Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, regarding reducing the size of government, wouldn't the
low hanging fruit be all of those.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
NGOs and contractors that work for the government.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
We wouldn't have to go through all of those hoops
in order to.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Trim that down.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Just watch your thoughts. Thanks, What kind of dog do
you think that was? Dragon? Sounded small, not like you know, chihuahua,
but sounded like small dogs. Right, Yeah, I was more
interested in the dog than I wasn't to talk about then, No,
I'm just being an asked, but that you shouldn't be
(00:37):
surprised by that. The let me back on, let me
let me swerve into that in just a second. This
is how my morning's going. Google number fifty six to
seventy eight texts and says Michael, geez, we're trying to
light a fire in this country. Why are you pissing
(00:59):
on the kindling? And then nine zero six zero, just
two minutes later, writes Mike, great segment. It took over
two hundred years for our government to evolve into this behemoth.
It's going to take a while to undo. Let's go
back to the one where you think I'm pissing on
the kindling By explaining the truth about what we're facing.
(01:26):
Or would you rather just keep your freaking head in
the sand and then and then be pissed off when
things don't go your way or they don't happen as
fast as you want them to happen. If you if
you want a talk show host, it's just gonna be
su and brow smoke up your skirt. Uh, then change
channels go someplace else, because I'm not going to do that.
(01:48):
I want people to have realistic expectations about what's going
to happen and why, so that when something happens that
we don't like or we don't think is moving fast enough,
will at least understand why.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
And in this.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Segment you're going to learn where to put the blame.
We have the equivalent of an imperial presidency in this country.
Everybody thinks that the President of the United States has
all this amazing power that he can do everything. So
let's talk about those NGOs and those contractors for a moment,
because they are in the executive branch. Most NGOs don't
(02:28):
have contracts with the US Senate or the US Congress.
They don't have contracts with the Supreme Court. They have
contracts with the executive branch because they have contracts with
the different cabinet departments and some of the regulatory agencies.
So those contracts will have to be terminated, which means
(02:50):
you'll have to have people in place that will terminate
those contracts. Now, again, let me use myself as an example.
I want to terminate a contract that As the undersecretary
in my portion of Homeland Security, I had a contract
(03:13):
with an MNGO and I wanted to get rid of
that contract because I didn't like the NNGO. I could
terminate that contract by instructing my staff to terminate the
contract so they would start about the process the process
of terminating the contract. If you've ever dealt with the contract,
(03:37):
you know you can. You can have a simple contract
that says this contract is terminable at at will by
either party upon ten days notice, which means that either
party to the contract could just decide with ten days
notice to the other party, hey I'm done, I'm out here. Well,
(03:58):
a government contract with a an NGO is not like that. Now,
there may be one or two here they're like that,
but generally speaking they're not like that. Because you've you've
contracted with that NGO to provide a service that you,
as the government agency, are either unwilling or incapable of providing.
(04:20):
Let's use the contracts that the NGOs have to provide
housing and food and shelter and transportation and everything else
to all the illegal aliens coming into this country. Now,
I don't have any of those contracts in front of me,
so I can't tell you the specifics about what any
of those contracts say. But I can tell you this.
(04:42):
There'll be a termination clause in there, or at least
there should be, And if there's not, then some lawyer
ought to be fired. But there ought to be a
termination clause in those contracts that says that under these
certain circumstances, this is the process by which we would
terminate this contract. Or hopefully there's something in the contract
that just says that the government can, at anytime, for
any reason whatsoever, terminate this contract. Well, if it's the latter,
(05:05):
then that means that Christinome, if she's confirmed as Secretary
of Homeland Security, should either herself or someone on her
staff or one of her undersecretaries, should then order that
those contracts that are providing those services be terminated. Boom
(05:26):
do you think that's the end of it. I'm only
laughing because I know that there were times when I
tried to terminate a contract. I tried. I've told this
story a bazillion times. You ought to know what's coming.
I tried to terminate the contracts that we had that
(05:46):
provided ice to every freaking person in the disaster zone,
whether they needed ice or not. And out of respect
to the Article one branch of government, the ones that
appropriated the money for ice, I went to those off
(06:06):
those appropriators and those authorizers on the hill and said,
I want to terminate these contracts. I think I actually
said I'm going to terminate these contracts because that's kind
of the jerk that I am. And holy cow, did
I get blowback? And not from Democrats. Oh, some democrats
(06:29):
blow back too, but from what you would consider to
be a conservative Republican. Now, why would a conservative Republican
disagree with me about stopping the disbursement of ice to
people in a disaster zone who don't need ice. Instead,
(06:51):
we're spending tens, if not one hundred million dollars a
year on ice so Bubba can keep his rots chilled?
Or is we are cold? I think it was a
waste of tax payer money because Congress didn't want to
see that benefit taken away. And so I got chewed
(07:15):
out by the White House. Hey we hear you're trying
to terminate a contract. I am why, Well, these are
all good those are all good reasons. We agree with you. Okay,
there's what's the problem. Well, we're getting pressure from Capitol Hill. Okay, well,
what do you want me to do? Move on, find
(07:35):
something else. And so you move on and you find
something else. Christinom or anybody, Pete Hagsath, I don't care,
pick anybody whoever's the secretary of whatever. They want to
terminate contracts. So now let's let's you know, they want
to terminate contracts, they can start that process. And they're
(07:57):
gonna have to be ready for a fight because special
interests are going to come in and they're going to
raise holy feces. Uh, not just on the Hill, but
they'll raise holy feces with the cabal. And so now
the media is going to come down and the media
is going to get involved in the fight, and the
media is going to talk about how what a cold
(08:17):
hearted bastard that Michael Brown is because he wants to
take away ice from people in disaster areas.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Well.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
No, that's not the whole story. But did you really
expect the whole story from the media. Well, if you did,
then you got your head up your butt. Now let's
think about the idea about Elon Musk and the veke Amaswami. First,
can we stop referring to the Department of Government deficiency
because that does not exist. There is nothing called the
(08:44):
Department of Government efficiency except in the minds of Donald Trump,
Eaton Musk and and the vake Romised Swamy. The only
way there can be an official Department of Government efficiency
is for Congress to create that. Now here's what Trump
can do. Trump can appoint the Theike and Elan as
(09:06):
efficiencies ours for lack of a better term, So he
can make them special assistance to the President for government efficiency.
