January 2, 2026 • 33 mins
Peter Schweizer and Eric Eggers fill in for Sean, unpacking a new Gallup reading that puts congressional approval at 15 percent and a growing wave of members opting out of 2026 re-election bids. Former House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz joins to explain how broken appropriations, abandoned regular order, and endless continuing resolutions leave lawmakers exhausted and ineffective. He makes the case for term limits, restructuring the Speaker's role, even scrapping the Appropriations Committee, and highlights how the end of earmarks has stripped leadership of leverage. The conversation contrasts Democratic unity under Nancy Pelosi with Republican's challenges, notes Donald Trump's unique influence, and touches on proposals like voter ID and the SAVE Act as part of broader structural fixes.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hey, America, is Peter Schweitzer sitting next to me as
Eric Eggers and we are filling in for Sean joined
the conversation at one eight hundred nine four one seven
three two six one eight hundred nine four one seven
three two six. I'm looking at front of me some
really disastrous numbers. Latest Gallup poll approval rating for Congress
fifteen percent, not fifty percent. Fifteen percent. I'm also noticing
(00:26):
that fifty three members of Congress are going to be
not seeking reelection in the twenty twenty six midterm elections.
That's pretty devastating for the institution.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
So why do you consider that to be devastating news?
Number One? If Congress is so bad that they're approved
written is only fifteen percent, then maybe swapping out over
ten percent of it's not the worst idea. Maybe we
just got to get the roster better. It's like, you know,
the Jets and the Giants have had terrible years, so
I would expect a few of those team members to
come back. But I do think it's it's telling because
(00:56):
you know some people are leaving Congress to want to
go out out and you know they're gonna run for
different officers. Like Chip Roy's running for age in Texas,
Wesley Hunts winner for Senate, so as Jasmincrockett. But you
hear rumors, and we've been hearing it for some time,
there's a growing sense of dissatisfaction in specifically the House
GOP Caucus.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Yeah, that's exactly right. You know, it's a very razor
thin majority and a lot of people are frustrated. Seems
to be dysfunctional. You've got people like Marjorie Taylor Green
that make noise and kind of disrupt everything. So we
wanted to talk to somebody who's actually been there. Our
good friend Jason Chafis. He was the chairman of the
House Oversight Committee, very powerful committee serving Congress representing Utah,
(01:39):
and he's also a distinguished fellow with the Government Accountability Institute.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Where we work.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Jason makes sense of these numbers. I mean, why are
the numbers fifteen percent, which is historically low, and why
do you think so many people are leaving Congress at
this point in time.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
You're asking me to make sense of Congress. Listen and
look honored to be with you. A happy new year. Look,
it's a I think members are very frustrated and it's not.
It's on both sides of the aisle. It is not
solely a Republican situation. But members feel like they can't
(02:15):
do their jobs, and people buy start to glaze over
when you talk about regular order. But the way the
appropriations process is supposed to work is that we have
twelve appropriations built and every member can offer an amendment
or a striking amendment and participate in the process. But
the entire eight years that I was there, and even
(02:37):
the eight years since I've left, never, not once, have
they gone through a quote unquote regular order. So I
you know, I joke with people, I say, you know,
it's exhausting doing nothing, because what happens is they go
through all the process, they go through all the hearings,
they go through all the rigmarole, and then they want
to craft a bill and then it just gets superseded
(02:59):
by a continuing resolution and they flush all that good
work down the drain, and that get that wears on
people when you've been away from your family and all
the other opportunity costs, and people get set up with it.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
No, that actually makes a lot of sense, and it
actually casts the people who are leaving Congress in a
positive light, no joking around, because it means like to
your point, like you know, you want your life to
matter and you want what you do to do something.
And it also kind of suggests that if given the
frustrations you run into on a daily basis of doing
that job, then the only reason why you might want
(03:32):
to stay in that job is if you're making money
doing something else, and so you then they get rid
of the inside of trading in Congress, which is something
that we expect them to vote on, but it doesn't
suggests like, hey, like why are we actually even here?
Speaker 4 (03:44):
Then well, look, I think the body has to implement
and do and pass into law. It's not a constitutional
amendment to have term limits, get and get out. The
people you should worry about most are the ones that
stay there in perpetuity and never ever leave there. They're
(04:04):
a decade after decade. I when I left, there were
kind of three groups. There were people there, Hey, I
got nothing better to do, and it's a cool business
card and it's kind of fun. Number two is pretty
pretty weird, like they're they're all about the power and
maybe doing something that's pretty sketch. And then the third group,
I put myself in there. But there are really good
(04:24):
people who wanted to get in get work done, you know,
And I served with a number of those people, Trey
Goudie and John Ratcliffe and those types of people. Pulci
Gabbard was one of those people. You know. Now there
many of them are in the administration. But they they
got in, they served, and they got out, and you've
got to kind of force that. The other thing I
would do is get rid of the Appropriations Committee. I
(04:48):
would just totally flush it down the toilet, get rid
of it. It is totally worthless, top to bottom. You
have all these authorizing committees, they hold hearings, they know
natural resources, and then the appropriators come in and by
the hundreds fund programs that were never authorized by the
(05:09):
authorising committees. It's the craziest thing you've ever seen. And
so that again gets really frustrated. Hey, we held hearings.
And the other thing Congress never does is flex its muscles.
It never ever uses the power of the purse. That's
the one thing that Congress can do. It's like, you know,
all these daycare centers in Minnesota and all that, well,
(05:31):
there should be consequences, but Congress is feckless, and so
members are tired of taking those questions and they're like,
I can't change it.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Yeah, I mean, Jason, that's really as I hear you
talking about this, and I've known you for a while,
you're sincere in it. I think your analysis is right.
And then you wonder, like, so, this is this a
problem of leadership?
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Right?
Speaker 1 (05:51):
I mean, this problem didn't just sort of like land
on people's laps. Somebody is responsible for this dysfunction. I'm
not saying it's one person. I'm not even saying it's
half a dozen people. But is this a leadership problem?
I mean, you talked about some structural reforms, getting rid
of the committee, et cetera. But is it a leadership issue?
Do the wrong people rise to the top or why
(06:12):
do we get leaders that don't seem to be able
to tame this beast and get it to do the
things that's supposed to do.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
You know, it's interesting because I have long sought to
redefine the role of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
I think Mike Johnson is a fabulous person. He is
a man of integrity, of nothing but good things to
say about him. He has the most impossible jobs. We
give him no tools to actually do it. The expectation
is that he can herd all these cats and move
(06:43):
them in the right direction. We got rid of ear marks.
I was proud of the fact that I, you know,
I played a big role in that and say no,
we're done with ear marks, even though everybody in the
Utah delegation when I came there was supportive of it,
and I kind of forced him and shamed him into
getting rid of them. Well, that was the political candy
that made everything go down easier. And so when you
(07:04):
get rid of earmarks, what tools does the speaker have
to actually cajole and move people. I don't think you
necessarily want to. The role that speakers should be totally different.
But the body as the whole and the American people
have to force this issue. And it's not the sexiest
thing to say, all right, we're reconfiguring this. No more
(07:24):
appropriations committees, no more. But it's broken now and it
needs fixing. And term limits is I think one of
the very first steps a balanced budget amendment would go
a long way. Voter ID you know Mike Lee's, you know,
Dave acts to make sure we have voter identification because
you literally have more than a dozen seats in Congress
(07:47):
that are essentially illegal aliens that get representations. So these
things I think would make a difference.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Let me let me ask you this, Jason.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
I mean, it seems to me, and everything I've heard
about Speaker Johnson is the same, just high quality individual,
but seems to me, you look over the last twenty years,
Nancy Pelosi was absolutely had a spine of steel. She
could get all the Democrats to stay in line. Republicans
don't seem to be able to do that.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Why she controlled the money. If you wanted to raise
money and have a political future, look at Tim Ryan
out of Ohio, and when he went up against Nancy Pelosi,
he was done. We never talk about him anymore. So
she ruled that iron fist, and she was darn good
at it. And look, conceptually they were lemmings. They really
(08:37):
did believe in centralized government. Where Republicans talk about freedom, liberty, dealth, determination.
