matter movement.
(11:52):
He's now a change of heart when it comes to
the anti cop thing, saying he now sees anti cop
rhetoric is very divisive. It took him a while to
come around to that idea, but he finally did, and
he's the one who introduced this resolution again, a resolution
(12:15):
recognizing the vital work done by all first responders, in
particular affirming the essential services provided by the police department.
A news release from Seattle City Council adding that the
resolution explicitly reverses any prior commitment or pledged by cass
(12:35):
by past councils to defund or abolish the Seattle Police Department,
and it describe such efforts as a failure. Your residents
have known this all along, and they've had to bear
the brunt of your wokeness. I say, there's not a
(12:55):
lot you can do. Well, you can leave and go
somewhere else, but these are people who you know, this
is their home, born and raised. This resolution also noting
that anti cop measures were routinely cited by departing police
personnel as a reason for leaving this Since the city
(13:15):
first embraced defund the police, that was back in twenty twenty,
in the wake of George Floyd. So it took it
took them five years to figure this out, and crimes
have sowored more than doubled. So Seattle finally coming around
to some common sense. And for how many years did
(13:40):
these council members here from the constituents. There were some
members who said, yeah, I've been hearing for a while
from our constituents about this. This is not working, this
is making the situation worse. Well, okay, they finally come around.
I guess all right, So Seattle's backing off. But Coleradlado,
(14:04):
how much dopes being smoked in Colorado by people who
make decisions about how the state should be run.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
Huh, Well, it is not only legal there, but a
big part of the lifestyle.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
The Rocky Mountain High Colorado. Who just again recently, as
we talked about last week, you had state leaders suggesting
that they could save money by funding abortion, that it
was cheaper to kill a baby than it was to
have a baby. Now, Democrats in Colorado were advancing legislation
(14:35):
that would classify misgendering and dead naming as child abuse.
So here's the deal. If they pass this and the
state legislature is controlled by Democrats in Colorado, any parent
who dares to refer to a transvestic child using the
(14:57):
name that they gave the.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
Child, or even saying get over here, little girl, if
the little girl now identifies as a little.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Boy, mispronouning or whatever you call it, that that those
parents could lose custody. Wow, Okay, now we know of
the you know all the things that the governments do
to grab things like your money. But you raise a child,
(15:34):
you give a child a name based on their birth
gender at some point, and who knows, I mean, I
don't think they even say here how young this could be.
But let's just pick a number. Let's tell you've got
a twelve year old, maybe a ten year old who,
(15:54):
no doubt, you know, going to these liberal public schools
and Colorado with these activist teachers trying to convince Susie
that Susie is really Johnny. And you refuse to call
Susie Johnny your own child who you have raised, then
(16:16):
the state would come in and take the child away
from you. This but this sounds like some kind of
a bad horror the horror exactly. I was going to
say that exactly, some kind of bad horror movie that
you'd see it a drive through in the seventies. Really,
the state would have the right to come in or
(16:37):
h Yeah, it's still mentioned if you refer to you know,
your little baby girl that you was born and you've
raised as her instead of him, because somehow her has
been convinced that her is a hymn. The state could
come and take that child away from you. This is insane.
(17:05):
State law right now in Colorado requires that courts making
child custody decisions and accordance with the best interest of
the child must consider reports of coercive control lodged against
the parties involved. Well, this bill would modify the definition
of one type of course of control and add another,
(17:29):
and that would be this. This is crazy. Now what
is dead naming? Oh well, dead naming or misgendering. Okay,
another form of course of control. This bill is.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Said, dead naming is Stevie instead of Susie.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Yeah, because Susie's dead, I guess, And Stevie is what
Susie used to be. Oh my goodness. Uh, you know,
with things like that, I can't even the most Maybe
I don't know if at any conservative left in.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Colorado shut off the lights on your way out exactly.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
I'm having a hard time grasping this one, a real
hard time grasping it. We've gone from the idea of
the schools, for example, knowing better how to raise your
child than you do as a parent. That was bad
enough to this. Now the state apparatus taking a chot
(18:38):
away from you for this. Oh my.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
If you're listening to Columbia's Morning News on one oh
three point five FM on five sixty am WVOC, once again,
here's Gary David and Christopher Thompson.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
I can tell you how the markets are reacting. Not well,
which was to be expected, but well how long will this?
