August 26, 2025 • 29 mins
(Tuesday Aug 26,2025)
Trump plans to sue California over redistricting. Lawmakers urge $1BIL annual investments to save high-speed rail. Americans aren’t drinking anymore. Alcohol giants are scrambling to manage the fallout. Hundreds of Californians have paid $10,000 to relocate to Oklahoma… did they find paradise?
Trump plans to sue California over redistricting. Lawmakers urge $1BIL annual investments to save high-speed rail. Americans aren’t drinking anymore. Alcohol giants are scrambling to manage the fallout. Hundreds of Californians have paid $10,000 to relocate to Oklahoma… did they find paradise?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty Yeah bye.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Handle here Taco Tuesday, August twenty six and a story
of politics, of pure politics, and it starts with how
many congressional districts there are in a given state?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Oh, my little dog, come here, Hello guys.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
How many districts I just lost jumping on my lap? Here?
How many districts there are in a state that send
well congress people to Congress? And redistricting now every ten
years based on the census, The legislatures of the states
redistrict In other words, they create congressional districts, and whoever
(00:50):
is in power can jerrymander and does, which is why
if you look at congressional districts, these are not grids.
They look like well, imagine a rorshot test where you've
got lines that go places that you have no idea
how it works. It's all to get one party crammed
(01:10):
into having the other party crammed into one district that
is perfectly safe, leaving the other districts around it either
swing districts or go the other way.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
That's the way it works. Now. Texas just passed a.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Redistricting plan to give the Republicans five more seats in Congress.
California and this is Governor Newsom says, Okay, we're gonna
do the same thing. We're going to redistrict. Our plan
to have five more Democratic congress people will go. And
(01:50):
there is in a fight, and then the president has
jumped in. The Republicans are fighting this like crazy. Why
is that because well, they really care about the people
of the state of cal being able to make the decision.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
They really do believe it's an unconstitutional move.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Not because they're against putting Democratic congressmen or congresswomen into Congress. No, no,
it's for our benefit. Because here's the issue, and that
is in Texas, the legislature has the power to redistrict,
and it never happens and unless the census is involved.
And they're doing it right in the middle of it
(02:27):
to give themselves more seats for the midterms.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
California says, we're going to do the same thing.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Here is the fight the Republica Republicans are bringing to
the table. Under Schwarzenegger, he took away from the legislature
the ability to redistrict, putting in an independent commission to
make that decision. Every ten years, so it doesn't matter
what party is in power. And what the Republicans are
(02:55):
saying is Governor Newsom's plan, which is now in place,
by the way, and it's moving forward, is unconstitutional because
people in the state of California don't have the right
based on the governor and the legislature doing this taking
away their right for hearings and the time to spend
looking at it and contemplating it. Well, it's perfectly legal
(03:19):
what California is doing, and what California is doing is
putting together well, this is what Newsom did. There'll be
a special election in November. This was Prop fifty, which
changes the way redistricting happens. It takes it away from
the Commission and gives it back to the legislature, and
(03:39):
of course that means that five Democratic seats will new
seats will be established.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
A red fight with Texas.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
The President is now weighing in and said he plans
to sue California the Department of Justice for what But
they haven't come up with a basis for doing it.
They're just going to sue. But Texas did it at
the direction of the President. He's the one that came
(04:09):
up with the idea for Texas, and he wants to
sue California to stop California from doing it. Why because
California is of course in a battle with the President
and they fight on every issue. So here's what's going
to happen. What the Legislature did vote was to put
(04:32):
to the plan of Newsom allow Prop fifty to go
forward in November.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
That's another fight.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
By the way, the election is going to cost two
hundred million dollars and it's a special election just for this.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
And then what will happen.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
I believe that Californians will vote in favor of Prop fifty,
although it's close, in which I don't get.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
I don't get how close that is. Why. Well, because
we want a commission that's fair. Look what Texas is doing.
If they're unfair, why can't we be unfair.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Nope, Nope, because we have a commission and we have
to keep the commission, and we're different states, and let's
forget about the hypocrisy. Let's just talk about California and
following the law. So the special election, I'm assuming will
be passed. Prop fifty will be passed, which now gives
the legislature the power to redistrict, takes it away from
(05:28):
that commission which was put into place under Schwarzenegger and
now brings it back to where it is purely political
instead of an independent commission. And if it votes, if
it voted in, then the legislature will do exactly what
Texas did redistrict and create five new democratic districts. By
(05:50):
the way, we're not talking about it's a set number.