That just counter to oh okay, our leader says we're
going over here, so everybody get on board. The closest
I've seened actual you know, driving and moving everybody together
in the same direction as Donald Trump, and he does
it because he will when he lets know that that's
(09:00):
what he wants done, he is going to he is
going to make his way known. But you know he's
doing it the right way, the political way. But it's
going to probably take the outside groups, maybe some other
structural changes. But it is not functional right now, and
it's not serving the American people. Well, they're showing up
(09:22):
in the poll numbers.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
We're talking to former Member of Congress Jason Chaffits. He's
also the former chair of the House Oversight Committee. Jason,
what grade would you give James Comer for the last
year and if you could request or sort of predict
one thing he will do next year, what would it be?
Speaker 4 (09:39):
I give him an A plus. I think he will
ultimately end up running for governor of Kentucky, and I
think he'll be a fabulous governor. He has his hands full.
You know, we transformed that committee. He used to be
a committee nobody wanted on when I was there, and
you know, after we got done, it's the most popular
committee out there. The frustrating thing for I think for
(10:02):
the American public is they don't give Congress handcuffs, and
so it was a frustration because we point out all
the waste, the fraud, the abuse they have, the hearings,
you got people under oath, and you make a recommendation,
it goes over to the Department of Justice and it's
crickets and and that's that's the frustration. And uh, something's
(10:26):
got to give because I think the American people that
are doing things right, they're working hard, paying their taxes,
got a job taking care of that, they feel like
chumps right now. They just feel like they feel like
they're chumps, Like why should I do this? You know,
you see what's going on in Minnesota and other places.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
You know who thinks James Comer's doing a lousy job?
Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 3 (10:48):
Right?
Speaker 1 (10:48):
I mean, here, here's here's here's a guy, really the
first government official who said we are going to subpoena
you and you were going to sit before the Congressional Committee.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
How do you think that's all going to end up? Jason?
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Do you think the Clinton's are actually going to have
to sit before this committee?
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I'm not sure they can avoid it.
Speaker 4 (11:05):
You know, Trey Goudy, I think said it out loud first.
He said, you your subpoena is only good as your
ability to enforce it. I went down that path, but
I had a speaker in Paul Ryan, who's no way
going to support that. You had an attorney general and
Jeff Sessions who told me, if it's Clinton's I'm doing nothing.
(11:25):
You know, it's in large bar why I left and so,
and then prior to that, it was the Obama administration.
So you know, good luck with you know, Loretta Lynch
and Eric Holder and that crew. So I think he
now finally probably has somebody in a Pam Bondi and
a judge Janine who's the US attorney for the District
(11:46):
of Columbia. But they're actually going to be able to
force the issue, and that showdown is going to be
a big one. But I think they're going to have
to come testify, I raise their hands and go under oath.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
So every two years as an election year, obviously, but
this year, with especially tight majority of the Republicans are
holding How much does that impact how Congress operates? Does
it impact in terms of, like, hey, we're more willing
to hold hearings because we think it's better for you know,
there's only thirty seats that are kind of up for grabs.
How much does that impact just the way they do
(12:17):
their day to day business, Oh, one hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
I mean the last six months of this term, I
think is being dishonest if you don't think that that
has a big you know, their political ramifications. Look, a
lot of it depends on the economy, A lot of
it depends on some of these important court rulings of birthright, citizenship,
those types of things. There're gonna be some really big
(12:42):
rulings coming out of the court that will affect that.
But yeah, Congress has got to get it back together.
They get another shot at reconciliation and so you know
what can they couple together that will make a difference
in people's lives. Yeah, Congress has it's full because there
is nowhere He's come so far in the first it's
(13:06):
hard to believe it's been less than twelve months of
Donald Trump here in his term. But yeah, there's a
lot that people want to see in terms of affordability, healthcare,
those types of things.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Well, Jason, we understand why you left Congress. Kind of
wish you hadn't because we need people like you in there.
But we appreciate you joining us. We appreciate the work
you're doing with us at the Government Accountability Institute and
also the work you're doing with the Oversight Project. And
we will have to wait and see how the midterms
roll out. So happy New Year to you, Jason, and
(13:38):
we will continue to watch this story closely in terms
of these midterms and how things are going to turn out.
I don't know, Eric, if you have any thoughts on that.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Well.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
I like Jason Chafis. Not only does he go on
TV all the time as a fill and host for
many these programs, but he's just making news now. You
heard him say he thinks James Comer leaves Congress, joins
this ground swell of people trying to get out of Washington,
d C. And runs for governor Kentucky. That's the first
time I've heard that. You agree with that.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yeah, yeah, no, it's it's gonna be interesting to see
how that shakes out. It's going to be interesting to
see how all this jerrymandering affects the outcome of the
elections in November. I'm Peter Schweizer. That's Eric Eggers. We're
filling in on the Hannity Show. We'll be back right
after this break.
Speaker 5 (14:25):
The world is a wait wait and watching President Trump's
every move.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
I will fight for you. And they're well rested too
after four years of sleepy Joel.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
This is a Sean Hannity show.
Speaker 5 (14:40):
My folks, time to talk about real money gold and silver.
Now the analyst, you know, the guy's buying closed doors,
digging deep into the data. Well, they are making big
predictions for twenty twenty six. Now they now see gold
hitting five thousand dollars and ounce. Wow, how about silver?
We're talking about silver surging toward an unbel believable one
(15:01):
hundred dollars an ounce. I'm gonna tell you what. I'm
not waiting until I see these prices in the headlines.
I'm taking action out. That's why I am a customer
of the best in the business, and that is Gold Co.
They are my number one pick for gold and silver.
I trust them to help diversify and protect my retirement savings.
Right now, they're offering you a free twenty twenty six
(15:21):
gold and silver kit, plus a limited time offer where
you can get ten percent instant match in bonus gold
or silver just for getting started. Call now eight five
five eight one five gold or just go to Hannitigold
dot com. That's eight five five eight one five go
o ld or hannitigold one word dot com. Hey, if
you ever thought about upgrading your Windows treatments but didn't
(15:43):
want the hassle, our friends at blinds dot Com are
here to change the game. They are the only company
that lets you shop for custom blinds and shades online.
You just go to blinds dot Com. You can skip
the stress. Blinds dot Com makes it easy to get
that designer look without that showroom mark up. Now you
get the same quality, the same service you would at
(16:04):
other high end stores, but you get it at a
fraction of the price. Now samples, They'll send them to
your door directly. Now more than just blinds, blinds dot
Com carries everything from bamboo shades to shutters, outdoor shades
for your patio, and much much more. All blinds dot
Com orders are back with their one hundred percent satisfaction guaranteed.
Right now, blinds dot Com is giving you my listeners
(16:26):
and exclusive fifty dollars off offer when you spend five
hundred bucks or more. This is the promo coach sewn
Sea and when you check out, it's the limited timeoffer.
Does go to blinds dot com for details. Rules and
restrictions may apply.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
It's Friday, January second. Welcome back to the Sean Handy
Show on Mark Edgers. This is Peter Schweitzer. Alongside with me,
we co host a podcast called The Drill Down with
Peter Schweizer, which you can find at the Drilldown dot com.
