Newsom's "Sunshine" Budget

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
So it's official, as I predictedlast year when we heard about the one
year delay in funding the remaining twohundred million dollars that the State of California
had pledged to the City of Fresnofor downtown infrastructure development. And this is
to help develop things basically a lotof like infrastructure stuff like sewage stuff,

(00:23):
water drain stuff that is needed ifwe're going to do all the revitalization things
that we want to do in downtownFresno, if we want to have you
know, something like ten thousand morepeople living in downtown and more business being
driven to downtown as a result ofmore people living there, and blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah, ifwe want to finish up all the construction

(00:45):
problems that are happening in the Chinatownarea with you know, trying to get
ready for that high speed rail station. It's now official that Gavin Newsom has
told Jerry Dyer, hey, youknow, so our original plan was to
give you this remaining two hundred milliondollars. Well, we're now delaying it
by two years, not just oneyear, and this is a huge problem

(01:11):
for the city. So Dyer hassome more there's some more quotes from Dire
about this topic. This delay andfunding, he says, coupled with prolonged
street closures from high speed rail construction, is devastating our downtown in Chinatown revitalization
efforts. Dyer said, I wasshocked to hear there would be a possibility

(01:34):
of a second year of it beingdeferred. Uh, this is a dire.
In comments to reporters from Frisno Bee, the reason is we had ramped
up our hiring for our Capital projectsdepartment, and we have a lot of
things in motion in terms of planningand pending contracts. Now those things are
possibly going to have to be puton hold, which means we can't continue
with construction. The state's budget swingsup it Now, why is this happening?

(02:04):
Why is this happening? As I'vesaid, California is dependent on tax
revenue from a relatively small band oftaxpayers, of high net worth taxpayers.
Now I think we're getting some moredetails of this. George Skelton, is

(02:30):
a columnist for the La Times,is reporting the big change is not actually
in income tax revenue. It's comingfrom capital gains tax revenue. Right,
So Repetita uvonn to people. Hearthe phrase capital gains taxes all the time,
maybe some of you don't understand whatit is. Capital gains taxes is

(02:53):
the tax that you pay when youcash out on some investment. Okay,
you buy stock at this price.Let's say you buy a bunch of stock
and it's worth two hundred dollars,and then you sell when the stock is

(03:13):
worth two thousand dollars. You're goingto pay a certain amount of tax on
that eighteen hundred dollars increase in value, and that's called your capital gains tax.
Now, generally capital gains taxes arecapital gains the money you make off
an investment. Capital gains taxes arelower than most normal income taxes. So

(03:42):
I think it's something like fifteen percent. So whatever, fifteen percent of your
eighteen hundred dollars that you made.Again, you bought stock for two hundred
dollars, you sold it at twothousand dollars, you made eighteen hundred dollars.
You got to pay fifteen percent ofthat eighteen hundred in capital gains tax.
LA Times columnist George Skelton reported thatin twenty twenty one, the States

(04:10):
rich made up twenty five percent ofall personal income taxes collected in twenty twenty
one, So capital gains taxes fromwealthy taxpayers made up twenty five percent of
all the revenue that the state collected. A year later, the state was

(04:35):
getting half that amount. So intwenty twenty one, when you know,
hey, we all were having abudget surplus, we're doing great. We
also had all this COVID money.Basically people had, people were getting lots
of investments, the people were sellingtheir stock, realizing their capital gains,

(04:55):
and the state was getting a bunchof revenue from capital gains tax Twenty five
percent of all the revenue the statewas getting was from capital gains taxes.
A year later, capital gains fellto just thirteen percent of what the state
was collecting, an eighteen billion dollardrop in capital gains revenues. So that's

(05:29):
the that the fact that the stateis not collecting as much revenue. This
is at the heart of why Idon't think this downtown Fresno project's ever gonna
happen. Okay, the state madethis grand, grandiose pledge to die in
the city of Fresno. Coming offof again, like twenty twenty one,

(05:54):
twenty twenty two, we were seeingin twenty twenty one, we were seeing
this this massive budget surplus that Californiahad, and it was in part driven
by you know, we were comingoff of still a largely successful Trump economy.
Inflation hadn't really kicked in. Peoplestill felt fairly bullish on the economy,

(06:20):
and we had all this in spiteof COVID being this massive disruption.
We had all this federal COVID moneyflood again. So basically the state was
in this very bullish mode and Newsomemakes this, oh, yeah, we'll
give you two hundred and fifty milliondollars. Sure. Well, the next

