Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Mike, Michael, I just got in for it, blowing three
feet of snow. I'm tired. It's not even wonder yet.
It's only December.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We got January, February, March, April, oh maybe May.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Uh gee, I'm tired.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
I could tell you're tired, sir, because there's no snow,
at least not where I am.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
I wonder where you are dragged? Where is he? It's
bright and sunshiny outside right now. I mean I've ten
to close the blinds. The sun is too bright. Oh
my goodness.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Jimmy sangen Berger here with you from Michael Brown today
on this Friday. It is beautiful, very nice, and sunny out.
I don't know where he's coming from, but you know
what I do now is that we have a trade
war going on. Actually, we've got several different trade wars
going on, and there's so much to be said about this,
(01:00):
but some things that also are absent from the discussions,
such as a consideration of how you balance issues like
the head and the heart when you're concerned about people
losing jobs overseas because manufacturing is being shipped elsewhere, but
(01:21):
at the same time people are being squeezed by higher
prices or difficulties in dealing with the trade issues that
are going on, and so on and so forth. Like
there's a lot of balancing to go on, and sometimes
we don't talk about it, which is why I'm very
pleased to welcome here to Koa Jack Butler, deputy opinion
(01:44):
editor at the Wall Street Journal, who had a fascinating
piece this week that really talks about that balance. Confession
of a cheap imports enjoyer. Oh my god, spokes ladies
and gentlemen, we have an enjoyer of cheap imports on
the program.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
How we should feel about that, except to say I'm
very glad he's here to talk with us.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Jack Butler, welcome, Thank you.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Guilty of charge.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Let's talk about that for a moment.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
That headline and the premise, because you talk about because
you just.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Started a couple months ago at the Wall.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Street Journal as deputy opinion editor, congratulations, And you talk
about moving into your Manhattan apartment earlier.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
This year, which sets the stage.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
So before we get into the broader trade stuff that
you talk about, set the scene for us.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
Well, the scene is pretty stark. It's an empty.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Apartment with nothing in it, and that's where I was
sitting earlier this year, before my movers got Manhattan. I
sort of beat them to the city, and so I
had the chance just to sit in my completely empty
apartment and think about how the heck I'm going to
fill this thing up with stuff.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Now.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
I had a few things that were on the way
with the mover's bed dresser, a desk, but I still
needed a bunch of other and I needed it fast,
and I needed it cheap. And I was able to
find a whole bunch of things that are now in
my apartment and make my time living there easier. Unfortunately,
very few of them were made in the United States,
(03:13):
and many of them were made in China. So at
the same time that I felt grateful that I was
able to sult my apartment quickly, I felt a guilty
for some reason that I can't quite explain rationally. But
we'll get into this division between the head and the
heart in a bit, I'm sure.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Yeah, you know, I have to say, it's.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Interesting how you felt this little tinge of guilt, because
I am Since I first got a smartphone in two
thousand and eight, I've always been a Samsung user. That's
South Korean. Almost all of my cars have been Hyundai's.
In some cases I've had bad luck. I'm a three
time victim of auto theft, and I've learned some lessons
about what I need to do to protect the gets that,
(03:56):
especially with Hyundais.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
So that's also South Korean.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
So I buy all these things that are foreign made,
and I don't have a problem with it, generally speaking.
But at the same time, there is this urge, right,
this patriotic sense that you know, maybe we should be
buying more American stuff, and there's too much stuff from
other countries.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
Yeah, and I feel that at the same time that
I look.
Speaker 5 (04:22):
I attended Hillsdale College, where I got.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Next Onllent education economics, that work at the Wall Street Journal,
where we easily what we believe is out free trade.
Speaker 5 (04:29):
So all this stuff I've internalized and all that I
buy on a rational level.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Comparative advantage is a thing. Certain countries have advantages in
making things over other countries. America still makes a ton
of stuff, it's just different from the stuff that other
countries make. So I internalize all that again in my head,
but in.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
My heart, I'm from Ohio.
Speaker 4 (04:52):
I've been through been in driven past. Some of these
places Lordstown, Portsmouth, Ironton that have seen better days, and
I hope that they'll see better days again, and in
some cases they are kind of recovering in certain respects.
But I can't in my heart, I can't entirely disentangle
(05:14):
this ready availability of cheap goods from the fact that
certain places in this country have been concretely and specifically
affected by the trade regime. So that's the division between
the head and the heart.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Yeah, and this brings me to part of your piece
Jack Butler again, Deputy opinion editor at The Wall Street Journal,
where after describing some of the drawbacks that we've seen
or some of the communities that have been disrupted, you
talk about if free traders can't figure out how to
talk to such people, that is, those whose families used
(05:52):
to be in manufacturing or what have you, and feel
that they have been hurt by free trade, then they'll lose.
And that Ye, it's to such an important point, Jack,
especially at this moment when the President of the United
States is far from a free trade guy, when a
heck of a lot of Republicans have been drawn into
the notion that protectionism is the way to go. How
(06:14):
can those who believe in and support free trade and
understand the real world economics of it all, how can
they make the pitch better?
Speaker 1 (06:23):
How can they talk to such people? As you write, Well,
you're very right.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
I think that to the extent that free traders are
on the back foot, it's because of a failure to
have communicated properly with people who. Again you see the
benefits of free trade, they're often spread throughout the whole
economy and can be less visible.
Speaker 5 (06:47):
Lower prices and the aggregate are nice, but.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
It's hard to point that out. But it's very easy
to point out the factory in Portsmouth closed, or the
factory in Youngstown closed, whatever place it is.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
And so I think that to actually make the case,
you need to.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Concretely identify instances in which trade is supporting jobs in places,
or trade is making goods cheaper, and point out which
goods they are and how people's lives benefit from them.
You can also point out instances I've been focusing a
lot on the the problems that the head faces, but
there's problems also that the heart face is too in this.
(07:28):
So you've seen the Trump administration itself, which has been
more protectionists also randomly deviate from protectionism when it seems
inconvenient or difficult. And if this is the right approach
according to the Trump administration, then why is it suddenly
cutting tariffs or on certain goods or with certain countries.