And their job is to now go out and identify
inefficient areas that the government, where the government operates, or
inefficient or inappropriate spending. And they can identify those. Now
(09:27):
I know what you're thinking. So then the president can
just not spend those moneys. Well, he can within certain limitations.
Have you ever heard of the Impoundment Control Act of
nineteen seventy four. Well, you're about to learn about the
(09:51):
Impoundment Control Act in nineteen seventy four. If the president
wants to spend less money, then Congress provided for a
particular purpose. Then the president must secure a piece of legislation,
a law from Congress approving that recision in funding. So
(10:14):
they can identify all of these recisions that they want
to stop, but Congress has to approve it. Now, my
understanding is that Musk and Ramaswami want to create a website.
They want transparency, they want for everybody. You know, Tom Coburn,
(10:38):
this this is there's nothing to do under the sun.
Ecclesiastes sells us there's nothing under the sun, new under
the sun. Well Tom Coburn, a physician slash doctor now
deceased from Oklahoma, did that. He did an amazing job
of that. Every year he had his waistbook, I think
(11:00):
it was called the Wastebook something like that, and every
year he would publish all of the stupid things that
were contained in appropriations bills that got passed by Congress
that were spending money on stupid things, and it was
there for everybody in the world to see. Only if
(11:22):
it was so egregious that it was an embarrassment to Congress.
And now remember you're talking about embarrassing members of Congress,
which is a really hard thing to do. I mean,
these are a bunch of hohores to begin with. So
let's let's put it in perspective. So you're gonna have
to convince them to authorize the president to rescind that money. Now,
(11:45):
can the president just not spend the money? Yes? Under
certain it's called a deferral. A deferral under this Act
is defined as withholding or delaying, through either action or inaction,
kind of stopping the money from being spent. Now, there
(12:08):
are three ways that the president can do that. He
can say that I've got to do it because I
need the money for a contingency. He can say I've
got to do it because I'm trying to achieve budgetary
savings made possible through improved operational efficiency. That's directly from
the Act. That's the one they need to hang their
hat on. Or number three as specifically provided by law,
(12:32):
because the original appropriation may give the president the ability
to spend let's say, up to five billion dollars. Well,
if the appropriation bills says you can spend up to well,
that means you don't have to spend up to. It
just means you can if you want to. So he
(12:53):
can spend less. But for the President to just say
that I am not going to spend this I'm going
to spend the last I'm going to keep this program,
but I'm going to reduce its size. That's going to
take an Act of Congress. Now, as a lawyer, I'm
(13:14):
telling you we can argue the meaning of these words
till the cows come home. There's a legal opinion from
the GAO that says that the President proposes ever recision,
he must make those affected funds available to be prudently
obligated before the funds expire, meaning that most appropriations have
(13:40):
a time limit on it. You must spend this money
within the next five years, or the next two years,
or the next six months, whatever it might be. Well,
he can make those funds available to be prudently that's
the word used in the legal opinion, prudently obligated to
(14:00):
something else. So, for example, he probably could, particularly with
having a majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate,
take money from the Green New Deal in the inflation
Reduction Act, and he might be able to say I'm
not going to spend it there because I have an
emergency on the border and I need to redirect those
(14:22):
funds over here to that. I think. I think when
you're talking about Congress, you can't assure anything. But I
think Congress we'll go along with that. Now the Democrats,
they're gonna squeal like stuck pigs. They're gonna scream and
(14:43):
holler and bitch and moan, and they're gonna get their
Hallelujah chorus in the media to join in that screening too,
and then you'll have the nng O screaming again. I'm
not trying to piss on your little fire that we've started.
I'm just trying to tell you that you hear all
the things you need to be ready for. So when
(15:04):
Musk and Ramaswami talk about how they're going to just
they're going to clean up all this efficiency, well, what
they're really going to do is make recommendations to the
President about either rescinding or impounding funds, and that recision
or impounding is going to be controlled by the presidential
or I'm sorry. The Impoundment Control Act of nineteen seventy four.
(15:28):
Another watergate. It's a watergate law. So again, I'm not
trying to piss on the revolution. I'm trying to get
people's expectations in line with what the current situation is now. Trump,
(15:48):
I think, is going to be the bull and the
China clust and he's going to start impounding and doing recisions,
and he's going to take it to the people, and
the people you and me are going to have to
demand get off our asses and demand that Congress go along. Hey,
we haven't talked to Josh anybody from the retirement planning
(16:08):
so of the rocket since the election, So Josh, I'm
really curious. Has has the election last week changed on
anything about what we should be doing with or how
we should be investing our money? What say you?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
You know, that's a really good question, Michael. I think
a lot of people think, just mentally, hey, I've got
to prepare for the election because I don't know which
direction it's going to go. So maybe I should get
more conservative. Now that we have answers with regard to
the election, should I change my strategies? The problem with
that mentality, Michael, is we shouldn't be trying to time
(16:46):
the market based on what's going on around us. We
see that time and time again, and that really affects people.