Happy to be filled in for Sean yet again on
this first live show of the year twenty twenty six.
Peter that you do quite well because you're a best
selling author, but you live in Floridas. You don't have
(17:05):
this problem if you are as successful as Peter, if
you are a billionaire who lives in California, I have
terrible news for you. You're on the hook for some
really potentially expensive taxes.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Yeah, you are. And look, we have to remind ourselves.
We have a federal system in America. So Donald Trump's
in the White House, Republicans control of the House, they
control the Senate, but there's a lot of states they're making.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Their own decisions.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
So we're going to talk in a little bit here
about the proposed wealth tax in California. There's not a
tax on income, there's not a property tax. This is
you're worth how much money, We're gonna take five percent
of it, and we're going to learn about some other
really bizarre woke laws, including ones involving horses. Coming up
(17:49):
in the next segment. We've got to remind ourselves there's
crazy things going on at the state level by the
woke mafia.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Even right now.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
We'd love to hear from you. Give us a call,
Join the Conversation one eight hundred and nine four one
seven three tiour one. Shawn will take your calls and
tell you crazy things about horses and billionaires. Right after this,
he's Peter Schweitzer. I'm Eric Eggers. This is Sean Handy
Radio Show, Sean Hennedy.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
That is Eric Eggers, and I'm Peter Schweitzer, and we
are filling in for Sean, who is getting a well
deserved break. Join the Conversation wearning eighte hundred ninet four
one seven three two six one eight hundred nine four
one seven three two six. You know, Donald Trump's done
a lot of the first years we talked about earlier
in the segment, changing a lot of things, but at
the state level there still is a lot of craziness, uh,
(18:37):
and some things that are really going to affect a
lot of people.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
We're quite lucky because we both live in the Free
State of Florida, and so you know, we're we've got
people talking about getting rid of property taxes. Roon de
Sants has done a great job, but other states, to
your point, have maybe gone the other way on that's
as that kind of fells a little short of conservative
fiscal and social policy initiatives.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Yeah, this is a very interesting article by Camden Molder
in the National Review talking about what's going on some
of the blue state laws in twenty twenty five. Some
of them are obviously predictable. California mandates gender neutral bathrooms
in K through twelve schools. You're mandated, mandated required to
have them, whether it's a charter school or a public school.
(19:19):
And by the way, taxpayers will pay for all of
those renovations. But some of them are just downright crazy
if you ask me. In Washington State, they have now
mandated hate crime work leave, hate crime work leave.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
That is to say, you get to leave work if
you've been a victim of a hate crime.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Yeah, if you have experienced a hate crime, your boss
is now required to give you ample time off to
heal and recover from the experience. Now, I can certainly
understand if you are attacked in the street, somebody beats
you up, you're gonna need.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
Some time off.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
But this covers everything. So if you are harassed online
or on social media, or somebody calls you a name
in in you know, online media, your employers required to
give you the time off without penalty to quote get
your affairs in order.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
You know.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
The real irony of that is, like, if you are
subjected to a hate crime as a Washington State resident,
the odds are that happened because you're goofing off at
work Online. You're probably just hanging on Reddit or something
and in too many of your comment's got down vote
and you're like, I'm triggering. I'm out, yes, and you're
taking some time off. You're rewarded for being a bad employee.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
I like that. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
In the state of Connecticut, they have banned this is bizarre.
They have banned hostile infrastructure that deters unhoused people from
sleeping on benches, sidewalks, et cetera. So this is public
Act twenty five, Dash forty nine.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
A component of the.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Bill says that unhoused citizens now are allowed to sleep
where they can, and in fact, it bans hostile architecture.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Now, so do you know what that like. We actually
have examples of that in the city that we live in.
There's a lake that's not too far from our office
where we're doing the show from, and they put in
benches because there was an unhoused population problem. Too many
people are kind of accosting the families and stuff. So
they put in little bars in the middle of the bench,
(21:16):
like a little spiky thing, you know, you could it's
like a little armrest, maybe, yeah, but it's meant to
keep people from sleeping on the benches. So that would
be a crime in Connecticut.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
In fact, armrests in the middle of a bench are
considered hostile architecture and are now banned in the state
of Connecticut. The bill, of course, passed with no Republican support.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Well, I will say this, you know, if I'm sympathetic
to any of them, I might be sympathetic to that,
because if you're a homeless person in Connecticut, your problem
is not architecture. Your problem is the cold. Like I
respect to you for being a homeless person in Connecticut.
You're tough.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Yeah, yeah, Well, also in the state of Illinois, they
pass a law that insurance plans now must cover therapeutic
horse riding. So this is in August, Governor JB. Prisker
signed to Senate Bill sixty nine into law. It requires
insurance companies to cover hippotherapy. Now, I'd never heard of hippotherapy.
(22:10):
That's apparently therapy with horses. But this mandates that insurance
plans cover horse therapy for physical or occupational or speech therapy.
Through the interacting where they horse.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Illinois so corrupt and transactional. Remember Rod Bogoyvitch was like,
I have a Senate seat to sell. I'm about to
make so much money off of this. So when you
tell me that, it makes me think that the horse
lobby is that they got their finger on the pulse
of the legislature there, Like we got all these horses and
nobody's trying to ride it to cold in Chicago. We
need to get on the horse therapy game.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
Yeah, and again people wonder why their health's insurance rates
go up. I'm not saying it's just things, but there
are a lot of crazy things that get embedded. Where
states require insurance companies to cover things, their cost go up.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
They're going to raise their their prices.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
So those are laws that actually passed. A law that
has been proposed is a valid initiative that would impose
a one time five percent tax on anyone in the
state of California worth a billion dollars the service employers
in International Union. The SEIU has proposed this. Now, of
course it's California, so there's always other stuff going on.
(23:15):
Gavin Newsom seems to loom large over this idea. What
do you think about this proposed one time five percent
wealth tax on billionaires.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Well, first of all, one time. I mean, come on,
they say it's one time. If they actually pull it
off and they get some revenue, even though a lot
of people are gonna leave, they're gonna do it again.
It's a shakedown. Once you give into a shakedown one time,
you're gonna get it more often. But this is I
think a major escalation and taxation in America is because
you're not talking about taxing somebody's home or you know,
(23:45):
they're commercial real estate and a property tax or an
income tax that we've had, you know, for the last
century in the United States. You're saying all the money
that you've saved up over the course of however long
your career is, even if it's a billion dollars, we're
gonna take five percent of a chunk of that and
we are going to use it to fix the fiscal
crisis that California is in, because after all, the problem
(24:08):
in California is that people do not pay enough taxes.
And if we just get more tax revenue, things are
going to get better in California.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Right, Yeah, that's the problem with California. Not enough revenue
the real problem.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
But here's the contrast. By the way we live in Florida.
Texas is considering the same thing. Big states. California is
the biggest, but we're in big states. Our two states. Well,
in the state of Florida, I should say, we have
no state income tax. They are actually considering eliminating property
taxes on your primary residents. And they say they can
(24:41):
do this and there will be no cutbacks. And yet California,
which has the highest state income tax in the country,
and you know, has all these fiscal problems which we
don't have in Florida. They're just going to now implement
a new tax. Apparently, if this thing actually passes as
a state initiative.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Well, by the way, the tax on your net worth
is worth pointing out, would happen because you've accumulated that
net worth after paying taxes on your income. So you're
gonna be paying taxes again on money that you got
to keep after being taxed the first time. So major
problems there. I would suggest that the reason why California
is in this difficult problem that they need to raise
(25:19):
enough money from this proposal is because of how expensive
it is to be in California. Now remember this, We've
talked about this on a podcast before, but for four
years in a row, California had the largest net loss
of one way movers that don't take my worth word,
that's U haul U hauls. Like no, we literally run
out of U hauls in California because people are doing
(25:42):
too many one way they get the U haul in California,
they take it anywhere else, Yeah, anywhere else that it's
much cheaper. And so you know, Gaven Newsom at one
point had a ninety eight billion dollar budget surplus because
of all the federal COVID subsidies, and he managed Gavin
Newsom did this is the potential presidential front right for
the Democrat Party to turn a ninety eight billion dollars
(26:03):
for a plus to do a forty five billion dollar
budget deficit.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Hey, not everybody has a great year, right m M yeah, No,
it's it's what's going to be interesting to watch in
this whole debate is I don't think Gavin Newsom has
taken a public position on this tax, which, by the way,
is being pushed by the Service Employees International Union. What
does this have to do with union organizing?