(06:44):
two years we see and we sawthis with twenty twenty three, we saw
this with twenty twenty four. We'reseeing it in twenty twenty four. We're
looking at massive budget deficits as wecome grinding to the reality of what the
Biden econ looks like and what Californiataxpayer revenue into the state's coffers is looking

(07:06):
like in this era, which isnot good. We're getting far less in
capital gains tax revenue, and basicallythe amount this is this is not complicated.
The amount of money we are gettingfrom taxpayers paying their taxes is not

(07:28):
enough to cover the expense of whatthe state has to pay for. Slash
wants to pay for and wants getsacrificed at the altar of needs. I'm
sure Gavin Newsom would like downtown Fresnoto be revitalized, but it's probably not

(07:48):
the thing that keeps him up atnight. It's probably not the most important
thing in the world to him,and so that's gonna get sacrificed. And
now we're two years into this gettingsacrificed, and I guess I'm just wondering

(08:09):
how many years will this get kickeddown the can before? You know,
how many years is this gonna getkicked down the can before eventually either Newsome
or the next governor tells Fresno sorry, that this is just not happening.
I mean, does it need athree year delay, a four year delay,
a five year delay before we cometo that conclusion. Do we need

(08:39):
a new governor to come in tobe the bad guy or the bad girl
to say, hey, listen,I know Gavin Newsom promises to you,
but I'm the new sheriff in chargenow, and look, we this is
just not gonna happen. I justdon't really know what's gonna happen, what's
gonna change in our economic circumstances thatthat's gonna you know, rocket jet fuel

(09:03):
tax revenues into the state. EspeciallyI think post COVID there were a lot
of people who left the state.And again this is this is a reality
of California politics. We are highlydependent on the tax revenues of a very
small band of people, their incometax revenue, their capital gains tax revenue.

(09:28):
It's really a very small crust ofCalifornians whose tax dollars are propping up
the whole system, the whole structureof the state budget. And if they
leave, or if they're keeping theirpowder dry with their investments, which seems
to be what's happened. That seemsto be one of the big things.
That's an eighteen billion dollar drop rightthere between twenty twenty one to twenty twenty

(09:54):
two. Was all these uber richpeople just holding onto their investments. They
all cashed out. I guess intwenty twenty one now they're just holding onto
their investments. They're they're keeping theirpowder dry. So we're not getting their
capital gains tax revenue. So Iguess I just don't know how California's economy

(10:24):
is going to so fundamentally change,like what is going to spur the California
economy. Honestly, the possible upturnof the economy that might come around as
a result of a Trump presidency mightbe the single best thing for this prospect
of downtown Presno ever getting this hundredmillion dollars, because again, under the

(10:48):
current circumstances, I just don't seethis happening. And every year that goes
by, that one hundred million dollarsbecome that that two hundred million dollars.
Rather so again, it was Newsomgave a two hundred fifty million dollar pledge.
He gave us the first fifty million. We were supposed to get two

(11:09):
annual installed. It was supposed tobe a three year installment thing. Fifty
million one year, one hundred millionthe next year, one hundred million the
next year. And I think wegot the first fifty million in twenty two.
We were supposed to get one hundredand twenty three. Didn't Then we
were supposed to get one hundred Wedidn't get that one hundred and twenty twenty
three. Oh, we're just gonnadelay it by a year. Now,

(11:33):
We're not gonna get that first hundredmillion in twenty twenty four, so we're
talking twenty five and twenty six.We're gonna get that next hundred million.
By the way, the next governor'selection is in twenty twenty six. By
twenty twenty seven, if we kickthis can down the road one more year,
we might have another governor making thedecision over whether or not we're even

(11:56):
gonna get the remainder of this money. And I think the city has to
ask itself, I think, andyou know, presumably these are smart people.
I'm sure they're having these discussions rightnow. What are our plans if

(12:18):
we only get one hundred million ofthis? What are our plans if we
don't get a red scent of it? What's the plan if we delay it
by another year? Or are wejust totally stuck? Is the because let
me tell you the You drive indowntown Fresno, you drive in the Chinatown
district around there, you drive sortof I'm trying to get my bearings directionally

(12:46):
south and west of Grizzly Stadium.It's a ghost town out there. It's
just we are so hung up withall the construction that needs to happen for
the high speed rail, well itit looks frankly dystopian. And I just

