Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, how come climate change disproportionately affects women's, gays,
and minorities, but a government shut down doesn't.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Can't these people.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Get their talking points together and double click there, bud,
double click?
Speaker 3 (00:18):
My ass mean double click? Yeah? I just I hate
these people.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
What it's not even Friday, it's.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Not even fighting there already, you know, And and of
course you have to be the smart ass. It gets
it started. And then do they pick up on it?
Of course they do.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Not my fault. You didn't double click.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
No, it wasn't double you know what it was. I
didn't have my cable plugged in.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Well that's even worse.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Well, sometimes I pull it out slightly because I'm listening
to other stuff and I don't want to run the
risk that it might that there might be a live microphone. Yeah,
I suppose if I did, If I did play something
and there happened to be a live microphone over there
and it dropped an F bomb, it might wake you up.
You can at least pay attention to what was going
(01:07):
on for once.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Huh huh.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
So I want to finish quickly, at least during this segment,
this analysis about the shut down for the for the
first time other than maybe a couple of times in
the early nineties. But they but not to the extent
that Trump and russ Vote. The Director of Officer Management
(01:34):
and Budget have a very detailed roadmap for exactly what
they're going to do if there is a shutdown, and
that is to kind of establish a roadmap for right
(01:58):
sizing the government. Now it's it's not all going to
occur if the shutdown happens. And by the way, I
guess everybody's all wrapped around the actual about what Pete
Heggs is saying that Quantico, which I thought was some big,
top secret meeting with the generals, but both CNN and
Fox are covering it, so we'll figure out later what
(02:20):
they're talking about and get to that. But I want
to emphasize that what omb and Trump are doing here
is actually a really brilliant move. We have mandatory spending
and discretionary spending. Mandatory spending makes up the majority of
the budget, including when you add on the debt service,
(02:41):
which obviously is mandatory, that becomes a supermajority of the
federal budget, probably in upwards of three fourths of it
is mandatory, meaning it's transfers like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
Then you have mandatory things like obviously the military, which
(03:03):
which again is not mandatory the sense of the budget,
but it's mandatory the sense of necessary for national security,
as is for example, air traffic control. So you have
to keep the ATC running because the airline industry, both
general aviation and commercial, is dependent upon ATC. So you
(03:24):
have to keep you have to keep that running. So
now you're down to a very tiny part of the government,
and that tiny part of the government discretionary spending, but
a very well defined part of discretionary spending. Nobody ever
really analyzes it, nobody ever really cuts that. If you
if the shutdown occurs, you make a fiscal case for
(03:51):
using that shut down to catalyze right sizing in a
very straightforward manner. Federal compensation, what we pay government employees
for the civilian workforce is what any business would cause
would call a large recurring expense. Even a modest trim
(04:16):
would produce real savings over a decade when salary, health benefits, pension,
the crules, When you put all of that together, those
modest trims today become real savings over time. The argument
is not that personnel costs cause the deficit. They don't.
But every structural dollar saved freeze room to focus on
(04:41):
core missions and reduces the need to borrow. The more
we can reduce the need to borrow, that means that
budget deficits start to come down, and then the national
debt stabilizes. It doesn't keep increasing. The both in the
national debt would obviously continue to some degree, but the
(05:04):
rate of that growth in the national debt would slow down.
That starts putting us on a track to reverse this
and actually start reducing the size of the federal government.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Well, this text message has a little bit of a
bright side to it, I think, is that Mike, I
vote for a permanent shutdown of the federal government with
the exception of essential services.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
And that's what the vote memo is about it. Now,
that's why I say, in his deepest recesses of his mind,
Trump probably wants this shut down because that gives his
Office of Management and Budget the opportunity to implement their
(05:48):
plan for Okay, every every agency that's not essential that
there's let me describe it a different way. If the
government shuts down, that means that spending stops except at
current levels. Any agency that has a program, a department,
(06:13):
a grant program, any number of things that is non
essential that would be cut off. That would then start
the roadmap that OMB has put together to analyze. Okay,
well that's not a mandatory spending program. That's a discretionary
(06:36):
spending program. They've shut it down, so there's no more
money for that, So let's analyze whether we need that
or not. And if we don't need it, let's start
the lawful procedure. Not asking to do anything radical here,
start the lawful procedure for a reduction in force. So,
(06:56):
for example, if I were still the under secretary and
the government shutdown occurs, obviously I have to show up
at work, but I would have my chief financial officer
and my program officers identify every program for which, because
of the shutdown, we have no money, no more money
in the budget to spend. I would then give to
(07:19):
OMB a list of those programs, all of the people
involved in those programs, and they would make a decision,
probably based upon our recommendation, but they would make a decision. Okay,
let's start the reduction in force for all of those employees,
and then lawfully lay them off and then lawfully terminate
(07:42):
them at the same time that when the government government reopens,
we will not ask for money for the continuation of
that unnecessary program. It's it's very simple in its concept.