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Nothing?
Speaker 1 (26:23):
I mean, this is just pure political activism. But Gavin
Newsom's in a dilemma because he's going to run for president.
That seems pretty clear he needs the progressives. They have
the energy in the party. That's clearly the center of
gravity in the party. Anybody who campaigns is a moderate
for president is going to have a hard time getting
the nomination. But if you go into Crazyville, right, you
go too far to the left, Ala Bernie Sanders or
(26:46):
Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
You're gonna lose. You're gonna lose.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Because that's not where the center of gravity of the
of the country is. So he's got to straddle this.
He doesn't want to offend the progressives. But on the
other hand. He knows this is a stupid idea, because
the New York Times is reported that already Sergey Brinn
and Peter Tiel, these Silicon Valley billionaire investor made plans
last year in twenty twenty five to change their residents
(27:11):
in anticipation of this bill. Because, by the way, what's
interesting is this is a referendum to be held in
November of twenty twenty six. It's retroactive. So if you
live there today on January the second, and you've got
that kind of money and this thing passes, it doesn't
matter where you move, they're going to come after you.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
Well, it turns out the billionaires they part of the
reason that they become billionaires is they pay lawyers and accountants.
So I guess they had a bit of a heads
up on this. But I want to follow up on
something you just said, because you're right, the center of gravity,
the energy for Democrats running for president, the presidential primary
certainly is the progressive There's no doubt about that. So
you need them to be successful in a presidential campaign,
(27:50):
but you also need money, and you need then the
support of progressive billionaires. So you wrote a book called
Extortion and you introduced this idea. It is brilliant back
in the time. Came out in twenty thirteen, but it
was this idea that members of Congress will introduce legislation
that they don't actually intend for it to pass, but
(28:10):
they use it as a vehicle to do what.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
To extort money? Right in other words, Oh, this real
and I go here where you're going with this? And
it's really a great point for Gavin Newsom. This is
a way to get progressive billionaires to back him because
he's the only guy that can stop this, right, he's
the only guy. It's the classic you know, the mafia
shows up at the corner deli in town and they say, oh,
it'd be a shame if this place burned down. I've
(28:35):
got fire insurance. I'll protect you. That's essentially what the
move could be here and that that's a great point.
I mean, if he's trying to shore up the fundraising
for a twenty eight presidential campaign, this is the way
that Gavin Newsom can get a lot.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
Of that back.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
And he comes to you, he said, listen, I'm the
only thing staying between you and a five percent tax
on your net worth. California residents and so give me.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Two percent of your network and you'll come up three percent.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
I don't think it's a great idea, but I'm in
this weird spot because I'm gavin news to him and
I went, I pivoted from having Steve Bannon on podcasts
and now I'm like, you know, back in support of
all these progressive ideas, and I'm trolling Donald Trump, and
I'm you know, I delivered the biggest actual win in
terms of the redistricting initiative in California, so like, people
aren't so much concerned about the fact that California is
(29:18):
a failed state with multi billion dollar budget deficits because
I did this thing that seems like it's helping to
fight Donald Trump. I just think he's very smart politically, Yes,
And it wouldn't shock me if this is part of
his larger plan to position himself, because yeah, how can
you kind of straddle it? Hey, Look, we want to
be you know, we want to fight against people, but
I also need the support. So I think this is
(29:40):
part of his presidential campaign.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Bill Clinton had back in the day in nineteen ninety two,
the so called Sister Soldia Moment.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
There was a musical performer Sister Soldier.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
I think she was a rapper and some you know,
raunchy lyrics at least back in the day. And Bill
Clinton denounced her and said this is cultural rot. We
can't have this in the country. He took criticism from
some people in Democratic Party but sort of centered his
reputation as somebody that was prepared to police both sides.
(30:09):
So this would be the move for Gavin Newsome, and
it makes a lot of sense, and it could be
very very effective going up to twenty twenty eight, at
least in terms of getting the Democratic nomination and doing
so by not having to go so far to the
left that he alienates too many voters in the middle.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
It'd be really interesting to see what happens. And you know,
there's been a lot of talk about the Minnesota Somali fraud,
and we're going to talk to former Governor Tim Paulenti
in the five o'clock hour about that and just kind
of how Minnesota developed into what it's become where you've
had one party rule for twenty years. But Minnesota, I
think is the latest iteration of California. California was at
one point, as you well know, a Republican was governor
(30:48):
of California at one point, and I mean, when was
the last time Republican won statewide office in California? And
you and for as much talk about the ten billion
dollars in fraud in Minnesota, there's a recent report that
it could be one hundred billion dollars of fraud in California.
I think eight different agencies failed this audit. So, I mean,
California is like Minnesota, but blown up in a bigger way.
(31:09):
And you know, that's not a conversation Gavin Newson wants
to have. But I do think that that's like when
you start peeking under the hood, people are gonna ask
real questions about just how badly it's been run.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Yeah, and here's the thing.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
I mean, fraud happens everywhere, right, Corruption happens everywhere. But
what we're basically arguing, and I think it's true, is
that this is politically supported fraud in California and in Minnesota.
I mean, in other words, they kind of have a
sense that it's going on. We're gonna be playing an
audio tape in the next hour of an audio tape
of the twenty twenty one conversation that the Attorney General
(31:44):
of Minnesota had with some Somali businessmen. They're just gonna
shock you and illustrate this point that we're making.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
No, it's absolutely stay tuned for that conversation. Plus, we'll
take your calls. It's one eight hundred ninety four one Sean,
one one hundred ninety for one Sean. He's Peter Schweizer,
I'm Eric Eggers. We're feeling in for the Sean handy raisers.
We'll be back right after this.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Hi speaker. Schweitzer is sitting next to me Xerich Eggers
and we are filling in for Sean. Hannerty joined the
conversation one eight hundred and nine four one seven, three
two six. Let's take a caller. Let's go to Lisa,
who wants to talk about Mam Donnie in New York.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Hey, Lisa, how are you?
Speaker 6 (32:17):
I'm good? How are y'all?
Speaker 3 (32:18):
We are great? Happy New Year to you.
Speaker 6 (32:21):
Well, happy new year.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
So what do you want to tell us about Mamdannie.
Speaker 6 (32:27):
Well, I happen to be reading some you know, some
information today and I came across this new act that's
being implemented in New York City is called COPA CEE
as in kat Os in Orange pas and paul A
is in Apple Copa Act, which it says a law that.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Would force homeowners to offer their.
Speaker 6 (32:50):
Property to the government or in geos before they can.
Speaker 4 (32:55):
Sell it freely.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Wow, that's amazing. That's a huge infringe on property right now.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
And I would say that's exactly an example of something
you heard Carol Markowitz talk about earlier in this program
about hey, there are some real limits to what mom
Donnie can do, but then there's some stuff that he
can do, and like that seems like an example of
like allowing big government to take over potentially in you know, nonprofits.