(07:49):
And maybe this is a preview of we'll get to later,
but why is it suddenly agreeing to better trade relations
with countries like China? In certain ways the contradictions that
protectionist state might be a good place to start for
free traders to start making a better case for themselves.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
I think that's interesting and one of the points when
you say that there are factories you can easily see,
but what about those benefits to free trade that you
might not recognize and connect That would fit along the
lines of what the late nineteenth century economist philosopher Frederick
Bostiot would say is the difference between the good economists
(08:33):
and the bad economists. That the good economists sees beyond
that which is seen, and also sees that which is
unseen and acknowledges and talks about that. And that's just
such an important point when you're talking about anything economics.
But you raise a very interesting point too, which brings
us to an editorial yesterday or the last couple of
days in the Wall Street Journal entitled Trump says chips
(08:55):
ahoy to shijen Ping an example of where that protection
finessed inclination might bend just a little bit. What's going
on there with the chips in Nvidia.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Yeah, I find this very strange because I would say
that the strongest argument that protectionists have is.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
That China in China's place in the.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
International trade system is a serious problem, that it has
committed genuine abuses, that its government is still really acting
to undermine other nations economies in a way that really
complicates having a real free trade system. But you'd think
that the protectionist president production as administration of Donald Trump,
(09:36):
would see this and kind of reserve its antagonism towards China.
But in many cases it's actually launching trade wars with
countries that we need on our side if we're going
to take on China. And in the case of the
Nvidia chips that we're talking about, it has just agreed
to a deal to sell these chips, which are probably
among this country's greatest, most unique economic assets, to China
(10:02):
in exchange for a twenty five percent cut for the
US Treasury. And I find this very strange because this
is essentially a way that we're compromising one of our
chief economic and arguably national security advantage advantages. Visit each
China for what exactly. I can't really see the payoffs,
(10:22):
and so I find this very strange by the Trump
administration's own logic that it's doing this.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Yeah, and the editorial for the Journal says, we sure
hope mister Trump isn't doing this for Nvidia's twenty five
percent tax payments to.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
The Treasury, like that would be the purpose of it.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
The Constitution, the editorial says, vest taxing power in Congress.
Yet mister Trump is essentially trading national security for pennies
on the dollar. And that really is, Dak Butler, a
striking contradiction between what the administration purports to wanting to
(11:00):
do and what they are doing, in this case, for
potentially just money coming in to the federal treasury, which,
by the way, I'm not much of a fan of
any kinds of deals with companies, whether it's in video
or let's buy a percent get a percentage of ownership
of Intel or some of these other companies under the
(11:21):
guise of where the government's going to make a profit.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Yeah, like I said, it doesn't quite make sense on
the drum administration's own logic. But also, and this is
almost forgotten about now, which is unfortunate. I think there's
a very strong case what I'm persuaded by, that this
kind of executive centered deal making, especially when it comes
to tariff stuff, is unconstitutional on states. I mean, it
(11:47):
is true that the United States in its history has
used tariffs. There are tremendous debates about them in the eighties,
both days, the nineteen eighties and the eighteen eighties. I
should say this is a part of our economic history.
But those debates were to a considerable extent happening in Congress.
(12:07):
But now Congress is just kind of.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
Along for the ride in a way that I don't really.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
Think fits with our economic system. So yeah, I'm uncomfortable
with this kind of deal making, even when terrorist are involved,
because it seems to be all running through the presidentcy itself,
and that seems like a recipe for arbitrary policy making
that won't really make anyone happy.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Ultimately, one final thing, if you can share a thought
on this, is the twelve billion dollars that the Trump
administration announced they're going to do for farm or bailouts.
I mean, I can't help but remember my study of
history from the Great Depression and how that was the
way that FDR decided to address farmers in the surpluses
(12:52):
that they had was I'm going to go ahead and
we're going to we're going to ask you to not
produce more food, and we're gonna bail you out with
this money going to you. Only in this case, it's
all entirely self induced. This is the impact of some
of the t tariffs on the products where you have
the retaliatory terrorists from China and others. So we can't
(13:14):
get soybeans or other products to China or other countries
as a result. And so now the solution is what
paying farmers?
Speaker 5 (13:22):
Jack Butler, Yeah, this seems try to follow the logic here.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
So we impose tariffs, get money from the tariffs. The
tariffs imposed costs on farmers, So we use the tariff
money that has hurt farmers to provide restitution to the farmers.
I feel like this is a very secuitous route that
could have been avoided by not imposing the tariffs.
Speaker 5 (13:47):
That have hurt farmers. And when I was talking earlier about.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
There are many things of the United States, which is
still the world's largest economy, I mean we should remember
that we are still number one, and the world is
envious of us, that many people want to come here.
Farming is one of the things that we do better
than anyone else, and so it is unfortunate to see
farmers as one of the victims of these trade policies.
(14:10):
And I don't really think that this really this cecuitous
route to comment, saying them is the way to help
them out in a sustainable fashion.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
As I let you go, Jack Butler, I'm going to
read the very end of your column in the Wall
Street Journal this week, Confession of a cheap imports x enjoyer.
But among my new items is a large bookshelf. It
took me the longest time to assemble, yet it fits
the space I needed it to fit perfectly. It just
(14:44):
so happens to have been made in the US. Was
that comforting a little bit?
Speaker 4 (14:50):
Like I said, there's still that patriotism we all have that,
even if it's not always economically rational. People are more
than economic So I'm comfortable admitting that or confessing it
since that's the headline I gave that article.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
So there you go.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
There it is Jack Butler, Deputy opinion editor at the
Wall Street Journal. Always good to talk with you, sir.
Thanks so much for taking your time this morning. We
appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Yeah, thanks for having me once again.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Jack Butler with the Wall Street Journal adjoining us. Speaking
of the economy, there's some maybe encouraging news. Who knows
exactly from the economy standpoint of Colorado. Here's the headline
from the Denver Gazak Colorado unemployment fell in delayed September report.