It's the way they can draw. They can jerrymander. So
now you've got half another does in other states that
are threatening to do the same thing, which means that
this whole thing blows up, which means whatever state is,
whatever party is in power, they redistrict, and they can
(06:14):
redistrict every two years. If you have the Republican in power,
let's redistrict, So Republican districts are kick in and then
the following the following midterms or the following presidential because
remember Congress is every two years, the elections every two
years from Congress people, let's redistrict again, and forget about
(06:37):
that ten year rule. We're done. And so what will
happen is will be redistricted. Redistricted Here in California, here's
where the Democrats are going to lose because there are
more Republican legislators or than there are Democratic legislators, and
(06:58):
the numbers don't pan out because most states there are
most states are run by Republican legislators, and that or
legislat chures. That is the problem for the Democrats. It's
I tell you, I think the Republicans, based on what's
going on, are going to be in power for a
(07:20):
very long time. And I do believe this is also
my prognostication that I believe that at the end of
Donald Trump's tenure as president, he will be a kingmaker.
He will decide who's going to be the presidential candidate. Absolutely,
(07:41):
and I don't know when the last time that happened. Okay,
we're done a story I want to share with you
the ongoing battle with the high speed rail ah Man.
So beyond the amount of money that was supposed to
be spent, it's astronomical. Now no one has any idea
(08:04):
how much is going to cost, and no one has
any idea when this thing is going to be finished.
Right now, I think it goes from merced to was
it Weed or wherever it goes, simply in the central valley.
And if you're a sheep farmer and want to take
sheep from one end to the other, or as I
said before, you have strange predilections, that's what it's good
(08:26):
for at this point.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
And that's it.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
And we have already spent tens of billions of dollars.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
So what do you do.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Well, the federal government has yanked federal spending from the
highest breed rail, and rightly so, I might add, because
they're saying this thing is a boondoggle. We're not going
to throw federal money into this anymore.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
And they're right.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
So all of a sudden, four billion dollars disappears. So
here is what some members of the state legislature have
asked for. By the way, all Democrats, of course, federal
funds are suspended. So these lawmakers are urging the state
legislature to approve a one billion dollar per year investment
(09:14):
to pay for the high speed rail, which now is
scheduled to be completed in twenty thirty three or whatever,
eight years from now.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
But it'll take much longer than that if you look
at the history of it. Where are they going to
get one billion dollars?
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Well, we've got a cap and trade program here, and
what a cap and trade is. It requires major polluters
to buy credits to offset carbon dioxide emissions and allows
these major polluters, I'm a major company's, major manufacturing companies,
(09:49):
power companies to buy or sell unused credits at auctions.
That generates billions of dollars in state revenue. So ear
this year, Governor Newsom proposed setting aside a large chunk
of those funds.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
For high speed rail. He suggested it.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Now you have a few legislators saying absolutely this is
where we want to go, and I love this. These
numbers just absolutely floorm me on this. Okay, these legislators
who want this are pushing for this cap and trade
program money to be to go to the high speed
(10:30):
rail at a billion dollars a year. What are the
project's effects on small businesses and workers. Well, they're saying
that nearly fifteen thousand jobs have already been generated and
twenty two billion dollars in economic growth. State Senator Lolas
(10:52):
Smallwood Queves, who happens to be the chair Democrat, the
chair of the Senate Labor Committee, said when the line
between LA and San Francisco is someday completed, certainly not
in my lifetime, maybe in my kid's lifetime. The project
is expected to create more than a million jobs and
(11:13):
generate roughly eighty six billion dollars in labor income.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Now do I get this right that when.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
The San Francisco LA Line is completed, a million jobs
will be created to run a train from here to
San Francisco. I don't think a million jobs are involved
in entire countries that have rail in Europe, for example,
(11:46):
So I don't know where those numbers are are where
those numbers are coming from? And Smallwood Queba says every
investment will and must deliver for workers, for the poor,
for exclude communities facing barriers to employment. Okay, let's go
to Bakersfield, where I think the line runs through. It
(12:09):
will be a mad rush for people to move to Bakersfield.
And what's the temperature in Bakersfield today or a couple
of days ago? What was it?
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Two hundred degrees?
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Bakersfield one of the prime spots in the United States
to visit. Now I'm not dry, you know, Please forgive
me if you are come from Bakersfield. I don't want
to sound like it is maybe the worst place on
the planet to go to. It's close to the worst
place on the planet to go to. So what we
(12:46):
have here is a plan that the fast train is
already billions of dollars over budget, decades behind scheduled, not
just years decades behind schedule. And it was originally supposed
to go in at thirty three billion dollars starting with
ten billion dollars that we voted in and stay of
(13:08):
California to kickstart this. No idea where the rest of
the money was going to come from, no idea how
much it was going to cost to buy the land
from private owners to put the rail line through. And
here we go thirty three billion dollars to over one
(13:29):
hundred billion dollars, so we can move from LA to
San Francisco at two hundred miles an hour. How many
people do you think go from LA to San Francisco
a year? That could generate enough for the railroad to
somehow justify an investment over one hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
And bill isn't it an issue that they won't be
able to go the entire.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Yeah, because they stopped its two hundred Yeah. Yeah, because
it's not gonna be a direct line. It's gonna be
the milk run. Try to go from the valley to
San Diego, for example.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
You know how long that takes? Hours? Hours. There is
no direct, speedy way to go. It's a milk run.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
It stops at like twenty two stations. It's crazy making crazy.