We've seen this really bizarre relationship between nonprofits and the
(33:22):
government in these progressive areas. We're going to talk to
Tim Paul Lenty, the former government Minnesota, about exactly that
and what's going on in his former state. We write back,
He's Piercechwiz are America Edgers. This is the Shawan Handy Show,
right
Hey, America, is Peter Schweitzer sitting next to me as
Eric Eggers and we are filling in for Sean joined
the conversation at one eight hundred nine four one seven
three two six one eight hundred nine four one seven
three two six. I'm looking at front of me some
really disastrous numbers. Latest Gallup poll approval rating for Congress
fifteen percent, not fifty percent. Fifteen percent. I'm also noticing
(00:26):
that fifty three members of Congress are going to be
not seeking reelection in the twenty twenty six midterm elections.
That's pretty devastating for the institution.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
So why do you consider that to be devastating news?
Number One? If Congress is so bad that they're approved
written is only fifteen percent, then maybe swapping out over
ten percent of it's not the worst idea. Maybe we
just got to get the roster better. It's like, you know,
the Jets and the Giants have had terrible years, so
I would expect a few of those team members to
come back. But I do think it's it's telling because
(00:56):
you know some people are leaving Congress to want to
go out out and you know they're gonna run for
different officers. Like Chip Roy's running for age in Texas,
Wesley Hunts winner for Senate, so as Jasmincrockett. But you
hear rumors, and we've been hearing it for some time,
there's a growing sense of dissatisfaction in specifically the House
GOP Caucus.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Yeah, that's exactly right. You know, it's a very razor
thin majority and a lot of people are frustrated. Seems
to be dysfunctional. You've got people like Marjorie Taylor Green
that make noise and kind of disrupt everything. So we
wanted to talk to somebody who's actually been there. Our
good friend Jason Chafis. He was the chairman of the
House Oversight Committee, very powerful committee serving Congress representing Utah,
(01:39):
and he's also a distinguished fellow with the Government Accountability Institute.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Where we work.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Jason makes sense of these numbers. I mean, why are
the numbers fifteen percent, which is historically low, and why
do you think so many people are leaving Congress at
this point in time.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
You're asking me to make sense of Congress. Listen and
look honored to be with you. A happy new year. Look,
it's a I think members are very frustrated and it's not.
It's on both sides of the aisle. It is not
solely a Republican situation. But members feel like they can't
(02:15):
do their jobs, and people buy start to glaze over
when you talk about regular order. But the way the
appropriations process is supposed to work is that we have
twelve appropriations built and every member can offer an amendment
or a striking amendment and participate in the process. But
the entire eight years that I was there, and even
(02:37):
the eight years since I've left, never, not once, have
they gone through a quote unquote regular order. So I
you know, I joke with people, I say, you know,
it's exhausting doing nothing, because what happens is they go
through all the process, they go through all the hearings,
they go through all the rigmarole, and then they want
to craft a bill and then it just gets superseded
(02:59):
by a continuing resolution and they flush all that good
work down the drain, and that get that wears on
people when you've been away from your family and all
the other opportunity costs, and people get set up with it.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
No, that actually makes a lot of sense, and it
actually casts the people who are leaving Congress in a
positive light, no joking around, because it means like to
your point, like you know, you want your life to
matter and you want what you do to do something.
And it also kind of suggests that if given the
frustrations you run into on a daily basis of doing
that job, then the only reason why you might want
(03:32):
to stay in that job is if you're making money
doing something else, and so you then they get rid
of the inside of trading in Congress, which is something
that we expect them to vote on, but it doesn't
suggests like, hey, like why are we actually even here?
Speaker 4 (03:44):
Then well, look, I think the body has to implement
and do and pass into law. It's not a constitutional
amendment to have term limits, get and get out. The
people you should worry about most are the ones that
stay there in perpetuity and never ever leave there. They're
(04:04):
a decade after decade. I when I left, there were
kind of three groups. There were people there, Hey, I
got nothing better to do, and it's a cool business
card and it's kind of fun. Number two is pretty
pretty weird, like they're they're all about the power and
maybe doing something that's pretty sketch. And then the third group,
I put myself in there. But there are really good
(04:24):
people who wanted to get in get work done, you know,
And I served with a number of those people, Trey
Goudie and John Ratcliffe and those types of people. Pulci
Gabbard was one of those people. You know. Now there
many of them are in the administration. But they they
got in, they served, and they got out, and you've
got to kind of force that. The other thing I
would do is get rid of the Appropriations Committee. I
(04:48):
would just totally flush it down the toilet, get rid
of it. It is totally worthless, top to bottom. You
have all these authorizing committees, they hold hearings, they know
natural resources, and then the appropriators come in and by
the hundreds fund programs that were never authorized by the
(05:09):
authorising committees. It's the craziest thing you've ever seen. And
so that again gets really frustrated. Hey, we held hearings.
And the other thing Congress never does is flex its muscles.
It never ever uses the power of the purse. That's
the one thing that Congress can do. It's like, you know,
all these daycare centers in Minnesota and all that, well,
(05:31):
there should be consequences, but Congress is feckless, and so
members are tired of taking those questions and they're like,
I can't change it.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Yeah, I mean, Jason, that's really as I hear you
talking about this, and I've known you for a while,
you're sincere in it. I think your analysis is right.
And then you wonder, like, so, this is this a
problem of leadership?
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Right?
Speaker 1 (05:51):
I mean, this problem didn't just sort of like land
on people's laps. Somebody is responsible for this dysfunction. I'm
not saying it's one person. I'm not even saying it's
half a dozen people. But is this a leadership problem?
I mean, you talked about some structural reforms, getting rid
of the committee, et cetera. But is it a leadership issue?
Do the wrong people rise to the top or why
(06:12):
do we get leaders that don't seem to be able
to tame this beast and get it to do the
things that's supposed to do.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
You know, it's interesting because I have long sought to
redefine the role of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
I think Mike Johnson is a fabulous person. He is
a man of integrity, of nothing but good things to
say about him. He has the most impossible jobs. We
give him no tools to actually do it. The expectation
is that he can herd all these cats and move
(06:43):
them in the right direction. We got rid of ear marks.
I was proud of the fact that I, you know,
I played a big role in that and say no,
we're done with ear marks, even though everybody in the
Utah delegation when I came there was supportive of it,
and I kind of forced him and shamed him into
getting rid of them. Well, that was the political candy
that made everything go down easier. And so when you
(07:04):
get rid of earmarks, what tools does the speaker have
to actually cajole and move people. I don't think you
necessarily want to. The role that speakers should be totally different.
But the body as the whole and the American people
have to force this issue. And it's not the sexiest
thing to say, all right, we're reconfiguring this. No more
(07:24):
appropriations committees, no more. But it's broken now and it
needs fixing. And term limits is I think one of
the very first steps a balanced budget amendment would go
a long way. Voter ID you know Mike Lee's, you know,
Dave acts to make sure we have voter identification because
you literally have more than a dozen seats in Congress
(07:47):
that are essentially illegal aliens that get representations. So these
things I think would make a difference.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Let me let me ask you this, Jason.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
I mean, it seems to me, and everything I've heard
about Speaker Johnson is the same, just high quality individual,
but seems to me, you look over the last twenty years,
Nancy Pelosi was absolutely had a spine of steel. She
could get all the Democrats to stay in line. Republicans
don't seem to be able to do that.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Why she controlled the money. If you wanted to raise
money and have a political future, look at Tim Ryan
out of Ohio, and when he went up against Nancy Pelosi,
he was done. We never talk about him anymore. So
she ruled that iron fist, and she was darn good
at it. And look, conceptually they were lemmings. They really
(08:37):
did believe in centralized government. Where Republicans talk about freedom, liberty, dealth, determination.