(15:39):
It's improving the unemployment rate. According to the Colorado Department
of Labor and Employment, the state recorded one hundred and
thirty thirty four thousand unemployed people in September, forty eight
hundred fewer people compared to August. State's unemployment rate falling
point one percent to four point one percent. The national
rate a little higher than that at four point four percent.
(16:03):
The state released September's data on Thursday, which was delayed
by more than seven weeks due to the federal government shutdown.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
So that's one of the things we.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Don't know exactly how we can pinpoint the state and
federal data when it comes to unemployment. Because of that
lag from the government shutdown, the employment data was collected
before the shutdown that ended up being the longest in
US history. The Department said that it would publish a
report for October's employment data because the government did not
(16:35):
collect household survey data during the month and will not
collect it after the fact. So, needless to say, four
point one percent unemployment rate. That's a slight downtick from
where it was before, which is encouraging. Here's the problem,
here's the rub. The policies that Jared Polis and the
(16:56):
Democrats are instituting in this more and more would be
absolutely detrimental to employment, to prosperity, to job growth, to
new business creation, and the latest thing that they want
to do and they just might get it on the
(17:18):
ballot in Colorado is put into place a graduated so
called progressive income tax. My column today in the Denver
Gazette is on that exact topic of the graduated income
tax and the deep concerns we all need to have
about it. This would be devastating, devastating for Colorado's economy,
(17:44):
and so much more. On the other side, I'm going
to break down the devil that is the graduated income
tax proposal for the ballot that would completely undermine the
taxpayer's bill of rights.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
That more come up on the.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Other side five sixty six nine zero the KOA Common
Spirit Health text line, Keep them coming. I'm Jimmy Sangenberger
in for Michael Brown on KOA.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Zero six y one to two.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
Here, Jimmy, I'm definitely free to trade, supporter and fan,
but not when the other countries have their own protections
like Canada and our dairy products, China and pretty much
everything Japan for decades having protectionists policies against the US.
(18:31):
They all cannot have that. Thanks Jimmy Sangenberger, and for
Michael Brown. I just want to make one quick point
in response to what you shared, and I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Let's talk about dairy.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Products in Canada because this is a complete misnomer that
I think goes to a lot of the different claims
about other countries protectionist policies. And not to say that
there aren't, because there are a hell of a lot
of them, but on the point of dairy, I think
that you have this massive tariff on dairy that's what
(19:08):
is it?
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Like?
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Two hundred percent, Like it's outrageous, But you have to
meet a certain threshold of imports from the United States
for that tariff to kick in.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
And guess what, we'd never do.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
Literally, we have never hit that threshold for that high tariff.
So it's just the lower tariff rate that has been
the case for a long time. And I think it's
just important to recognizing and a lot of times people
just point to, oh, dry, it's two hundred percent tariff
on dairy. Yeah, after a certain threshold that we never hit.
(19:43):
So therefore that tariff is never paid at that level,
not by a long shot.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Now, as for.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
Protectionism, to address protectionism elsewhere, if.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
That's the objective, okay, I can see that.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Well, we want to reduce tariff trade barriers or other
non tariff trade barriers, but it's hard to tell with
any level of consistency what the Trump administration is actually
going for.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Sometimes it's that.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
Sometimes it's revenue to the federal government, because we love
when the federal government gets money, right, we want to
praise and celebrate when the Feds get more money.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Not me, I don't want to.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
Sometimes it's well, we want to reduce trade barriers. Sometimes
it's we want to address the trade deficit or the
trade imbalance, yet we don't have a trade imbalance with
some of the countries.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Quite the opposite.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
If we have an imbalance, then it's because we're exporting
more to them than they're importing here because of particular
products or what have you.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
It can vary depending on the situation.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
Sometimes it's, oh, well, we're trying to address fentanyl. Sometimes
it's we want to bring manufacturing back. Like, there are
so many different explanations for why these tariffs.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Go into effect.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
There's no consistency whatsoever that I can't agree with the
logic you're presenting, because it's not just about protectionism against protectionism.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
It's for so many different things.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
Sometimes it changes weekly, it seems, depending.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
On the country.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
So, like the last conversation we were having with Jack
Butler of the Journal, why are we allowing these chips,
the sensitive high level chip sales to China because the
United States gets twenty five percent, Like suddenly protectionism goes
out the window in this.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Particular case, to protect.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Advanced technology from the Chinese Communist Party because they're giving
twenty five a quarter of the revenue to the FEDS.
I just there's no consistent logic to it. Now, today
in the Denver Gazette, my column and I published Tuesdays
and Fridays as entitled a progressive tax on Colorado's No thanks,
(22:16):
And it's about this new attack on Colorado's flat rate
income tax. Remember we have since nineteen eighty seven, when
voters put it in place, we have had a flat
tax in Colorado. Everybody pays the same percentage in this
case it is four point four percent. But now it's
(22:40):
under attack, and if the perpetrators succeed, voters will be
opening the gates to trojan horses disguise as fairness, priorities,
and progress. Aren't those such nice, warm and fuzzy words.
We want fairness, we want progress. Well, after two failed
(23:00):
attempts to get approval for signatures, because that's the first
step you got to get signatures to get on the ballot,
there's a thing called the title board, and the title
board evaluates, is this a single subject? Does this follow
the rules? Yes?
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Okay, then you move on.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
Well, they provided two versions of this, the proponents that
failed the title board. Now this third time, the charm
third times of the charm situation here. The measure would
replace the flat tax that we've again enjoyed in Colorado
since nineteen eighty seven, when the state abandoned graduated raids
(23:40):
for a single across the board system. But now these
progressives want to drag us back to a graduated disaster.
In the immortal words Dragon Will, like this in the
immortal words of Star Wars.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Is Admiral Akbar. It's a trap.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Indeed, Colorado's current universal tax rate is four zero point
four percent.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Like I said, this would amend.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
The state's constitution to allow for graduated tax rates and
create the graduated tax rates at five different brackets to start. Now,
it's billed as a tax break for lower and middle
income people because under one hundred thousand dollars in income,
you'd pay four point two percent instead of four point
(24:25):
four So it's a nice little tax rate cut for you,
But for everybody up to five hundred thousand dollars, it's
four point four percent.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Like now, that's the trap they.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Want to suck you in by saying, well, most Colorados
make less than five hundred thousand dollars, So go ahead
and vote for this, because it's not going to affect you.