It's gonna be one of the biggest boondoggles in history.
And they're still.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Pushing, pushing, pushing. And maybe you get to.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
The point where you spend so much money you can't stop.
You figure, we can't throw away the money, we might
as well spend ridiculous amounts of money. So at least
we have something as opposed to just parts of empty rails. Okay,
(14:51):
here's something that's going on, I guess for positive reasons.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
In the world of health.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Americans are drinking way less, and the alcohol companies are
scrambling to somehow manage the fallout. Fifty four percent of
drinking age Americans consume alcohol today.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
What a drop that is.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
And this is from Gallup and that's the lowest proportion
of our population since they began serving this surveying this
question in nineteen thirty nine. And those people that still
drink are drinking a lot less and that's by a
factor of nearly fifty percent. And why well, a lot
(15:34):
of people are now seeing drinking as bad for their health,
and that has increased every year since twenty sixteen. And
we've gone one glass of wine is good for you,
or two and you drink moderately and it's good. And
now the recent science, the recent science says no, no, no,
alcohol is good for you. And the biggest alcohol producers
(15:56):
are really spinning. There was an analyst call, an earnings call.
Every year or every six months, analysts call in these
major companies and say, what are your prospects, what are
you looking for, what's your analysis of what's going to happen?
And we're asking could consumer behavior get worse before it
gets better? The CEO, of course their company said candidly,
(16:21):
we have not seen any improvement. So when the drinking
giants released their latest earnings, slow downs in volume growth
across the board.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
So what do we compare this to?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Okay, because alcohol is in trouble, and you would think
that big tobacco was and is in trouble. Who do
you know smokes? Nobody I know smokes or almost nobody.
Remember I used to people used to smoke all over
the place, and then I used to get a lot
(17:01):
of do you mind if I smoke? And what do
people inevitably say? They don't say yes, I mind if
you smoke. The appropriate thing is to say no, and
then they light up. Now the best thing to say,
and I love this one that I heard once and
have used repeatedly, do you mind if I smoke? Well,
(17:22):
do you mind if I fought? And you go, sure,
why not?
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Otherwise it gets line. It's a great line. It's a
great line.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
This all happened, by the way, it's the smoking part,
not the farting line. In January nineteen sixty four, the
Surgeon General wrote that report that said tobacco kills you
in that there is a direct link between smoking and cancer.
By the way, Big Tobacco knew it and lied about it.
(17:55):
And still we're telling people smoking is good for you,
it relieves stress, ignoring the fact that, oh yeah, it
also causes cancer.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
And by the way, that turned out to be a
watershed moment.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
So within five years of sixty four, by sixty nine,
Congress had passed a whole series of law required warning labels.
I mean, you buy a pack of cigarettes and you
know the skull and crossbones all over it and you
will die, and cigarette ads were banned on broadcast media. Well,
(18:29):
it looks like the alcohol industry is now having to
contend with the same health conscious movement that hit tobacco
and in January, former US Surgeon General.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Vivic Murphy issued a report.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Man would a report linking alcohol consumption to cancer risk
and wanted warning labels on alcohol, much like there are
warning labels on tobacco products.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
And the report found one.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Drink per day raises the risk of alcohol related cancer
by nineteen percent in women eleven percent in men. Having
two drinks per day, those figures go up to twenty
two percent and thirteen percent, respectively. Neil, who drinks like
a fish. I have been on vacation with Neil, and
(19:19):
I don't think in the entire week we're together, you
didn't have a glass of whiskey in your hand asking
for an old fashioned.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
You know what's weird? Is I only drink when I'm
on vacation with you. I wonder why that is? No,
I do not drink like that. However, don't you think
Bill that some of this has to do with people
switching to prescription drugs? And smoking legal pop.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Maybe maybe I don't think they've made that connection yet.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
I just think that's more. I find more people smoking pot,
which I abhor personally. It's not it's not my jam,
but I think that that should play into it. Not
to mention people are on Xanax and everything else nowadays
that I think that it's much more. You know, why
take the calories, why take all those because.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Xannix doesn't taste as good as an old fashioned for example,
or my tie or a.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
I had my tie in the desert a couple of
weeks back, and it was it's refreshing.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
It's I'm not a drinker, but I've had mock my
ties and it's refreshing, and it's cold and it's crisp.
Speaker 3 (20:32):
Do you get that when you swallow a Xennex pill.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
No, But like you said, you can do you can
get those without alcohol.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Yes, mechanically.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
I'm not arguing that, but that but here's the problem.
That doesn't help the alcohol companies. Oh, just one last
thing before we go. Since the number of people smoking
has I mean decreased precipitously, it has gone through the
floor relative to the number of people that used to smoke.
Big tobacco is still doing rate, still making money and
(21:02):
lots of it because they're going into the non alcol
the non tobacco products, the alternative products. And that's also
what's happening with the big manufacturers. They're going of.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Alcohol.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
They're going into all of these alternative products, mock mock alcohol,
mock xanics where you think you're taking xenix and you're
really not.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
And when anheuser anheuser.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Bush issues or they produce a little bottle of mock xanix,
then you know we've reached a point. We're done, all
right now moving gears because I just wanted to throw
that at you. Boy, don't I go off on tangents?