You know, our number one caution is just be careful
when trying to time the market, and better yet, probably
just don't do it. So where we really help folks
here at Retirement Planning Center is regardless of the economy,
(17:08):
regardless of the geopolitical things that are going on around us.
We help people build plans through our Summit Retirement Guide
that gives them peace of mind, It gives them confidence.
We have things in your plan that'll protect your money.
We have things that will grow your money without major
impact from the market. There's all kinds of strategies that
(17:31):
we could take advantage of that you don't have to
worry about trying to time and anything that's going on
around you.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
See. I think that's something that people don't often think about,
is you really want a retirement plan where I mean
you obviously want to monitor it and you want to
have people like you that can help you watch it,
but you don't have to worry about it.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Correct And that's the problem. I think too many people think, oh,
I got to save fees because advisors are expensive. Well,
f He's only become an issue in the absence of
value if you've got somebody that's there monitoring your plan
all the time so that you don't have to so
you can enjoy retirement. Because that's why you're retired, right,
(18:13):
You're retired to enjoy life and do the things that
maybe you didn't do prior to retirement. Let somebody else
watch your money. That's not your job in retirement.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Yeah, So that and that that's exactly why I encourage
people to call you guys and just have that conversation
to see if you know, if there's a fit, because
there needs to be a fit on both sides. You
you need to be able to recognize that you can
help them, and plus they need to like you and
trust you. So if you want to quit worrying about
your retirement, then pick up the phone. Call Josh and
(18:46):
his team at the retirement plannings and of the Rockies.
Do you make sure you're tell them that Michael brown
sents you numbers easy it's nine seven zero six six
y three thirty two eleven nine seven zero six six
three thirty two eleven or go check out the website.
Go look at the website right now rpcenter dot com.
(19:07):
I have a text message that I want to share
with you because it I think it. And by the way,
whoever said that you want to nominate me for the
new mayor of Reelvill thank you, No, thank you, what
an honor. I'd love to be the mayor of Realville
because that's all I'm trying to do. Look, I want
(19:29):
this stuff to happen. I want government size reduced. I
want the number of government employees, I want the number
of regulations, I want the amount of spending. I want
all of that done. But it's not going to be easy.
And I would venture to say, even in this audience,
(19:50):
there are people that I want to be diplomatic here
that will say a raw raw raw, I want this,
this this, But then you'll tune out of this program.
You'll go about your day. Then this evening you'll turn
(20:11):
on you know, ABC World News tonight, or you'll be
flipping through channels, or your spouse or somebody will say
this is what I heard today, and then everybody will
be like, oh my god, your hair will be on
fire because it might affect you. Well, my argument to
that would be it's already affecting you, but it's affecting
(20:33):
you in a derogatory way, in a negative way. You
think about the amount of money that is bought forget
to spending for a moment, just forget government spending. Think
about government borrowing. Government borrowing takes up somewhat. Is it
(20:53):
forty some cents of every dollar that we spend we're
having to borrow. Well, that's affecting you because that's money
that's sucked out of the private sector through income taxes
and borrowing. That affects the capital markets, that affects how
much capital is available for entrepreneurs and others. So you're
already being affected by it. You just don't necessarily directly
(21:15):
feel it in your pocketbook. But if I were to
say that, I think that just if all I said
was I think we need to reform social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid, most of you would say, yeah, we really should.
But if that meant that everyone who's on Social Security
(21:40):
needs to take a ten percent reduction in their benefits,
then how many of you would be in favor of
social security reform? I bet it would drop the half. Well,
what if I said, well, we ought to do is
reform social security, But grandfather all of those As of Wednesday,
November thirteenth, twenty twenty four, we grandfather all of those
(22:01):
in You can't touch their benefits, you can't touch anything else.
But for everybody else in the pipeline, we're going to
make these reforms. Raise the retirement age, or change the
the qualification for benefits, any number of things. Or give
you a private a private investment opportunity. Maybe maybe you would,
(22:22):
maybe you wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (22:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Well, listen to this text message. I'm not I don't
want give you the number. I don't want any hint
at all. Who this comes from, Michael. While I'm all
for the closure of the Department of Education, my concerns
are as follows. One, As an i l C parent,
(22:45):
I LC earning something learning challenge. Probably we all goes
on to say, and the mother of a dyslexic college student,
so apparently an ILC para and mother of a dyslexic
I worry about the rules and funding for these programs. Two,
I also worry about the FAsMA, the federal funding for
(23:10):
loans and stuff, and how that will affect my son's
funding for college. Third, I worry about the continuity in learning.
If the states are in charge, if a student moves
from one state to another, they can miss out on, say,
multiplication tables because in one state it's taught in third
grade and another status in fifth grade. I'm no fan
of common core, but there should be some guidance as
(23:33):
to what is taught when. What do you think about that?
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Now?
Speaker 1 (23:41):
I don't know how serious the standards are that you
ought to teach multiplication tables in third grade versus fifth grade.
I don't know. That's beyond my expertise. But it sounds
like a legitimate concern. But didn't all those concerns exist
(24:03):
prior to the creation of the Department of Education? You
see what happens is and I'm not picking on this
particular goober. She raises legitimate concerns. As a mom, of
course she's worried about those things. But if we always
focus solely on our own self interest, which I believe
(24:24):
that generally we should, it means that sometimes our self
interest is going to bump up against what we consider
to be the greater common good, and now we all
kind of go pull into our shells.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Now.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
I don't want that change or that changes too much.
