October 1, 2025 • 42 mins
A funding lapse in Washington sets the stage, but the real story is how power, process, and language shape outcomes—from the Senate’s 60‑vote math to a New Mexico special session that narrows what gets debated. We open by decoding the shutdown: why a seven‑week continuing resolution stalled, how polling and precedent drive the blame game, and why markets shrugged while politicians postured. Then we zoom into Santa Fe, where a fast‑tracked agenda centers on health policy—especially a quiet but consequential shift that would remove CDC ACIP as the reference for school immunization schedules and lean on the state health department and the American Academy of Pediatrics. We unpack what that means for scientific independence, conflicts of interest, and public trust, and make the case for more—not fewer—credible voices in the room.
From statehouse to city hall, we tackle Albuquerque’s sanctuary city status. Polling shows majority support when the policy is framed as non‑cooperation “except when required by law,” but a mayoral order adding a hotline to alert residents about ICE activity raises safety and operational concerns. We connect those dots to voters’ top anxieties—crime and homelessness—and explore how perceptions of safety track party identity more than daily reality, complicating honest problem‑solving.
Campaign sparks fly in the Democratic gubernatorial primary over policy authorship, reminding us that voters care less about who wrote a plan and more about who can deliver measurable results. The temperature spikes again when a state representative compares ICE to the KKK—rhetoric condemned by law enforcement and flagged here for what it is: reckless. We close with a practical bright spot—drug pricing reforms tied to most‑favored‑nation benchmarks and a “Trump RX” fallback that could drive substantial savings for Medicare, Medicaid, and consumers if implemented with transparency and competition in mind.
If you value sharp analysis without the spin, follow the show, share this episode with a friend, and leave a quick review so more listeners can find it. Your feedback helps us tackle the next big story with more depth and clarity.
Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/
Twitter: @nodoubtpodcast
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_04 (00:08):
All right.
It's Wednesday.
Uh never double.
We've got um all kinds of thingsuh that we've all woke up to
today, including uh governmentshutdown.
SPEAKER_09 (00:20):
Got a shutdown.
Got a shutdown.
SPEAKER_04 (00:23):
We've got a special session happening in Santa Fe
today.
SPEAKER_09 (00:26):
Yes.
SPEAKER_04 (00:27):
So we thought we would just get right to it today
and jump in on all the thingsthat are happening.
SPEAKER_09 (00:33):
We're gonna, yeah, we got a little bit of a
scheduling conflict today.
So we're gonna move quickly onthis episode, get you as much
information as we possibly can.
And you're right, it's gonnastart with well, some crazy
stuff going on.
Obviously, we've we have anothergovernment shutdown here, which
uh, you know, hey, look, ithappens, right?
And uh this is what we've done.
SPEAKER_04 (00:53):
Does it does it happen?
I mean, really, that's whatwe're going with?
SPEAKER_09 (00:56):
Okay, I'll sorry, I'll jump in when we actually
get into the story, but Well,okay, well, here's here's the
deal, and here are some of thekey points of the shutdown as
things sit right now.
Now, obviously, would not besurprised if this gets itself
worked out over the next coupleof days.
I don't see any reason tobelieve this is going to be a
major league shutdown lastingweeks.
It doesn't appear that way.
(01:16):
But we'll explain why this ishappening the way it is, but a
few different things.
Government funding lapsedovernight.
So the government is officiallyshut down.
The shutdown could pauseeconomic data coming in, and
stock futures earlier thismorning were down a little bit.
There's not some catastrophicdrop in what's happening with
the stock market.
But here are some of the detailsand what's going on here.
(01:36):
And really, this gets down tothe Senate, where they have got
to come up with enough votes.
The House has already passed acontinuing resolution, which
I'll get to in a second, but itreally all sits in the Senate.
SPEAKER_04 (01:47):
Senate lawmakers failed on Tuesday evening to
agree to a measure to fund thegovernment amid deep divisions
between the parties.
Republicans can't pass a fundingplan without some Democratic
support.
Republicans put forward aseven-week stopgap bill to keep
the government funded, arguingthat it would buy lawmakers time
to hash out their differencesand craft full year spending
bills.
(02:07):
Democrats oppose the measure,calling for restoring hundreds
of billions of dollars inhealthcare funding, including
enhanced Affordable Care Actsubsidies that expire this year.
SPEAKER_09 (02:17):
Okay, so I want to explain what is going on here,
just so that you know when youif you talk to anybody and they
say, well, you know, it's it'sboth sides.
No, this is very simple stuff.
What the Republicans are tryingto do is pass what you call a
continuing resolution.
What that means is keep fundinglevels exactly where they are,
where they've been in the Bidenbudget.
This is a Biden budget we'restill operating off of, not a
(02:39):
Trump budget.
So keep things where they'vebeen on a Biden budget for the
next seven weeks until they canwork out a new spending plan.
Democrats have said, no, no, no,no.
This is our opportunity to holdRepublicans over a barrel, and
we want them to increase,especially, Obamacare spending
here.
And in some cases, Republicansare claiming they're wanting to
do it to give health care toillegals.
(03:02):
Democrats debate that to somedegree.
Either way, what the Democratsare doing is saying, we want
more, and if we don't get more,we're shutting it down.
So they're shut it down.
That's what they did.
So this one is on the Democrats.
They and it happens all the timewith the party out of power.
The party out of power says,We're gonna stop this.
And how can they do that?
They can do that because in theSenate, you need 60 votes to get
(03:25):
this thing through, to getclosure.
So you have to have 60 votes.
Republicans have 53 votes, okay?
They can't do it without sevenDemocrats.
They got two Democrats, they gotJohn Fetterman and they got
Cortez Masto from Nevada.
Both of them said, We want tokeep the government open.
Every other senator said no.
Martin Heinrich said no, Ben RayLujan said no, they shut it
down, okay?
(03:46):
They wanted extra.
Okay.
So when you want extra, it inthe party in power says, no,
we're not going to go spendextra money, A, because we're$37
trillion in debt.
We don't have it.
And then the Democrats saying,well, then we're going to shut
it down.
So that's why it is shut down.
Now, an interesting quote fromthe Wall Street Journal story.
SPEAKER_04 (04:06):
Yeah, which uh turns out to not be correct.
I want to go ahead and just makesure that's aware.
But voters have historicallyblamed the party in power for
closing the government, but thepolitical fallout will likely
depend on the length and scaleof the shutdown, which comes
more than a year before themidterm elections.
SPEAKER_09 (04:22):
Right.
So, and this is completelywrong.
This is oh, and we we've watchedit happen to Republicans a ton
of times.
Republicans are Republicans shutdown the government.
The president, whoever it is atthe time, it's been Bill Clinton
before.
Bill Clinton wrapped this aroundRepublicans next before on
shutting down the government.
He was very good at it.
And Obama did the same thingwhen Republicans would try to
(04:43):
shut it down.
And it was a disaster whenRepublicans tried to do it under
Obama and Ted Cruz led thecharge.
It never works out for the partythat is the minority because,
you know, the other party says,look, we're trying to keep it
open.
Here it is.
It's a clean resolution.
And this poll from the New YorkTimes tells the story a little
bit.
It's amazing how political allof this is.
And that's why we're saying toyou today, I wouldn't take this
(05:05):
all that seriously because Ithink it's going to end up going
away.
I think they're going to reach adeal and then they're going to
have to continue to work on thisuntil we get it.
SPEAKER_04 (05:12):
It's kind of like a little power grab, you think, by
the Democratic Party, like, hey,let's, let's, we're going to
stand up to Trump and we aregoing to stand up to his
Congress.
SPEAKER_09 (05:20):
I don't even think it's a power grab.
I think it's a capitulation tothe party where Chuck Schumer
knows this is a bad politicalmove for him.
But he does it because the leftwing of his party wants some
sort of fight.
They want to fight.
And this poll says it, right?
It says, all respondents, uh, aswe get all respondents, 65% of
Americans say don't shut downthe government.
(05:41):
Don't do it.
Okay.
Now this tells you everythingyou need to know.
Democrats are sort of evenlysplit.
47%, the activists in the partyare like, shut it down.
Oh Democrats never want to shutdown the government, right?
And they do in this particularcase.
43% say that they don't want toshut it down.
Independents, 32% say shut itdown, 59% say don't.
(06:02):
And Republicans, Republicans whohave been more than willing at
times to shut down thegovernment, are like, 5% of
Republicans are like, let's shutit down.
95% of Republicans are like,heck no, don't shut down the
government, right?
So this is very much a politicalbattle that likely will end up
with egg on the face of theparty that wants to shut it
(06:22):
down, which clearly, evenaccording to the New York Times,
is the Democrats.
And so I want to go to a quickbite from Kevin Hassett, who uh
does a lot of the work for thepresident as far as um a lot of
his economic stuff.
And he's the National EconomicCouncil.
And so he breaks down how thisstuff usually works out.
(06:43):
And he talked to CNN yesterday,and here's a little bit of that
conversation with Jake Tapper.
SPEAKER_05 (06:48):
First of all, it's the hope of the White House that
the continuing resolution passesas it, you know, in the Senate,
as it did in the House.
Uh President Trump does not wantto shut down the government, and
uh the Democrats are the partythat does.
This is something, if you goback and look at political
history, that has happened overand over that a party that's got
a political majority tries tohold everybody hostage for a
(07:11):
while, but it almost always endsup with a clean, continuing
resolution.
That's how this is gonna end uptoo.
And so that's gonna happen.
The question is, do we have ashutdown between now and then?
SPEAKER_09 (07:21):
And so that tells you where we're at, okay?
And and so, you know, again,this is something I would not
take to be that serious to thispoint.
I I just don't think it's thatbig a deal.
SPEAKER_04 (07:31):
Right.
And they're working now, right?
They're trying to come up tothis resolution type situation.
So it does seem always like wejust couldn't reach the deal.
So let's shut down thegovernment.
We'll buy more time, uh,supposedly, to reach these
deals, correct?
SPEAKER_09 (07:45):
Yeah, we'll see what happens with it.
And and yeah, I think so.
But but it is funny how justnakedly political all of this
is, right?