(13:09):
think Gavin Newsom, it almost italmost would have been better if Newsom hadn't
roped us into this whole thing,because I think we got I think Dyer
got sold to Bill of Goods.I think Newsom made this grandiose problem in
a bumper time, and now thatthings are lean, he's not. Newsom's

(13:31):
not going to be able to deliver. And for Newsom this is you know,
he he fundamentally does not care.And he there you know he does
not care. And a new governoragain, if this can gets kicked into
twenty twenty seven, a new governoris not going to care. Like a

(13:56):
new governor is not gonna feel obligateto keep the word of Gavin Newsom when
we return a devastating takedown of GovernorNewsom's budget projections for the year. That's
next on The John Gerardy Show.As city leaders in Fresno are reeling from

(14:18):
yet another year long delay of thepromise two hundred million dollars in state funding
for downtown Fresno revitalization, called itI called it. To be specific,
I called it. I predicted thatthis would not come through. I predicted
that after that first one year delay, that highly unlikely was going to come

(14:41):
in the next year. Because thebasic reality California's budgetary situation is unsustainable.
We are dependent on too few peoplesupporting a budget that is too large,
too few people with not enough moneysupporting a budget that's too large. We
made all these grandiose plans when wehad that sort of post COVID bump where

(15:03):
we had a budget surplus. Ithink that's where this idea that the state
would give fresnow two hundred fifty milliondollars came from. Now that we're facing
deficit spending, guess what, DowntownPresnent revitalization is just not a very high
priority on Gavin Newsom's list. Idon't know that we're ever going to get
that money. So Roger Niello,California State Senator, has a great piece

(15:31):
looking at sort of Newsom's state ofdenial regarding the budget. On Friday,
Governor Gavin Newsom presented his revised budget. So, for those who don't know,
the way it works in California isthe governor introduces kind of a preliminary
budget early in the legislative year,and then come May, so a month

(15:56):
after tax day, after he's gottentax revenues in, the governor gives a
sort of adjusted budget. So that'swhere we are now. Last Friday,
Governor Newsom gave this adjusted budget,and that from this adjustment comes the news.
Sorry, Fresno, you know thatone hundred million dollars we said we'd

(16:18):
give you this year and then onehundred million next year. Yeah, we're
pushing that back one more year.So Roger Niello's California state senator writes this,
I am concerned that the governor's budgetbanks on rosy revenue projections and continues
a legacy of reckless spending that beganduring the democrats decade long control of the

(16:40):
budget process. One party rule hasfed unsustainable spending, and California is on
a path of deficit spending for yearsto come. In fact, the reckless
spending is how a staggering ninety eightbillion dollar surplus in twenty twenty two,
when Gavin Newsom made this grandiose playedge to Jerry Dyer, When we had

(17:02):
a ninety eight billion dollar surplus intwenty twenty two turned into an equally staggering
seventy three billion dollar deficit, accordingto a non part as an estimate,
in just two years. In Mayof twenty twenty two, Newsom proudly proclaimed
the ninety eight billion dollar surplus forthe upcoming budget year, a surplus fueled
in large part by federal pandemic spending, ding ding ding, and a Silicon

(17:25):
Valley stock market boom. Both wereshort term factors. We were not living
in some new budget normal. Thankyou. This is what I keep saying
about the Fresno angle of this.Twenty twenty two Newsom makes this grand pledge
to dire but it was based offthese black swan events that just were not

(17:48):
going to happen again. One gettingall this federal COVID money, and two
a little Silicon Valley stock boom whereyou know, as the be pointed out,
capital gains tax revenue to the statedropped like a stone even just between
twenty twenty one to twenty twenty two. So you're getting less than capital gains

(18:11):
tax revenue because the stock market's calmingdown, you don't have all this federal
COVID money, and that normal,I think, is what's resulting in the
state having deficit deficit, deficit deficit. And if the state's gonna have deficit
deficit deficit deficit, they're not gonnahave room for one hundred million dollars this
year and one hundred million dollars nextyear for Fresno. Niello continues, We

(18:40):
are not living in some new budgetnormal, but the governor and Democratic legislators
chose to spend as though the goodtimes would never end. In January of
twenty twenty three, Newsom introduced hisproposed budget for the upcoming year. A
nearly twenty two billion dollar deficit loomed. Steps to curbs spending should have been
implemented immediately, but they were notin May of twenty twenty three. So