That just counter to oh okay, our leader says we're
going over here, so everybody get on board. The closest
I've seened actual you know, driving and moving everybody together
in the same direction as Donald Trump, and he does
it because he will when he lets know that that's
(09:00):
what he wants done, he is going to he is
going to make his way known. But you know he's
doing it the right way, the political way. But it's
going to probably take the outside groups, maybe some other
structural changes. But it is not functional right now, and
it's not serving the American people. Well, they're showing up
(09:22):
in the poll numbers.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
We're talking to former Member of Congress Jason Chaffits. He's
also the former chair of the House Oversight Committee. Jason,
what grade would you give James Comer for the last
year and if you could request or sort of predict
one thing he will do next year, what would it be?
Speaker 4 (09:39):
I give him an A plus. I think he will
ultimately end up running for governor of Kentucky, and I
think he'll be a fabulous governor. He has his hands full.
You know, we transformed that committee. He used to be
a committee nobody wanted on when I was there, and
you know, after we got done, it's the most popular
committee out there. The frustrating thing for I think for
(10:02):
the American public is they don't give Congress handcuffs, and
so it was a frustration because we point out all
the waste, the fraud, the abuse they have, the hearings,
you got people under oath, and you make a recommendation,
it goes over to the Department of Justice and it's
crickets and and that's that's the frustration. And uh, something's
(10:26):
got to give because I think the American people that
are doing things right, they're working hard, paying their taxes,
got a job taking care of that, they feel like
chumps right now. They just feel like they feel like
they're chumps, Like why should I do this? You know,
you see what's going on in Minnesota and other places.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
You know who thinks James Comer's doing a lousy job?
Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 3 (10:48):
Right?
Speaker 1 (10:48):
I mean, here, here's here's here's a guy, really the
first government official who said we are going to subpoena
you and you were going to sit before the Congressional Committee.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
How do you think that's all going to end up? Jason?
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Do you think the Clinton's are actually going to have
to sit before this committee?
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I'm not sure they can avoid it.
Speaker 4 (11:05):
You know, Trey Goudy, I think said it out loud first.
He said, you your subpoena is only good as your
ability to enforce it. I went down that path, but
I had a speaker in Paul Ryan, who's no way
going to support that. You had an attorney general and
Jeff Sessions who told me, if it's Clinton's I'm doing nothing.
(11:25):
You know, it's in large bar why I left and so,
and then prior to that, it was the Obama administration.
So you know, good luck with you know, Loretta Lynch
and Eric Holder and that crew. So I think he
now finally probably has somebody in a Pam Bondi and
a judge Janine who's the US attorney for the District
(11:46):
of Columbia. But they're actually going to be able to
force the issue, and that showdown is going to be
a big one. But I think they're going to have
to come testify, I raise their hands and go under oath.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
So every two years as an election year, obviously, but
this year, with especially tight majority of the Republicans are
holding How much does that impact how Congress operates? Does
it impact in terms of, like, hey, we're more willing
to hold hearings because we think it's better for you know,
there's only thirty seats that are kind of up for grabs.
How much does that impact just the way they do
(12:17):
their day to day business, Oh, one hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
I mean the last six months of this term, I
think is being dishonest if you don't think that that
has a big you know, their political ramifications. Look, a
lot of it depends on the economy, A lot of
it depends on some of these important court rulings of birthright, citizenship,
those types of things. There're gonna be some really big
(12:42):
rulings coming out of the court that will affect that.
But yeah, Congress has got to get it back together.
They get another shot at reconciliation and so you know
what can they couple together that will make a difference
in people's lives. Yeah, Congress has it's full because there
is nowhere He's come so far in the first it's
(13:06):
hard to believe it's been less than twelve months of
Donald Trump here in his term. But yeah, there's a
lot that people want to see in terms of affordability, healthcare,
those types of things.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Well, Jason, we understand why you left Congress. Kind of
wish you hadn't because we need people like you in there.
But we appreciate you joining us. We appreciate the work
you're doing with us at the Government Accountability Institute and
also the work you're doing with the Oversight Project. And
we will have to wait and see how the midterms
roll out. So happy New Year to you, Jason, and
(13:38):
we will continue to watch this story closely in terms
of these midterms and how things are going to turn out.
I don't know, Eric, if you have any thoughts on that.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Well.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
I like Jason Chafis. Not only does he go on
TV all the time as a fill and host for
many these programs, but he's just making news now. You
heard him say he thinks James Comer leaves Congress, joins
this ground swell of people trying to get out of Washington,
d C. And runs for governor Kentucky. That's the first
time I've heard that. You agree with that.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yeah, yeah, no, it's it's gonna be interesting to see
how that shakes out. It's going to be interesting to
see how all this jerrymandering affects the outcome of the
elections in November. I'm Peter Schweizer. That's Eric Eggers. We're
filling in on the Hannity Show. We'll be back right
after this break.
Speaker 5 (14:25):
The world is a wait wait and watching President Trump's
every move.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
I will fight for you. And they're well rested too
after four years of sleepy Joel.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
This is a Sean Hannity show.
Speaker 5 (14:40):
My folks, time to talk about real money gold and silver.
Now the analyst, you know, the guy's buying closed doors,
digging deep into the data. Well, they are making big
predictions for twenty twenty six. Now they now see gold
hitting five thousand dollars and ounce. Wow, how about silver?
We're talking about silver surging toward an unbel believable one
(15:01):
hundred dollars an ounce. I'm gonna tell you what. I'm
not waiting until I see these prices in the headlines.
I'm taking action out. That's why I am a customer
of the best in the business, and that is Gold Co.
They are my number one pick for gold and silver.
I trust them to help diversify and protect my retirement savings.
Right now, they're offering you a free twenty twenty six
(15:21):
gold and silver kit, plus a limited time offer where
you can get ten percent instant match in bonus gold
or silver just for getting started. Call now eight five
five eight one five gold or just go to Hannitigold
dot com. That's eight five five eight one five go
o ld or hannitigold one word dot com. Hey, if
you ever thought about upgrading your Windows treatments but didn't
(15:43):
want the hassle, our friends at blinds dot Com are
here to change the game. They are the only company
that lets you shop for custom blinds and shades online.
You just go to blinds dot Com. You can skip
the stress. Blinds dot Com makes it easy to get
that designer look without that showroom mark up. Now you
get the same quality, the same service you would at
(16:04):
other high end stores, but you get it at a
fraction of the price. Now samples, They'll send them to
your door directly. Now more than just blinds, blinds dot
Com carries everything from bamboo shades to shutters, outdoor shades
for your patio, and much much more. All blinds dot
Com orders are back with their one hundred percent satisfaction guaranteed.
Right now, blinds dot Com is giving you my listeners
(16:26):
and exclusive fifty dollars off offer when you spend five
hundred bucks or more. This is the promo coach sewn
Sea and when you check out, it's the limited timeoffer.
Does go to blinds dot com for details. Rules and
restrictions may apply.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
It's Friday, January second. Welcome back to the Sean Handy
Show on Mark Edgers. This is Peter Schweitzer. Alongside with me,
we co host a podcast called The Drill Down with
Peter Schweizer, which you can find at the Drilldown dot com.
Happy to be filled in for Sean yet again on
this first live show of the year twenty twenty six.
Peter that you do quite well because you're a best
selling author, but you live in Floridas. You don't have
(17:05):
this problem if you are as successful as Peter, if
you are a billionaire who lives in California, I have
terrible news for you. You're on the hook for some
really potentially expensive taxes.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Yeah, you are. And look, we have to remind ourselves.