Would you move to Tulsa, Oklahoma? And they want you?
(21:53):
Tulsa wants you and willing to pay you ten thousand.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Dollars to move to Tulsa. So do you do it? Amy?
Ten grand?
Speaker 1 (22:08):
No? Thank you?
Speaker 2 (22:09):
That's more than your annual salary. Here at iHeart. Oh,
here's one who legitimately I think has an argument. Kno,
ten grand no to move all right?
Speaker 3 (22:22):
Tornadoes?
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Yeah yeah, and the waves are way small there for surfing.
It just isn't good neil ten grand no, no, see
that's the problem. And ten grand maybe okay, So we
have one maybe and the rest of them what I
moved to Tulsa, Uh yeah maybe okay. So Tulsa, Oklahoma
(22:48):
has Tulsa Remote and it pays remote workers to relocate
to the city second largest city for at least one year.
So far more than thirty six hundred remote workers it
has attracted. Since twenty nineteen, seventy eight hundred Californias have
(23:08):
applied to the program. Five hundred and thirty nine have
made the move. So it's clearly not easy to get in.
And California is the second most popular origin state behind Texas.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
And for some reason Texans are going there.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
So twenty ten to twenty twenty three here in California,
nine point two million people moved from California to other states.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Can't take California anymore.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
We're out, although some have been transferred, and there's some
other reasons, maybe want to be near the other spouse's family, whatever.
Nine point two million moved out, six point seven million
people moved in.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
So that is a shortfall of three million people.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
And that's I think one of the reasons why California's
population is stagnant. I may I for weren't for immigration
and be going down precipitously. Public Policy Institute survey of
California just a couple of years ago found the thirty
four percent have seriously considered leaving the state. Number one reason,
(24:16):
survey says, number one reason high housing costs. That's it,
that's the number one reason. Also politics, there are conservatives
who just can't take this state anymore. I mean they're
just done. California by far the most liberal state. And
if you are a conservative Republican and you know you
(24:39):
have no power whatsoever in this state, your vote means nothing.
You're living in the most woke state in the United States.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Just I'm gone. I can't take it.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
So that's one of the reasons that, of course far
more Republicans are going. Then you have lower cost of living,
and that's huge and it's substantial. For example, one couple,
Zach Minke and his wife Katie, went from a two bedroom,
two bath house or apartment for twenty four hundred dollars
on the west side. How do you get a two bedroom,
(25:16):
two bath apartment for twenty four hundred dollars on the
west side, that's at least thirty four hundred dollars anywhere
the same money, twenty four hundred dollars, What do they
get in Tulsa.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Five bedroom, three bath house.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
With a yard not much of a yard, in an
apartment building on the west side of LA for twenty
four hundred dollars?
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Who are we dreaming? And there's another reason.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
One of the couple's interviewed said, when I was in California,
I was consumed with the process of day to day living,
the traffic, getting places, scheduling things. Here, it doesn't run
as quickly. There's more room. We run at a different speed.
It's like going to the South. You live in New York,
(26:08):
for example, and someone moves to the South, you're moving
to another planet. And so the people in Tulsa, the
business leaders, local officials have struggled for years to come
up with a plan to keep college educated workers in
America's heartland because a brain drain happened like crazy during
the twenty tens. So, rather than focusing which they used
(26:32):
to do, on keeping Oklahoma natives from moving, Tulsa remote
is trying to get new residents in to diversify the
city's workforce which largely was relying on the oil and
gas industry and not high tech, and therefore the skill
level was nowhere needed at to the level that remote
(26:55):
workers have who make more money. And I think statistically
we don't have the statistics here, but it makes sense.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
So what ended up happening.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Well, this program now is trying to get new residents
in and it's one of the largest relocation incentive programs
in the country, offering ten thousand dollars. I don't think
there's any other any of the program that offers ten grand.
And there's some rules and regulations. You have to stay
(27:28):
at least a year, you have to be a remote worker,
you have to have no business in Oklahoma where you
are remoting for, and what they're hoping. Oh, you have
to be eighteen years old and be authorized to work
in the US, be full time employment. I have the
ability to relocate within twelve months and lived outside the
(27:52):
state for full year before even applying.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
And here is the problem.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Is Oklahoma is tall a stop on their way to
somewhere else and people are coming there for the money,
spending a year and gone, No, they stay, they stay.
People who have taken the ten Grand Stay. And the
argument is, how can we spend ten thousand dollars to
bring someone in? Well, if you look at the numbers,
(28:23):
as far as Tulsa is concerned, the program returns more
than four dollars for every dollar spent in terms of
tax revenue, local spending, job creation. Okay, who's moving to Oklahoma?