It's it's radical in the sense that it is something
we've never done before. That's why I think that one
(08:07):
of the most underrated appointments made by Donald Trump is
russ Vote at omb. He's the mastermind behind this. Now
set against my argument, it is a plane alternative pass,
(08:28):
a clean cr pass, a clean continuing resolution, keep paychecks flowing,
keep the airport's border staff regular funding, continue appropriations work
in the daylight. Now, that's what the House did, underlining
that responsible government governance is actually possible without servants surrendering
all this leverage on the big questions about what truly
(08:50):
necessary not necessary. The Senate could do the same. Seven
Democrats or five Democrats and the two independents could prevent laps,
could prevent the shutdown. There is no need for you know,
all of the metaphors about holding people hostage. Nobody's asking
(09:11):
for policy writers here. The ask is as minimal as
it gets fund the government at current levels for a
short period while the larger fight over priorities continues. That's
why I say I really do believe Trump is of
two mice. He probably really would like to shut down
because that allows him to do the riff and then claim, look,
(09:35):
I reduced the workforce. We've already seen the Bureau of
Labor Statistics point out that there's been a three hundred
thousand reduction in government employees. That's pretty significant. Now you
do the riff, you had a couple of more. Suddenly
you're getting into there's been half a million government employees eliminated.
(09:56):
That's starting to make real change. So that's why I
say the ask here is minimal as it gets fund
the government as this r does at current levels, and
it's just for a short period while you do an
actual budget. Now, if the Democrats refuse, what they've done
(10:20):
is they've chosen a shutdown over a stop gap, and
that choice will reveal even more about priorities than a
thousand speeches given by them. Two final clarifications I think
deserve emphasis. The President's position is not contradictory. He prefers
a fund of government because that is orderly and its
(10:42):
pro growth. But the same time he recognizes that a shutdown,
if forced by the Senate is not catastrophic. The economy
will be fine, The macroeconomic effects will be minimal. The
government's core functions will continue. Second, the administration's reduction enforced
guidance is not a threat for its own sake. It's
(11:05):
an instruction to behave as fiduciaries for the public. That's
in essence, forcing Congress to do what it is supposed
to do. We talk, you know, oftentimes we'll hear all
of these speeches from both Republicans and Democrats who have
oversight responsibilities. They oversee all the departments and agencies, so
(11:29):
they'll have hearings and they'll turn into, you know, a
cat fight, and everybody will be screaming at one another.
That's not acting as a fiduciary of the tax dollars
that you and I spend sent DC every year. But
this shut down and the reduction in force would when
(11:50):
a program, when a government program loses discretionary funding and
there's no independent source of support, and on top of that,
when it doesn't serve the president's priorities, why should we
treat its staffing as some permanent thing that we must
(12:12):
continue to do year after year. After year, and not
just the staffing, but the program costs themselves separate apart
from staffing. Preparing to reduce those rules those rules is
not cruelty. Instead, it's imposing policy and fiscal discipline upon
(12:33):
the Congress. None of that requires cynicism about public service.
As I've said, many federal employees perform indispensable work, and
they do it with skill, they do it with dedication,
and they deserve our respect. But we also deserve a
(12:55):
system that is honest about priorities and outcomes. If a
government cannot prune where it needs to be pruned, then
it should not be growing where it should not be growing.
A shutdown, if it does occur, will be the result
of a decision by Democrats in the Senate. And if
(13:19):
it does occur, it could also be the start of
a more responsible civil service, one that is sized to
the mission rather than size based on just historical precedent,
and that focuses on the protection of life, property, and liberty.
So I think the question before the Senate is pretty precise.
(13:43):
Our Democrats are going to supply the votes to pass
a clean continuing resolution that the House is sent over.
That's how we're supposed to operate. Spending originates in the House,
just as taxes do. If the answer is yes, the
government stays open, the country moves on. If no, then
(14:03):
they will have chosen to stage a shutdown. Either outcome,
as far as I'm concerned, is acceptable in terms of
the policies that we're going to do. The one preserved stability,
the other the shutdown accelerates reform. Either one of those
(14:23):
to me are preferable to the status quo. Because the
status quo, the swamp grows, that's rise, accountability continues to diminish.
So the choice is Senate Democrats and then whichever way
they decide to go, the consequences either way or going
to be down to the long term health of the Republic.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
This is a.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
I don't think Democrats realize what Trump and Russ's vote
have done. And you've got to, you know, as much
as Mike Johnson the speaker, not the mayor, the speaker,
as much as he drives me crazy because and maybe
he drives me crazy because he seems to be a
little whimpiche. Maybe behind the scenes he's not as whimpy
(15:10):
as we think, and maybe he's listening to us vote
and he understands what the endgame is here, and so
he has he's whipped up the votes, he's passed the
clean CR in the House and sent it to the Senate.