Will this go?
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Here?
Speaker 3 (19:05):
We'll get into the Liberation Day plus one a little
bit later on this morning. Good to have you along.
It's Thursday, April third, fifteen, after seventh the time now,
and we appreciate you joining us. I'm Gary David. That
is Christopher Thompson right over there. Good morning. So what
seven years after the executive vote was signed by the
governor McMaster, the cases finally made it to the High
(19:29):
Court in the land. The US Supreme Court heard oral
arguments yesterday. As lawyers for our state and for the DOJ,
we're up against a Planned parenthoods South Atlantic and well,
the future of Planned Parenthood's ability to operate in our
state is on the line here, and some say it
(19:51):
may hinge over just two words may obtain whether those
words which are in the Federal Medicaid Act, which governs
how states dispense Medicaid funds. Whether the words may obtain
guarantee Medicaid recipients the right to choose their provider. It
(20:14):
doesn't say shall obtain or will it pay obtain or
most definitely will obtain, but may obtain. So does that
leave some word does that also mean that you may
not obtain? Well, that apparently is This is what it
may come down to. Okay, So, yes, planned parenthood. They
(20:38):
do more than just abortions, and they want they want
you to talk about the abortion part. They want them
about all the other things they do. Okay. The court
seems to be somewhat divided, as expected. The legal question
(20:59):
well they're considering here could have some more broad effects,
those effects being whether or not Medicaid patients can continue
to sue states over the right to choose their own
qualified provider. Here in South Carolina, we say those lawsuits
are not allowed and that barring them would save public money,
(21:20):
taxpayer money, and legal fees. And some on the court
seem to be open to that argument. Brett Kavanaugh, for example,
saying there's been confusion in lower courts and one of
his goals coming out of this is to revive the
clarity when it comes to it. Amy Cony Barrett, who
has been on the wrong side of MAGA, recently had
questions about whether this would work for low income patients
(21:46):
who'd have to risk paying out of pocket before they
could appeal for reimbursement. Okay, don't know when a decision
will come down. There'd be no time soon there it is.
The arguments have been made. Now back at home, we
(22:07):
have never had a statewide elected official kicked out office.
It's never happened.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
That's hard to believe in itself, isn't it though?
Speaker 3 (22:19):
But yesterday state senators, led of course by Larry Groomes,
put forth a resolution to remove Curtis Loftis from that
position that he's held for more than ten years now.
So this is not quite impeachment in the typical sense
we hear it, right. I mean impeachment, as we know,
(22:39):
at least at the federal level, requires the House of
Representatives to hold hearings to indict and for the Senate
to serve as the jury. But here it's the Senate
that will be judge and jury.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
Apparently, Yeah, because Grooms and his committee are essentially presenting
with the case that the House usually presents right, so that.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Bypassing leaving the house all of this all together here
now Loftis will have the chance to defend himself. Looks
like this hearing is scheduled for what about two weeks
or so from now. So the way it's going to
(23:26):
come down, apparently, is that Grooms and Stephen Goldfinch we'll
make the case. There'll be the prosecutors here, Loftus will
have a chance to respond, and then Grooms of Goldfinch
will get a rebuttal. Then there'll be some questions. Each
(23:46):
senator will be allowed up to ten minutes to ask
both sides ques. This could go on forever.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
And why why two weeks from now? If this is
so urgent, why not do this today? I don't know,
but nothing's going to change in two weeks.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
No, but remember this will take a two thirds majority
vote of the Senate to remove office from office. There
was a resolution what was it last year, to try
to punish Loftis by reducing his salary just one dollar.
They couldn't get two thirds of the Senators to vote
for that. Will they really get two thirds to vote
(24:30):
to remove him totally from office? Or I don't know,
but you can expect a whole lot of fireworks when
this hearing does finally happen. And remember, all along Loftus
has said that he doesn't intend to run for reelection,
but now he's changed his mind, even mentioned this the
(24:50):
other day. He just may be so fed up with
all this and so ticked off at these people that
he's going to stick it to them and run for reelection.
Speaker 4 (24:59):
And did he say he wasn't running or did we
just think he wasn't running?