I don't know anybody who is. Maybe Will is moving
(28:43):
to Oklahoma.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
No thanks, I.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Tell you there's not much traffic in Oklahoma. There really isn't.
You'll be reporting on how many cows are moving across
the road. No.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Plus, there's no hills. You gotta have hills in life,
in my opinion, mountains to climb. There you go. All right,
this is KFI AM six forty. You've been listening to
the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty Yeah bye.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Handle here Taco Tuesday, August twenty six and a story
of politics, of pure politics, and it starts with how
many congressional districts there are in a given state?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Oh, my little dog, come here, Hello guys.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
How many districts I just lost jumping on my lap? Here?
How many districts there are in a state that send
well congress people to Congress? And redistricting now every ten
years based on the census, The legislatures of the states
redistrict In other words, they create congressional districts, and whoever
(00:50):
is in power can jerrymander and does, which is why
if you look at congressional districts, these are not grids.
They look like well, imagine a rorshot test where you've
got lines that go places that you have no idea
how it works. It's all to get one party crammed
(01:10):
into having the other party crammed into one district that
is perfectly safe, leaving the other districts around it either
swing districts or go the other way.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
That's the way it works. Now. Texas just passed a.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Redistricting plan to give the Republicans five more seats in Congress.
California and this is Governor Newsom says, Okay, we're gonna
do the same thing. We're going to redistrict. Our plan
to have five more Democratic congress people will go. And
(01:50):
there is in a fight, and then the president has
jumped in. The Republicans are fighting this like crazy. Why
is that because well, they really care about the people
of the state of cal being able to make the decision.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
They really do believe it's an unconstitutional move.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Not because they're against putting Democratic congressmen or congresswomen into Congress. No, no,
it's for our benefit. Because here's the issue, and that
is in Texas, the legislature has the power to redistrict,
and it never happens and unless the census is involved.
And they're doing it right in the middle of it
(02:27):
to give themselves more seats for the midterms.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
California says, we're going to do the same thing.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Here is the fight the Republica Republicans are bringing to
the table. Under Schwarzenegger, he took away from the legislature
the ability to redistrict, putting in an independent commission to
make that decision. Every ten years, so it doesn't matter
what party is in power. And what the Republicans are
(02:55):
saying is Governor Newsom's plan, which is now in place,
by the way, and it's moving forward, is unconstitutional because
people in the state of California don't have the right
based on the governor and the legislature doing this taking
away their right for hearings and the time to spend
looking at it and contemplating it. Well, it's perfectly legal
(03:19):
what California is doing, and what California is doing is
putting together well, this is what Newsom did. There'll be
a special election in November. This was Prop fifty, which
changes the way redistricting happens. It takes it away from
the Commission and gives it back to the legislature, and
(03:39):
of course that means that five Democratic seats will new
seats will be established.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
A red fight with Texas.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
The President is now weighing in and said he plans
to sue California the Department of Justice for what But
they haven't come up with a basis for doing it.
They're just going to sue. But Texas did it at
the direction of the President. He's the one that came
(04:09):
up with the idea for Texas, and he wants to
sue California to stop California from doing it. Why because
California is of course in a battle with the President
and they fight on every issue. So here's what's going
to happen. What the Legislature did vote was to put
(04:32):
to the plan of Newsom allow Prop fifty to go
forward in November.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
That's another fight.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
By the way, the election is going to cost two
hundred million dollars and it's a special election just for this.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
And then what will happen.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
I believe that Californians will vote in favor of Prop fifty,
although it's close, in which I don't get.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
I don't get how close that is. Why. Well, because
we want a commission that's fair. Look what Texas is doing.
If they're unfair, why can't we be unfair.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Nope, Nope, because we have a commission and we have
to keep the commission, and we're different states, and let's
forget about the hypocrisy. Let's just talk about California and
following the law. So the special election, I'm assuming will
be passed. Prop fifty will be passed, which now gives
the legislature the power to redistrict, takes it away from
(05:28):
that commission which was put into place under Schwarzenegger and
now brings it back to where it is purely political
instead of an independent commission. And if it votes, if
it voted in, then the legislature will do exactly what
Texas did redistrict and create five new democratic districts. By
(05:50):
the way, we're not talking about it's a set number.
It's the way they can draw. They can jerrymander. So
now you've got half another does in other states that
are threatening to do the same thing, which means that
this whole thing blows up, which means whatever state is,
whatever party is in power, they redistrict, and they can
(06:14):
redistrict every two years. If you have the Republican in power,
let's redistrict, So Republican districts are kick in and then
the following the following midterms or the following presidential because
remember Congress is every two years, the elections every two
years from Congress people, let's redistrict again, and forget about
(06:37):
that ten year rule. We're done. And so what will
happen is will be redistricted. Redistricted Here in California, here's
where the Democrats are going to lose because there are
more Republican legislators or than there are Democratic legislators, and
(06:58):
the numbers don't pan out because most states there are
most states are run by Republican legislators, and that or
legislat chures. That is the problem for the Democrats. It's
I tell you, I think the Republicans, based on what's
going on, are going to be in power for a
(07:20):
very long time. And I do believe this is also
my prognostication that I believe that at the end of
Donald Trump's tenure as president, he will be a kingmaker.