So I just pulled a few soundbites from past potential
shutdowns.
And so I grabbed a few of ourfriends on the Democratic side
of the aisle, and here's whatthey had to say about shutting
(08:06):
down the government.
SPEAKER_10 (08:07):
Hostage instead of just letting them do their jobs,
which they want to do while wework out our differences, so
wrong.
SPEAKER_03 (08:16):
This is democracy, and in a democracy, hostage
tactics are the last resort forthose who can't win their fights
through elections, can't wintheir fights in Congress, can't
win their fights for thepresidency, and can't win their
fights in the courts.
SPEAKER_00 (08:34):
A government shutdown of any duration would
harm hard-working Americans andour economy.
SPEAKER_10 (08:40):
Why should we ask TSA officers to go without their
hard-earned pay while theyprotect our airports?
SPEAKER_11 (08:46):
I'm a senator from Virginia.
Some of the hardest effects ofshutdown will be seen in my
state.
SPEAKER_10 (08:50):
If the government shuts down, it will be average
Americans who suffer most.
SPEAKER_07 (08:54):
Some who right now are trying to figure out how
they're gonna pay rent, howthey're gonna make mortgage
payments, how they're gonna keepcollege payments going, how
they're gonna keep the lightson, how they're gonna keep food
on the table.
SPEAKER_06 (09:05):
Had the government shut down, hundreds of thousands
of people would have not gottentheir paychecks.
Uh, federal employees would havebeen furloughed, sent home.
SPEAKER_11 (09:14):
Our military won't get paid, Head Start teachers
won't get paid, our wildfirefighters won't get paid, present
federal prison guards won't getpaid.
You get the point.
SPEAKER_04 (09:25):
Yeah, well, and honestly, like the last I was
trying to find clips on, youknow, because I remember some of
these shutdowns earlier, theseconversations that were
happening, you know, years past.
And they always like the medianormally like highlights, oh,
the family that's gonna reallybe dire.
Correct.
Because this person's not gonnaget paid, so they're not gonna
have food on the table.
I can't find any of those clipsfor this one because because
it's a the it's a differentparty, yeah, right, that wants
(09:47):
to shut this down.
So heaven forbid we actuallybring any of those bleeding
heart stories to anybody thistime because it's not the
Republican base that wants toshut this thing down, it's the
other side.
SPEAKER_09 (09:57):
So no, that's a really good point.
Yeah.
Here's Fred and Janice totalwork for the government, and
their kids need their kids needtheir medication.
And if they are furloughed,their kids won't get that
medication.
SPEAKER_04 (10:08):
Oh, it was it's it's like prominent.
It's like they did like packageson it all the time.
And so I was looking for thosestories thinking, okay, well,
here we go again.
Because a government shutdownshould be bad regardless of what
party is in power.
I'm sorry, but a governmentshutdown should never really be
the solution.
Oh, believe me.
SPEAKER_09 (10:25):
And Republicans have done it too.
Republicans do it all, andusually it goes the other way,
though.
Republicans will shut it downbecause they want cuts.
They want to cut governmentspending so that we stop with
the massive debt, right?
And Democrats are like, hey,they're they're going the other
way.
They go, we want additionalspending.
SPEAKER_04 (10:40):
We always want more money.
It's crazy.
It feels like uh, it's like amoney grab.
Okay.
Well, now shifting gears back tothe state of New Mexico, today,
October 1st, starts a specialsession.
I'm sure, Mark, we are going tosolve a lot of problems here in
the state.
I feel like crime's gonna beaddressed, right?
We're gonna deal with that.
We're gonna deal with somemedical care concerns, like our
(11:02):
medical compacts that we talkedabout, bringing in those
telehealth doctors to help outour people, right?
SPEAKER_09 (11:07):
Yeah.
Um, no, I'm sorry, we can't dothat.
Oh, great.
No, we're not doing any of that.
SPEAKER_04 (11:10):
Oh, good.
So what are we blowing our hornabout in our special session
this time?
SPEAKER_09 (11:14):
Well, you tell me.
SPEAKER_04 (11:15):
Okay.
Well, it says here New Mexicolawmakers will return to the
roundhouse on Wednesday forwhat's expected to be a brief
but fast-paced special sessionfocused on the outsize impacts
of federal budget cuts to thestate.
Leading Democratic lawmakershuddled with top staffers and
governor Governor Michelle LujanGrisham's office this week to
hammer out final details on fivebills that deal with subjects
(11:38):
like vaccines, rural health carefunding, and eligibility for New
Mexico's health insuranceexchanges.
SPEAKER_09 (11:44):
Okay, so yeah, so a couple of things on this, I
think, that that aredisappointing.
Obviously, you're right on onthe on the healthcare compacts.
That's exactly right.
And even the governor said shewanted to do this.
The the speaker of the house,Javier Martinez, who we rarely
agree with on anything, hewanted to do this.
The Senate doesn't, so they'renot touching it.
The governor learned last timeshe did a special session a year
(12:06):
ago, she was basically trying tobigfoot the legislature.
Okay, she said, This is whatwe're gonna do, this is how
we're gonna do it.
And the legislature said, No,we're not.
And they just thumbed their noseat her and walked away.
And it was humiliating.
And she didn't want that tohappen.
So what she did this time wassat down with her legislature,
worked out a deal.
I, in fact, I'm not even surethey called the Republicans in.
(12:28):
Like, I think they're all justlike, we're gonna do these five
bills and we're done.
Republicans are gonna introduceall the bills that you talked
about.
They're gonna introduce billstackling CYFD, they're gonna
introduce bills tackling thecompacts, they're gonna
introduce bills dealing withcrime, but it's not gonna
matter.
They're never even gonna see thelight of day.
When you have one party rule ina state, which we've talked
about a million times, is aterrible idea because good ideas
(12:51):
don't flourish.
Competition and accountabilitylead to better governance, but
we don't have that, right?
SPEAKER_04 (12:56):
No, trial, we have trial lawyers, so that's what
we're gonna deal with right now.
SPEAKER_09 (13:00):
So we have we have a setup right now that is just
quite frankly, it is a one-partyrule, and so they don't want to
deal with the the big timeissues, but they we do know some
of what they are going to do.
And they mentioned vaccines,okay?
I I want to just briefly dipinto what we think might happen.
Here is a bill that we got ahold of that they are thinking
(13:20):
about introducing.
I think they will introduce hereduring the special session.
Now, it's a little bit of a deepdive, but I I really want to
just explain the basics to youhere so that you can understand
this, and then we'll move on.
But this is the special sessionin 2025, and this is the
discussion draft of the billhere.
Now, here's a portion of thebill.
I'm not gonna get into a ton ofit, but I'm gonna go to the
(13:42):
bottom here and I'm just gonnaread you something that's that's
important here, and this has todo with vaccines, okay?
And where does the state andwhere do our kids, where do we
get the input for the vaccineschedule that our children are
on?
And our children are on that togo to school in the state of New
Mexico.
There's a vaccine schedule,right?
I mean, you know, many of ushave have dealt with that
(14:03):
schedule, and obviously it'sbecome a lot more controversial
since RFK Jr.
took over and is starting tochange things at the CDC.
Okay.
And so what this bill isdesigned to do is to remove the
CDC from being able to recommendanything to parents and this the
vaccine schedule in the state ofNew Mexico.
(14:24):
They want to go a differentroute.
So it says the immunizationrequired and the manner and the
frequency of theiradministration shall conform to
the recommendations of the, andthen they cross out advisory
committee on immunizationpractices of the United States.
That's the CDC.
Okay.
That's them saying no more CDC.
(14:45):
We don't want the CDC's input.
Basically, this is a thumbingthe nose at RFK Jr.
saying, we're not going tolisten to you.
We are going to go political onthis.
Okay.
So what they're going to do isgo with their own Department of
Health here in the state of NewMexico and the American Academy
of Pediatrics.
Now, you say, Well, that soundsan American Academy of
Pediatrics.
They they sound they soundlegit.
(15:06):
They sound like they're gettingit done.
Well, here's where all thiscomes down.
So I want you to read a littlebit of what uh RFK Jr.
says about the the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics and what
their role is, and and we willbreak down some of what they do
and why the state of New Mexicois pushing full bore to
(15:27):
eliminate medical voices.
What we're talking about here isit's important to have a variety
of voices that say, hey, wait aminute, let's look at this,
let's look at that.
And it's more science thebetter, is what we're telling
you here.
And what we're doing now iswe're paring down the science.
And what you're gonna find aboutthe American Association of
Pediatrics is that they tend tobe more of a political group.
SPEAKER_04 (15:50):
This is a screenshot from American Academy of
Pediatrics webpage.
Thankfully, the organization,thanking the organization's top
corporate donors.
These four companies makevirtually every vaccine on the
CDC recommended childhoodvaccine schedule.
AAP is angry that CDC haseliminated corporate influence
in decisions over vaccinerecommendations and returned CDC
(16:12):
to gold standard science andevidence-based medicine laser
focused on children's health.
AAP today released its own listof corporate-friendly vaccine
recommendations.
The Trump administrationbelieves in free speech and AAP
has a right to make its case tothe American people, but AAP
should follow the lead of HHSand disclose conflicts of
(16:33):
interest, including itscorporate entanglements and
those of its journal,Pediatrics, so that Americans
may ask whether the AAP'srecommendations reflect public
health interest or are perhapsjust a pay-to-play scheme to
promote commercial ambitions ofAAP's big pharma benefactors.
Okay.
And then here is their page.
SPEAKER_09 (16:54):
Yeah, yeah.
I show the page as you weredoing that.
Okay.
So so I want to then show youum.
SPEAKER_04 (17:00):
But we should talk about it because people that are
listening don't get to see that.
So basically, just a list ofsome of these top donors that
American Academy of Pediatricshas on their webpage is Merrick,
Moderna, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
SPEAKER_09 (17:14):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_04 (17:14):
Okay, so the top vaccine manufacturers basically.
SPEAKER_09 (17:18):
And look, I, you know, I don't know, as far as
getting into the individualvaccines and all this, I we're
not going to do that.
But the only point here we'retrying to make is you have the
HHS who spends their time tryingto research these things and do
the right thing.