Once you get above five hundred grand, it hits seven
and a half percent. Then once you're above seven one
hundred and fifty thousand dollars, then it is eight point
(25:03):
five percent, and then once you're a millionaire, nine and
a half percent. That's for individuals, for couples, businesses alike.
Of course, a graduated income tax means it's a marginal
tax rate. So your first one hundred thousand dollars is
tax four point two percent, the next four hundred thousand
(25:24):
dollars is four point four percent, and so on than
anything above a million gets taxed at nine and a
half percent. Now, supporters call it progressive because the rates
progress from low to high, and that's progress toward fairness.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
But frankly, this is not fair. It's quite the contrary.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Right now, it is fair everybody, regardless of your income,
is the same rate. That is fair four point four
percent for everybody. So that means, in a hypothetical someone
earning seventy five thousand dollars pays three grand in tax,
well making another making two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
(26:07):
pays eleven thousand dollars, both at four point four percent.
More money paid by the wealthier person, but the same percentage.
That is fair, it's simple, it's straightforward, it's pro growth,
easy to plan all of that. But well, dragon, I'm
(26:30):
gonna go there. I'm going to say this next line,
which I write in my column today because it was
inspired in my mind by Yoda, and that's because that's
the kind of nerd that I am.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
But once we start down the graduated path.
Speaker 3 (26:46):
Complexity, confusion, and capital flight will forever dominate Colorado's destiny.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Not bad, is it? Okay? That's pretty good? All right? Good?
So on paper, it starts with five bracket.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Ironers get hit harder at first, but more brackets in
the future will be easier for voters to prove. Not
because they necessarily realize it or are all on board
with it, but it is much less of a of
a sticking point in your mind.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
If we're all paying four point four.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Percent and there's a proposal to jump it up to
five point four percent, it's obvious, right, everybody's doing it.
But if you say, well, we're just gonna take the
fourth bracket. So the amount from seven hundred and fifty
thousand to a million dollars is gonna be taxed at
nine percent instead of eight point five percent. Well you
might go, Okay, I'm fine, I guess I guess that
(27:41):
makes sense. Lolled into passing that, But then there's the
boiling frog scenario. Voters won't feel the impact of each
incremental taxic until it's too late.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
Look at California, look at New York.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
And this also does an index for Ana, which is
a silent tax. Over time, you will be sapped more
and more because the percentage stays the same, so they
don't need to go to a vote of the people
to raise the tax. But they're bringing in more money
because of inflation. And then of course they earmark this
money that comes in to fund education, healthcare, childcare.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
And workforce programs.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
It's just a little more next down the line, we
just need a little more to help these programs.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Well, guess what.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Not only does that create permanent constituencies for these particular
interests that want to see taxes go up, but the
fact of the matter is that this proposal would allow
the government to keep all that money instead of it
basically allows you to dismiss all the taber caps.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
Because remember on the Taxpayer's Bill of rights.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
Not only do we get to vote on what a
whether or not to raise taxes. Not only does it
protect and insure a flat tax, but it also says
as the government can only keep so much money, and
anything above that has to be returned to the people
that goes away. And there's more that's pernicious. Read my
column for the additional details. We got to run to
(29:11):
the break a progressive tax on Coloradin's no Thanks in
the Denver Gazette. I'm Jimmy Sangenberger here with you in
for Michael Brown. It's KOA, stay with us.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
I love Carolyn Love. It's takedown of Caitlyn Collins and
asking about the inflation, and Carolyn just tells them that
her predecessor stood up there and told them that there
was no inflation and the borders were closed. But reporters
just took her at a word and didn't do an
investigation on their own. And what Carolyn tells them has
(29:45):
facts behind it, and they keep questioning it. So ironic.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Jimmy sanging Berger in for Michael Brown here on KOA.
Bring in some of the best bumper music known to man,
the best Christmas bumper music no to man. I should add,
and I have to as I was listening. Now that's
Alexa leaving the talk back and yeah, Caroline Levit, I
(30:14):
don't have that clip to share, but I was about
to share. It's perfect timing. You are reading my show
prep materials.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
She does that, alexis creepy.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Yeah, because I've got something else about Caroline Levitt to
share and some audio. But you're absolutely right. She's so
good at that, and that was fantastic. Listen to this
one where they're ask about the Obamacare subsidies and she's like, well,
let me just remind you who's actually responsible for the
expiration of these enhanced premium subsidies for Obamacare.
Speaker 7 (30:46):
As for the subsidies that are set to expire, I
would like to remind you and everybody at home why
this is on the brink of happening. Democrats wrote Obamacare,
they passed it without a single Republican.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
Vote, and then they ballooned.
Speaker 7 (31:01):
It with these expensive COVID subsidies that completely distorted the
health insurance market. And then they doubled down extending those
subsidies and setting their own expiration date right now in
twenty twenty five, which the administration is obviously well aware
of and we are working. The President is working with
his healthcare policy team here at the White House as
well as Republicans on Capitol Hill to find a solution.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Game set match, I mean, absolutely brilliant. I don't have
enough time to play this other clip now. Maybe in
the next hour we'll get to it where she talks
a little bit about solutions and reminds again how Democrats
created this problem. Look, Obamacare was created by the Democrats.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
In twenty ten.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
I was in college hosting college radio at Regi's University
on KRCX ninety three point nine, The Real Deal, talking
about how much of a danger it was going to
be and how expensive healthcare costs and insurance would be
with Obamacare. And now here we are fifteen years later,
(32:03):
and that's what's happened, and the Democrats have done jack
fill in the blank to address it. Brilliant by Caroline Levitt.
I'm Jimmy Sangenberger here with you another hour up ahead,
as I'm filling in for Michael Brown on KOA
Mike, Michael, I just got in for it, blowing three
feet of snow. I'm tired. It's not even wonder yet.