We have a federal system in America. So Donald Trump's
in the White House, Republicans control of the House, they
control the Senate, but there's a lot of states they're making.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Their own decisions.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
So we're going to talk in a little bit here
about the proposed wealth tax in California. There's not a
tax on income, there's not a property tax. This is
you're worth how much money, We're gonna take five percent
of it, and we're going to learn about some other
really bizarre woke laws, including ones involving horses. Coming up
(17:49):
in the next segment. We've got to remind ourselves there's
crazy things going on at the state level by the
woke mafia.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Even right now.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
We'd love to hear from you. Give us a call,
Join the Conversation one eight hundred and nine four one
seven three tiour one. Shawn will take your calls and
tell you crazy things about horses and billionaires. Right after this,
he's Peter Schweitzer. I'm Eric Eggers. This is Sean Handy
Radio Show, Sean Hennedy.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
That is Eric Eggers, and I'm Peter Schweitzer, and we
are filling in for Sean, who is getting a well
deserved break. Join the Conversation wearning eighte hundred ninet four
one seven three two six one eight hundred nine four
one seven three two six. You know, Donald Trump's done
a lot of the first years we talked about earlier
in the segment, changing a lot of things, but at
the state level there still is a lot of craziness, uh,
(18:37):
and some things that are really going to affect a
lot of people.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
We're quite lucky because we both live in the Free
State of Florida, and so you know, we're we've got
people talking about getting rid of property taxes. Roon de
Sants has done a great job, but other states, to
your point, have maybe gone the other way on that's
as that kind of fells a little short of conservative
fiscal and social policy initiatives.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Yeah, this is a very interesting article by Camden Molder
in the National Review talking about what's going on some
of the blue state laws in twenty twenty five. Some
of them are obviously predictable. California mandates gender neutral bathrooms
in K through twelve schools. You're mandated, mandated required to
have them, whether it's a charter school or a public school.
(19:19):
And by the way, taxpayers will pay for all of
those renovations. But some of them are just downright crazy
if you ask me. In Washington State, they have now
mandated hate crime work leave, hate crime work leave.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
That is to say, you get to leave work if
you've been a victim of a hate crime.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Yeah, if you have experienced a hate crime, your boss
is now required to give you ample time off to
heal and recover from the experience. Now, I can certainly
understand if you are attacked in the street, somebody beats
you up, you're gonna need.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
Some time off.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
But this covers everything. So if you are harassed online
or on social media, or somebody calls you a name
in in you know, online media, your employers required to
give you the time off without penalty to quote get
your affairs in order.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
You know.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
The real irony of that is, like, if you are
subjected to a hate crime as a Washington State resident,
the odds are that happened because you're goofing off at
work Online. You're probably just hanging on Reddit or something
and in too many of your comment's got down vote
and you're like, I'm triggering. I'm out, yes, and you're
taking some time off. You're rewarded for being a bad employee.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
I like that. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
In the state of Connecticut, they have banned this is bizarre.
They have banned hostile infrastructure that deters unhoused people from
sleeping on benches, sidewalks, et cetera. So this is public
Act twenty five, Dash forty nine.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
A component of the.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Bill says that unhoused citizens now are allowed to sleep
where they can, and in fact, it bans hostile architecture.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Now, so do you know what that like. We actually
have examples of that in the city that we live in.
There's a lake that's not too far from our office
where we're doing the show from, and they put in
benches because there was an unhoused population problem. Too many
people are kind of accosting the families and stuff. So
they put in little bars in the middle of the bench,
(21:16):
like a little spiky thing, you know, you could it's
like a little armrest, maybe, yeah, but it's meant to
keep people from sleeping on the benches. So that would
be a crime in Connecticut.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
In fact, armrests in the middle of a bench are
considered hostile architecture and are now banned in the state
of Connecticut. The bill, of course, passed with no Republican support.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Well, I will say this, you know, if I'm sympathetic
to any of them, I might be sympathetic to that,
because if you're a homeless person in Connecticut, your problem
is not architecture. Your problem is the cold. Like I
respect to you for being a homeless person in Connecticut.
You're tough.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Yeah, yeah, Well, also in the state of Illinois, they
pass a law that insurance plans now must cover therapeutic
horse riding. So this is in August, Governor JB. Prisker
signed to Senate Bill sixty nine into law. It requires
insurance companies to cover hippotherapy. Now, I'd never heard of hippotherapy.
(22:10):
That's apparently therapy with horses. But this mandates that insurance
plans cover horse therapy for physical or occupational or speech therapy.
Through the interacting where they horse.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Illinois so corrupt and transactional. Remember Rod Bogoyvitch was like,
I have a Senate seat to sell. I'm about to
make so much money off of this. So when you
tell me that, it makes me think that the horse
lobby is that they got their finger on the pulse
of the legislature there, Like we got all these horses and
nobody's trying to ride it to cold in Chicago. We
need to get on the horse therapy game.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
Yeah, and again people wonder why their health's insurance rates
go up. I'm not saying it's just things, but there
are a lot of crazy things that get embedded. Where
states require insurance companies to cover things, their cost go up.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
They're going to raise their their prices.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
So those are laws that actually passed. A law that
has been proposed is a valid initiative that would impose
a one time five percent tax on anyone in the
state of California worth a billion dollars the service employers
in International Union. The SEIU has proposed this. Now, of
course it's California, so there's always other stuff going on.
(23:15):
Gavin Newsom seems to loom large over this idea. What
do you think about this proposed one time five percent
wealth tax on billionaires.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Well, first of all, one time. I mean, come on,
they say it's one time. If they actually pull it
off and they get some revenue, even though a lot
of people are gonna leave, they're gonna do it again.
It's a shakedown. Once you give into a shakedown one time,
you're gonna get it more often. But this is I
think a major escalation and taxation in America is because
you're not talking about taxing somebody's home or you know,
(23:45):
they're commercial real estate and a property tax or an
income tax that we've had, you know, for the last
century in the United States. You're saying all the money
that you've saved up over the course of however long
your career is, even if it's a billion dollars, we're
gonna take five percent of a chunk of that and
we are going to use it to fix the fiscal
crisis that California is in, because after all, the problem
(24:08):
in California is that people do not pay enough taxes.
And if we just get more tax revenue, things are
going to get better in California.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Right, Yeah, that's the problem with California. Not enough revenue
the real problem.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
But here's the contrast. By the way we live in Florida.
Texas is considering the same thing. Big states. California is
the biggest, but we're in big states. Our two states. Well,
in the state of Florida, I should say, we have
no state income tax. They are actually considering eliminating property
taxes on your primary residents. And they say they can
(24:41):
do this and there will be no cutbacks. And yet California,
which has the highest state income tax in the country,
and you know, has all these fiscal problems which we
don't have in Florida. They're just going to now implement
a new tax. Apparently, if this thing actually passes as
a state initiative.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Well, by the way, the tax on your net worth
is worth pointing out, would happen because you've accumulated that
net worth after paying taxes on your income. So you're
gonna be paying taxes again on money that you got
to keep after being taxed the first time. So major
problems there. I would suggest that the reason why California
is in this difficult problem that they need to raise
(25:19):
enough money from this proposal is because of how expensive
it is to be in California. Now remember this, We've
talked about this on a podcast before, but for four
years in a row, California had the largest net loss
of one way movers that don't take my worth word,
that's U haul U hauls. Like no, we literally run
out of U hauls in California because people are doing
(25:42):
too many one way they get the U haul in California,
they take it anywhere else, Yeah, anywhere else that it's
much cheaper. And so you know, Gaven Newsom at one
point had a ninety eight billion dollar budget surplus because
of all the federal COVID subsidies, and he managed Gavin
Newsom did this is the potential presidential front right for
the Democrat Party to turn a ninety eight billion dollars
(26:03):
for a plus to do a forty five billion dollar
budget deficit.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Hey, not everybody has a great year, right m M yeah, No,
it's it's what's going to be interesting to watch in
this whole debate is I don't think Gavin Newsom has
taken a public position on this tax, which, by the way,
is being pushed by the Service Employees International Union. What
does this have to do with union organizing?