I think when the state of NewMexico says, no, no, no, we're
not listening to you anymore,they're turning this political.
And the reason I say they'returning it political is because
if you go and look at at whatthe AAP has done over time, they
(17:44):
have proven themselves to be avery political organization.
So I want to just give you a fewthings that they have advocated
for.
Okay.
Here's just three things.
Number one, they advocate fortransgender surgery and puberty
blockers for kids.
Okay.
That's not based on science.
Okay, that's not.
Okay, that is a political stanceand it is one that is dangerous
(18:05):
for children.
We've said that.
I will never back away fromthat.
Okay, that's just how we feel.
They support removing religiousexemptions for vaccine mandates.
By the way, they're gonna runheadlong uh into major issues
with that particular approach,and especially because when you
have those approaches, uh that'sgonna that's gonna fly in the
(18:26):
face of the Constitution, quitefrankly.
Okay, and that's the freeexercise of your religion.
So that that's gonna be anissue.
And then they advocate, by theway, they advocated for school
closures.
Well, actually, during COVID andmasking of little kids, and of
course, giving vaccinations tokids who were not a threat to to
get very sick from COVID here.
Okay.
Now, the one thing about whatthey did, and this is why
(18:47):
they're so political, and it'sone thing to be able to say we
honestly thought keeping kidsout of school is the right thing
to do.
They initially said get kidsback in school.
Right.
But when they found out Trumpsupported that, they flipped and
said keep kids out of school.
Okay.
So these guys are very much apolitical organization.
So the state of New Mexico isgonna take a broader science uh
input from a variety ofdifferent groups, including the
(19:10):
HHS and the vaccine group,especially you know, a group
that would that that will lookat all of these issues for our
kids, and and that's gonna be aproblem.
So, so what's the major concernhere and and what could be the
issue?
Well, I just did a little graphhere to make some sense here.
And says you have multiplescience-based voices, including
the CDC, even the State HealthDepartment, even the AAP.
(19:31):
Okay, let's just give them andsay they're not a political
group, but but you go and haveall these voices to be able to
say back and forth a pull andpush on what the policy should
be.
Well, if you get rid of all thatand you just say it's AAP, then
what you risk is that uh if theAAP feels like directing all
sorts of things into the stateof New Mexico, the most
vulnerable children in thisstate, low-income families, uh
(19:55):
will be subject to one groupdeciding exactly what all their
vaccinations will be.
SPEAKER_04 (20:01):
And keep in mind that when you are funded by big
pharma, which is AmericanPediatrics, they are funded.
How do they stay unbiased?
How do you put possibly stay umand say maybe, you know, this is
maybe this vaccine is is notwhat we should recommend right
now, or maybe this is the levelwe should do.
(20:22):
When you're completely funded bythe most part, by these big
pharma companies, I don't knowhow you make solid
recommendations or unbiasedrecommendations.
SPEAKER_09 (20:30):
Yeah, let the let science be the guide.
Right.
Let science be the guide here.
And when it's not, what you riskis that you have groups that
could come in and and test allsorts of things on our kids.
And and I would think thelegislature would be concerned
about that.
You know, we have all theselawyers who are always willing
to sue and don't want doctors inthe state.
And as they said in the journallast week, they are what what
(20:54):
the the the last line ofdefense.
You know, they're the equalizer.
Right, the equalizer, yeah.
And yet they're going to inviteyou know, less science and one
group to be able to determineexactly what happens to our
kids.
And that's a concern.
So that's one of the billsthat's in front of the
legislature.
You can contact your legislatorsand just say, wait a minute,
(21:14):
more science the better.
So let the CDC be involved inthis, let our state be involved
in it, and let's get morescience voices here.
SPEAKER_04 (21:22):
Do we have any idea how long the special session
might last?
Just a couple of days.
Okay.
So they will have this andthey'll vote and it will be what
it is.
Do you think that they'll cometo that kind of conclusion that
fast?
Yeah, I think it's gonna be soif you want to reach out to your
legislator, do it today.
Do it immediately.
Like make the calls, make theemails, make your voices heard.
That's the only line of defenseright now.
(21:43):
And then remember who to votefor when it comes to
re-election.
Who puts your needs first?
Like, find that out.
That's I mean, I can't preachthat more.
People write me all the time.
How do we get more involved?
How do we make change?
Yeah, make change by making surepeople are aware of what your
state reps actually representwhen they go, you know, to Santa
Fe.
Are they representing your bestinterests?
(22:03):
You got to ask yourself thatquestion and find out.
Do some digging, and your votedoes matter.
SPEAKER_09 (22:08):
So all right, let's move on to this because it's
interesting.
We've talked about the journalpoll recently.
And you know, they do that onebig poll and then they drip out
the results.
We had the mayor's resultsalready.
Well, they have more details onhow voters feel about specific
issues.
One of them is sanctuary cities.
And now we know that themajority of voters in
Albuquerque approve of thesanctuary city status.
(22:31):
And some of this makes sense inthe regard that you look at
Keller, who has stood up manytimes and said, I stand for
sanctuary cities.
Well, he probably has somepolling data that tells him it
works for him.
And a lot of people say, Howcould anyone, you know, stand
for sanctuary cities, whatever?
Albuquerque is a is a prettyfar-left city.
It's a it's a Democrat plus 20city.
And this result, while not a nota plus 20 issue, it is an issue
(22:55):
that is important to look at thenumbers on.
SPEAKER_04 (22:57):
Okay, so one of the questions they asked, Pollsters
said currently, all Albuquerquecity departments and employees
are prohibited from assisting inenforcement of federal
immigration laws, except whenrequired by federal law.
How familiar are you with thispolicy?
Uh, 46% said somewhat familiar,25% said very familiar, and 28%
said not familiar at all.
SPEAKER_09 (23:17):
Okay, so by the way, that's that's about 72% of
people are pretty familiar withwhat it is.
So a good portion of people knowwhat it is.
SPEAKER_04 (23:24):
Okay.
And then the second question thepoll asked was do you support or
oppose the policy that prohibitsall Albuquerque city departments
employees from assisting in theenforcement of federal
immigration laws except whenrequired by federal law?
So again, I find this to be avery convoluted question to ask.
(23:45):
Um I think it seems really odd,but it said that 51% basically
polled uh support the the factthat let's try to explain this a
little bit.
SPEAKER_09 (23:57):
Like, don't work with ice, let ice do their
thing, stay away.
Okay.
SPEAKER_04 (24:00):
And and and I think So that means don't let ice into
our jails and our prisons andthings like that.
That's what that they're saying.
51% of these people polled.
So people need to understandthat.
That, you know, they're like,why, you know, we want to fight
crime, we want to deal with thecrime issue, we want to do all
these things, but yet we do notwant to work.
SPEAKER_09 (24:18):
We support with us not working um directly with
ice, with 40% saying, yeah, workwith them, right?
Okay.
Now now, Brian Sanderoff, whodoes the poll, he he attributes
this uh to political, you know,considerations, no doubt.
SPEAKER_04 (24:32):
This issue is a very partisan issue.
It's one where partyaffiliation, political
philosophy, and how you feelabout the mayor strongly
correlates with your opinions orsupport levels on this issue,
said Brian Sanderoff.
Albuquerque's status as asanctuary city has made
headlines over the summer andhas become an increasingly
prevalent, prevalent issue inthe upcoming mayoral race.
SPEAKER_09 (24:52):
Okay.
Now there's one other thingabout this, and you mentioned
the kind of weird wording andwonky wording of the question.
Okay, sort of a sort of a givepeople an out to say that they
support it when uh that's nottotally the policy.
So here's what's interestinghere, and and this is why I
pulled this, because it's oneother little quote here that I
think is worth talking aboutthat's that takes this policy to
(25:14):
a different level and makes itdangerous, but they didn't pull
this portion of it.
SPEAKER_04 (25:18):
In July, Mayor Tim Keller, who is vying to become
the first Albuquerque mayor toserve three consecutive terms,
signed an executive ordercodifying the city's status as
immigrant friendly.
Additionally, he created a linefor residents to call city
police to find out ifimmigration agents are operating
in their neighborhood.
SPEAKER_09 (25:38):
Okay, that is what I want to talk about.
It's unbelievable.
That is dangerous.
Okay.
We saw what happened in Dallas,and you start creating phone
lines where people can call in,and then the police are telling
them, Oh, yeah, there's ice inthe area.
That can absolutely make ice atarget.
We've seen people die, we'veseen immigrants die because of
these situations.
And it's one thing to say, don'tassist unless it's required by
(26:01):
law.
It's another to say, should wewarn people that ice is in the
area, putting ice in danger forpeople who may want to step in
and break the law against thembecause we've seen it all over
the country.
We've seen it all over thecountry.
So they did not ask the relevantquestion.
And I guarantee you, people inthe city of Albuquerque, even
though Albuquerque is a bluercity, right?
(26:22):
Guaranteed the vast majoritywould say, no, you can't do, you
don't want to do that.
But they didn't ask thatquestion.
Okay.
So that to me is the problemwith this poll.
A lot of polls get back to howdo you ask the question and what
do you ask?
And if you make it a very kindof gray area question, you're
gonna get your 51% that you gothere.
(26:43):
Should should you not work withice unless it's required by law,
right?
How about if you just ended thequestion, should you not work
with ice, period?
Or should you not work with iceand should you warn potential
criminals that ice is comingafter them?
That that's what they're doinghere, right?
They're warning potentialcriminals that IC is in the
area.
That's what they're doing.
But that's not the question thatSandarov asked.
(27:04):
So that's why I think thisnumber, while you look at it and
go, okay, Albuquerque, a littlefurther left, at the same time,
in in defense of people whoanswered this question, they
weren't asked the real question,which is a problem.
SPEAKER_04 (27:15):
Well, uh, they did uh ask the question about what's
the, you know, what's yourwhat's the the biggest issue
concerning Albuquerque metroarea residents at the time.
No surprise here that 53% saycrime and 47% say the
homelessness.
Yeah.
Uh that just isn't that thatsurprising whatsoever to anybody
that's paying any attention to.