Speaker 3 (25:03):
I want to I know he is. He had said
he wouldn't.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Run, Okay, now I think he said it during that
hearing last year.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
Yeah. Well, now he's decided he's going to run again. Okay,
so he has lost his re election bid. Is that
even if he gets removed this time around? You wonder? Yeah?
Well yeah, I don't know. I mean, for for.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Fans of Curtis Loftus, and he's got many of them,
this is good. This is only going to make them
like him more.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
Exactly. Yeah, this is you know, this is this is
this is like the whole Trump thing, right. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:43):
The more you the more you criticize or impeach him,
the more loyals get.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
Yeah. Yeah, And I suspect Lofts is probably feeling that
right now. He told the state paper right now, the
greatest threat to our state's financial stability isn't external from
power hungry politicians who never rest in their relentless, politically
motivated attacks on my office. Yeah, he said he's mad
(26:11):
with his investigation. That's one of the reasons why he
wants another four years. And he also wants to preserve
his legacy.
Speaker 4 (26:20):
So is if Larry Grooms doesn't have the votes? I mean,
is he going to spend the next two weeks campaigning
or does he eventually.
Speaker 3 (26:28):
Well that's why that's why two weeks from now, or
does he eventually just call this off? He's got he's
got to count votes now, right You think he'd already
done that. I guess the full Court press will beyond
now for the next two weeks to convince enough Senators
to remove the Loftice from office. Maybe that's why it's
two weeks from now. But yeah, what happens if you
(26:49):
don't get that two thirds majority? Is case over? Or
you're still going to continue to prosecute the war against
Loftus because that should be case closed right there? Right?
This is it. You're firing your big shot here, right,
and if it's not successful, you've got to move on. Right.
Speaker 4 (27:06):
You would think I would think we would have ordered
and moved on. But why do I think they won't?
Speaker 3 (27:12):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
I mean I get the feeling a lot more people
are upset with this proposed tax plan and and what
it could do to to most of us than they
are about Yeah. I mean people it eventually. It originally
raised eyebrows when we were told there was money that
was missing, but then when we eventually figured out, okay,
(27:34):
we weren't missing money, it was never there to begin with.
I think a lot of people just kind of tuned out.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
I think so too. And I think if it hadn't
been for you know, certain individuals and they're you know,
proclaimed war on the guy. Yeah that this I think
the general public has moved on.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
Yes, should there be accountability, yes, absolute, but yeah, get
on with it.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
Yeah, on.
Speaker 4 (27:59):
The check in while you work for the very latest.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
One Old three point five FM and five sixty am
double VOC. This is Columbia's morning news with Gary David
and Christopher Thompson on one O three point five FM
and five sixty am w VOC.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
It's seven forty one. Good morning. It is Thursday, April third.
We brought this topic up briefly early this morning in
the Rundown and in a student observation by mister Thompson
over there, this is that flat tax idea. The debate
will probably be get on the House floor next week.
(28:43):
Until pointed out that, Wow, who would have ever thought
we'd get to the day when the state newspaper editorial
board would actually be in agreement with the Freedom Caucus.
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Yeah, they wrote a I guess it's in today's quote
unquote digital date, a middle class income income tax like
of hundreds of dollars in South Carolina.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
Stop the insanity, stop the madness. Yeah, Matthew T. Hall,
who is the editorial board of the state paper siding
with the You know again we fought. I think we
(29:27):
all thought when this was first announced last week that
the all the the focus would be on low income
earners here in South Carolina. How this wouldn't be fair
of these folks who aren't paying income tax right now,
which is not.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Fair by the way, you get the usual arguments about
the rich aren't paying enough, and now you're.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
Putting on the back of the poor, and so these
people hadn't had to pay anything, We'll have to pay something,
and YadA, YadA, YadA, And then we we thought that
was where all the bullback was going to be. Brace
yourselves for that. But actually the focus has not really
been on that. It's been on middle class South Carolinians,
which most of us are. And so now that we
(30:12):
know the ramifications this tax cut has on middle class
South Carolinians, making it a tax increase, suddenly this doesn't
sound so good. It doesn't.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
And what you're saying is not the part is an argument.