(19:03):
again, this is the schedule bywhich the governor does the budget, introduces
it in January, does an adjustmentin May. In May of twenty twenty
three, the deficit had ballooned toan estimated thirty two billions twenty two billion
to thirty two billion, and theforecast from the Governor's Finance Department indicated the
deficit of at least fifteen billion dollarsfor each of the following three years instead

(19:26):
of addressing the deficit by bringing spendingin line with revenues. Newsoman Democratic legislators
leaned into borrowing, fund shifts andother gimmicks to paper over the deficit for
the year. By early last December. After analyzing tax data following the November
tax filing deadline, the Legislative Analyst'sOffice projected a sixty eight billion dollar deficit

(19:49):
by this past February. Based ontax receipts through January. The LAO TO
uped its deficit forecast to seventy threebillion, and that's about where we stand
now, despite the governor's claim thatthe deficit is smaller. In the past,
California's budgetary process was more inclusive.Without a supermajority of Democrats in controlled
decisions required broader consensus, necessitating aconference committee where divers voices could contribute to

(20:15):
the fiscal dialogue. This system fosterednegotiations and compromises, ensuring consideration of a
wide array of perspectives in the budgetmaking process. It was transparent. Now
it's just the governor and Democrat leadershipmaking all the decisions, mostly behind closed
doors. The governor claims he isfiscally prudent, but that's not really the

(20:36):
case. He continues to spend recklesslyon costly programs that have made the fiscal
hole much worse. For example,of the gimmicks that he's using, the
Governor's claiming one point six billion dollarsin budget savings by shifting the payroll due
on the last day of this fiscalyear to the first day of the next.
That's purely accounting sleight of hand.Postponing the payment by twenty four hours

(21:00):
merely creates an illusion of savings.No, not one dollar is saved,
and next year's deficit is now worse. The takeaway from all this one party
rule is drowning this state and debt. Borrowing from future revenues, shifting funds
from other accounts, and deploying accountinggimmickry are short sighted tactics and ignore the
root cause of the deficit, unsustainablespending. The need for transparency in the

(21:22):
budget making process has never been greaterby the way governor dropped his budget update
off dropped his budget update on aFriday, days before he jetted off to
Italy. That says a lot rightthere. It shouldn't be this way.
It's time for California to embrace genuinephysical solutions, heat expert advice, and
move beyond the mirage of temporary fixes. Really good piece, really good piece

(21:47):
by again Roger Niello, California stateSenator. I think he's from kind of
northern California, near Placer County.And with that rosy picture of things,
I will again affirm my contention,We're never going to get this money.
We're never going to get that twohundred million unless some crazy I don't know,

(22:11):
stock market bubble happens or some otherevent happens with a big federal bailout.
I just don't see a likely scenarioduring this governorship of US getting that

(22:33):
two hundred million dollars for Fresno.If this is how the budget, if
this is really the norm, andtwenty twenty two was the exception, then
this twenty twenty two plan of fiftymillion dollars one year, that one hundred
million dollars next year, that onehundred million dollars next year, that twenty
twenty two plan is not going towork because twenty twenty two was the aberration.

(22:56):
Twenty twenty three and twenty twenty fourbig def big deficit. That is
the norm, and they're not goingto find the money for us, not
during this governorship, and once weget a pharaoh who knows not Joseph,
I think this deal is over whenwe return. Why Republicans make total morons

(23:19):
of themselves by thinking the government shouldnot do good things? Next on the
John Gerardi Show, Republicans have developedabout fifty years of libertarian brainworms that they
can't get out. Like the brainwormeating away at RFK Junior's brain, Republicans

(23:45):
cannot shake this libertarian instinct fearing,well, that's big government, this idiotic
non argument that they selectively apply flywhen they want to. Basically when they
selectively apply when it's just something theydon't like, and it makes Republicans sometimes

(24:11):
look like complete idiots. I've seentwo examples of this, and it gives
me the opportunity to talk about thissort of more fundamental philosophical thing. First,
I saw a Republican, well nota Republican, some kind of kind
of crazy lady on Twitter, someone of these MAGA accounts who occasionally has

(24:37):
something smart to say, but oftenis in maga Looney tune Land, who
was looking at a member of theHouse of Representatives was introducing safety legislation regarding
table saws. Table saws are notoriouslydangerous tools. They're extremely dangerous. They're