SPEAKER_09 (27:34):
And those numbers are unbelievable.
SPEAKER_04 (27:36):
And what's crazy is that, you know, Keller just
released more information sayingthat our crime rates are down
again.
And that, you know, it's likewe're bright and shiny.
Right.
Look at us, we're a bright andshiny city.
And you talk to anybody thatowns a building in our town, in
our city, or that has businesshere, they are absolutely
whether you own a building ornot, whether you walk on a
street.
Well, I don't care about it.
Or you have two eyeballs, right?
(27:56):
If you have two, if you have twoeyes that can see, you know that
homelessness and crime areabsolutely just taking over our
city.
I don't know how anybody gets upand says that we're doing great.
We're doing so much better.
Yada, yada, yada.
Who believes that?
SPEAKER_09 (28:11):
Okay, right.
I I agree with you.
And you see those numbers andthey're massive, right?
I mean, I these numbers areunbelievable.
The poll that we had leaked tous last week, they were they
weren't this big.
Like this is even bigger, right?
So you see those numbers and yousay, oh my gosh, people are
incredibly worried.
But again, I want to draw yourattention to the type of
question that they ask followingthis.
(28:32):
Okay.
So you see this and you say,This is a crisis, right?
It clearly is.
Homelessness and crime is acrisis according to the voters
who they who they who theysampled here.
But then what they do is theylook at this and they break it
down and listen to the questionthat you get here.
How do you feel in Albuquerque?
Do you feel somewhat safe?
Uh-huh.
(28:52):
Very safe, very unsafe, somewhatunsafe.
Okay, you're either safe oryou're not.
When you say somewhat safe, uhwell, I think everybody feels
somewhat safe.
You don't walk out and getmugged every time you walk
anywhere.
You don't.
And but you but you do haveregular crime in your area.
(29:13):
I don't care where you live, ithappens all the time.
And so to me, when they do this,are you somewhat safe?
SPEAKER_04 (29:18):
Oh no, and I love that they added depends.
So you can have like a depends.
Yeah, that's true.
SPEAKER_09 (29:25):
But it's three percent.
SPEAKER_04 (29:25):
I mean it's not clarifying.
It's not a clarifying question,is what the is what you're
right.
SPEAKER_09 (29:29):
And believe me, if if depends had been 58%, then I
would agree with you.
But no, I'm just saying that youyou either feel safe or you
don't feel safe.
Right.
And and and I think the somewhatsafe is is again, it's a hedge.
It's a hedge.
If you were to take out thesomewhat and say, is Albuquerque
safe or unsafe, would youconsider Albuquerque safe or
unsafe?
I think you'd see differentnumbers here.
(29:51):
But again, all these numberstend to depend on your political
party, which makes zero sense tome.
But it shows you how locked inwe are to our partisan politics.
Politics because if you are feellike you're very safe, 19% of
Democrats feel very safe inAlbuquerque.
Okay.
Four percent of Republicans do.
(30:11):
That's a massive gap.
Yeah.
Okay.
Somewhat safe.
52% of Democrats are like, yeah,I'm somewhat safe.
It's good.
We're not horrible.
It's okay.
And Republicans, 36% say, yeah,I mean, somewhat safe, right?
And 46% of independents.
Uh somewhat unsafe, 39% ofRepublicans are like, hey, this
(30:31):
is somewhat unsafe, very unsafe,19% of Republicans.
And then Democrats, only 8% saythey're very unsafe, and only
19% say they're somewhat unsafe.
So the fact that this relies ona political party, it just shows
you how entrenched the politicsare.
And I think as long as politicsstay as the most important
(30:52):
thing, then we'll never solveour problems.
We won't.
We won't solve them until wesay, no, no, no, this isn't
about politics.
Forget the politics.
I was going to use the S word, Sword politics, right?
And solve the problem.
But we're still not quite thereyet, at least in this survey.
SPEAKER_04 (31:08):
Well, we're not there to the to the fact where
we put the blame for these badpolicies back on leadership,
too.
Like I would love to add thequestion how, you know, do you
feel like what's happening inour city with crime and
homelessness is due largely topolicies passed by our current
mayor?
There's a question you couldask.
SPEAKER_09 (31:28):
Yeah, yeah.
And it's not.
And the answer is going to beabsolutely.
SPEAKER_04 (31:30):
Or our city counselors or whatever.
Well, we're going to have anelection.
SPEAKER_09 (31:32):
We're going to have an election that's going to
answer that.
And it'll be interesting.
It's going to be fascinating.
SPEAKER_04 (31:37):
I know early polling or early uh voting does start
here just in a couple of weeks.
So make sure that you know yourcandidates and you know what's
going on there.
All right.
So back to this gubernatorial,new the Democratic side of uh
the gubernatorial race with theDemocrats.
It's heating up again.
Now the journal uh jumping in alittle bit more on this uh kind
(31:58):
of fight between Holland and SamBrain.
SPEAKER_09 (32:01):
Right.
The New Mexican did the story aweek ago.
Right, which we covered, right?
Right, right, which we covered,which was delicious, which we
talked about.
And this one is is got some uhentertaining quotes.
And I think there is one bigquote from Holland's crew, which
was amusing.
SPEAKER_04 (32:14):
Well, so the headline, just so you know, it
says new New Mexicogubernatorial primary race heats
up.
That's the headline.
Here's the quote for someonewho's been unsuccessfully
running for office for 30 years.
Ouch.
Sam Bregman still can't get thisright, says Holland spokeswoman
Hannah Minchoff.
While he seems to haveplagiarized large portions of
his policy agenda, Deb ismeeting with New Mexicans every
day and sharing her vision forthe future.
SPEAKER_09 (32:35):
Okay, so for those of you who don't know and didn't
see what we talked about lasttime, Bregman put out 189 page
policy prescriptions foreverything wrong with New
Mexico.
Well, when you do something 189pages, A, it's over the top, B,
it's not going to be your stuff.
A lot of it's gonna be rippedoff.
And he got nailed for literallylifting stuff that is right out
of policy prescriptions fromother places.
(32:57):
So I think you you have a choicein a situation like this.
And I think Joni Griffin, who isthe spokesman for Bregman, does
about as well as you can doanswering this back.
And this is what she said.
SPEAKER_04 (33:09):
She says, quote, this is not plagiarism, it is
information in the public arena.
Sam stands by every word in allof these policies.
Those who worked with him tocreate them believe he is the
best candidate to get theseideas accomplished.
Okay.
SPEAKER_09 (33:20):
So yeah, yeah.
No, and so then, of course, wehave the political experts in
this state who we don't havemany of.
And the one that does keepgetting quoted couldn't be uh
further from an expert.
Okay.
And so this is Gabe Sanchez, andhe he is from the University of
New Mexico.
We have a great deal offamiliarity with him and his
(33:42):
level of incompetence, and heweighs in.
SPEAKER_04 (33:45):
So he says University of New Mexico
political science professor GabeSanchez said allegations of
plagiarism in politics typicallytends to revolve around
candidate speeches, not policyplans.
Not true.
U.S.
First Lady Melania Trump andformer President Joe Biden are
among the public officials whohave faced plagiarism claims for
their speeches.
Meanwhile, Sanchez also said theHolland campaign's plagiarism
(34:07):
allegations against Bregmancould reverberate during the
primary election cycle andpossibly be raised during
candidate debates.
SPEAKER_09 (34:14):
Okay, that's just a reflexive comment that isn't
true.
So uh this is likely not goingto be a big issue in the
campaign.
It's not.
Bregman doing some of thisstuff, uh, it's not going to be
anything that's gonna make anysort of difference.
It's just not going to.
And so saying that this could besomething that could be
long-lasting, it's eight monthsuntil the primary.
This is not going to be an issuethat's going to be defining in
(34:37):
any way, shape, or form.
And as we've said before, DebHolland, if she is smart, never
steps on the stage with SamBregman.
She is, if she's smart, shesays, I am busy listening to New
Mexicans.
I do not have time to get on astage and listen to Sam Bregman,
listen to his own voice.
That's what you say if you'rehim.
And by the way, I'm not evensure which Sam Bregman would
(34:57):
show up and I'd I'd have todebate.
Is it the Sam Bregman who's Mr.
Oil and Gas, or is it the SamBregman who's Mr.
Environmentalist?
Is it the Sam Bregman whoreaches across the aisle, or is
it the Sam Bregman who hatesDonald Trump?
I can't tell which Sam BregmanI'm gonna get, so I'm gonna talk
to New Mexicans.
That's what she should do, and Ithink she will.
All right, let's move on.
And I want to touch on somethingthat happened last week with uh
(35:18):
Eleanor Chavez, who is a rep forAlbuquerque in the New Mexico
legislature.
She made some of the mostinflammatory comments I've ever
heard from a legislator in thestate of New Mexico in reference
to ICE.
And now she's getting pushbackfrom law enforcement on how
irresponsible her comments are.
So I I do want you to listen towhat she said, and then we'll
(35:40):
break down what the responsewas.
SPEAKER_02 (35:42):
And I'm gonna call it what it is.
It's fascism, and ICE is actinglike the KKK.
And we've got to stop our localpolice, our state police, we've
got to stop those employees whoare collaborating with ICE,
we've got to stop them, andwe've got to make our laws
(36:04):
stronger so that we protectourselves because when they're
done coming after our immigrantcommunity, they're gonna start
picking everybody else off aswell, and we need to understand
that.
So the time to stand up is now.
It's not time to stand down.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
SPEAKER_09 (36:22):
That is incredibly irresponsible.
She not only says, don't takecriminals off the street, that's
what she's saying.
Number two, she's saying they'recoming for us next.
That emboldens people that areon the edge of their mental
faculties.
People like Eleanor Chavezsaying things like this are
incredibly irresponsible.
She has no business inleadership speaking like this.
(36:42):
It is, it shows you the extremenature of some of our
legislators.
SPEAKER_04 (36:46):
Yeah, and just the irresponsibility of their
rhetoric, just not knowingagain, once I mean, have we not
learned yet that peoplesometimes that are not
necessarily well balanced takethese messages as okay, now I
need to do something about that.