It's only December.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We got January, February, March, April, oh maybe May.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Uh gee, I'm tired.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
I could tell you're tired, sir, because there's no snow,
at least not where I am.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
I wonder where you are dragged? Where is he? It's
bright and sunshiny outside right now. I mean I've ten
to close the blinds. The sun is too bright. Oh
my goodness.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Jimmy sangen Berger here with you from Michael Brown today
on this Friday. It is beautiful, very nice, and sunny out.
I don't know where he's coming from, but you know
what I do now is that we have a trade
war going on. Actually, we've got several different trade wars
going on, and there's so much to be said about this,
(01:00):
but some things that also are absent from the discussions,
such as a consideration of how you balance issues like
the head and the heart when you're concerned about people
losing jobs overseas because manufacturing is being shipped elsewhere, but
(01:21):
at the same time people are being squeezed by higher
prices or difficulties in dealing with the trade issues that
are going on, and so on and so forth. Like
there's a lot of balancing to go on, and sometimes
we don't talk about it, which is why I'm very
pleased to welcome here to Koa Jack Butler, deputy opinion
(01:44):
editor at the Wall Street Journal, who had a fascinating
piece this week that really talks about that balance. Confession
of a cheap imports enjoyer. Oh my god, spokes ladies
and gentlemen, we have an enjoyer of cheap imports on
the program.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
How we should feel about that, except to say I'm
very glad he's here to talk with us.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Jack Butler, welcome, Thank you.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Guilty of charge.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Let's talk about that for a moment.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
That headline and the premise, because you talk about because
you just.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Started a couple months ago at the Wall.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Street Journal as deputy opinion editor, congratulations, And you talk
about moving into your Manhattan apartment earlier.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
This year, which sets the stage.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
So before we get into the broader trade stuff that
you talk about, set the scene for us.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
Well, the scene is pretty stark. It's an empty.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Apartment with nothing in it, and that's where I was
sitting earlier this year, before my movers got Manhattan. I
sort of beat them to the city, and so I
had the chance just to sit in my completely empty
apartment and think about how the heck I'm going to
fill this thing up with stuff.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Now.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
I had a few things that were on the way
with the mover's bed dresser, a desk, but I still
needed a bunch of other and I needed it fast,
and I needed it cheap. And I was able to
find a whole bunch of things that are now in
my apartment and make my time living there easier. Unfortunately,
very few of them were made in the United States,
(03:13):
and many of them were made in China. So at
the same time that I felt grateful that I was
able to sult my apartment quickly, I felt a guilty
for some reason that I can't quite explain rationally. But
we'll get into this division between the head and the
heart in a bit, I'm sure.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Yeah, you know, I have to say, it's.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Interesting how you felt this little tinge of guilt, because
I am Since I first got a smartphone in two
thousand and eight, I've always been a Samsung user. That's
South Korean. Almost all of my cars have been Hyundai's.
In some cases I've had bad luck. I'm a three
time victim of auto theft, and I've learned some lessons
about what I need to do to protect the gets that,
(03:56):
especially with Hyundais.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
So that's also South Korean.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
So I buy all these things that are foreign made,
and I don't have a problem with it, generally speaking.
But at the same time, there is this urge, right,
this patriotic sense that you know, maybe we should be
buying more American stuff, and there's too much stuff from
other countries.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
Yeah, and I feel that at the same time that
I look.
Speaker 5 (04:22):
I attended Hillsdale College, where I got.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Next Onllent education economics, that work at the Wall Street Journal,
where we easily what we believe is out free trade.
Speaker 5 (04:29):
So all this stuff I've internalized and all that I
buy on a rational level.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Comparative advantage is a thing. Certain countries have advantages in
making things over other countries. America still makes a ton
of stuff, it's just different from the stuff that other
countries make. So I internalize all that again in my head,
but in.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
My heart, I'm from Ohio.
Speaker 4 (04:52):
I've been through been in driven past. Some of these
places Lordstown, Portsmouth, Ironton that have seen better days, and
I hope that they'll see better days again, and in
some cases they are kind of recovering in certain respects.
But I can't in my heart, I can't entirely disentangle
(05:14):
this ready availability of cheap goods from the fact that
certain places in this country have been concretely and specifically
affected by the trade regime. So that's the division between
the head and the heart.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Yeah, and this brings me to part of your piece
Jack Butler again, Deputy opinion editor at The Wall Street Journal,
where after describing some of the drawbacks that we've seen
or some of the communities that have been disrupted, you
talk about if free traders can't figure out how to
talk to such people, that is, those whose families used
(05:52):
to be in manufacturing or what have you, and feel
that they have been hurt by free trade, then they'll lose.
And that Ye, it's to such an important point, Jack,
especially at this moment when the President of the United
States is far from a free trade guy, when a
heck of a lot of Republicans have been drawn into
the notion that protectionism is the way to go. How
(06:14):
can those who believe in and support free trade and
understand the real world economics of it all, how can
they make the pitch better?
Speaker 1 (06:23):
How can they talk to such people? As you write, Well,
you're very right.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
I think that to the extent that free traders are
on the back foot, it's because of a failure to
have communicated properly with people who. Again you see the
benefits of free trade, they're often spread throughout the whole
economy and can be less visible.
Speaker 5 (06:47):
Lower prices and the aggregate are nice, but.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
It's hard to point that out. But it's very easy
to point out the factory in Portsmouth closed, or the
factory in Youngstown closed, whatever place it is.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
And so I think that to actually make the case,
you need to.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Concretely identify instances in which trade is supporting jobs in places,
or trade is making goods cheaper, and point out which
goods they are and how people's lives benefit from them.
You can also point out instances I've been focusing a
lot on the the problems that the head faces, but
there's problems also that the heart face is too in this.
(07:28):
So you've seen the Trump administration itself, which has been
more protectionists also randomly deviate from protectionism when it seems
inconvenient or difficult. And if this is the right approach
according to the Trump administration, then why is it suddenly
cutting tariffs or on certain goods or with certain countries.