This is the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office
put out a statement on the impact of this particular bill. Yes,
and you go through it and it's pretty easy to
find where your tax bracket's going to be and how
much you're going to wind up paying.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
At least.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
For the immediate future. And we don't know how long
that's going to go.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
That's the problem, right, That analysis from the Office of
Revenue and Fiscal Affairs saying that this switch to the
flat tax would lead to a nearly sick will need
to nearly sixty percent of income tax filers and are
stay paying more at least for the first year. And
again a lot of this has to do with the
(31:13):
whole switch and how they base the taxes on as
opposed to currently after your federal income with reductions and
credits and you know, the all that stuff you get
out on this bottom line number. Well, this new number
would be based on that top number, the AGI justin
gross income. So yeah, you wind up with a rate
(31:37):
that's lower, but with a bill that's higher. We've talked
at nausea about that. But yeah, the goal is to
eventually reach a two point four to nine percent rate,
which at that point close to eight out of ten
files would see a decrease of what they're paying compared
to a three point nine nine percent rate. But that's
the question when do you get there or do you
(31:58):
ever get there?
Speaker 4 (32:01):
Well, there's no assurances, I mean there are not depends
on state revenue.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
It's dependent upon that. Yes, this would require income tax
revenue in our state to continue to grow by at
least five percent a year. Making that change would take
(32:30):
well at least six years, I think. Now, Okay, on
one side, we've got more and more people coming into
the state, so the the the idea that income tax
revenue could continue to grow in the state by at
least five percent of a year. Maybe a safe bet.
(32:50):
Maybe just the fact that you've got middle class families
and again, what about sixty percent of tax files in
our state who are gonna wind up paying more than Yeah? Uh,
maybe tax revenue do continue to go by five percent
of you're easy, possibly, But what if they don't.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
Then we then we keep paying more, we being the
middle class, and you know, all the CEOs they're trying
to lure keep paying less. Well, that's that's great. I
understand they're trying to recruit business here and make it
more business friendly, but you know what, and it's going
(33:29):
to rest on our backs. I'm not saying the middle
class shouldn't have to pay its fair share, but this
is just this is this is a strange argument from
the quote unquote Republican leadership. And I'm maybe they didn't
think they were going to get a big.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
Pushback, Maybe they didn't understand it. Maybe maybe they they
hadn't seen then out that the numbers actually shake out.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
But they've seen the numbers now and they're still pushing it.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
Well, yeah, no, they got it right there. Trinke back Now, right, Okay,
we put it out that we can't back off now.
I mean I I've just let that, Let the House
floor debate kill it off. If it's gonna get killed off,
we're not going to do it ourselves.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
I've disagreed with a lot of the House Freedom Caucus.
I think it's it's so much is just a stunt,
and so much is just show, and you know it's
not really advancing the concern. But here I absolutely agree
with them.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
Yeah, and why let me ask this question too? Why
tease us, you know, in the in the in the
week or two leading up to this announcement, Why tease
us with someone over there, including the governors, saying yeah,
that'd be a good idea with basically what would be
the fair tax proposal from what fifteen years ago? Why
(34:41):
tease us, well, you know, maybe we can just raise
you know, sales tax and just do oil state income
tax altogether. Why tease us with that and then turn
around and hand us this Maybe you should have reminded
us about that before you did this. I anyway, So, yeah,
the the resistance is what does al Sharpins say?
Speaker 4 (35:05):
Much as much we resist, this has fun out of
control in a hurry, Boy, it has in a hurry,
so it will be volatile when this does hit the
House for for debate coming up next week.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
At least that's the plan.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
You're listening to Columbia's Morning News on one oh three
point five FM on five sixty am WVOC. Once again,
here's Gary David and Christopher Thompson.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
For decades, the United States slash trade barriers or other countries,
while those nations placed massive tariffs on our products and
created outrageous non monetary barriers to decimate our industries, and
in many cases the non monetary barriers were worse than
the monetary ones.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
Just about sixteen a halfter eight o'clock, the President there
yesterday in his address from the Rose Garden that you
heard here alive during the Hannity Show w VOC. It's
a Thursday, April third. You know, it's not quite when
when the kids were younger living at the house, there
was always a there was a game every year, a
(36:13):
contest to sey who would get in the pool earliest,
and we make a you know, a scia that sits
what I think. March third was the earliest date they
jumped in, right, I'm not quite ready there. It's April third,
I'm not ready for that yet. I'm more like a
June kind of guy. But I've been thinking, I don't know,
this weekend temper of the night. I might try, you know,
(36:34):
but when you get in that pool that well anytime, really,
I mean, how cold is that water, how deep is
that water? You know, you want to kind of test
it out a little bit maybe first. But we just
jumped in with both feet man in the deep end
with Liberation Day and the announcements for the president yesterday.