We've already talked about thefact that we've seen uh
Republican headquarters here inthe state, they get pipe bombed
(37:06):
with words on there, KKK equalsICE or ICE equals KKK.
Wake up and realize that likenot everybody's balanced when
they listen to your what you'retalking about.
SPEAKER_09 (37:15):
And what's so crazy is the most heated, unhinged
rhetoric has now become therhetoric of the leaders.
That that and then that exactlywhat you said.
When you get the bombing andit's written on the side of the
building, that's an unhingedwhack job.
And now our legislators arelike, well, sign me up for the
unhinged whack job crew, andthat's completely irresponsible.
(37:37):
It just is so disappointing.
Yeah.
So, but so so the head of thethe New Mexico uh police
officers association, the policechiefs association, is Chief
Hebby in Farmington.
And he wanted to respond to whatshe said, and he let her have
it.
SPEAKER_08 (37:51):
In summary, I'm calling on Representative Chavez
to apologize to the policeofficers across this state who
daily are committed to keepingus safe and who are not
collaborationists with the KuKlux Klan in any way.
And I want to remind everyone,especially our elected leaders,
that as leaders, words haveconsequences.
SPEAKER_09 (38:13):
There it is.
And I think it makes completesense.
Words do have comp consequences.
He's right, and it's people likehis officers that are put in the
line of fire when you sit thereand enable people that are not
on their best behavior lookingto go after law enforcement.
Okay, one more thing, and and itis actually important, it has to
(38:33):
do with healthcare.
Uh, on Tuesday, President Trumpannounced that the United States
would start getting cheaperprescription drugs because we're
gonna start being charged as amost favored nation.
Okay, so that's gonna bring incheaper drugs here from our
manufacturers and others.
How we weren't part of this fora long time, I don't know.
But here's what Dr.
Oz had to say about this, andthen we'll kind of break down
(38:56):
exactly what kind of savingswe're going to be looking at.
SPEAKER_01 (39:00):
We are protecting the Medicaid population because
they are our most vulnerable,and it is completely
indefensible to charge more forthem than you would an affluent
person in living in Europe.
So this is gonna help take someof the pressure off Medicaid,
which of course states have topay.
We compensate as well, but it'sa hurry, it's a number one
growing budget item forgovernors around the country.
It just gives them relief.
(39:20):
We also included in today'sprogram all new products, all
new products have to be releasedat most favored nation pricing.
So as we evolve and advancescience in America and save more
people with cancer and treatmore people with asthma or uh
problems with skin ailments, allthose will be priced
appropriately.
And we have several drugs, somebig ones that were also included
(39:40):
by Fogger that are already goingto be uh at most favored nation
pricing within Medicare.
So across the board, we'reachieving that.
And the again, the magnitude ofwe're talking about selling
drugs at one-tenth what they arelisted for right now, which is
again dramatically below eventhe list price.
And the Trump RX opportunityalso gives direct access to
these prices to everybody inAmerica, including in the
(40:02):
commercial market.
So if you don't like the pricesyou're getting from uh your
company, you can have Trump RXas your backup, and you'll see
even broader strokes of successuh upcoming.
SPEAKER_09 (40:12):
Okay, so yes, there is Trump RX.
So they will be offering drugs.
If your own plan isn't as low asyou want, you can go and
basically get the governmentpricing here.
It's about time this happens.
But just to give you a quickidea here, look at the prices
that we tend to pay.
U.S.
prices for brand drugs are 40 or422% higher than other nations,
(40:34):
like say Canada, France,Germany, Italy, you know, Japan,
the UK.
So how we were not part of themost favored nation when we're
producing a lot of this stuff,or at least our companies are,
is unbelievable.
It's a good thing for everybody.
It will bring prices down.
But also, what this will do isit will allow 50 states plus DC
(40:54):
to be eligible starting in 2026.
That's when these numbers willstart coming down.
Millions of dollars in savings.
Average discounts will be from80 to 85%.
This is something I don't carewhat political party you're in.
This is something that's abenefit.
And then here are some of thediscounts we're looking at here.
Uh a treatment for dermatitis,80% discount, a treatment for uh
(41:17):
postmenopausal osteoporosis,85%, migraine 50%, rheumatoid
arthritis 40%.
So some very good news there, nomatter where you stand on this
thing.
SPEAKER_04 (41:26):
Okay.
All right.
Well, thanks you guys forjoining us this morning or
today.
Whenever you actually tuned intous, we appreciate you spending a
little bit of your day with us.
We will see you back here onSunday.
Until then, please rate andreview our show.
Like and subscribe on YouTube,and thanks so much for all your
support.
Have a great one.
SPEAKER_12 (41:44):
You've been listening to the No Doubt About
It Podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate, andreview.
We'll be back soon.
But in the meantime, you canfind us on Instagram and
Facebook at No Doubt About ItPodcast.
SPEAKER_09 (42:01):
No doubt about it.
SPEAKER_12 (42:04):
The No Doubt About It Podcast is a choose adventure
media production.
See you next time on No DoubtAbout It.
There is no doubt about it.
All right.
It's Wednesday.
Uh never double.
We've got um all kinds of thingsuh that we've all woke up to
today, including uh governmentshutdown.
SPEAKER_09 (00:20):
Got a shutdown.
Got a shutdown.
SPEAKER_04 (00:23):
We've got a special session happening in Santa Fe
today.
SPEAKER_09 (00:26):
Yes.
SPEAKER_04 (00:27):
So we thought we would just get right to it today
and jump in on all the thingsthat are happening.
SPEAKER_09 (00:33):
We're gonna, yeah, we got a little bit of a
scheduling conflict today.
So we're gonna move quickly onthis episode, get you as much
information as we possibly can.
And you're right, it's gonnastart with well, some crazy
stuff going on.
Obviously, we've we have anothergovernment shutdown here, which
uh, you know, hey, look, ithappens, right?
And uh this is what we've done.
SPEAKER_04 (00:53):
Does it does it happen?
I mean, really, that's whatwe're going with?
SPEAKER_09 (00:56):
Okay, I'll sorry, I'll jump in when we actually
get into the story, but Well,okay, well, here's here's the
deal, and here are some of thekey points of the shutdown as
things sit right now.
Now, obviously, would not besurprised if this gets itself
worked out over the next coupleof days.
I don't see any reason tobelieve this is going to be a
major league shutdown lastingweeks.
It doesn't appear that way.
(01:16):
But we'll explain why this ishappening the way it is, but a
few different things.
Government funding lapsedovernight.
So the government is officiallyshut down.
The shutdown could pauseeconomic data coming in, and
stock futures earlier thismorning were down a little bit.
There's not some catastrophicdrop in what's happening with
the stock market.
But here are some of the detailsand what's going on here.
(01:36):
And really, this gets down tothe Senate, where they have got
to come up with enough votes.
The House has already passed acontinuing resolution, which
I'll get to in a second, but itreally all sits in the Senate.
SPEAKER_04 (01:47):
Senate lawmakers failed on Tuesday evening to
agree to a measure to fund thegovernment amid deep divisions
between the parties.
Republicans can't pass a fundingplan without some Democratic
support.
Republicans put forward aseven-week stopgap bill to keep
the government funded, arguingthat it would buy lawmakers time
to hash out their differencesand craft full year spending
bills.
(02:07):
Democrats oppose the measure,calling for restoring hundreds
of billions of dollars inhealthcare funding, including
enhanced Affordable Care Actsubsidies that expire this year.
SPEAKER_09 (02:17):
Okay, so I want to explain what is going on here,
just so that you know when youif you talk to anybody and they
say, well, you know, it's it'sboth sides.
No, this is very simple stuff.
What the Republicans are tryingto do is pass what you call a
continuing resolution.
What that means is keep fundinglevels exactly where they are,
where they've been in the Bidenbudget.
This is a Biden budget we'restill operating off of, not a
(02:39):
Trump budget.
So keep things where they'vebeen on a Biden budget for the
next seven weeks until they canwork out a new spending plan.
Democrats have said, no, no, no,no.
This is our opportunity to holdRepublicans over a barrel, and
we want them to increase,especially, Obamacare spending
here.
And in some cases, Republicansare claiming they're wanting to
do it to give health care toillegals.
(03:02):
Democrats debate that to somedegree.
Either way, what the Democratsare doing is saying, we want
more, and if we don't get more,we're shutting it down.
So they're shut it down.
That's what they did.
So this one is on the Democrats.
They and it happens all the timewith the party out of power.
The party out of power says,We're gonna stop this.
And how can they do that?
They can do that because in theSenate, you need 60 votes to get
(03:25):
this thing through, to getclosure.
So you have to have 60 votes.
Republicans have 53 votes, okay?
They can't do it without sevenDemocrats.
They got two Democrats, they gotJohn Fetterman and they got
Cortez Masto from Nevada.
Both of them said, We want tokeep the government open.
Every other senator said no.
Martin Heinrich said no, Ben RayLujan said no, they shut it
down, okay?
(03:46):
They wanted extra.
Okay.
So when you want extra, it inthe party in power says, no,
we're not going to go spendextra money, A, because we're$37
trillion in debt.
We don't have it.
And then the Democrats saying,well, then we're going to shut
it down.
So that's why it is shut down.
Now, an interesting quote fromthe Wall Street Journal story.
SPEAKER_04 (04:06):
Yeah, which uh turns out to not be correct.
I want to go ahead and just makesure that's aware.
But voters have historicallyblamed the party in power for
closing the government, but thepolitical fallout will likely
depend on the length and scaleof the shutdown, which comes
more than a year before themidterm elections.
SPEAKER_09 (04:22):
Right.
So, and this is completelywrong.
This is oh, and we we've watchedit happen to Republicans a ton
of times.
Republicans are Republicans shutdown the government.
The president, whoever it is atthe time, it's been Bill Clinton
before.
Bill Clinton wrapped this aroundRepublicans next before on
shutting down the government.
He was very good at it.
And Obama did the same thingwhen Republicans would try to
(04:43):
shut it down.
And it was a disaster whenRepublicans tried to do it under
Obama and Ted Cruz led thecharge.
It never works out for the partythat is the minority because,
you know, the other party says,look, we're trying to keep it
open.