Now John Thune's in a pretty good position because he
knows that if the Democrats come over, they'll have a
(15:32):
clean resolution continuing resolution. They can then devote individual budget
bills going forward, and if they don't, Trump's reform of
the civil service system and Trump's reform of getting rid
of unnecessary programs that continues too. So for all of
these screams and cries about an imperial presidency, the tyrannical presidency, Well,
(15:56):
if you think that Trump and omb doing riffs and
reducing unnecessary programs and eliminating unnecessary employees is tyrannical, okay, well,
then pass a clean CR, keep spending at it the
level it currently is, and then debate the priorities on
(16:19):
each individual appropriations bill. So win win for us. Now
there's a time limit on this too. It's the end
of the fiscal year, obviously, because is why we're talking
about shutdown, But we might as well be talking about
the midterm elections, and we've got to keep the midterm
(16:42):
We've got to gain control of the Senate and increase
the majority in the House, because whichever route occurs today,
send it either votes up or down. We've got to
keep this kind of momentum moving, the kind of in
the weeds kind of thing that a ninety second SoundBite
(17:08):
on CNN or Fox News is not going to give
the kind of coverage that it needs. I'm telling you,
having been in that swamp myself. Either way, this is
the way Washington is supposed to.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
I was wondering what happens to all the employees from
the federal government that are no longer working for the
federal government. Don't they go onto unemployment rules? And why
don't we see that every time it happens, Well, they.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Will get riffed. So a riff means you will probably
get some sort of I haven't kept up with the
OPM rules. But they don't just get cut off immediately.
There'll be a transition period. It may just be a
few weeks, and then they can apply for unemployment insofar
(18:03):
as I know, but that will last for a certain
period of time and then they they've got to find
a job. You can't stay on unemployment forever. But what
mostly happens is and again it depends on your grade
level and your expertise and what you were doing. You'll
(18:25):
get hired by the contractors. So the contractors who were
running whatever program, because there's a there's a basic misunderstanding
that with you. Now it's even true in the military,
but over on the domestic side of things, in the
non military side of things. I think back to my
(18:51):
undersecretary days. I imagine it's even worse now than it
was then. We had two kinds of badges for people
working at headquarters. Those were actual government employees, full time
or part time government employees. We were paying their salary taxpayers.
(19:14):
Then there were the contractors. Contractors had a different badge
which identified them as contractors. So we would do a contract.
I'm trying to think of a program. Let's say a
housing program that FEMA Home Land Security had a housing program.
(19:36):
How do we provide temporary housing, say in the Virgin Islands.
And actually I'm picking this one right now because that
was a huge contract. We're talking about hundreds of millions
of dollars. Well, we clearly did not have the bandwidth
with which to administer, and well, we would administer the contract,
(20:00):
but to administer the program, and nor did we have
the expertise in house to develop the program. So we
would go to one of the big companies, one of
the big contracting consulting firms, and we would say, we
have a problem in the Virgin Islands with housing. Congress
(20:21):
is requiring us to do x YZ. You have the expertise.
So we would then say go to three different consulting
firms and ask them to provide you know, do we
do a request for proposals? The three firms would submit
proposals about what they would do, the costs, what they
could provide in terms of manpower, expertise, and even go
(20:47):
so far as what can you provide us on location,
because you can't really run a housing program out of Washington,
d c. If your housing problem is in the Virgin Islands,
then you need somebody to go live in the Virgin
Islands and work that program down there. Pretty nice gig
if you can get it. So then we would pick
(21:10):
a company and that company would then have employees in
the Virgin Islands in the regional office, which is probably
the Atlanta office, and then the headquarters, all of which
is to implement a program that Congress told us we
had to go do but we didn't have the bandwidth
to do it ourselves without hiring a bunch of government employees.
(21:33):
And I did not want to hire a bunch of
government employees who then become permanent employees that I could
not get rid of. A contractor, I can get rid
of them, I can terminate the contract. There might be
a penalty, but if they're not performing and not doing
what I want them to do, then boom, I just
go to my General Council and we terminate the contract.
(21:59):
Those employees of the contractor probably make up and I'm
just going to pull a number out of my butt,
but I would bet it's at least fifty percent. Fifty
percent of the employees under my domain in the Department
of Landsecurity were contractors. I would see as many badges
(22:19):
of contractors as I would of employees. So those who
are employees would be treated like anybody here at iHeart.
You get riffed, you get laid off, You may get
some sort of severance, depending on what the law says
and what the contract says. But if you're a contractor,
(22:43):
now you may go apply for unemployment. But guess what
it's through the company, not through the government. I mean,
I know the governments still pay it, but the contractor
the company that in other words, that employee files for
unemployment compensation through their employer, not through the government agency,
(23:06):
not through FEMA DHS. If we went through and did
everything that Congress asked us to do and hired FTEs
full time employees to carry out the mission of that program,
(23:28):
the number of government employees would be even greater than
it is today. That's why in that area around the
National Capital Region, the Beltway, That's why you have in
Arlington and Alexandria that you have in Bethesda, you have
all in Maryland everywhere. You have all these giant firms
(23:52):
Booz Allen and all the others that are I mean
Lockheed Martin, you may all the defense contractors, everybody, they're there.
Same as true in theone. I don't know what the
ratio would be in the Pentagon. I doubt it's fifty
to fifty. But I bet almost every single office program
(24:13):
office in DoD has contractors working in that program office
because DoD doesn't have the bandwidth and they don't have
the expertise the contracting companies do. So when you start
reducing non essential programs. You eliminate not just those employees,
(24:36):
but the contracting agency. The contracting company loses employees to
or they don't lose employees because they've got to deal
with what they do with them. I don't care. That's
up to the contractor. Many So let me bring this
full circle. Many of the employees that will get riffed
if there is a government shut down with the first
(24:59):
thing that I I would do it if I were
one of these employees and I got riffed and I
was working on the program office that had to do
with housing in the Virgin Islands, I would run to
that company and say, hey, I used to work for
DHS and I was in this office, and I know
you guys do this, and you do it for other
agencies around the government. And I've got this expertise and
(25:21):
I've got an inside track. It's almost like being a lobbyist,
and I know these people once you hire me. That's
the revolving door that exists in Washington, DC. So don't cry,
Argentina for some of these people who are going to
get riffed, because there are a lot of contractors out
(25:42):
there that will sweep them up. In a New York Minute.