You see even if we all run to the polls
and we overwhelmingly in an electoral landslide, elect Donald Trump
because he wants to improve the economy. He wants to
cut government spending, he wants to reduce regulations, he wants
to do all these things. He wants to stop illegal immigration,
(24:58):
he wants to deport people who are in this kind
tree illegally. We all cheer, and then the minute, the
very second that we see a family put on a
bus and hauled across the bridge in Laurez, we're all
going to go home. Oh, that's so sad. That's I'm
not sure I want that, really, I do, and you
(25:25):
can just call me a cold hearted bastard, but I do.
I want. Look at what's going on in Haiti right now.
You know, somebody sent me a text message yesterday. I
don't have time to go search for it, but the
text message was basically, I thought we had all these
I nines and we had all these other things that
prevented illegal aliens from working. You've not been paying attention.
(25:52):
We're granting temporary protected status for asylum seekers and generally
speaking for Cuban, Haitians and Venezuelan's, but The dirty little
secret is for other groups too, and we're giving them
work papers, We're giving them, in essence, a green card
to work, and you you just want to let them
(26:16):
keep coming. They're shooting planes in Haiti, They're shooting American
commercial airliners. And I kept thinking to myself, who the
hell is going to Porter Prince? Why crighton? You want
to take a vacation. Lets you do not take a vacation.
Let's go to Porter Prence. You want to go to
Porter Prince for the decay, why not? Let's do that.
We'll have to take a foreign airline because the US
(26:39):
airline can't land there. And I don't know why US
airlines can't land there, because I mean just because they're
shooting bulletles into the fuselage. I mean, what's there to
be concerned about? And yet those are the people that
we're letting into this country and giving work permits to
national suicide. So I want you to think about the
reality of deportation. Now. I think that, and I've read
(27:02):
lots of stories that Holman wants to do it on
a on a fragmented or segmented basis. Segment is a
better word. He must to do on a segmented basis. First,
let's deport all the criminals or those who have been convicted,
those who have criminal charges pending elsewhere. Let's get those first.
Let's go after the cartels, get rid of all of them.
(27:23):
Let's do all of that, and then we'll start focusing
on you know, maybe individuals, and then we'll do families last. Okay, well,
that's probably a smart way to do it, because the
first time, the first time that we see a family
from Venezuela, Haiti or Cuba put on a plane and
(27:45):
hauled out or put on a bus, hauled out to
Denver International, put on Atlas Air or some you know,
unmarked plane and flown back to Caracas, Oh my gosh,
the media, the cabal is going to have a conniption
for it. They're gonna be apoplectic, going they're gonna poop
their pants, and they're gonna scream at you about how
(28:07):
coldhearted you are, how awful you are, to you doing
this to these people. Okay, well you can yell at
me instead, because I want them gone. They're costing us,
We can't afford them. They're affecting education, they're affecting the
healthcare system, they're affecting everything. I'm pro immigration. I want
(28:29):
immigrations and here, and they're affecting my break. And I
want immigrants here, but I want immigrants that I know
are disease free. I want immigrants that are coming here
because they have a way of self sustaining their own lives,
and we'll go to work. That's what I want.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Michael.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
I object to it being called a revolution for the
same reason I object to January sixth being called insurrection.
What we are witnessing is a restoration of our constitutional republic,
not a revolt against it. Hmmm.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
That that assumes that the republic still exists as it
was meant to exist, and I'm not sure that it
does so. In no regard, I would make an argument,
because now I'm just arguing for the sake of argument,
that I would consider it to be a revolution, because
let's say it is a restoration, You're gonna you're gonna
think revolution instead of restoration when the pushback starts. And
(29:31):
if if, if that's all you've gleaned from the past
almost three hours, it's just that I'm preparing you for
pushback and for reality. You know, it's it's easy to
understand why the progressive liberal Marxist had become unglued apoplectic
(29:56):
over Trump's victory. Remember, they're the champions of our democracy.
That's all they talk about, our democracy. Well, Trump won
overwhelmingly in the electoral College and won the popular vote.
So his return to the White House in opposition to
a corrupt establishment that's dead set against him, represents a
(30:17):
clear democratic expression of the people's will. And I think
that is restorational revolution. Whichever one in their minds is
going to be a revolution. I think in our minds,
we're going to have to treat it as a revolution.
But then you realize that these people are just Marxists.
(30:38):
To translate it into American English, just use artificial intelligence
to change the word democracy to the word bureaucracy. CNN,
it might be the end of American bureaucracy.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Now, our bureaucracy really is in fundamental peril.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
The foundations of American bureaucracy under attack. They want to
destroy our bureaucracy. We are a bureaucracy and danger.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
We're watching an election where people are on the ballot
openly advocating the end of bureaucracy.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
That's what Republicans are doing attacking bureaucracy, attempting to destroy bureaucracy,
and they're doing it with glee.
Speaker 1 (31:19):
This is the end of bureaucracy in America.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
When will America stop sleepwalking towards the end of bureaucracy.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
It's Democrats versus as Bill Crystal says, the end of bureaucracy.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
We are essentially, as Neil put it, one vote away
from the end of bureaucracy.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
As we know. I think our bureaucracy and the stability
of that bureaucracy is really the thing on the ballot
and really so important. By the way, that last person
was Adam Kinsinger. Yeah, now that's AI. I want to
make through the understand that's AI. They're Rochester saying the
word democracy, but if you substitute the word bureaucracy, that's
what they're really concerned about, because that's who we're governed by.
(32:01):
That's the cabal. In addition to the ruling elite. Their
army is the civil service. Their army is the bureaucracy.