(25:04):
responsible for lots and lots of accidents. People have lost fingers from table saws.
It's my only real introduction to tablesaws was working in my grandpa's workshop
shed and we were doing woodworking stuffwhen I was growing up, and he

(25:26):
was like, all right, don'ttouch the table saw. You let me
touch the table saw. Stay awayfrom the table saw. Now, there
are some new developments in certain kindsof table saws that they have the safety

(25:47):
mechanisms in them where and I've seenlike videos of this where these new safety
standards and table saws. And bythe way, i am not a contractor.
I am not an expert on tablesaws. Okay, so bear with
me, but I've seen videos ofthis. I'm sure it's much more expensive
than just producing a normal table saw. But basically there's these new kind of

(26:12):
safety mechanisms for table saws where I'veseen demonstrations of it, people holding a
hot dog close to the blade ofa table saw, and that at the
even the slightest touch of something thatdoesn't feel like wood. Basically, I

(26:36):
guess of softer material, softer tissue. It results in I don't know,
some kind of signal, electric signal, something being triggered instantaneously for the table
sauce to slam on the brakes andstop. And you can see that the
hot dog is barely grazed by theblade. And so the idea being that

(27:00):
this is a safety mechanism to allowtable saws to be much safer if someone's
finger, If someone's finger comes intocontact with the blade for a you know,
nano second, even for a fractionof a fraction of a fraction of
a second, it stops the bladehole. This seems like a good idea,

(27:22):
and this conservative person say, thisis ridiculous. Why are we mandating
stuff like this? This should bea question of choice. And this is
the thing I hate about the wayconservatives think about things. I again,
maybe I'm wandering into a field thatI know too little of. I'm willing

(27:45):
to admit that. You know,you get a microphone in front of your
face, and all of a sudden, you think you're you know God's gift
to mankind, and you know allthings about all topics, and if any
of you are contractors at Fresno Johnnygo to Twitter dot com slash Fresno john
at President Johnny, tell me I'man idiot. The idea that safety regulations

(28:07):
are bad makes conservatives look like idiots. Seat Belts are another example of this.
Seat belts manifestly, obviously and clearlysave thousands of lives. It is
so obviously a massive, massively beneficialregulation. To insist on safety, to

(28:41):
insist on seat belts, it isbetter for everybody. It's better on the
healthcare system, better on ears,better on better on the individual. It
is good. A further instance ofthis, And I feel like I'm gonna
go from things that you're least onboard hang on, Hay in there with
me, radio audience. I thinkI'm gonna go gradually go from stuff you're

(29:03):
less on board with to more onboard with, to more on board with.
So maybe I wasn't getting all ofyou with the table saw a thing.
I think maybe I've got a fewmore of you with seat belts because
you all wear seat belts, orninety nine percent of you. Now I
come to a bill in the stateof Missouri, a bipartisan bill aimed at

(29:26):
banning all child marriages in Missouri isfacing opposition from Republicans, which may hinder
its passage into law. Why isthe government intervening in people's personal lives?
To this extent, question Representative DeanVan Shoyak, why is the government intervening

(29:51):
in people's personal lives? All?Right? First, is this i idea
of intervening in your personal life.The government can intervene in your personal life
in a bunch of ways, andit should. If you're beating up your

(30:12):
wife or you're beating up your kidin the privacy of your home, the
government should get involved. If you'reprivately dealing crack from your house, the
government should get involved. This ideathat, oh, I'm doing this in

(30:34):
the privacy, What business is itof the government to interfere in the privacy
of my home? Certain things,yeah, certain things we want to respect
the privacy of the home. There'sa wide area of that. But the
very fact that something's being done inprivate does not mean the government shouldn't be
involved. If it's really bad,if it's something that's really deleterious to public

(30:55):
order, if it's something that's reallydeleterious to the social fabric of our society.
This is the fundamental difference of opinionbetween what i'd say this tug of
war in conservatism, between Enlightenment ideason the one hand and the Bible on

(31:17):
the other, or more classical philosophicalapproaches to the role of government. The
Enlightenment idea is that we cannot fundamentallyknow what is good. We do not
fundamentally know what is right and whatis wrong. We do not know any
objective moral truth that is out there. Therefore, the role of the government