(07:49):
And maybe this is a preview of we'll get to later,
but why is it suddenly agreeing to better trade relations
with countries like China? In certain ways the contradictions that
protectionist state might be a good place to start for
free traders to start making a better case for themselves.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
I think that's interesting and one of the points when
you say that there are factories you can easily see,
but what about those benefits to free trade that you
might not recognize and connect That would fit along the
lines of what the late nineteenth century economist philosopher Frederick
Bostiot would say is the difference between the good economists
(08:33):
and the bad economists. That the good economists sees beyond
that which is seen, and also sees that which is
unseen and acknowledges and talks about that. And that's just
such an important point when you're talking about anything economics.
But you raise a very interesting point too, which brings
us to an editorial yesterday or the last couple of
days in the Wall Street Journal entitled Trump says chips
(08:55):
ahoy to shijen Ping an example of where that protection
finessed inclination might bend just a little bit. What's going
on there with the chips in Nvidia.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Yeah, I find this very strange because I would say
that the strongest argument that protectionists have is.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
That China in China's place in the.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
International trade system is a serious problem, that it has
committed genuine abuses, that its government is still really acting
to undermine other nations economies in a way that really
complicates having a real free trade system. But you'd think
that the protectionist president production as administration of Donald Trump,
(09:36):
would see this and kind of reserve its antagonism towards China.
But in many cases it's actually launching trade wars with
countries that we need on our side if we're going
to take on China. And in the case of the
Nvidia chips that we're talking about, it has just agreed
to a deal to sell these chips, which are probably
among this country's greatest, most unique economic assets, to China
(10:02):
in exchange for a twenty five percent cut for the
US Treasury. And I find this very strange because this
is essentially a way that we're compromising one of our
chief economic and arguably national security advantage advantages. Visit each
China for what exactly. I can't really see the payoffs,
(10:22):
and so I find this very strange by the Trump
administration's own logic that it's doing this.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Yeah, and the editorial for the Journal says, we sure
hope mister Trump isn't doing this for Nvidia's twenty five
percent tax payments to.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
The Treasury, like that would be the purpose of it.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
The Constitution, the editorial says, vest taxing power in Congress.
Yet mister Trump is essentially trading national security for pennies
on the dollar. And that really is, Dak Butler, a
striking contradiction between what the administration purports to wanting to
(11:00):
do and what they are doing, in this case, for
potentially just money coming in to the federal treasury, which,
by the way, I'm not much of a fan of
any kinds of deals with companies, whether it's in video
or let's buy a percent get a percentage of ownership
of Intel or some of these other companies under the
(11:21):
guise of where the government's going to make a profit.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Yeah, like I said, it doesn't quite make sense on
the drum administration's own logic. But also, and this is
almost forgotten about now, which is unfortunate. I think there's
a very strong case what I'm persuaded by, that this
kind of executive centered deal making, especially when it comes
to tariff stuff, is unconstitutional on states. I mean, it
(11:47):
is true that the United States in its history has
used tariffs. There are tremendous debates about them in the eighties,
both days, the nineteen eighties and the eighteen eighties. I
should say this is a part of our economic history.
But those debates were to a considerable extent happening in Congress.
(12:07):
But now Congress is just kind of.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
Along for the ride in a way that I don't really.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
Think fits with our economic system. So yeah, I'm uncomfortable
with this kind of deal making, even when terrorist are involved,
because it seems to be all running through the presidentcy itself,
and that seems like a recipe for arbitrary policy making
that won't really make anyone happy.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Ultimately, one final thing, if you can share a thought
on this, is the twelve billion dollars that the Trump
administration announced they're going to do for farm or bailouts.
I mean, I can't help but remember my study of
history from the Great Depression and how that was the
way that FDR decided to address farmers in the surpluses
(12:52):
that they had was I'm going to go ahead and
we're going to we're going to ask you to not
produce more food, and we're gonna bail you out with
this money going to you. Only in this case, it's
all entirely self induced. This is the impact of some
of the t tariffs on the products where you have
the retaliatory terrorists from China and others. So we can't
(13:14):
get soybeans or other products to China or other countries
as a result. And so now the solution is what
paying farmers?
Speaker 5 (13:22):
Jack Butler, Yeah, this seems try to follow the logic here.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
So we impose tariffs, get money from the tariffs. The
tariffs imposed costs on farmers, So we use the tariff
money that has hurt farmers to provide restitution to the farmers.
I feel like this is a very secuitous route that
could have been avoided by not imposing the tariffs.
Speaker 5 (13:47):
That have hurt farmers. And when I was talking earlier about.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
There are many things of the United States, which is
still the world's largest economy, I mean we should remember
that we are still number one, and the world is
envious of us, that many people want to come here.
Farming is one of the things that we do better
than anyone else, and so it is unfortunate to see
farmers as one of the victims of these trade policies.
(14:10):
And I don't really think that this really this cecuitous
route to comment, saying them is the way to help
them out in a sustainable fashion.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
As I let you go, Jack Butler, I'm going to
read the very end of your column in the Wall
Street Journal this week, Confession of a cheap imports x enjoyer.
But among my new items is a large bookshelf. It
took me the longest time to assemble, yet it fits
the space I needed it to fit perfectly. It just
(14:44):
so happens to have been made in the US. Was
that comforting a little bit?
Speaker 4 (14:50):
Like I said, there's still that patriotism we all have that,
even if it's not always economically rational. People are more
than economic So I'm comfortable admitting that or confessing it
since that's the headline I gave that article.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
So there you go.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
There it is Jack Butler, Deputy opinion editor at the
Wall Street Journal. Always good to talk with you, sir.
Thanks so much for taking your time this morning. We
appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Yeah, thanks for having me once again.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Jack Butler with the Wall Street Journal adjoining us. Speaking
of the economy, there's some maybe encouraging news. Who knows
exactly from the economy standpoint of Colorado. Here's the headline
from the Denver Gazak Colorado unemployment fell in delayed September report.