They're the ones that impose the regulations and the policies
that rule your lives lives, tell you what to eat
not eat, what to drive, what not to drive, where
to live, how to live. They're the ones that do
(32:22):
everything by the way, speaking of which, cage free eggs
only beginning January one,
Hey, Michael, regarding reducing the size of government, wouldn't the
low hanging fruit be all of those.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
NGOs and contractors that work for the government.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
We wouldn't have to go through all of those hoops
in order to.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Trim that down.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Just watch your thoughts. Thanks, What kind of dog do
you think that was? Dragon? Sounded small, not like you know, chihuahua,
but sounded like small dogs. Right, Yeah, I was more
interested in the dog than I wasn't to talk about then, No,
I'm just being an asked, but that you shouldn't be
(00:37):
surprised by that. The let me back on, let me
let me swerve into that in just a second. This
is how my morning's going. Google number fifty six to
seventy eight texts and says Michael, geez, we're trying to
light a fire in this country. Why are you pissing
(00:59):
on the kindling? And then nine zero six zero, just
two minutes later, writes Mike, great segment. It took over
two hundred years for our government to evolve into this behemoth.
It's going to take a while to undo. Let's go
back to the one where you think I'm pissing on
the kindling By explaining the truth about what we're facing.
(01:26):
Or would you rather just keep your freaking head in
the sand and then and then be pissed off when
things don't go your way or they don't happen as
fast as you want them to happen. If you if
you want a talk show host, it's just gonna be
su and brow smoke up your skirt. Uh, then change
channels go someplace else, because I'm not going to do that.
(01:48):
I want people to have realistic expectations about what's going
to happen and why, so that when something happens that
we don't like or we don't think is moving fast enough,
will at least understand why.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
And in this.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Segment you're going to learn where to put the blame.
We have the equivalent of an imperial presidency in this country.
Everybody thinks that the President of the United States has
all this amazing power that he can do everything. So
let's talk about those NGOs and those contractors for a moment,
because they are in the executive branch. Most NGOs don't
(02:28):
have contracts with the US Senate or the US Congress.
They don't have contracts with the Supreme Court. They have
contracts with the executive branch because they have contracts with
the different cabinet departments and some of the regulatory agencies.
So those contracts will have to be terminated, which means
(02:50):
you'll have to have people in place that will terminate
those contracts. Now, again, let me use myself as an example.
I want to terminate a contract that As the undersecretary
in my portion of Homeland Security, I had a contract
(03:13):
with an MNGO and I wanted to get rid of
that contract because I didn't like the NNGO. I could
terminate that contract by instructing my staff to terminate the
contract so they would start about the process the process
of terminating the contract. If you've ever dealt with the contract,
(03:37):
you know you can. You can have a simple contract
that says this contract is terminable at at will by
either party upon ten days notice, which means that either
party to the contract could just decide with ten days
notice to the other party, hey I'm done, I'm out here. Well,
(03:58):
a government contract with a an NGO is not like that. Now,
there may be one or two here they're like that,
but generally speaking they're not like that. Because you've you've
contracted with that NGO to provide a service that you,
as the government agency, are either unwilling or incapable of providing.
(04:20):
Let's use the contracts that the NGOs have to provide
housing and food and shelter and transportation and everything else
to all the illegal aliens coming into this country. Now,
I don't have any of those contracts in front of me,
so I can't tell you the specifics about what any
of those contracts say. But I can tell you this.
(04:42):
There'll be a termination clause in there, or at least
there should be, And if there's not, then some lawyer
ought to be fired. But there ought to be a
termination clause in those contracts that says that under these
certain circumstances, this is the process by which we would
terminate this contract. Or hopefully there's something in the contract
that just says that the government can, at anytime, for
any reason whatsoever, terminate this contract. Well, if it's the latter,
(05:05):
then that means that Christinome, if she's confirmed as Secretary
of Homeland Security, should either herself or someone on her
staff or one of her undersecretaries, should then order that
those contracts that are providing those services be terminated. Boom
(05:26):
do you think that's the end of it. I'm only
laughing because I know that there were times when I
tried to terminate a contract. I tried. I've told this
story a bazillion times. You ought to know what's coming.
I tried to terminate the contracts that we had that
(05:46):
provided ice to every freaking person in the disaster zone,
whether they needed ice or not. And out of respect
to the Article one branch of government, the ones that
appropriated the money for ice, I went to those off
(06:06):
those appropriators and those authorizers on the hill and said,
I want to terminate these contracts. I think I actually
said I'm going to terminate these contracts because that's kind
of the jerk that I am. And holy cow, did
I get blowback? And not from Democrats. Oh, some democrats
(06:29):
blow back too, but from what you would consider to
be a conservative Republican. Now, why would a conservative Republican
disagree with me about stopping the disbursement of ice to
people in a disaster zone who don't need ice. Instead,
(06:51):
we're spending tens, if not one hundred million dollars a
year on ice so Bubba can keep his rots chilled?
Or is we are cold? I think it was a
waste of tax payer money because Congress didn't want to
see that benefit taken away. And so I got chewed
(07:15):
out by the White House. Hey we hear you're trying
to terminate a contract. I am why, Well, these are
all good those are all good reasons. We agree with you. Okay,
there's what's the problem. Well, we're getting pressure from Capitol Hill. Okay, well,
what do you want me to do? Move on, find
(07:35):
something else. And so you move on and you find
something else. Christinom or anybody, Pete Hagsath, I don't care,
pick anybody whoever's the secretary of whatever. They want to
terminate contracts. So now let's let's you know, they want
to terminate contracts, they can start that process. And they're
(07:57):
gonna have to be ready for a fight because special
interests are going to come in and they're going to
raise holy feces. Uh, not just on the Hill, but
they'll raise holy feces with the cabal. And so now
the media is going to come down and the media
is going to get involved in the fight, and the
media is going to talk about how what a cold
(08:17):
hearted bastard that Michael Brown is because he wants to
take away ice from people in disaster areas.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Well.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
No, that's not the whole story. But did you really
expect the whole story from the media. Well, if you did,
then you got your head up your butt. Now let's
think about the idea about Elon Musk and the veke Amaswami. First,
can we stop referring to the Department of Government deficiency
because that does not exist. There is nothing called the
(08:44):
Department of Government efficiency except in the minds of Donald Trump,
Eaton Musk and and the vake Romised Swamy. The only
way there can be an official Department of Government efficiency
is for Congress to create that. Now here's what Trump
can do. Trump can appoint the Theike and Elan as
(09:06):
efficiencies ours for lack of a better term, So he
can make them special assistance to the President for government efficiency.