Here it is.
It's a clean resolution.
And this poll from the New YorkTimes tells the story a little
bit.
It's amazing how political allof this is.
And that's why we're saying toyou today, I wouldn't take this
(05:05):
all that seriously because Ithink it's going to end up going
away.
I think they're going to reach adeal and then they're going to
have to continue to work on thisuntil we get it.
SPEAKER_04 (05:12):
It's kind of like a little power grab, you think, by
the Democratic Party, like, hey,let's, let's, we're going to
stand up to Trump and we aregoing to stand up to his
Congress.
SPEAKER_09 (05:20):
I don't even think it's a power grab.
I think it's a capitulation tothe party where Chuck Schumer
knows this is a bad politicalmove for him.
But he does it because the leftwing of his party wants some
sort of fight.
They want to fight.
And this poll says it, right?
It says, all respondents, uh, aswe get all respondents, 65% of
Americans say don't shut downthe government.
(05:41):
Don't do it.
Okay.
Now this tells you everythingyou need to know.
Democrats are sort of evenlysplit.
47%, the activists in the partyare like, shut it down.
Oh Democrats never want to shutdown the government, right?
And they do in this particularcase.
43% say that they don't want toshut it down.
Independents, 32% say shut itdown, 59% say don't.
(06:02):
And Republicans, Republicans whohave been more than willing at
times to shut down thegovernment, are like, 5% of
Republicans are like, let's shutit down.
95% of Republicans are like,heck no, don't shut down the
government, right?
So this is very much a politicalbattle that likely will end up
with egg on the face of theparty that wants to shut it
(06:22):
down, which clearly, evenaccording to the New York Times,
is the Democrats.
And so I want to go to a quickbite from Kevin Hassett, who uh
does a lot of the work for thepresident as far as um a lot of
his economic stuff.
And he's the National EconomicCouncil.
And so he breaks down how thisstuff usually works out.
(06:43):
And he talked to CNN yesterday,and here's a little bit of that
conversation with Jake Tapper.
SPEAKER_05 (06:48):
First of all, it's the hope of the White House that
the continuing resolution passesas it, you know, in the Senate,
as it did in the House.
Uh President Trump does not wantto shut down the government, and
uh the Democrats are the partythat does.
This is something, if you goback and look at political
history, that has happened overand over that a party that's got
a political majority tries tohold everybody hostage for a
(07:11):
while, but it almost always endsup with a clean, continuing
resolution.
That's how this is gonna end uptoo.
And so that's gonna happen.
The question is, do we have ashutdown between now and then?
SPEAKER_09 (07:21):
And so that tells you where we're at, okay?
And and so, you know, again,this is something I would not
take to be that serious to thispoint.
I I just don't think it's thatbig a deal.
SPEAKER_04 (07:31):
Right.
And they're working now, right?
They're trying to come up tothis resolution type situation.
So it does seem always like wejust couldn't reach the deal.
So let's shut down thegovernment.
We'll buy more time, uh,supposedly, to reach these
deals, correct?
SPEAKER_09 (07:45):
Yeah, we'll see what happens with it.
And and yeah, I think so.
But but it is funny how justnakedly political all of this
is, right?
So I just pulled a few soundbites from past potential
shutdowns.
And so I grabbed a few of ourfriends on the Democratic side
of the aisle, and here's whatthey had to say about shutting
(08:06):
down the government.
SPEAKER_10 (08:07):
Hostage instead of just letting them do their jobs,
which they want to do while wework out our differences, so
wrong.
SPEAKER_03 (08:16):
This is democracy, and in a democracy, hostage
tactics are the last resort forthose who can't win their fights
through elections, can't wintheir fights in Congress, can't
win their fights for thepresidency, and can't win their
fights in the courts.
SPEAKER_00 (08:34):
A government shutdown of any duration would
harm hard-working Americans andour economy.
SPEAKER_10 (08:40):
Why should we ask TSA officers to go without their
hard-earned pay while theyprotect our airports?
SPEAKER_11 (08:46):
I'm a senator from Virginia.
Some of the hardest effects ofshutdown will be seen in my
state.
SPEAKER_10 (08:50):
If the government shuts down, it will be average
Americans who suffer most.
SPEAKER_07 (08:54):
Some who right now are trying to figure out how
they're gonna pay rent, howthey're gonna make mortgage
payments, how they're gonna keepcollege payments going, how
they're gonna keep the lightson, how they're gonna keep food
on the table.
SPEAKER_06 (09:05):
Had the government shut down, hundreds of thousands
of people would have not gottentheir paychecks.
Uh, federal employees would havebeen furloughed, sent home.
SPEAKER_11 (09:14):
Our military won't get paid, Head Start teachers
won't get paid, our wildfirefighters won't get paid, present
federal prison guards won't getpaid.
You get the point.
SPEAKER_04 (09:25):
Yeah, well, and honestly, like the last I was
trying to find clips on, youknow, because I remember some of
these shutdowns earlier, theseconversations that were
happening, you know, years past.
And they always like the medianormally like highlights, oh,
the family that's gonna reallybe dire.
Correct.
Because this person's not gonnaget paid, so they're not gonna
have food on the table.
I can't find any of those clipsfor this one because because
it's a the it's a differentparty, yeah, right, that wants
(09:47):
to shut this down.
So heaven forbid we actuallybring any of those bleeding
heart stories to anybody thistime because it's not the
Republican base that wants toshut this thing down, it's the
other side.
SPEAKER_09 (09:57):
So no, that's a really good point.
Yeah.
Here's Fred and Janice totalwork for the government, and
their kids need their kids needtheir medication.
And if they are furloughed,their kids won't get that
medication.
SPEAKER_04 (10:08):
Oh, it was it's it's like prominent.
It's like they did like packageson it all the time.
And so I was looking for thosestories thinking, okay, well,
here we go again.
Because a government shutdownshould be bad regardless of what
party is in power.
I'm sorry, but a governmentshutdown should never really be
the solution.
Oh, believe me.
SPEAKER_09 (10:25):
And Republicans have done it too.
Republicans do it all, andusually it goes the other way,
though.
Republicans will shut it downbecause they want cuts.
They want to cut governmentspending so that we stop with
the massive debt, right?
And Democrats are like, hey,they're they're going the other
way.
They go, we want additionalspending.
SPEAKER_04 (10:40):
We always want more money.
It's crazy.
It feels like uh, it's like amoney grab.
Okay.
Well, now shifting gears back tothe state of New Mexico, today,
October 1st, starts a specialsession.
I'm sure, Mark, we are going tosolve a lot of problems here in
the state.
I feel like crime's gonna beaddressed, right?
We're gonna deal with that.
We're gonna deal with somemedical care concerns, like our
(11:02):
medical compacts that we talkedabout, bringing in those
telehealth doctors to help outour people, right?
SPEAKER_09 (11:07):
Yeah.
Um, no, I'm sorry, we can't dothat.
Oh, great.
No, we're not doing any of that.
SPEAKER_04 (11:10):
Oh, good.
So what are we blowing our hornabout in our special session
this time?
SPEAKER_09 (11:14):
Well, you tell me.
SPEAKER_04 (11:15):
Okay.
Well, it says here New Mexicolawmakers will return to the
roundhouse on Wednesday forwhat's expected to be a brief
but fast-paced special sessionfocused on the outsize impacts
of federal budget cuts to thestate.
Leading Democratic lawmakershuddled with top staffers and
governor Governor Michelle LujanGrisham's office this week to
hammer out final details on fivebills that deal with subjects
(11:38):
like vaccines, rural health carefunding, and eligibility for New
Mexico's health insuranceexchanges.
SPEAKER_09 (11:44):
Okay, so yeah, so a couple of things on this, I
think, that that aredisappointing.
Obviously, you're right on onthe on the healthcare compacts.
That's exactly right.
And even the governor said shewanted to do this.
The the speaker of the house,Javier Martinez, who we rarely
agree with on anything, hewanted to do this.
The Senate doesn't, so they'renot touching it.
The governor learned last timeshe did a special session a year
(12:06):
ago, she was basically trying tobigfoot the legislature.
Okay, she said, This is whatwe're gonna do, this is how
we're gonna do it.
And the legislature said, No,we're not.
And they just thumbed their noseat her and walked away.
And it was humiliating.
And she didn't want that tohappen.
So what she did this time wassat down with her legislature,
worked out a deal.
I, in fact, I'm not even surethey called the Republicans in.
(12:28):
Like, I think they're all justlike, we're gonna do these five
bills and we're done.
Republicans are gonna introduceall the bills that you talked
about.
They're gonna introduce billstackling CYFD, they're gonna
introduce bills tackling thecompacts, they're gonna
introduce bills dealing withcrime, but it's not gonna
matter.
They're never even gonna see thelight of day.
When you have one party rule ina state, which we've talked
about a million times, is aterrible idea because good ideas
(12:51):
don't flourish.
Competition and accountabilitylead to better governance, but
we don't have that, right?
SPEAKER_04 (12:56):
No, trial, we have trial lawyers, so that's what
we're gonna deal with right now.
SPEAKER_09 (13:00):
So we have we have a setup right now that is just
quite frankly, it is a one-partyrule, and so they don't want to
deal with the the big timeissues, but they we do know some
of what they are going to do.
And they mentioned vaccines,okay?
I I want to just briefly dipinto what we think might happen.
Here is a bill that we got ahold of that they are thinking
(13:20):
about introducing.
I think they will introduce hereduring the special session.
Now, it's a little bit of a deepdive, but I I really want to
just explain the basics to youhere so that you can understand
this, and then we'll move on.
But this is the special sessionin 2025, and this is the
discussion draft of the billhere.
Now, here's a portion of thebill.
I'm not gonna get into a ton ofit, but I'm gonna go to the
(13:42):
bottom here and I'm just gonnaread you something that's that's
important here, and this has todo with vaccines, okay?
And where does the state andwhere do our kids, where do we
get the input for the vaccineschedule that our children are
on?
And our children are on that togo to school in the state of New
Mexico.
There's a vaccine schedule,right?
I mean, you know, many of ushave have dealt with that
(14:03):
schedule, and obviously it'sbecome a lot more controversial
since RFK Jr.
took over and is starting tochange things at the CDC.