(15:39):
It's improving the unemployment rate. According to the Colorado Department
of Labor and Employment, the state recorded one hundred and
thirty thirty four thousand unemployed people in September, forty eight
hundred fewer people compared to August. State's unemployment rate falling
point one percent to four point one percent. The national
rate a little higher than that at four point four percent.
(16:03):
The state released September's data on Thursday, which was delayed
by more than seven weeks due to the federal government shutdown.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
So that's one of the things we.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Don't know exactly how we can pinpoint the state and
federal data when it comes to unemployment. Because of that
lag from the government shutdown, the employment data was collected
before the shutdown that ended up being the longest in
US history. The Department said that it would publish a
report for October's employment data because the government did not
(16:35):
collect household survey data during the month and will not
collect it after the fact. So, needless to say, four
point one percent unemployment rate. That's a slight downtick from
where it was before, which is encouraging. Here's the problem,
here's the rub. The policies that Jared Polis and the
(16:56):
Democrats are instituting in this more and more would be
absolutely detrimental to employment, to prosperity, to job growth, to
new business creation, and the latest thing that they want
to do and they just might get it on the
(17:18):
ballot in Colorado is put into place a graduated so
called progressive income tax. My column today in the Denver
Gazette is on that exact topic of the graduated income
tax and the deep concerns we all need to have
about it. This would be devastating, devastating for Colorado's economy,
(17:44):
and so much more. On the other side, I'm going
to break down the devil that is the graduated income
tax proposal for the ballot that would completely undermine the
taxpayer's bill of rights.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
That more come up on the.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Other side five sixty six nine zero the KOA Common
Spirit Health text line, Keep them coming. I'm Jimmy Sangenberger
in for Michael Brown on KOA.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Zero six y one to two.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
Here, Jimmy, I'm definitely free to trade, supporter and fan,
but not when the other countries have their own protections
like Canada and our dairy products, China and pretty much
everything Japan for decades having protectionists policies against the US.
(18:31):
They all cannot have that. Thanks Jimmy Sangenberger, and for
Michael Brown. I just want to make one quick point
in response to what you shared, and I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Let's talk about dairy.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Products in Canada because this is a complete misnomer that
I think goes to a lot of the different claims
about other countries protectionist policies. And not to say that
there aren't, because there are a hell of a lot
of them, but on the point of dairy, I think
that you have this massive tariff on dairy that's what
(19:08):
is it?
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Like?
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Two hundred percent, Like it's outrageous, But you have to
meet a certain threshold of imports from the United States
for that tariff to kick in.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
And guess what, we'd never do.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
Literally, we have never hit that threshold for that high tariff.
So it's just the lower tariff rate that has been
the case for a long time. And I think it's
just important to recognizing and a lot of times people
just point to, oh, dry, it's two hundred percent tariff
on dairy. Yeah, after a certain threshold that we never hit.
(19:43):
So therefore that tariff is never paid at that level,
not by a long shot.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Now, as for.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
Protectionism, to address protectionism elsewhere, if.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
That's the objective, okay, I can see that.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Well, we want to reduce tariff trade barriers or other
non tariff trade barriers, but it's hard to tell with
any level of consistency what the Trump administration is actually
going for.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Sometimes it's that.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
Sometimes it's revenue to the federal government, because we love
when the federal government gets money, right, we want to
praise and celebrate when the Feds get more money.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Not me, I don't want to.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
Sometimes it's well, we want to reduce trade barriers. Sometimes
it's we want to address the trade deficit or the
trade imbalance, yet we don't have a trade imbalance with
some of the countries.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Quite the opposite.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
If we have an imbalance, then it's because we're exporting
more to them than they're importing here because of particular
products or what have you.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
It can vary depending on the situation.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
Sometimes it's, oh, well, we're trying to address fentanyl. Sometimes
it's we want to bring manufacturing back. Like, there are
so many different explanations for why these tariffs.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Go into effect.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
There's no consistency whatsoever that I can't agree with the
logic you're presenting, because it's not just about protectionism against protectionism.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
It's for so many different things.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
Sometimes it changes weekly, it seems, depending.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
On the country.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
So, like the last conversation we were having with Jack
Butler of the Journal, why are we allowing these chips,
the sensitive high level chip sales to China because the
United States gets twenty five percent, Like suddenly protectionism goes
out the window in this.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Particular case, to protect.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Advanced technology from the Chinese Communist Party because they're giving
twenty five a quarter of the revenue to the FEDS.
I just there's no consistent logic to it. Now, today
in the Denver Gazette, my column and I published Tuesdays
and Fridays as entitled a progressive tax on Colorado's No thanks,
(22:16):
And it's about this new attack on Colorado's flat rate
income tax. Remember we have since nineteen eighty seven, when
voters put it in place, we have had a flat
tax in Colorado. Everybody pays the same percentage in this
case it is four point four percent. But now it's
(22:40):
under attack, and if the perpetrators succeed, voters will be
opening the gates to trojan horses disguise as fairness, priorities,
and progress. Aren't those such nice, warm and fuzzy words.
We want fairness, we want progress. Well, after two failed
(23:00):
attempts to get approval for signatures, because that's the first
step you got to get signatures to get on the ballot,
there's a thing called the title board, and the title
board evaluates, is this a single subject? Does this follow
the rules? Yes?
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Okay, then you move on.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
Well, they provided two versions of this, the proponents that
failed the title board. Now this third time, the charm
third times of the charm situation here. The measure would
replace the flat tax that we've again enjoyed in Colorado
since nineteen eighty seven, when the state abandoned graduated raids
(23:40):
for a single across the board system. But now these
progressives want to drag us back to a graduated disaster.
In the immortal words Dragon Will, like this in the
immortal words of Star Wars.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Is Admiral Akbar. It's a trap.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Indeed, Colorado's current universal tax rate is four zero point
four percent.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Like I said, this would amend.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
The state's constitution to allow for graduated tax rates and
create the graduated tax rates at five different brackets to start. Now,
it's billed as a tax break for lower and middle
income people because under one hundred thousand dollars in income,
you'd pay four point two percent instead of four point
(24:25):
four So it's a nice little tax rate cut for you,
But for everybody up to five hundred thousand dollars, it's
four point four percent.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Like now, that's the trap they.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Want to suck you in by saying, well, most Colorados
make less than five hundred thousand dollars, So go ahead
and vote for this, because it's not going to affect you.