He will decide who's going to be the presidential candidate. Absolutely,
(07:41):
and I don't know when the last time that happened. Okay,
we're done a story I want to share with you
the ongoing battle with the high speed rail ah Man.
So beyond the amount of money that was supposed to
be spent, it's astronomical. Now no one has any idea
(08:04):
how much is going to cost, and no one has
any idea when this thing is going to be finished.
Right now, I think it goes from merced to was
it Weed or wherever it goes, simply in the central valley.
And if you're a sheep farmer and want to take
sheep from one end to the other, or as I
said before, you have strange predilections, that's what it's good
(08:26):
for at this point.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
And that's it.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
And we have already spent tens of billions of dollars.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
So what do you do.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Well, the federal government has yanked federal spending from the
highest breed rail, and rightly so, I might add, because
they're saying this thing is a boondoggle. We're not going
to throw federal money into this anymore.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
And they're right.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
So all of a sudden, four billion dollars disappears. So
here is what some members of the state legislature have
asked for. By the way, all Democrats, of course, federal
funds are suspended. So these lawmakers are urging the state
legislature to approve a one billion dollar per year investment
(09:14):
to pay for the high speed rail, which now is
scheduled to be completed in twenty thirty three or whatever,
eight years from now.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
But it'll take much longer than that if you look
at the history of it. Where are they going to
get one billion dollars?
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Well, we've got a cap and trade program here, and
what a cap and trade is. It requires major polluters
to buy credits to offset carbon dioxide emissions and allows
these major polluters, I'm a major company's, major manufacturing companies,
(09:49):
power companies to buy or sell unused credits at auctions.
That generates billions of dollars in state revenue. So ear
this year, Governor Newsom proposed setting aside a large chunk
of those funds.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
For high speed rail. He suggested it.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Now you have a few legislators saying absolutely this is
where we want to go, and I love this. These
numbers just absolutely floorm me on this. Okay, these legislators
who want this are pushing for this cap and trade
program money to be to go to the high speed
(10:30):
rail at a billion dollars a year. What are the
project's effects on small businesses and workers. Well, they're saying
that nearly fifteen thousand jobs have already been generated and
twenty two billion dollars in economic growth. State Senator Lolas
(10:52):
Smallwood Queves, who happens to be the chair Democrat, the
chair of the Senate Labor Committee, said when the line
between LA and San Francisco is someday completed, certainly not
in my lifetime, maybe in my kid's lifetime. The project
is expected to create more than a million jobs and
(11:13):
generate roughly eighty six billion dollars in labor income.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Now do I get this right that when.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
The San Francisco LA Line is completed, a million jobs
will be created to run a train from here to
San Francisco. I don't think a million jobs are involved
in entire countries that have rail in Europe, for example,
(11:46):
So I don't know where those numbers are are where
those numbers are coming from? And Smallwood Queba says every
investment will and must deliver for workers, for the poor,
for exclude communities facing barriers to employment. Okay, let's go
to Bakersfield, where I think the line runs through. It
(12:09):
will be a mad rush for people to move to Bakersfield.
And what's the temperature in Bakersfield today or a couple
of days ago? What was it?
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Two hundred degrees?
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Bakersfield one of the prime spots in the United States
to visit. Now I'm not dry, you know, Please forgive
me if you are come from Bakersfield. I don't want
to sound like it is maybe the worst place on
the planet to go to. It's close to the worst
place on the planet to go to. So what we
(12:46):
have here is a plan that the fast train is
already billions of dollars over budget, decades behind scheduled, not
just years decades behind schedule. And it was originally supposed
to go in at thirty three billion dollars starting with
ten billion dollars that we voted in and stay of
(13:08):
California to kickstart this. No idea where the rest of
the money was going to come from, no idea how
much it was going to cost to buy the land
from private owners to put the rail line through. And
here we go thirty three billion dollars to over one
(13:29):
hundred billion dollars, so we can move from LA to
San Francisco at two hundred miles an hour. How many
people do you think go from LA to San Francisco
a year? That could generate enough for the railroad to
somehow justify an investment over one hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
And bill isn't it an issue that they won't be
able to go the entire.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Yeah, because they stopped its two hundred Yeah. Yeah, because
it's not gonna be a direct line. It's gonna be
the milk run. Try to go from the valley to
San Diego, for example.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
You know how long that takes? Hours? Hours. There is
no direct, speedy way to go. It's a milk run.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
It stops at like twenty two stations. It's crazy making crazy.
It's gonna be one of the biggest boondoggles in history.
And they're still.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Pushing, pushing, pushing. And maybe you get to.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
The point where you spend so much money you can't stop.