Whether this shut down occurs or does not occur, my
preference is that it occurs because I want Russ vote.
Who is if you haven't studied him, if you haven't
(26:04):
read much about this road Matthew's put together. I think
it may have been on a Saturday I talked about
that in depth. But I would go study that because
it is for the first time, at least in my
living memory, that we have really taken on a well
defined plan that says, if the government shuts down, we're
(26:26):
going to start eliminating these unnecessary, non essential programs and
start riffing the employees that are there because there's no
more money. And if there's no more money and there's
no justification for keeping it, let's eliminate it. That's an
executive that's a president faithfully administering the laws.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Hey, Michael, I know you want to be precise in
your language. So when you give a outcome of two
different possibilities than you say either one of those are
that's incorrect. It would be either one of those is preferable.
You're welcome.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
And thanks for the correction, and you're absolutely correct. Now
to throw it back in your face, you stand up
here and go four four hours just boom boom boom
boom boom boom boom. You're gonna make mistakes, but I
appreciate you pointing it out. I was fascinated yesterday. Dragon
(27:30):
and I talked a little bit about Bad Bunny, who's
going to perform at the super Bowl this January, and
I good forgut who the hell bad Bunny was? Well,
he was a couple of years ago the number one
streaming artists on Spotify and the other streaming platforms. He's
now dropped to number three. If Taylor Swift is still
(27:51):
number one, I forget who's number two. I don't care,
but he's number three. He ranks number three, But I
couldn't figure out but why him? Because it seems like
kind of a big jump to go from a keyboard warrior,
a boycotter of the United States to pandering for this
(28:12):
country's what I guess you have to say is the
premier sporting event. I say premier sporting event because, according
to the NFL, this past year, Super Bowl recorded the
largest viewing viewing audience ever, with one hundred and twenty
seven million people watching across all platforms worldwide. So here's
(28:37):
a guy who decided that he was going to boycott
his country. I know, Puerto Rican is a territory. It's
a territory of the United States of America, and he's
Puerto Rican and he's boycotting the continental United States, which
I guess he means he's boycotting the lower forty eight
(28:59):
because he's In one story which I found kind of interesting,
he says that he does not want his fans to
be subjected to the possibility of Ice coming to arrest
them when they come to his concert. And I thought,
isn't that kind of racist, don't you? Are you assuming
(29:19):
that because you're Puerto Rican, or you're Latino, or you're
a Mexican or whatever, that Ice is just looking for you.
But even worse than that, he told all of his
Puerto Rican, Latino, Mexican, Hispanic, whatever, friends or fans that
no problem, you can just come and see me in
Puerto Rico. Now I didn't check, I didn't go on
(29:41):
fly to I didn't go on any of the websites
to see what it costs to fly from Denver to
San Juan. But I doubt that it's cheap plus the
ticket plus you know, staying overnight unless you're gonna stay
to a friend's house. Now, I got a friend in
Puerto Rico. I guess I could stay down there with him.
Wonder if Kloon had let me stay with him for
a while, that maybe Kloon knows this guy. Maybe Kluon
(30:03):
can get me tickets off to see if he can
if he does. But I figured out what the real
reason is. Now, think about musicians of the past. You
got Prince Madonna, Michael Jackson. The NFL is chasing a fad.
I doubt there's anybody in this audience. I kind of
(30:24):
thought Dragon might know who he was, But Dragon didn't
know who he was. And I would have gathered that
most people in this audience, who would probably watch the
Super Bowl, you won't even be able to sing along
to this FAD's music. And I bet he'll use the
platform to advance some political point. I mean, who hasn't.
Kendrick Lamar made references to forty Acres and the Mule,
(30:46):
the putative unfilled promise of land and resources to free
the slaves after the Civil War. Jennifer Lopez. She got
flagged back in twenty twenty for wanting to show the
Puerto Rican flag and kids in cages another dig at
our immigration policies, So you know, God are those days.
I think the NFL is responsible for most of this,
(31:08):
and I think it's because, as Dragon I mentioned yesterday,
we've had London in Mexico Mexico City. Have we had
others yet?
Speaker 2 (31:16):
And I'm sure some other European lens as well. I
know that Broncos are headed to London coming up.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
Okay, I think it's that the league is trying to
become an international sport. And what happens you bring in
bad Bunny, Well, that's a ploy to grab the attention
of a Spanish speaking audience, which they're going to prioritize
above the stereotypical burger eating beer drinking bro culture that's
long been the core audience of the NFL. So will
(31:47):
this be another bud Light moment or will it be
another Oh? I don't know what was the brand of
the jeans, American Eagle Jeans which I heard this morning
after they did that thing with whoever that star or
was share price increased? They sold out of the jackets
within a day. They sold out of the jeans within
a week, Which will it be bad bunny, Which will
(32:12):
it be
Hey, Michael, how come climate change disproportionately affects women's, gays,
and minorities, but a government shut down doesn't.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Can't these people.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Get their talking points together and double click there, bud,
double click?