So here we are, and we are all in this
together now in the deep end. You know, I've had
(37:00):
thought that, you know, maybe just maybe I don't know,
you know, I'm I'm kind of teetering on this one.
Maybe a gradual roll in here on this. I think
the idea from Trump is, you know what, I'm rolling
all this out. I'm lowering the boom here and uh,
(37:23):
this is going to start to you know, it's going
to roll the markets, not just here but globally, and
then people who've been taking advantage of us for a
long time are going to stop taking advantage of us,
so it will roll this back. It's a gamble, it's
a risk, and yes, expected markets and This surprises me
(37:44):
a little bit. It's not like we didn't know this
was coming. We have known for weeks now that April
the second was going to be the day the reciprocal
tarists were rolled out. This didn't this didn't come from like,
you know, deep left field here all wha what what? No.
Markets are usually pretty good about, you know, factory in things,
especially when they know about it ahead of time. But
(38:05):
man Dow's down twelve hundred plus right now pre market trading.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
Maybe the markets thought he might do what he did
with the Mexico and Canada tariffs at the beginning was
you know, he talked to the leaders and they got
delayed for a little while. Maybe they thought this might
get delayed.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
Okay, well I'm not gonna bother to go through all
the teriffs because we don't have time for that. Okay,
I did. There was an interesting piece I read, and
yeah it was in Politico by Victoria Guida with this
headline this could get much early uglier rather the fatal
flaw in Trump's trade war. She does bring up a
(38:46):
couple of good points, mainly this and remember the tariffs
are designed to do two things. Number one to at
the level of playing field. And it's true countries have
been charging US tariffs for a long time and you've
not been charging them alight terifor any tariff at all.
So there's no fairness in that, obviously. But the other
(39:07):
intent is to bring manufacturing back here to the United
States of America. If this works, this is going to
be fantastic. And given time, this is the gamble. But
given time, it will work and it will be much
(39:30):
to our benefit here. But kind of like we had
our discussion last half hour about the flat tax in
South Carolina, there are no guarantees and what's the time
frame like now the idea of bringing more manufacturing jobs
back to this country, that doesn't happen overnight. And this
(39:56):
is one of the goals here is to to force
these companies to move production here back here or here
for the first time. But in this piece of Victoria
Gwada said she'd talked to multiple corporate execs recently and
they say they really can't answer that question right now.
(40:18):
This is not going to be quick. We're talking about
you know, major investments, major decisions by these companies, and
that's not going to happen overnight. So then we get
to the political question. It's April third. Yeah, we're a
(40:38):
long way away from the midterm elections, but not that far.
What are we a year and a half away?
Speaker 4 (40:49):
Roughly?
Speaker 3 (40:50):
Yeah, roughly almost to the day, I guess. So here's
here's the interesting part here. How how far do we
have to go in getting to the goal? Here? At
what point the American people say, yep, that was a
fantastic idea, we won't be to that point. The potential
(41:19):
top end of this thing, what it can do for
this country is going to play out over an extended
amount of time here. It's not going to play out
by November of twenty twenty six. Hopefully we're well on
our way and the American people will see that, because
right now, in the short term, there's going to be
some pain if the midterms were held this year. This
(41:43):
is not something Drum could of done. But I'll give
him credit for this. He is thinking like a business
perd which is just the way he thinks. Here. Is
he taking a risk, Yeah, sure, but he's taking a
(42:06):
risk that he's pretty confident will pay off. So you
can't blame him for that. You can't say, you know what,
because this is what happens so often in this country.
You know, a politician is so concerned. And again for Trump,
well let's be at least via the constitution. He can't
run again, but to upset the apple card to the
point where he could lose the House and Senate in
(42:29):
November of twenty twenty six and spend the last two
years of his term fighting a never ending battle with Congress,
like he's fighting the never ending battle with these activist
judges right now.