And their job is to now go out and identify
inefficient areas that the government, where the government operates, or
inefficient or inappropriate spending. And they can identify those. Now
(09:27):
I know what you're thinking. So then the president can
just not spend those moneys. Well, he can within certain limitations.
Have you ever heard of the Impoundment Control Act of
nineteen seventy four. Well, you're about to learn about the
(09:51):
Impoundment Control Act in nineteen seventy four. If the president
wants to spend less money, then Congress provided for a
particular purpose. Then the president must secure a piece of legislation,
a law from Congress approving that recision in funding. So
(10:14):
they can identify all of these recisions that they want
to stop, but Congress has to approve it. Now, my
understanding is that Musk and Ramaswami want to create a website.
They want transparency, they want for everybody. You know, Tom Coburn,
(10:38):
this this is there's nothing to do under the sun.
Ecclesiastes sells us there's nothing under the sun, new under
the sun. Well Tom Coburn, a physician slash doctor now
deceased from Oklahoma, did that. He did an amazing job
of that. Every year he had his waistbook, I think
(11:00):
it was called the Wastebook something like that, and every
year he would publish all of the stupid things that
were contained in appropriations bills that got passed by Congress
that were spending money on stupid things, and it was
there for everybody in the world to see. Only if
(11:22):
it was so egregious that it was an embarrassment to Congress.
And now remember you're talking about embarrassing members of Congress,
which is a really hard thing to do. I mean,
these are a bunch of hohores to begin with. So
let's let's put it in perspective. So you're gonna have
to convince them to authorize the president to rescind that money. Now,
(11:45):
can the president just not spend the money? Yes? Under
certain it's called a deferral. A deferral under this Act
is defined as withholding or delaying, through either action or inaction,
kind of stopping the money from being spent. Now, there
(12:08):
are three ways that the president can do that. He
can say that I've got to do it because I
need the money for a contingency. He can say I've
got to do it because I'm trying to achieve budgetary
savings made possible through improved operational efficiency. That's directly from
the Act. That's the one they need to hang their
hat on. Or number three as specifically provided by law,
(12:32):
because the original appropriation may give the president the ability
to spend let's say, up to five billion dollars. Well,
if the appropriation bills says you can spend up to well,
that means you don't have to spend up to. It
just means you can if you want to. So he
(12:53):
can spend less. But for the President to just say
that I am not going to spend this I'm going
to spend the last I'm going to keep this program,
but I'm going to reduce its size. That's going to
take an Act of Congress. Now, as a lawyer, I'm
(13:14):
telling you we can argue the meaning of these words
till the cows come home. There's a legal opinion from
the GAO that says that the President proposes ever recision,
he must make those affected funds available to be prudently
obligated before the funds expire, meaning that most appropriations have
(13:40):
a time limit on it. You must spend this money
within the next five years, or the next two years,
or the next six months, whatever it might be. Well,
he can make those funds available to be prudently that's
the word used in the legal opinion, prudently obligated to
(14:00):
something else. So, for example, he probably could, particularly with
having a majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate,
take money from the Green New Deal in the inflation
Reduction Act, and he might be able to say I'm
not going to spend it there because I have an
emergency on the border and I need to redirect those
(14:22):
funds over here to that. I think. I think when
you're talking about Congress, you can't assure anything. But I
think Congress we'll go along with that. Now the Democrats,
they're gonna squeal like stuck pigs. They're gonna scream and
(14:43):
holler and bitch and moan, and they're gonna get their
Hallelujah chorus in the media to join in that screening too,
and then you'll have the nng O screaming again. I'm
not trying to piss on your little fire that we've started.
I'm just trying to tell you that you hear all
the things you need to be ready for. So when
(15:04):
Musk and Ramaswami talk about how they're going to just
they're going to clean up all this efficiency, well, what
they're really going to do is make recommendations to the
President about either rescinding or impounding funds, and that recision
or impounding is going to be controlled by the presidential
or I'm sorry. The Impoundment Control Act of nineteen seventy four.
(15:28):
Another watergate. It's a watergate law. So again, I'm not
trying to piss on the revolution. I'm trying to get
people's expectations in line with what the current situation is now. Trump,
(15:48):
I think, is going to be the bull and the
China clust and he's going to start impounding and doing recisions,
and he's going to take it to the people, and
the people you and me are going to have to
demand get off our asses and demand that Congress go along. Hey,
we haven't talked to Josh anybody from the retirement planning
(16:08):
so of the rocket since the election, So Josh, I'm
really curious. Has has the election last week changed on
anything about what we should be doing with or how
we should be investing our money? What say you?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
You know, that's a really good question, Michael. I think
a lot of people think, just mentally, hey, I've got
to prepare for the election because I don't know which
direction it's going to go. So maybe I should get
more conservative. Now that we have answers with regard to
the election, should I change my strategies? The problem with
that mentality, Michael, is we shouldn't be trying to time
(16:46):
the market based on what's going on around us. We
see that time and time again, and that really affects people.