Once you get above five hundred grand, it hits seven
and a half percent. Then once you're above seven one
hundred and fifty thousand dollars, then it is eight point
(25:03):
five percent, and then once you're a millionaire, nine and
a half percent. That's for individuals, for couples, businesses alike.
Of course, a graduated income tax means it's a marginal
tax rate. So your first one hundred thousand dollars is
tax four point two percent, the next four hundred thousand
(25:24):
dollars is four point four percent, and so on than
anything above a million gets taxed at nine and a
half percent. Now, supporters call it progressive because the rates
progress from low to high, and that's progress toward fairness.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
But frankly, this is not fair. It's quite the contrary.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Right now, it is fair everybody, regardless of your income,
is the same rate. That is fair four point four
percent for everybody. So that means, in a hypothetical someone
earning seventy five thousand dollars pays three grand in tax,
well making another making two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
(26:07):
pays eleven thousand dollars, both at four point four percent.
More money paid by the wealthier person, but the same percentage.
That is fair, it's simple, it's straightforward, it's pro growth,
easy to plan all of that. But well, dragon, I'm
(26:30):
gonna go there. I'm going to say this next line,
which I write in my column today because it was
inspired in my mind by Yoda, and that's because that's
the kind of nerd that I am.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
But once we start down the graduated path.
Speaker 3 (26:46):
Complexity, confusion, and capital flight will forever dominate Colorado's destiny.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Not bad, is it? Okay? That's pretty good? All right? Good?
So on paper, it starts with five bracket.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Ironers get hit harder at first, but more brackets in
the future will be easier for voters to prove. Not
because they necessarily realize it or are all on board
with it, but it is much less of a of
a sticking point in your mind.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
If we're all paying four point four.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Percent and there's a proposal to jump it up to
five point four percent, it's obvious, right, everybody's doing it.
But if you say, well, we're just gonna take the
fourth bracket. So the amount from seven hundred and fifty
thousand to a million dollars is gonna be taxed at
nine percent instead of eight point five percent. Well you
might go, Okay, I'm fine, I guess I guess that
(27:41):
makes sense. Lolled into passing that, But then there's the
boiling frog scenario. Voters won't feel the impact of each
incremental taxic until it's too late.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
Look at California, look at New York.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
And this also does an index for Ana, which is
a silent tax. Over time, you will be sapped more
and more because the percentage stays the same, so they
don't need to go to a vote of the people
to raise the tax. But they're bringing in more money
because of inflation. And then of course they earmark this
money that comes in to fund education, healthcare, childcare.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
And workforce programs.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
It's just a little more next down the line, we
just need a little more to help these programs.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Well, guess what.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Not only does that create permanent constituencies for these particular
interests that want to see taxes go up, but the
fact of the matter is that this proposal would allow
the government to keep all that money instead of it
basically allows you to dismiss all the taber caps.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
Because remember on the Taxpayer's Bill of rights.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
Not only do we get to vote on what a
whether or not to raise taxes. Not only does it
protect and insure a flat tax, but it also says
as the government can only keep so much money, and
anything above that has to be returned to the people
that goes away. And there's more that's pernicious. Read my
column for the additional details. We got to run to
(29:11):
the break a progressive tax on Coloradin's no Thanks in
the Denver Gazette. I'm Jimmy Sangenberger here with you in
for Michael Brown. It's KOA, stay with us.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
I love Carolyn Love. It's takedown of Caitlyn Collins and
asking about the inflation, and Carolyn just tells them that
her predecessor stood up there and told them that there
was no inflation and the borders were closed. But reporters
just took her at a word and didn't do an
investigation on their own. And what Carolyn tells them has
(29:45):
facts behind it, and they keep questioning it. So ironic.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Jimmy sanging Berger in for Michael Brown here on KOA.
Bring in some of the best bumper music known to man,
the best Christmas bumper music no to man. I should add,
and I have to as I was listening. Now that's
Alexa leaving the talk back and yeah, Caroline Levit, I
(30:14):
don't have that clip to share, but I was about
to share. It's perfect timing. You are reading my show
prep materials.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
She does that, alexis creepy.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Yeah, because I've got something else about Caroline Levitt to
share and some audio. But you're absolutely right. She's so
good at that, and that was fantastic. Listen to this
one where they're ask about the Obamacare subsidies and she's like, well,
let me just remind you who's actually responsible for the
expiration of these enhanced premium subsidies for Obamacare.
Speaker 7 (30:46):
As for the subsidies that are set to expire, I
would like to remind you and everybody at home why
this is on the brink of happening. Democrats wrote Obamacare,
they passed it without a single Republican.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
Vote, and then they ballooned.
Speaker 7 (31:01):
It with these expensive COVID subsidies that completely distorted the
health insurance market. And then they doubled down extending those
subsidies and setting their own expiration date right now in
twenty twenty five, which the administration is obviously well aware
of and we are working. The President is working with
his healthcare policy team here at the White House as
well as Republicans on Capitol Hill to find a solution.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Game set match, I mean, absolutely brilliant. I don't have
enough time to play this other clip now. Maybe in
the next hour we'll get to it where she talks
a little bit about solutions and reminds again how Democrats
created this problem. Look, Obamacare was created by the Democrats.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
In twenty ten.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
I was in college hosting college radio at Regi's University
on KRCX ninety three point nine, The Real Deal, talking
about how much of a danger it was going to
be and how expensive healthcare costs and insurance would be
with Obamacare. And now here we are fifteen years later,
(32:03):
and that's what's happened, and the Democrats have done jack
fill in the blank to address it. Brilliant by Caroline Levitt.
I'm Jimmy Sangenberger here with you another hour up ahead,
as I'm filling in for Michael Brown on KOA
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.