Speaker 4 (42:42):
It's a gamble.
Speaker 3 (42:43):
If that was his concern, he wouldn't have done this.
We're just not used to politicians doing things like this
because they're too concerned about saving their own hide. So
credit given where credit is due for that. But of
course the pawns in this game are or us right, okay,
and the markets right. Just check it again, down down
(43:06):
eleven twenty nine, Okay, it's gonna be that. How long
does this this is your four oh one? K okay?
How long does this last? How far the prices go up?
Nobody really knows? Could it get uglier? Yeah it could,
could a lot of countries go You know, again, the
(43:27):
idea is a ward of a war of attrition here, right,
we're better positioned to outlast any other country on God's
green Earth when it comes to this, some will last
longer than others. But this is a this is something
we're not used to here. This is an international trade war.
And I don't did anybody, did anybody come out unscathing
(43:49):
this thing. Interesting that the Senate passed a resolution last
night on uh to to to the thwart the president's
ability to impost harriffs on Canada, and there were four
Republicans who voted with all the Democrats to do this.
Those four Republicans Murkowski, Collins, McConnell, and ran Paul. Ran
(44:13):
Paul not a favor, not not not a fan favorite
of tariffs, at least for Canada. He's been very outspoken
about that. It's uh yeah, it's a gamble and here
we go. If it pays off, Trump will be seen
(44:35):
as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
Speaker 4 (44:38):
But you're right, if it doesn't, the House and Senate
are the first things that may go right, and that
may be followed by the White House in four years.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
Yeah, so hold on to your hats. It's going to
be a ride, and at least for right now, that
right is gonna be going downhill from an economic standpoint,
How deep is the hill and how quickly do we
get to that upslope?
Speaker 2 (45:05):
Here this is Columbia's Morning News with Gary David and
Christopher Thompson on one O three point five FM and
five sixty am w VOC.
Speaker 3 (45:17):
Final thoughts today forty Here on a Thursday morning. Well,
Nancy Mace is upset because federal prosecutors in DC have
dropped their case against James McIntyre. This is the man
who was accused of assaulting her. You may recall this
(45:40):
just a couple of months ago outside the Capitol, actually
inside the Rayburn House office building, when she accused this
guy of assault. Witnesses say it was a.
Speaker 4 (45:56):
Handshake, just an aggressive handshake.
Speaker 3 (46:00):
Aggravate, exaggerated, aggressive manner. So this guy faced a misdemeanor
charge of assaulting a government official. He was scheduled to
be in a hearing today, but two days ago government lawyers, Uh,
so they would no longer prosecute. They didn't explain their.
Speaker 4 (46:18):
Decision because they didn't they didn't have a case against him.
Speaker 3 (46:24):
I think that's probably what it was. This, This is this,
This is another one of these examples. I remember at
the time she said, this was all about her stance
against you know, transgenders. But this is the this is
(46:44):
the m O for mace. Okay, guy shows up and
uh and her words at an exaggerated aggressive manner shaking
her hand. So then she pops up with an order
ice or arm in a sling over a handshake. She
(47:12):
has a strange way of well maybe not a strange
way of getting getting attention. She gets attention. But the
downside of this, maybe people may be look at these
things and say, Okay, wait, okay, this this is all
just a stunt, an aggressive handshake. Okay, but you wind
up with your arm on a sling and wearing a
(47:32):
wrist brace and splashing all over social media. Was it
really that bad?
Speaker 4 (47:38):
Apparently officials don't think so.
Speaker 3 (47:40):
Apparently they don't. Again, you had a number of witnesses
who disputed her allegations. They said all they saw was
a handshake after a reception. No one did state that
(48:01):
the told police that the suspect violently shook her hands,
but made and made threats. But the nature of those
was not to I have no doubt that that probably happened,
but to rise to the level of you know, assault
on a on a congress person or not that Apparently
the progress of the Prosecutor's office doesn't think so. Okay,
(48:29):
I mean, did she really need again trying to milk
the situation while I was where it shows up with
it was her arminous ling.
Speaker 4 (48:37):
Wow, Okay, as you said, that's HERMO, that's her m O.