Okay.
And so what this bill isdesigned to do is to remove the
CDC from being able to recommendanything to parents and this the
vaccine schedule in the state ofNew Mexico.
(14:24):
They want to go a differentroute.
So it says the immunizationrequired and the manner and the
frequency of theiradministration shall conform to
the recommendations of the, andthen they cross out advisory
committee on immunizationpractices of the United States.
That's the CDC.
Okay.
That's them saying no more CDC.
(14:45):
We don't want the CDC's input.
Basically, this is a thumbingthe nose at RFK Jr.
saying, we're not going tolisten to you.
We are going to go political onthis.
Okay.
So what they're going to do isgo with their own Department of
Health here in the state of NewMexico and the American Academy
of Pediatrics.
Now, you say, Well, that soundsan American Academy of
Pediatrics.
They they sound they soundlegit.
(15:06):
They sound like they're gettingit done.
Well, here's where all thiscomes down.
So I want you to read a littlebit of what uh RFK Jr.
says about the the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics and what
their role is, and and we willbreak down some of what they do
and why the state of New Mexicois pushing full bore to
(15:27):
eliminate medical voices.
What we're talking about here isit's important to have a variety
of voices that say, hey, wait aminute, let's look at this,
let's look at that.
And it's more science thebetter, is what we're telling
you here.
And what we're doing now iswe're paring down the science.
And what you're gonna find aboutthe American Association of
Pediatrics is that they tend tobe more of a political group.
SPEAKER_04 (15:50):
This is a screenshot from American Academy of
Pediatrics webpage.
Thankfully, the organization,thanking the organization's top
corporate donors.
These four companies makevirtually every vaccine on the
CDC recommended childhoodvaccine schedule.
AAP is angry that CDC haseliminated corporate influence
in decisions over vaccinerecommendations and returned CDC
(16:12):
to gold standard science andevidence-based medicine laser
focused on children's health.
AAP today released its own listof corporate-friendly vaccine
recommendations.
The Trump administrationbelieves in free speech and AAP
has a right to make its case tothe American people, but AAP
should follow the lead of HHSand disclose conflicts of
(16:33):
interest, including itscorporate entanglements and
those of its journal,Pediatrics, so that Americans
may ask whether the AAP'srecommendations reflect public
health interest or are perhapsjust a pay-to-play scheme to
promote commercial ambitions ofAAP's big pharma benefactors.
Okay.
And then here is their page.
SPEAKER_09 (16:54):
Yeah, yeah.
I show the page as you weredoing that.
Okay.
So so I want to then show youum.
SPEAKER_04 (17:00):
But we should talk about it because people that are
listening don't get to see that.
So basically, just a list ofsome of these top donors that
American Academy of Pediatricshas on their webpage is Merrick,
Moderna, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
SPEAKER_09 (17:14):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_04 (17:14):
Okay, so the top vaccine manufacturers basically.
SPEAKER_09 (17:18):
And look, I, you know, I don't know, as far as
getting into the individualvaccines and all this, I we're
not going to do that.
But the only point here we'retrying to make is you have the
HHS who spends their time tryingto research these things and do
the right thing.
I think when the state of NewMexico says, no, no, no, we're
not listening to you anymore,they're turning this political.
And the reason I say they'returning it political is because
if you go and look at at whatthe AAP has done over time, they
(17:44):
have proven themselves to be avery political organization.
So I want to just give you a fewthings that they have advocated
for.
Okay.
Here's just three things.
Number one, they advocate fortransgender surgery and puberty
blockers for kids.
Okay.
That's not based on science.
Okay, that's not.
Okay, that is a political stanceand it is one that is dangerous
(18:05):
for children.
We've said that.
I will never back away fromthat.
Okay, that's just how we feel.
They support removing religiousexemptions for vaccine mandates.
By the way, they're gonna runheadlong uh into major issues
with that particular approach,and especially because when you
have those approaches, uh that'sgonna that's gonna fly in the
(18:26):
face of the Constitution, quitefrankly.
Okay, and that's the freeexercise of your religion.
So that that's gonna be anissue.
And then they advocate, by theway, they advocated for school
closures.
Well, actually, during COVID andmasking of little kids, and of
course, giving vaccinations tokids who were not a threat to to
get very sick from COVID here.
Okay.
Now, the one thing about whatthey did, and this is why
(18:47):
they're so political, and it'sone thing to be able to say we
honestly thought keeping kidsout of school is the right thing
to do.
They initially said get kidsback in school.
Right.
But when they found out Trumpsupported that, they flipped and
said keep kids out of school.
Okay.
So these guys are very much apolitical organization.
So the state of New Mexico isgonna take a broader science uh
input from a variety ofdifferent groups, including the
(19:10):
HHS and the vaccine group,especially you know, a group
that would that that will lookat all of these issues for our
kids, and and that's gonna be aproblem.
So, so what's the major concernhere and and what could be the
issue?
Well, I just did a little graphhere to make some sense here.
And says you have multiplescience-based voices, including
the CDC, even the State HealthDepartment, even the AAP.
(19:31):
Okay, let's just give them andsay they're not a political
group, but but you go and haveall these voices to be able to
say back and forth a pull andpush on what the policy should
be.
Well, if you get rid of all thatand you just say it's AAP, then
what you risk is that uh if theAAP feels like directing all
sorts of things into the stateof New Mexico, the most
vulnerable children in thisstate, low-income families, uh
(19:55):
will be subject to one groupdeciding exactly what all their
vaccinations will be.
SPEAKER_04 (20:01):
And keep in mind that when you are funded by big
pharma, which is AmericanPediatrics, they are funded.
How do they stay unbiased?
How do you put possibly stay umand say maybe, you know, this is
maybe this vaccine is is notwhat we should recommend right
now, or maybe this is the levelwe should do.
(20:22):
When you're completely funded bythe most part, by these big
pharma companies, I don't knowhow you make solid
recommendations or unbiasedrecommendations.
SPEAKER_09 (20:30):
Yeah, let the let science be the guide.
Right.
Let science be the guide here.
And when it's not, what you riskis that you have groups that
could come in and and test allsorts of things on our kids.
And and I would think thelegislature would be concerned
about that.
You know, we have all theselawyers who are always willing
to sue and don't want doctors inthe state.
And as they said in the journallast week, they are what what
(20:54):
the the the last line ofdefense.
You know, they're the equalizer.
Right, the equalizer, yeah.
And yet they're going to inviteyou know, less science and one
group to be able to determineexactly what happens to our
kids.
And that's a concern.
So that's one of the billsthat's in front of the
legislature.
You can contact your legislatorsand just say, wait a minute,
(21:14):
more science the better.
So let the CDC be involved inthis, let our state be involved
in it, and let's get morescience voices here.
SPEAKER_04 (21:22):
Do we have any idea how long the special session
might last?
Just a couple of days.
Okay.
So they will have this andthey'll vote and it will be what
it is.
Do you think that they'll cometo that kind of conclusion that
fast?
Yeah, I think it's gonna be soif you want to reach out to your
legislator, do it today.
Do it immediately.
Like make the calls, make theemails, make your voices heard.
That's the only line of defenseright now.
(21:43):
And then remember who to votefor when it comes to
re-election.
Who puts your needs first?
Like, find that out.
That's I mean, I can't preachthat more.
People write me all the time.
How do we get more involved?
How do we make change?
Yeah, make change by making surepeople are aware of what your
state reps actually representwhen they go, you know, to Santa
Fe.
Are they representing your bestinterests?
(22:03):
You got to ask yourself thatquestion and find out.
Do some digging, and your votedoes matter.
SPEAKER_09 (22:08):
So all right, let's move on to this because it's
interesting.
We've talked about the journalpoll recently.
And you know, they do that onebig poll and then they drip out
the results.
We had the mayor's resultsalready.
Well, they have more details onhow voters feel about specific
issues.
One of them is sanctuary cities.
And now we know that themajority of voters in
Albuquerque approve of thesanctuary city status.
(22:31):
And some of this makes sense inthe regard that you look at
Keller, who has stood up manytimes and said, I stand for
sanctuary cities.
Well, he probably has somepolling data that tells him it
works for him.
And a lot of people say, Howcould anyone, you know, stand
for sanctuary cities, whatever?
Albuquerque is a is a prettyfar-left city.
It's a it's a Democrat plus 20city.
And this result, while not a nota plus 20 issue, it is an issue
(22:55):
that is important to look at thenumbers on.
SPEAKER_04 (22:57):
Okay, so one of the questions they asked, Pollsters
said currently, all Albuquerquecity departments and employees
are prohibited from assisting inenforcement of federal
immigration laws, except whenrequired by federal law.
How familiar are you with thispolicy?
Uh, 46% said somewhat familiar,25% said very familiar, and 28%
said not familiar at all.
SPEAKER_09 (23:17):
Okay, so by the way, that's that's about 72% of
people are pretty familiar withwhat it is.
So a good portion of people knowwhat it is.
SPEAKER_04 (23:24):
Okay.
And then the second question thepoll asked was do you support or
oppose the policy that prohibitsall Albuquerque city departments
employees from assisting in theenforcement of federal
immigration laws except whenrequired by federal law?
So again, I find this to be avery convoluted question to ask.
(23:45):
Um I think it seems really odd,but it said that 51% basically
polled uh support the the factthat let's try to explain this a
little bit.
SPEAKER_09 (23:57):
Like, don't work with ice, let ice do their
thing, stay away.
Okay.
SPEAKER_04 (24:00):
And and and I think So that means don't let ice into
our jails and our prisons andthings like that.
That's what that they're saying.
51% of these people polled.
So people need to understandthat.
That, you know, they're like,why, you know, we want to fight
crime, we want to deal with thecrime issue, we want to do all
these things, but yet we do notwant to work.
SPEAKER_09 (24:18):
We support with us not working um directly with
ice, with 40% saying, yeah, workwith them, right?
Okay.
Now now, Brian Sanderoff, whodoes the poll, he he attributes
this uh to political, you know,considerations, no doubt.
SPEAKER_04 (24:32):
This issue is a very partisan issue.