You know, our number one caution is just be careful
when trying to time the market, and better yet, probably
just don't do it. So where we really help folks
here at Retirement Planning Center is regardless of the economy,
(17:08):
regardless of the geopolitical things that are going on around us.
We help people build plans through our Summit Retirement Guide
that gives them peace of mind, It gives them confidence.
We have things in your plan that'll protect your money.
We have things that will grow your money without major
impact from the market. There's all kinds of strategies that
(17:31):
we could take advantage of that you don't have to
worry about trying to time and anything that's going on
around you.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
See. I think that's something that people don't often think about,
is you really want a retirement plan where I mean
you obviously want to monitor it and you want to
have people like you that can help you watch it,
but you don't have to worry about it.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Correct And that's the problem. I think too many people think, oh,
I got to save fees because advisors are expensive. Well,
f He's only become an issue in the absence of
value if you've got somebody that's there monitoring your plan
all the time so that you don't have to so
you can enjoy retirement. Because that's why you're retired, right,
(18:13):
You're retired to enjoy life and do the things that
maybe you didn't do prior to retirement. Let somebody else
watch your money. That's not your job in retirement.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Yeah, So that and that that's exactly why I encourage
people to call you guys and just have that conversation
to see if you know, if there's a fit, because
there needs to be a fit on both sides. You
you need to be able to recognize that you can
help them, and plus they need to like you and
trust you. So if you want to quit worrying about
your retirement, then pick up the phone. Call Josh and
(18:46):
his team at the retirement plannings and of the Rockies.
Do you make sure you're tell them that Michael brown
sents you numbers easy it's nine seven zero six six
y three thirty two eleven nine seven zero six six
three thirty two eleven or go check out the website.
Go look at the website right now rpcenter dot com.
(19:07):
I have a text message that I want to share
with you because it I think it. And by the way,
whoever said that you want to nominate me for the
new mayor of Reelvill thank you, No, thank you, what
an honor. I'd love to be the mayor of Realville
because that's all I'm trying to do. Look, I want
(19:29):
this stuff to happen. I want government size reduced. I
want the number of government employees, I want the number
of regulations, I want the amount of spending. I want
all of that done. But it's not going to be easy.
And I would venture to say, even in this audience,
(19:50):
there are people that I want to be diplomatic here
that will say a raw raw raw, I want this,
this this, But then you'll tune out of this program.
You'll go about your day. Then this evening you'll turn
(20:11):
on you know, ABC World News tonight, or you'll be
flipping through channels, or your spouse or somebody will say
this is what I heard today, and then everybody will
be like, oh my god, your hair will be on
fire because it might affect you. Well, my argument to
that would be it's already affecting you, but it's affecting
(20:33):
you in a derogatory way, in a negative way. You
think about the amount of money that is bought forget
to spending for a moment, just forget government spending. Think
about government borrowing. Government borrowing takes up somewhat. Is it
(20:53):
forty some cents of every dollar that we spend we're
having to borrow. Well, that's affecting you because that's money
that's sucked out of the private sector through income taxes
and borrowing. That affects the capital markets, that affects how
much capital is available for entrepreneurs and others. So you're
already being affected by it. You just don't necessarily directly
(21:15):
feel it in your pocketbook. But if I were to
say that, I think that just if all I said
was I think we need to reform social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid, most of you would say, yeah, we really should.
But if that meant that everyone who's on Social Security
(21:40):
needs to take a ten percent reduction in their benefits,
then how many of you would be in favor of
social security reform? I bet it would drop the half. Well,
what if I said, well, we ought to do is
reform social security, But grandfather all of those As of Wednesday,
November thirteenth, twenty twenty four, we grandfather all of those
(22:01):
in You can't touch their benefits, you can't touch anything else.
But for everybody else in the pipeline, we're going to
make these reforms. Raise the retirement age, or change the
the qualification for benefits, any number of things. Or give
you a private a private investment opportunity. Maybe maybe you would,
(22:22):
maybe you wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (22:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Well, listen to this text message. I'm not I don't
want give you the number. I don't want any hint
at all. Who this comes from, Michael. While I'm all
for the closure of the Department of Education, my concerns
are as follows. One, As an i l C parent,
(22:45):
I LC earning something learning challenge. Probably we all goes
on to say, and the mother of a dyslexic college student,
so apparently an ILC para and mother of a dyslexic
I worry about the rules and funding for these programs. Two,
I also worry about the FAsMA, the federal funding for
(23:10):
loans and stuff, and how that will affect my son's
funding for college. Third, I worry about the continuity in learning.
If the states are in charge, if a student moves
from one state to another, they can miss out on, say,
multiplication tables because in one state it's taught in third
grade and another status in fifth grade. I'm no fan
of common core, but there should be some guidance as
(23:33):
to what is taught when. What do you think about that?
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Now?
Speaker 1 (23:41):
I don't know how serious the standards are that you
ought to teach multiplication tables in third grade versus fifth grade.
I don't know. That's beyond my expertise. But it sounds
like a legitimate concern. But didn't all those concerns exist
(24:03):
prior to the creation of the Department of Education? You
see what happens is and I'm not picking on this
particular goober. She raises legitimate concerns. As a mom, of
course she's worried about those things. But if we always
focus solely on our own self interest, which I believe
(24:24):
that generally we should, it means that sometimes our self
interest is going to bump up against what we consider
to be the greater common good, and now we all
kind of go pull into our shells.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Now.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
I don't want that change or that changes too much.