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Nothing?
Speaker 1 (26:23):
I mean, this is just pure political activism. But Gavin
Newsom's in a dilemma because he's going to run for president.
That seems pretty clear he needs the progressives. They have
the energy in the party. That's clearly the center of
gravity in the party. Anybody who campaigns is a moderate
for president is going to have a hard time getting
the nomination. But if you go into Crazyville, right, you
go too far to the left, Ala Bernie Sanders or
(26:46):
Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
You're gonna lose. You're gonna lose.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Because that's not where the center of gravity of the
of the country is. So he's got to straddle this.
He doesn't want to offend the progressives. But on the
other hand. He knows this is a stupid idea, because
the New York Times is reported that already Sergey Brinn
and Peter Tiel, these Silicon Valley billionaire investor made plans
last year in twenty twenty five to change their residents
(27:11):
in anticipation of this bill. Because, by the way, what's
interesting is this is a referendum to be held in
November of twenty twenty six. It's retroactive. So if you
live there today on January the second, and you've got
that kind of money and this thing passes, it doesn't
matter where you move, they're going to come after you.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
Well, it turns out the billionaires they part of the
reason that they become billionaires is they pay lawyers and accountants.
So I guess they had a bit of a heads
up on this. But I want to follow up on
something you just said, because you're right, the center of gravity,
the energy for Democrats running for president, the presidential primary
certainly is the progressive There's no doubt about that. So
you need them to be successful in a presidential campaign,
(27:50):
but you also need money, and you need then the
support of progressive billionaires. So you wrote a book called
Extortion and you introduced this idea. It is brilliant back
in the time. Came out in twenty thirteen, but it
was this idea that members of Congress will introduce legislation
that they don't actually intend for it to pass, but
(28:10):
they use it as a vehicle to do what.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
To extort money? Right in other words, Oh, this real
and I go here where you're going with this? And
it's really a great point for Gavin Newsom. This is
a way to get progressive billionaires to back him because
he's the only guy that can stop this, right, he's
the only guy. It's the classic you know, the mafia
shows up at the corner deli in town and they say, oh,
it'd be a shame if this place burned down. I've
(28:35):
got fire insurance. I'll protect you. That's essentially what the
move could be here and that that's a great point.
I mean, if he's trying to shore up the fundraising
for a twenty eight presidential campaign, this is the way
that Gavin Newsom can get a lot.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
Of that back.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
And he comes to you, he said, listen, I'm the
only thing staying between you and a five percent tax
on your net worth. California residents and so give me.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Two percent of your network and you'll come up three percent.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
I don't think it's a great idea, but I'm in
this weird spot because I'm gavin news to him and
I went, I pivoted from having Steve Bannon on podcasts
and now I'm like, you know, back in support of
all these progressive ideas, and I'm trolling Donald Trump, and
I'm you know, I delivered the biggest actual win in
terms of the redistricting initiative in California, so like, people
aren't so much concerned about the fact that California is
(29:18):
a failed state with multi billion dollar budget deficits because
I did this thing that seems like it's helping to
fight Donald Trump. I just think he's very smart politically, Yes,
And it wouldn't shock me if this is part of
his larger plan to position himself, because yeah, how can
you kind of straddle it? Hey, Look, we want to
be you know, we want to fight against people, but
I also need the support. So I think this is
(29:40):
part of his presidential campaign.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Bill Clinton had back in the day in nineteen ninety two,
the so called Sister Soldia Moment.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
There was a musical performer Sister Soldier.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
I think she was a rapper and some you know,
raunchy lyrics at least back in the day. And Bill
Clinton denounced her and said this is cultural rot. We
can't have this in the country. He took criticism from
some people in Democratic Party but sort of centered his
reputation as somebody that was prepared to police both sides.
(30:09):
So this would be the move for Gavin Newsome, and
it makes a lot of sense, and it could be
very very effective going up to twenty twenty eight, at
least in terms of getting the Democratic nomination and doing
so by not having to go so far to the
left that he alienates too many voters in the middle.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
It'd be really interesting to see what happens. And you know,
there's been a lot of talk about the Minnesota Somali fraud,
and we're going to talk to former Governor Tim Paulenti
in the five o'clock hour about that and just kind
of how Minnesota developed into what it's become where you've
had one party rule for twenty years. But Minnesota, I
think is the latest iteration of California. California was at
one point, as you well know, a Republican was governor
(30:48):
of California at one point, and I mean, when was
the last time Republican won statewide office in California? And
you and for as much talk about the ten billion
dollars in fraud in Minnesota, there's a recent report that
it could be one hundred billion dollars of fraud in California.
I think eight different agencies failed this audit. So, I mean,
California is like Minnesota, but blown up in a bigger way.
(31:09):
And you know, that's not a conversation Gavin Newson wants
to have. But I do think that that's like when
you start peeking under the hood, people are gonna ask
real questions about just how badly it's been run.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Yeah, and here's the thing.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
I mean, fraud happens everywhere, right, Corruption happens everywhere. But
what we're basically arguing, and I think it's true, is
that this is politically supported fraud in California and in Minnesota.
I mean, in other words, they kind of have a
sense that it's going on. We're gonna be playing an
audio tape in the next hour of an audio tape
of the twenty twenty one conversation that the Attorney General
(31:44):
of Minnesota had with some Somali businessmen. They're just gonna
shock you and illustrate this point that we're making.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
No, it's absolutely stay tuned for that conversation. Plus, we'll
take your calls. It's one eight hundred ninety four one Sean,
one one hundred ninety for one Sean. He's Peter Schweizer,
I'm Eric Eggers. We're feeling in for the Sean handy raisers.
We'll be back right after this.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Hi speaker. Schweitzer is sitting next to me Xerich Eggers
and we are filling in for Sean. Hannerty joined the
conversation one eight hundred and nine four one seven, three
two six. Let's take a caller. Let's go to Lisa,
who wants to talk about Mam Donnie in New York.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Hey, Lisa, how are you?
Speaker 6 (32:17):
I'm good? How are y'all?
Speaker 3 (32:18):
We are great? Happy New Year to you.
Speaker 6 (32:21):
Well, happy new year.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
So what do you want to tell us about Mamdannie.
Speaker 6 (32:27):
Well, I happen to be reading some you know, some
information today and I came across this new act that's
being implemented in New York City is called COPA CEE
as in kat Os in Orange pas and paul A
is in Apple Copa Act, which it says a law that.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Would force homeowners to offer their.
Speaker 6 (32:50):
Property to the government or in geos before they can.
Speaker 4 (32:55):
Sell it freely.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Wow, that's amazing. That's a huge infringe on property right now.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
And I would say that's exactly an example of something
you heard Carol Markowitz talk about earlier in this program
about hey, there are some real limits to what mom
Donnie can do, but then there's some stuff that he
can do, and like that seems like an example of
like allowing big government to take over potentially in you know, nonprofits.
We've seen this really bizarre relationship between nonprofits and the
(33:22):
government in these progressive areas. We're going to talk to
Tim Paul Lenty, the former government Minnesota, about exactly that
and what's going on in his former state. We write back,
He's Piercechwiz are America Edgers. This is the Shawan Handy Show,
right
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!