(31:45):
is not to impose some objective moraltruth, but simply to give people the
biggest platform for choosing the good forthemselves, as long as you're not stepping
on other people's toes, and it'sthe stepping on other people's toes that's the
stuff. If we regulate, somurder. We can regulate because you're stepping
on other people's toes. But ifpeople make a free choice that's not infringing

(32:13):
on anyone else's free choices, thengo for it. The classical approach to
government, though there is Detelian ori'd say Biblical approach, is that no,
we can know what is right andwhat is wrong. There is an

(32:35):
objective moral order out there, andgovernment can help direct us to it,
to guide us to what is rightby condemning what is wrong, so long
as our condemnation of what is wrongdoesn't lead to more worse outcomes on the
side. And really, at theend, a lot of people might say

(32:59):
that there's strict libertarians in that sense, but they don't really mean it.
In our society, we don't evenbelieve it. Why is prostitution illegal in
most of the United States of AmericaBecause it's bad. It's bad, and
frankly, it's hard to really trustthat people engaged in prostitution are really making
free choices. Why Because it's adesperate thing. It's something that's often the

(33:24):
fruit of massive crippling, bad socialpositioning, whether massive need for material support,
a drug habit, or just beinga victim of sex trafficking. And
this is just what I hate.I wish Republicans would just have a sense

(33:46):
of this is a good thing todo, versus this is not a good
thing to do. This constant idea, Well, it's manifest here's this manifestly
dangerous piece of technology that's chopping offfingers left and right. And now we're

(34:09):
gonna hold the line that we shouldn'thave you know consumer safety regulations? Why?
Well, because of capitalist society,the best outcome will always happen.
No, the best outcome is notalways gonna happen unless the company manufacturing the
table saws is sued or unless theyare sued into making something safe. Basically,

(34:34):
some kind of governmental related, lawrelated intervention is gonna have to force
these companies to make products that aresafer. It's what ultimately we had to
do with the automotive industry. Andfurthermore, when you get to the idea
of hey, here's a propose,here's a proposal that we shouldn't allow children

(34:57):
to get married. It leads toall kinds of abusive situations. Of the
time, when children get married inthis state, it's leading to abusive situations.
We should ban it. You haveto be eighteen to get married.
Now. I think there are possiblyreasonable people one side or the other.
But I think the worst argument is, well, are we interfering in people's
private lives too much? Like thisidea that the government shouldn't touch something that's

(35:22):
private. Marriage is a public institution. Of course the states should regulate it.
Of course the state should oversee it. It's the public institution. It's
the building block of society. Andif child marriage is being repeatedly abused in

(35:44):
order to facilitate abusive situations, yes, the states should step in because we
know what is right and what iswrong, or we have confidence in what
is right and what is wrong.Maybe some people disagree on that vision,
but I think there's an objective truthout there that we can know. Take

(36:08):
the libertarian brainworm out of your head. When we return. President Biden's pretty
upset about all these polls that makeit look like Donald Trump's going to win.
That's next done the John Gerardy Show. So there's all these new polls
out. I think it's this NewYork Times Siena pole which is going battleground

(36:29):
state by battleground state and showing thatTrump is winn, winn, winning,
winning in all these different battleground states. He's neck to neck, if not
ahead, in even the popular vote, which if Trump wins the popular vote,
I think the path for Biden towin the electoral college is a pretty

(36:50):
darn slim, and it's leading tothe Biden administration just sort of flailing,
sort of, Oh, the pollsare all wrong. The polls are all
wrong, and now we're getting allthe sort of negotiations back and forth about
the presidential debates, where Biden's basicallyI just want presidential debates with no audience
because that would kind of distract him, and I want him only on these

(37:15):
networks, the network's most friendly tohim. And so the Trump people like,
all right, sure, sounds good, why don't we do these two
additional debates also, So now Iguess we're going back and forth about whether
we're going to have two debates orfour. I think Trump's going to win.

(37:36):
I'll admit around this time last year, I thought Trump was going to
lose. I thought I think thegeneral strategy was the Democrats weren't going to
bring any of their prosecutions until thisyear. Trump would be in the midst
of all of his legal battles andbeing convicted of things right now, and
that would lead him to lose theelection. I just don't think this New
York trial is really sticking, andI just don't know even if he is

(37:59):
convict, he's not going to servea day in jail likely, and I
just don't think it's going to havethe same impact because I think people have
kind of already made up their minds. I don't know. I just I
think he's gonna win. That'll doit for John Girardi's show. See y'all
next time on Power Talk