Speaker 3 (00:18):
My ass mean double click? Yeah? I just I hate
these people.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
What it's not even Friday, it's.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Not even fighting there already, you know, And and of
course you have to be the smart ass. It gets
it started. And then do they pick up on it?
Of course they do.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Not my fault. You didn't double click.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
No, it wasn't double you know what it was. I
didn't have my cable plugged in.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Well that's even worse.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Well, sometimes I pull it out slightly because I'm listening
to other stuff and I don't want to run the
risk that it might that there might be a live microphone. Yeah,
I suppose if I did, If I did play something
and there happened to be a live microphone over there
and it dropped an F bomb, it might wake you up.
You can at least pay attention to what was going
(01:07):
on for once.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Huh huh.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
So I want to finish quickly, at least during this segment,
this analysis about the shut down for the for the
first time other than maybe a couple of times in
the early nineties. But they but not to the extent
that Trump and russ Vote. The Director of Officer Management
(01:34):
and Budget have a very detailed roadmap for exactly what
they're going to do if there is a shutdown, and
that is to kind of establish a roadmap for right
(01:58):
sizing the government. Now it's it's not all going to
occur if the shutdown happens. And by the way, I
guess everybody's all wrapped around the actual about what Pete
Heggs is saying that Quantico, which I thought was some big,
top secret meeting with the generals, but both CNN and
Fox are covering it, so we'll figure out later what
(02:20):
they're talking about and get to that. But I want
to emphasize that what omb and Trump are doing here
is actually a really brilliant move. We have mandatory spending
and discretionary spending. Mandatory spending makes up the majority of
the budget, including when you add on the debt service,
(02:41):
which obviously is mandatory, that becomes a supermajority of the
federal budget, probably in upwards of three fourths of it
is mandatory, meaning it's transfers like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
Then you have mandatory things like obviously the military, which
(03:03):
which again is not mandatory the sense of the budget,
but it's mandatory the sense of necessary for national security,
as is for example, air traffic control. So you have
to keep the ATC running because the airline industry, both
general aviation and commercial, is dependent upon ATC. So you
(03:24):
have to keep you have to keep that running. So
now you're down to a very tiny part of the government,
and that tiny part of the government discretionary spending, but
a very well defined part of discretionary spending. Nobody ever
really analyzes it, nobody ever really cuts that. If you
if the shutdown occurs, you make a fiscal case for
(03:51):
using that shut down to catalyze right sizing in a
very straightforward manner. Federal compensation, what we pay government employees
for the civilian workforce is what any business would cause
would call a large recurring expense. Even a modest trim
(04:16):
would produce real savings over a decade when salary, health benefits, pension,
the crules, When you put all of that together, those
modest trims today become real savings over time. The argument
is not that personnel costs cause the deficit. They don't.
But every structural dollar saved freeze room to focus on
(04:41):
core missions and reduces the need to borrow. The more
we can reduce the need to borrow, that means that
budget deficits start to come down, and then the national
debt stabilizes. It doesn't keep increasing. The both in the
national debt would obviously continue to some degree, but the
(05:04):
rate of that growth in the national debt would slow down.
That starts putting us on a track to reverse this
and actually start reducing the size of the federal government.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Well, this text message has a little bit of a
bright side to it, I think, is that Mike, I
vote for a permanent shutdown of the federal government with
the exception of essential services.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
And that's what the vote memo is about it. Now,
that's why I say, in his deepest recesses of his mind,
Trump probably wants this shut down because that gives his
Office of Management and Budget the opportunity to implement their
(05:48):
plan for Okay, every every agency that's not essential that
there's let me describe it a different way. If the
government shuts down, that means that spending stops except at
current levels. Any agency that has a program, a department,
(06:13):
a grant program, any number of things that is non
essential that would be cut off. That would then start
the roadmap that OMB has put together to analyze. Okay,
well that's not a mandatory spending program. That's a discretionary
(06:36):
spending program. They've shut it down, so there's no more
money for that, So let's analyze whether we need that
or not. And if we don't need it, let's start
the lawful procedure. Not asking to do anything radical here,
start the lawful procedure for a reduction in force. So,
(06:56):
for example, if I were still the under secretary and
the government shutdown occurs, obviously I have to show up
at work, but I would have my chief financial officer
and my program officers identify every program for which, because
of the shutdown, we have no money, no more money
in the budget to spend. I would then give to
(07:19):
OMB a list of those programs, all of the people
involved in those programs, and they would make a decision,
probably based upon our recommendation, but they would make a decision. Okay,
let's start the reduction in force for all of those employees,
and then lawfully lay them off and then lawfully terminate
(07:42):
them at the same time that when the government government reopens,
we will not ask for money for the continuation of
that unnecessary program. It's it's very simple in its concept.