You see even if we all run to the polls
and we overwhelmingly in an electoral landslide, elect Donald Trump
because he wants to improve the economy. He wants to
cut government spending, he wants to reduce regulations, he wants
to do all these things. He wants to stop illegal immigration,
(24:58):
he wants to deport people who are in this kind
tree illegally. We all cheer, and then the minute, the
very second that we see a family put on a
bus and hauled across the bridge in Laurez, we're all
going to go home. Oh, that's so sad. That's I'm
not sure I want that, really, I do, and you
(25:25):
can just call me a cold hearted bastard, but I do.
I want. Look at what's going on in Haiti right now.
You know, somebody sent me a text message yesterday. I
don't have time to go search for it, but the
text message was basically, I thought we had all these
I nines and we had all these other things that
prevented illegal aliens from working. You've not been paying attention.
(25:52):
We're granting temporary protected status for asylum seekers and generally
speaking for Cuban, Haitians and Venezuelan's, but The dirty little
secret is for other groups too, and we're giving them
work papers, We're giving them, in essence, a green card
to work, and you you just want to let them
(26:16):
keep coming. They're shooting planes in Haiti, They're shooting American
commercial airliners. And I kept thinking to myself, who the
hell is going to Porter Prince? Why crighton? You want
to take a vacation. Lets you do not take a vacation.
Let's go to Porter Prence. You want to go to
Porter Prince for the decay, why not? Let's do that.
We'll have to take a foreign airline because the US
(26:39):
airline can't land there. And I don't know why US
airlines can't land there, because I mean just because they're
shooting bulletles into the fuselage. I mean, what's there to
be concerned about? And yet those are the people that
we're letting into this country and giving work permits to
national suicide. So I want you to think about the
reality of deportation. Now. I think that, and I've read
(27:02):
lots of stories that Holman wants to do it on
a on a fragmented or segmented basis. Segment is a
better word. He must to do on a segmented basis. First,
let's deport all the criminals or those who have been convicted,
those who have criminal charges pending elsewhere. Let's get those first.
Let's go after the cartels, get rid of all of them.
(27:23):
Let's do all of that, and then we'll start focusing
on you know, maybe individuals, and then we'll do families last. Okay, well,
that's probably a smart way to do it, because the
first time, the first time that we see a family
from Venezuela, Haiti or Cuba put on a plane and
(27:45):
hauled out or put on a bus, hauled out to
Denver International, put on Atlas Air or some you know,
unmarked plane and flown back to Caracas, Oh my gosh,
the media, the cabal is going to have a conniption
for it. They're gonna be apoplectic, going they're gonna poop
their pants, and they're gonna scream at you about how
(28:07):
coldhearted you are, how awful you are, to you doing
this to these people. Okay, well you can yell at
me instead, because I want them gone. They're costing us,
We can't afford them. They're affecting education, they're affecting the
healthcare system, they're affecting everything. I'm pro immigration. I want
(28:29):
immigrations and here, and they're affecting my break. And I
want immigrants here, but I want immigrants that I know
are disease free. I want immigrants that are coming here
because they have a way of self sustaining their own lives,
and we'll go to work. That's what I want.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Michael.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
I object to it being called a revolution for the
same reason I object to January sixth being called insurrection.
What we are witnessing is a restoration of our constitutional republic,
not a revolt against it. Hmmm.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
That that assumes that the republic still exists as it
was meant to exist, and I'm not sure that it
does so. In no regard, I would make an argument,
because now I'm just arguing for the sake of argument,
that I would consider it to be a revolution, because
let's say it is a restoration, You're gonna you're gonna
think revolution instead of restoration when the pushback starts. And
(29:31):
if if, if that's all you've gleaned from the past
almost three hours, it's just that I'm preparing you for
pushback and for reality. You know, it's it's easy to
understand why the progressive liberal Marxist had become unglued apoplectic
(29:56):
over Trump's victory. Remember, they're the champions of our democracy.
That's all they talk about, our democracy. Well, Trump won
overwhelmingly in the electoral College and won the popular vote.
So his return to the White House in opposition to
a corrupt establishment that's dead set against him, represents a
(30:17):
clear democratic expression of the people's will. And I think
that is restorational revolution. Whichever one in their minds is
going to be a revolution. I think in our minds,
we're going to have to treat it as a revolution.
But then you realize that these people are just Marxists.
(30:38):
To translate it into American English, just use artificial intelligence
to change the word democracy to the word bureaucracy. CNN,
it might be the end of American bureaucracy.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Now, our bureaucracy really is in fundamental peril.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
The foundations of American bureaucracy under attack. They want to
destroy our bureaucracy. We are a bureaucracy and danger.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
We're watching an election where people are on the ballot
openly advocating the end of bureaucracy.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
That's what Republicans are doing attacking bureaucracy, attempting to destroy bureaucracy,
and they're doing it with glee.
Speaker 1 (31:19):
This is the end of bureaucracy in America.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
When will America stop sleepwalking towards the end of bureaucracy.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
It's Democrats versus as Bill Crystal says, the end of bureaucracy.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
We are essentially, as Neil put it, one vote away
from the end of bureaucracy.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
As we know. I think our bureaucracy and the stability
of that bureaucracy is really the thing on the ballot
and really so important. By the way, that last person
was Adam Kinsinger. Yeah, now that's AI. I want to
make through the understand that's AI. They're Rochester saying the
word democracy, but if you substitute the word bureaucracy, that's
what they're really concerned about, because that's who we're governed by.
(32:01):
That's the cabal. In addition to the ruling elite. Their
army is the civil service. Their army is the bureaucracy.
They're the ones that impose the regulations and the policies
that rule your lives lives, tell you what to eat
not eat, what to drive, what not to drive, where
to live, how to live. They're the ones that do
(32:22):
everything by the way, speaking of which, cage free eggs
only beginning January one,
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
Today’s Latest News In 4 Minutes. Updated Hourly.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
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.