Speaker 3 (48:41):
A sophomoric. And I think if she if she doesn't
have plans to ruw, wouldn't we should we have heard
this by night? Didn't she say she was gonna say
the next month or two and that has been at
least two not more months ago, but running for governor,
we've heard really nothing since. Okay. New survey dumped yesterday
showing Republicans in Congress have a net negative thirteen point
(49:05):
favorability rating. In other words, third thirty nine percent say eh,
we like what Republicans are doing. Fifty two percent don't.
That's typical, I guess for Congress Democrats, on the other hand,
thirty one percent view and favorably sixty percent view of negatives.
They're underwater twenty nine points to the Republicans thirteen. Now
(49:31):
that may change, that will change. Okay, this is the
roller coaster ride but still Democrats are viewed less favorably,
at least for now in Congress and our republic. Of course,
we never view Congress. We is the last time that
Congress itself had a positive favorability rating.
Speaker 4 (49:54):
That's a good question. We would have to go back
a way a prong time.
Speaker 3 (49:59):
Yeah, it would probably maybe a wartime situation, quite honestly.
Speaker 4 (50:03):
Which is sad because next to our local legislature, that's
that's our closest Yeah, that's the closest feeling we have
to our own government. Yeah, that's the closest ties we
have to Washington, d C. Is the local legislators that
we elect.
Speaker 3 (50:27):
Suddenly, the coming out of the woodwork here mentioned a
couple of days ago as there's a there's a there's
a new book out and this is uh, this is
going to be interesting here. Okay, Ron Klain, who was
Biden's chief of staff, He's got a lot to say.
(50:53):
A couple of days ago, we were talking that I'm
related though, that Obama was not a fan of Kamala
Harris taking Joe Biden's place. He didn't thinks you could win,
and he was right. But now we're starting to hear
the stories about how out of touch Biden was. Now
(51:15):
Clain is blaming Senior AIDS for that poor debate performance.
He was interviewed for a new book, It's not his book,
and in the book he tells well a devastating picture
of Biden's ability, noting that the former president didn't know
(51:35):
what Trump had been saying and couldn't keep up with
the back and forth. Now, he clarified his comments to Politico,
saying that he thought the framing of the article was wrong.
So my point wasn't the president lacked mental acuity. He
was out of it because he had been sidelined, not
because he lacked capacity. He blamed the AIDS for this,
(51:55):
that Biden had been solely focused on foreign affairs. Well,
there's a problem right there after what this country had
been going through, and he was solely focused on foreign affairs.
What But the story is told of of a fatigued, befuddled,
disengaged president. This is what the article claimed. That they
(52:18):
claimed fear the debate with Trump would be a nationally
televised disaster, and it was that. They actually called off
the first training session for the debate about halfway through.
It was scheduled to run for an hour and a half,
about forty five minutes in, they called it off because
Biden was not grasping foreign a foreign a domestic policy,
(52:40):
not grasping domestic.
Speaker 4 (52:41):
Wow, and didn't they At one point they decided their
strategy was going to be, you know, Trump would say
something outlandish and Biden would give that perplexed look. And
they realized that Biden all too often had that perplexed
look on his face.
Speaker 3 (52:58):
It was looked for everything. Yeah, at one point during
debate prep, he just got up, threw his hands up
in the air, went outside, set by the pool, and
went to sleep. Wow. And those uh, you know again,
we keep hearing stories that Elon Musk will be departing
dose sometime soon. Don't know if that's really true or not.
But in the meantime they continue. And I said, those
(53:21):
you'll continue past Elon Musk. Okay, it's not that those
you're going to full up shop go home. But the
latest waste of taxpayer dollars. They found out that the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA, was paying three hundred
and eighty thousand dollars a month for minor website modifications.
(53:42):
Three hundred and eighty grand a month. The contract, by
the way, has not been renewed. So now that work
that this company was doing for the VA on their
website is being done by one VA software engineer, spending
about ten hours a week doing it. So forty hours
(54:04):
in any given month is how much time this one
software engineer is spending on minor modifications the VIA website.
And at least whoever had the contract before was getting
three hundred and eighty thousand dollars for that little bit
of work. Yeah, don't talk to me about those wants
(54:27):
to cut Social Security. This is the kind of crap
Doose wants to cut out. And those numbers are starting
to grow and grow and grow. How much money we've
been just tossing away here, you and I taxpayers all
these years
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!