It's it's radical in the sense that it is something
we've never done before. That's why I think that one
(08:07):
of the most underrated appointments made by Donald Trump is
russ Vote at omb. He's the mastermind behind this. Now
set against my argument, it is a plane alternative pass,
(08:28):
a clean cr pass, a clean continuing resolution, keep paychecks flowing,
keep the airport's border staff regular funding, continue appropriations work
in the daylight. Now, that's what the House did, underlining
that responsible government governance is actually possible without servants surrendering
all this leverage on the big questions about what truly
(08:50):
necessary not necessary. The Senate could do the same. Seven
Democrats or five Democrats and the two independents could prevent laps,
could prevent the shutdown. There is no need for you know,
all of the metaphors about holding people hostage. Nobody's asking
(09:11):
for policy writers here. The ask is as minimal as
it gets fund the government at current levels for a
short period while the larger fight over priorities continues. That's
why I say I really do believe Trump is of
two mice. He probably really would like to shut down
because that allows him to do the riff and then claim, look,
(09:35):
I reduced the workforce. We've already seen the Bureau of
Labor Statistics point out that there's been a three hundred
thousand reduction in government employees. That's pretty significant. Now you
do the riff, you had a couple of more. Suddenly
you're getting into there's been half a million government employees eliminated.
(09:56):
That's starting to make real change. So that's why I
say the ask here is minimal as it gets fund
the government as this r does at current levels, and
it's just for a short period while you do an
actual budget. Now, if the Democrats refuse, what they've done
(10:20):
is they've chosen a shutdown over a stop gap, and
that choice will reveal even more about priorities than a
thousand speeches given by them. Two final clarifications I think
deserve emphasis. The President's position is not contradictory. He prefers
a fund of government because that is orderly and its
(10:42):
pro growth. But the same time he recognizes that a shutdown,
if forced by the Senate is not catastrophic. The economy
will be fine, The macroeconomic effects will be minimal. The
government's core functions will continue. Second, the administration's reduction enforced
guidance is not a threat for its own sake. It's
(11:05):
an instruction to behave as fiduciaries for the public. That's
in essence, forcing Congress to do what it is supposed
to do. We talk, you know, oftentimes we'll hear all
of these speeches from both Republicans and Democrats who have
oversight responsibilities. They oversee all the departments and agencies, so
(11:29):
they'll have hearings and they'll turn into, you know, a
cat fight, and everybody will be screaming at one another.
That's not acting as a fiduciary of the tax dollars
that you and I spend sent DC every year. But
this shut down and the reduction in force would when
(11:50):
a program, when a government program loses discretionary funding and
there's no independent source of support, and on top of that,
when it doesn't serve the president's priorities, why should we
treat its staffing as some permanent thing that we must
(12:12):
continue to do year after year. After year, and not
just the staffing, but the program costs themselves separate apart
from staffing. Preparing to reduce those rules those rules is
not cruelty. Instead, it's imposing policy and fiscal discipline upon
(12:33):
the Congress. None of that requires cynicism about public service.
As I've said, many federal employees perform indispensable work, and
they do it with skill, they do it with dedication,
and they deserve our respect. But we also deserve a
(12:55):
system that is honest about priorities and outcomes. If a
government cannot prune where it needs to be pruned, then
it should not be growing where it should not be growing.
A shutdown, if it does occur, will be the result
of a decision by Democrats in the Senate. And if
(13:19):
it does occur, it could also be the start of
a more responsible civil service, one that is sized to
the mission rather than size based on just historical precedent,
and that focuses on the protection of life, property, and liberty.
So I think the question before the Senate is pretty precise.
(13:43):
Our Democrats are going to supply the votes to pass
a clean continuing resolution that the House is sent over.
That's how we're supposed to operate. Spending originates in the House,
just as taxes do. If the answer is yes, the
government stays open, the country moves on. If no, then
(14:03):
they will have chosen to stage a shutdown. Either outcome,
as far as I'm concerned, is acceptable in terms of
the policies that we're going to do. The one preserved stability,
the other the shutdown accelerates reform. Either one of those
(14:23):
to me are preferable to the status quo. Because the
status quo, the swamp grows, that's rise, accountability continues to diminish.
So the choice is Senate Democrats and then whichever way
they decide to go, the consequences either way or going
to be down to the long term health of the Republic.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
This is a.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
I don't think Democrats realize what Trump and Russ's vote
have done. And you've got to, you know, as much
as Mike Johnson the speaker, not the mayor, the speaker,
as much as he drives me crazy because and maybe
he drives me crazy because he seems to be a
little whimpiche. Maybe behind the scenes he's not as whimpy
(15:10):
as we think, and maybe he's listening to us vote
and he understands what the endgame is here, and so
he has he's whipped up the votes, he's passed the
clean CR in the House and sent it to the Senate.