You figure, we can't throw away the money, we might
as well spend ridiculous amounts of money. So at least
we have something as opposed to just parts of empty rails. Okay,
(14:51):
here's something that's going on, I guess for positive reasons.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
In the world of health.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Americans are drinking way less, and the alcohol companies are
scrambling to somehow manage the fallout. Fifty four percent of
drinking age Americans consume alcohol today.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
What a drop that is.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
And this is from Gallup and that's the lowest proportion
of our population since they began serving this surveying this
question in nineteen thirty nine. And those people that still
drink are drinking a lot less and that's by a
factor of nearly fifty percent. And why well, a lot
(15:34):
of people are now seeing drinking as bad for their health,
and that has increased every year since twenty sixteen. And
we've gone one glass of wine is good for you,
or two and you drink moderately and it's good. And
now the recent science, the recent science says no, no, no,
alcohol is good for you. And the biggest alcohol producers
(15:56):
are really spinning. There was an analyst call, an earnings call.
Every year or every six months, analysts call in these
major companies and say, what are your prospects, what are
you looking for, what's your analysis of what's going to happen?
And we're asking could consumer behavior get worse before it
gets better? The CEO, of course their company said candidly,
(16:21):
we have not seen any improvement. So when the drinking
giants released their latest earnings, slow downs in volume growth
across the board.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
So what do we compare this to?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Okay, because alcohol is in trouble, and you would think
that big tobacco was and is in trouble. Who do
you know smokes? Nobody I know smokes or almost nobody.
Remember I used to people used to smoke all over
the place, and then I used to get a lot
(17:01):
of do you mind if I smoke? And what do
people inevitably say? They don't say yes, I mind if
you smoke. The appropriate thing is to say no, and
then they light up. Now the best thing to say,
and I love this one that I heard once and
have used repeatedly, do you mind if I smoke? Well,
(17:22):
do you mind if I fought? And you go, sure,
why not?
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Otherwise it gets line. It's a great line. It's a
great line.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
This all happened, by the way, it's the smoking part,
not the farting line. In January nineteen sixty four, the
Surgeon General wrote that report that said tobacco kills you
in that there is a direct link between smoking and cancer.
By the way, Big Tobacco knew it and lied about it.
(17:55):
And still we're telling people smoking is good for you,
it relieves stress, ignoring the fact that, oh yeah, it
also causes cancer.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
And by the way, that turned out to be a
watershed moment.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
So within five years of sixty four, by sixty nine,
Congress had passed a whole series of law required warning labels.
I mean, you buy a pack of cigarettes and you
know the skull and crossbones all over it and you
will die, and cigarette ads were banned on broadcast media. Well,
(18:29):
it looks like the alcohol industry is now having to
contend with the same health conscious movement that hit tobacco
and in January, former US Surgeon General.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Vivic Murphy issued a report.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Man would a report linking alcohol consumption to cancer risk
and wanted warning labels on alcohol, much like there are
warning labels on tobacco products.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
And the report found one.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Drink per day raises the risk of alcohol related cancer
by nineteen percent in women eleven percent in men. Having
two drinks per day, those figures go up to twenty
two percent and thirteen percent, respectively. Neil, who drinks like
a fish. I have been on vacation with Neil, and
(19:19):
I don't think in the entire week we're together, you
didn't have a glass of whiskey in your hand asking
for an old fashioned.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
You know what's weird? Is I only drink when I'm
on vacation with you. I wonder why that is? No,
I do not drink like that. However, don't you think
Bill that some of this has to do with people
switching to prescription drugs? And smoking legal pop.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Maybe maybe I don't think they've made that connection yet.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
I just think that's more. I find more people smoking pot,
which I abhor personally. It's not it's not my jam,
but I think that that should play into it. Not
to mention people are on Xanax and everything else nowadays
that I think that it's much more. You know, why
take the calories, why take all those because.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Xannix doesn't taste as good as an old fashioned for example,
or my tie or a.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
I had my tie in the desert a couple of
weeks back, and it was it's refreshing.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
It's I'm not a drinker, but I've had mock my
ties and it's refreshing, and it's cold and it's crisp.
Speaker 3 (20:32):
Do you get that when you swallow a Xennex pill.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
No, But like you said, you can do you can
get those without alcohol.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Yes, mechanically.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
I'm not arguing that, but that but here's the problem.
That doesn't help the alcohol companies. Oh, just one last
thing before we go. Since the number of people smoking
has I mean decreased precipitously, it has gone through the
floor relative to the number of people that used to smoke.
Big tobacco is still doing rate, still making money and
(21:02):
lots of it because they're going into the non alcol
the non tobacco products, the alternative products. And that's also
what's happening with the big manufacturers. They're going of.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Alcohol.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
They're going into all of these alternative products, mock mock alcohol,
mock xanics where you think you're taking xenix and you're
really not.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
And when anheuser anheuser.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Bush issues or they produce a little bottle of mock xanix,
then you know we've reached a point. We're done, all
right now moving gears because I just wanted to throw
that at you. Boy, don't I go off on tangents?
Would you move to Tulsa, Oklahoma? And they want you?