Now John Thune's in a pretty good position because he
knows that if the Democrats come over, they'll have a
(15:32):
clean resolution continuing resolution. They can then devote individual budget
bills going forward, and if they don't, Trump's reform of
the civil service system and Trump's reform of getting rid
of unnecessary programs that continues too. So for all of
these screams and cries about an imperial presidency, the tyrannical presidency, Well,
(15:56):
if you think that Trump and omb doing riffs and
reducing unnecessary programs and eliminating unnecessary employees is tyrannical, okay, well,
then pass a clean CR, keep spending at it the
level it currently is, and then debate the priorities on
(16:19):
each individual appropriations bill. So win win for us. Now
there's a time limit on this too. It's the end
of the fiscal year, obviously, because is why we're talking
about shutdown, But we might as well be talking about
the midterm elections, and we've got to keep the midterm
(16:42):
We've got to gain control of the Senate and increase
the majority in the House, because whichever route occurs today,
send it either votes up or down. We've got to
keep this kind of momentum moving, the kind of in
the weeds kind of thing that a ninety second SoundBite
(17:08):
on CNN or Fox News is not going to give
the kind of coverage that it needs. I'm telling you,
having been in that swamp myself. Either way, this is
the way Washington is supposed to.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
I was wondering what happens to all the employees from
the federal government that are no longer working for the
federal government. Don't they go onto unemployment rules? And why
don't we see that every time it happens, Well, they.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Will get riffed. So a riff means you will probably
get some sort of I haven't kept up with the
OPM rules. But they don't just get cut off immediately.
There'll be a transition period. It may just be a
few weeks, and then they can apply for unemployment insofar
(18:03):
as I know, but that will last for a certain
period of time and then they they've got to find
a job. You can't stay on unemployment forever. But what
mostly happens is and again it depends on your grade
level and your expertise and what you were doing. You'll
(18:25):
get hired by the contractors. So the contractors who were
running whatever program, because there's a there's a basic misunderstanding
that with you. Now it's even true in the military,
but over on the domestic side of things, in the
non military side of things. I think back to my
(18:51):
undersecretary days. I imagine it's even worse now than it
was then. We had two kinds of badges for people
working at headquarters. Those were actual government employees, full time
or part time government employees. We were paying their salary taxpayers.
(19:14):
Then there were the contractors. Contractors had a different badge
which identified them as contractors. So we would do a contract.
I'm trying to think of a program. Let's say a
housing program that FEMA Home Land Security had a housing program.
(19:36):
How do we provide temporary housing, say in the Virgin Islands.
And actually I'm picking this one right now because that
was a huge contract. We're talking about hundreds of millions
of dollars. Well, we clearly did not have the bandwidth
with which to administer, and well, we would administer the contract,
(20:00):
but to administer the program, and nor did we have
the expertise in house to develop the program. So we
would go to one of the big companies, one of
the big contracting consulting firms, and we would say, we
have a problem in the Virgin Islands with housing. Congress
(20:21):
is requiring us to do x YZ. You have the expertise.
So we would then say go to three different consulting
firms and ask them to provide you know, do we
do a request for proposals? The three firms would submit
proposals about what they would do, the costs, what they
could provide in terms of manpower, expertise, and even go
(20:47):
so far as what can you provide us on location,
because you can't really run a housing program out of Washington,
d c. If your housing problem is in the Virgin Islands,
then you need somebody to go live in the Virgin
Islands and work that program down there. Pretty nice gig
if you can get it. So then we would pick
(21:10):
a company and that company would then have employees in
the Virgin Islands in the regional office, which is probably
the Atlanta office, and then the headquarters, all of which
is to implement a program that Congress told us we
had to go do but we didn't have the bandwidth
to do it ourselves without hiring a bunch of government employees.
(21:33):
And I did not want to hire a bunch of
government employees who then become permanent employees that I could
not get rid of. A contractor, I can get rid
of them, I can terminate the contract. There might be
a penalty, but if they're not performing and not doing
what I want them to do, then boom, I just
go to my General Council and we terminate the contract.
(21:59):
Those employees of the contractor probably make up and I'm
just going to pull a number out of my butt,
but I would bet it's at least fifty percent. Fifty
percent of the employees under my domain in the Department
of Landsecurity were contractors. I would see as many badges
(22:19):
of contractors as I would of employees. So those who
are employees would be treated like anybody here at iHeart.
You get riffed, you get laid off, You may get
some sort of severance, depending on what the law says
and what the contract says. But if you're a contractor,
(22:43):
now you may go apply for unemployment. But guess what
it's through the company, not through the government. I mean,
I know the governments still pay it, but the contractor
the company that in other words, that employee files for
unemployment compensation through their employer, not through the government agency,
(23:06):
not through FEMA DHS. If we went through and did
everything that Congress asked us to do and hired FTEs
full time employees to carry out the mission of that program,
(23:28):
the number of government employees would be even greater than
it is today. That's why in that area around the
National Capital Region, the Beltway, That's why you have in
Arlington and Alexandria that you have in Bethesda, you have
all in Maryland everywhere. You have all these giant firms
(23:52):
Booz Allen and all the others that are I mean
Lockheed Martin, you may all the defense contractors, everybody, they're there.
Same as true in theone. I don't know what the
ratio would be in the Pentagon. I doubt it's fifty
to fifty. But I bet almost every single office program
(24:13):
office in DoD has contractors working in that program office
because DoD doesn't have the bandwidth and they don't have
the expertise the contracting companies do. So when you start
reducing non essential programs. You eliminate not just those employees,
(24:36):
but the contracting agency. The contracting company loses employees to
or they don't lose employees because they've got to deal
with what they do with them. I don't care. That's
up to the contractor. Many So let me bring this
full circle. Many of the employees that will get riffed
if there is a government shut down with the first
(24:59):
thing that I I would do it if I were
one of these employees and I got riffed and I
was working on the program office that had to do
with housing in the Virgin Islands, I would run to
that company and say, hey, I used to work for
DHS and I was in this office, and I know
you guys do this, and you do it for other
agencies around the government. And I've got this expertise and
(25:21):
I've got an inside track. It's almost like being a lobbyist,
and I know these people once you hire me. That's
the revolving door that exists in Washington, DC. So don't cry,
Argentina for some of these people who are going to
get riffed, because there are a lot of contractors out
(25:42):
there that will sweep them up. In a New York Minute.
Whether this shut down occurs or does not occur, my
preference is that it occurs because I want Russ vote.
Who is if you haven't studied him, if you haven't
(26:04):
read much about this road Matthew's put together. I think
it may have been on a Saturday I talked about
that in depth. But I would go study that because
it is for the first time, at least in my
living memory, that we have really taken on a well
defined plan that says, if the government shuts down, we're
(26:26):
going to start eliminating these unnecessary, non essential programs and
start riffing the employees that are there because there's no
more money. And if there's no more money and there's
no justification for keeping it, let's eliminate it. That's an
executive that's a president faithfully administering the laws.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Hey, Michael, I know you want to be precise in
your language. So when you give a outcome of two
different possibilities than you say either one of those are
that's incorrect. It would be either one of those is preferable.
You're welcome.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
And thanks for the correction, and you're absolutely correct. Now
to throw it back in your face, you stand up
here and go four four hours just boom boom boom
boom boom boom boom. You're gonna make mistakes, but I
appreciate you pointing it out. I was fascinated yesterday. Dragon
(27:30):
and I talked a little bit about Bad Bunny, who's
going to perform at the super Bowl this January, and
I good forgut who the hell bad Bunny was? Well,
he was a couple of years ago the number one
streaming artists on Spotify and the other streaming platforms. He's
now dropped to number three. If Taylor Swift is still
(27:51):
number one, I forget who's number two. I don't care,
but he's number three. He ranks number three, But I
couldn't figure out but why him? Because it seems like
kind of a big jump to go from a keyboard warrior,
a boycotter of the United States to pandering for this
(28:12):
country's what I guess you have to say is the
premier sporting event. I say premier sporting event because, according
to the NFL, this past year, Super Bowl recorded the
largest viewing viewing audience ever, with one hundred and twenty
seven million people watching across all platforms worldwide. So here's
(28:37):
a guy who decided that he was going to boycott
his country. I know, Puerto Rican is a territory. It's
a territory of the United States of America, and he's
Puerto Rican and he's boycotting the continental United States, which
I guess he means he's boycotting the lower forty eight
(28:59):
because he's In one story which I found kind of interesting,
he says that he does not want his fans to
be subjected to the possibility of Ice coming to arrest
them when they come to his concert. And I thought,
isn't that kind of racist, don't you? Are you assuming
(29:19):
that because you're Puerto Rican, or you're Latino, or you're
a Mexican or whatever, that Ice is just looking for you.
But even worse than that, he told all of his
Puerto Rican, Latino, Mexican, Hispanic, whatever, friends or fans that
no problem, you can just come and see me in
Puerto Rico. Now I didn't check, I didn't go on
(29:41):
fly to I didn't go on any of the websites
to see what it costs to fly from Denver to
San Juan. But I doubt that it's cheap plus the
ticket plus you know, staying overnight unless you're gonna stay
to a friend's house. Now, I got a friend in
Puerto Rico. I guess I could stay down there with him.
Wonder if Kloon had let me stay with him for
a while, that maybe Kloon knows this guy. Maybe Kluon
(30:03):
can get me tickets off to see if he can
if he does. But I figured out what the real
reason is. Now, think about musicians of the past. You
got Prince Madonna, Michael Jackson. The NFL is chasing a fad.
I doubt there's anybody in this audience. I kind of
(30:24):
thought Dragon might know who he was, But Dragon didn't
know who he was. And I would have gathered that
most people in this audience, who would probably watch the
Super Bowl, you won't even be able to sing along
to this FAD's music. And I bet he'll use the
platform to advance some political point. I mean, who hasn't.
Kendrick Lamar made references to forty Acres and the Mule,
(30:46):
the putative unfilled promise of land and resources to free
the slaves after the Civil War. Jennifer Lopez. She got
flagged back in twenty twenty for wanting to show the
Puerto Rican flag and kids in cages another dig at
our immigration policies, So you know, God are those days.
I think the NFL is responsible for most of this,
(31:08):
and I think it's because, as Dragon I mentioned yesterday,
we've had London in Mexico Mexico City. Have we had
others yet?
Speaker 2 (31:16):
And I'm sure some other European lens as well. I
know that Broncos are headed to London coming up.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
Okay, I think it's that the league is trying to
become an international sport. And what happens you bring in
bad Bunny, Well, that's a ploy to grab the attention
of a Spanish speaking audience, which they're going to prioritize
above the stereotypical burger eating beer drinking bro culture that's
long been the core audience of the NFL. So will
(31:47):
this be another bud Light moment or will it be
another Oh? I don't know what was the brand of
the jeans, American Eagle Jeans which I heard this morning
after they did that thing with whoever that star or
was share price increased? They sold out of the jackets
within a day. They sold out of the jeans within
a week, Which will it be bad bunny, Which will
(32:12):
it be
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.