(21:53):
Tulsa wants you and willing to pay you ten thousand.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Dollars to move to Tulsa. So do you do it? Amy?
Ten grand?
Speaker 1 (22:08):
No? Thank you?
Speaker 2 (22:09):
That's more than your annual salary. Here at iHeart. Oh,
here's one who legitimately I think has an argument. Kno,
ten grand no to move all right?
Speaker 3 (22:22):
Tornadoes?
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Yeah yeah, and the waves are way small there for surfing.
It just isn't good neil ten grand no, no, see
that's the problem. And ten grand maybe okay, So we
have one maybe and the rest of them what I
moved to Tulsa, Uh yeah maybe okay. So Tulsa, Oklahoma
(22:48):
has Tulsa Remote and it pays remote workers to relocate
to the city second largest city for at least one year.
So far more than thirty six hundred remote workers it
has attracted. Since twenty nineteen, seventy eight hundred Californias have
(23:08):
applied to the program. Five hundred and thirty nine have
made the move. So it's clearly not easy to get in.
And California is the second most popular origin state behind Texas.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
And for some reason Texans are going there.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
So twenty ten to twenty twenty three here in California,
nine point two million people moved from California to other states.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Can't take California anymore.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
We're out, although some have been transferred, and there's some
other reasons, maybe want to be near the other spouse's family, whatever.
Nine point two million moved out, six point seven million
people moved in.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
So that is a shortfall of three million people.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
And that's I think one of the reasons why California's
population is stagnant. I may I for weren't for immigration
and be going down precipitously. Public Policy Institute survey of
California just a couple of years ago found the thirty
four percent have seriously considered leaving the state. Number one reason,
(24:16):
survey says, number one reason high housing costs. That's it,
that's the number one reason. Also politics, there are conservatives
who just can't take this state anymore. I mean they're
just done. California by far the most liberal state. And
if you are a conservative Republican and you know you
(24:39):
have no power whatsoever in this state, your vote means nothing.
You're living in the most woke state in the United States.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Just I'm gone. I can't take it.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
So that's one of the reasons that, of course far
more Republicans are going. Then you have lower cost of living,
and that's huge and it's substantial. For example, one couple,
Zach Minke and his wife Katie, went from a two bedroom,
two bath house or apartment for twenty four hundred dollars
on the west side. How do you get a two bedroom,
(25:16):
two bath apartment for twenty four hundred dollars on the
west side, that's at least thirty four hundred dollars anywhere
the same money, twenty four hundred dollars, What do they
get in Tulsa.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Five bedroom, three bath house.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
With a yard not much of a yard, in an
apartment building on the west side of LA for twenty
four hundred dollars?
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Who are we dreaming? And there's another reason.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
One of the couple's interviewed said, when I was in California,
I was consumed with the process of day to day living,
the traffic, getting places, scheduling things. Here, it doesn't run
as quickly. There's more room. We run at a different speed.
It's like going to the South. You live in New York,
(26:08):
for example, and someone moves to the South, you're moving
to another planet. And so the people in Tulsa, the
business leaders, local officials have struggled for years to come
up with a plan to keep college educated workers in
America's heartland because a brain drain happened like crazy during
the twenty tens. So, rather than focusing which they used
(26:32):
to do, on keeping Oklahoma natives from moving, Tulsa remote
is trying to get new residents in to diversify the
city's workforce which largely was relying on the oil and
gas industry and not high tech, and therefore the skill
level was nowhere needed at to the level that remote
(26:55):
workers have who make more money. And I think statistically
we don't have the statistics here, but it makes sense.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
So what ended up happening.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Well, this program now is trying to get new residents
in and it's one of the largest relocation incentive programs
in the country, offering ten thousand dollars. I don't think
there's any other any of the program that offers ten grand.
And there's some rules and regulations. You have to stay
(27:28):
at least a year, you have to be a remote worker,
you have to have no business in Oklahoma where you
are remoting for, and what they're hoping. Oh, you have
to be eighteen years old and be authorized to work
in the US, be full time employment. I have the
ability to relocate within twelve months and lived outside the
(27:52):
state for full year before even applying.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
And here is the problem.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Is Oklahoma is tall a stop on their way to
somewhere else and people are coming there for the money,
spending a year and gone, No, they stay, they stay.
People who have taken the ten Grand Stay. And the
argument is, how can we spend ten thousand dollars to
bring someone in? Well, if you look at the numbers,
(28:23):
as far as Tulsa is concerned, the program returns more
than four dollars for every dollar spent in terms of
tax revenue, local spending, job creation. Okay, who's moving to Oklahoma?
I don't know anybody who is. Maybe Will is moving
(28:43):
to Oklahoma.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
No thanks, I.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Tell you there's not much traffic in Oklahoma. There really isn't.
You'll be reporting on how many cows are moving across
the road. No.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Plus, there's no hills. You gotta have hills in life,
in my opinion, mountains to climb. There you go. All right,
this is KFI AM six forty. You've been listening to
the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The Bill Handel Show News
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.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.