It's one where partyaffiliation, political
philosophy, and how you feelabout the mayor strongly
correlates with your opinions orsupport levels on this issue,
said Brian Sanderoff.
Albuquerque's status as asanctuary city has made
headlines over the summer andhas become an increasingly
prevalent, prevalent issue inthe upcoming mayoral race.
SPEAKER_09 (24:52):
Okay.
Now there's one other thingabout this, and you mentioned
the kind of weird wording andwonky wording of the question.
Okay, sort of a sort of a givepeople an out to say that they
support it when uh that's nottotally the policy.
So here's what's interestinghere, and and this is why I
pulled this, because it's oneother little quote here that I
think is worth talking aboutthat's that takes this policy to
(25:14):
a different level and makes itdangerous, but they didn't pull
this portion of it.
SPEAKER_04 (25:18):
In July, Mayor Tim Keller, who is vying to become
the first Albuquerque mayor toserve three consecutive terms,
signed an executive ordercodifying the city's status as
immigrant friendly.
Additionally, he created a linefor residents to call city
police to find out ifimmigration agents are operating
in their neighborhood.
SPEAKER_09 (25:38):
Okay, that is what I want to talk about.
It's unbelievable.
That is dangerous.
Okay.
We saw what happened in Dallas,and you start creating phone
lines where people can call in,and then the police are telling
them, Oh, yeah, there's ice inthe area.
That can absolutely make ice atarget.
We've seen people die, we'veseen immigrants die because of
these situations.
And it's one thing to say, don'tassist unless it's required by
(26:01):
law.
It's another to say, should wewarn people that ice is in the
area, putting ice in danger forpeople who may want to step in
and break the law against thembecause we've seen it all over
the country.
We've seen it all over thecountry.
So they did not ask the relevantquestion.
And I guarantee you, people inthe city of Albuquerque, even
though Albuquerque is a bluercity, right?
(26:22):
Guaranteed the vast majoritywould say, no, you can't do, you
don't want to do that.
But they didn't ask thatquestion.
Okay.
So that to me is the problemwith this poll.
A lot of polls get back to howdo you ask the question and what
do you ask?
And if you make it a very kindof gray area question, you're
gonna get your 51% that you gothere.
(26:43):
Should should you not work withice unless it's required by law,
right?
How about if you just ended thequestion, should you not work
with ice, period?
Or should you not work with iceand should you warn potential
criminals that ice is comingafter them?
That that's what they're doinghere, right?
They're warning potentialcriminals that IC is in the
area.
That's what they're doing.
But that's not the question thatSandarov asked.
(27:04):
So that's why I think thisnumber, while you look at it and
go, okay, Albuquerque, a littlefurther left, at the same time,
in in defense of people whoanswered this question, they
weren't asked the real question,which is a problem.
SPEAKER_04 (27:15):
Well, uh, they did uh ask the question about what's
the, you know, what's yourwhat's the the biggest issue
concerning Albuquerque metroarea residents at the time.
No surprise here that 53% saycrime and 47% say the
homelessness.
Yeah.
Uh that just isn't that thatsurprising whatsoever to anybody
that's paying any attention to.
SPEAKER_09 (27:34):
And those numbers are unbelievable.
SPEAKER_04 (27:36):
And what's crazy is that, you know, Keller just
released more information sayingthat our crime rates are down
again.
And that, you know, it's likewe're bright and shiny.
Right.
Look at us, we're a bright andshiny city.
And you talk to anybody thatowns a building in our town, in
our city, or that has businesshere, they are absolutely
whether you own a building ornot, whether you walk on a
street.
Well, I don't care about it.
Or you have two eyeballs, right?
(27:56):
If you have two, if you have twoeyes that can see, you know that
homelessness and crime areabsolutely just taking over our
city.
I don't know how anybody gets upand says that we're doing great.
We're doing so much better.
Yada, yada, yada.
Who believes that?
SPEAKER_09 (28:11):
Okay, right.
I I agree with you.
And you see those numbers andthey're massive, right?
I mean, I these numbers areunbelievable.
The poll that we had leaked tous last week, they were they
weren't this big.
Like this is even bigger, right?
So you see those numbers and yousay, oh my gosh, people are
incredibly worried.
But again, I want to draw yourattention to the type of
question that they ask followingthis.
(28:32):
Okay.
So you see this and you say,This is a crisis, right?
It clearly is.
Homelessness and crime is acrisis according to the voters
who they who they who theysampled here.
But then what they do is theylook at this and they break it
down and listen to the questionthat you get here.
How do you feel in Albuquerque?
Do you feel somewhat safe?
Uh-huh.
(28:52):
Very safe, very unsafe, somewhatunsafe.
Okay, you're either safe oryou're not.
When you say somewhat safe, uhwell, I think everybody feels
somewhat safe.
You don't walk out and getmugged every time you walk
anywhere.
You don't.
And but you but you do haveregular crime in your area.
(29:13):
I don't care where you live, ithappens all the time.
And so to me, when they do this,are you somewhat safe?
SPEAKER_04 (29:18):
Oh no, and I love that they added depends.
So you can have like a depends.
Yeah, that's true.
SPEAKER_09 (29:25):
But it's three percent.
SPEAKER_04 (29:25):
I mean it's not clarifying.
It's not a clarifying question,is what the is what you're
right.
SPEAKER_09 (29:29):
And believe me, if if depends had been 58%, then I
would agree with you.
But no, I'm just saying that youyou either feel safe or you
don't feel safe.
Right.
And and and I think the somewhatsafe is is again, it's a hedge.
It's a hedge.
If you were to take out thesomewhat and say, is Albuquerque
safe or unsafe, would youconsider Albuquerque safe or
unsafe?
I think you'd see differentnumbers here.
(29:51):
But again, all these numberstend to depend on your political
party, which makes zero sense tome.
But it shows you how locked inwe are to our partisan politics.
Politics because if you are feellike you're very safe, 19% of
Democrats feel very safe inAlbuquerque.
Okay.
Four percent of Republicans do.
(30:11):
That's a massive gap.
Yeah.
Okay.
Somewhat safe.
52% of Democrats are like, yeah,I'm somewhat safe.
It's good.
We're not horrible.
It's okay.
And Republicans, 36% say, yeah,I mean, somewhat safe, right?
And 46% of independents.
Uh somewhat unsafe, 39% ofRepublicans are like, hey, this
(30:31):
is somewhat unsafe, very unsafe,19% of Republicans.
And then Democrats, only 8% saythey're very unsafe, and only
19% say they're somewhat unsafe.
So the fact that this relies ona political party, it just shows
you how entrenched the politicsare.
And I think as long as politicsstay as the most important
(30:52):
thing, then we'll never solveour problems.
We won't.
We won't solve them until wesay, no, no, no, this isn't
about politics.
Forget the politics.
I was going to use the S word, Sword politics, right?
And solve the problem.
But we're still not quite thereyet, at least in this survey.
SPEAKER_04 (31:08):
Well, we're not there to the to the fact where
we put the blame for these badpolicies back on leadership,
too.
Like I would love to add thequestion how, you know, do you
feel like what's happening inour city with crime and
homelessness is due largely topolicies passed by our current
mayor?
There's a question you couldask.
SPEAKER_09 (31:28):
Yeah, yeah.
And it's not.
And the answer is going to beabsolutely.
SPEAKER_04 (31:30):
Or our city counselors or whatever.
Well, we're going to have anelection.
SPEAKER_09 (31:32):
We're going to have an election that's going to
answer that.
And it'll be interesting.
It's going to be fascinating.
SPEAKER_04 (31:37):
I know early polling or early uh voting does start
here just in a couple of weeks.
So make sure that you know yourcandidates and you know what's
going on there.
All right.
So back to this gubernatorial,new the Democratic side of uh
the gubernatorial race with theDemocrats.
It's heating up again.
Now the journal uh jumping in alittle bit more on this uh kind
(31:58):
of fight between Holland and SamBrain.
SPEAKER_09 (32:01):
Right.
The New Mexican did the story aweek ago.
Right, which we covered, right?
Right, right, which we covered,which was delicious, which we
talked about.
And this one is is got some uhentertaining quotes.
And I think there is one bigquote from Holland's crew, which
was amusing.
SPEAKER_04 (32:14):
Well, so the headline, just so you know, it
says new New Mexicogubernatorial primary race heats
up.
That's the headline.
Here's the quote for someonewho's been unsuccessfully
running for office for 30 years.
Ouch.
Sam Bregman still can't get thisright, says Holland spokeswoman
Hannah Minchoff.
While he seems to haveplagiarized large portions of
his policy agenda, Deb ismeeting with New Mexicans every
day and sharing her vision forthe future.
SPEAKER_09 (32:35):
Okay, so for those of you who don't know and didn't
see what we talked about lasttime, Bregman put out 189 page
policy prescriptions foreverything wrong with New
Mexico.
Well, when you do something 189pages, A, it's over the top, B,
it's not going to be your stuff.
A lot of it's gonna be rippedoff.
And he got nailed for literallylifting stuff that is right out
of policy prescriptions fromother places.
(32:57):
So I think you you have a choicein a situation like this.
And I think Joni Griffin, who isthe spokesman for Bregman, does
about as well as you can doanswering this back.
And this is what she said.
SPEAKER_04 (33:09):
She says, quote, this is not plagiarism, it is
information in the public arena.
Sam stands by every word in allof these policies.
Those who worked with him tocreate them believe he is the
best candidate to get theseideas accomplished.
Okay.
SPEAKER_09 (33:20):
So yeah, yeah.
No, and so then, of course, wehave the political experts in
this state who we don't havemany of.
And the one that does keepgetting quoted couldn't be uh
further from an expert.
Okay.
And so this is Gabe Sanchez, andhe he is from the University of
New Mexico.
We have a great deal offamiliarity with him and his
(33:42):
level of incompetence, and heweighs in.
SPEAKER_04 (33:45):
So he says University of New Mexico
political science professor GabeSanchez said allegations of
plagiarism in politics typicallytends to revolve around
candidate speeches, not policyplans.
Not true.
U.S.
First Lady Melania Trump andformer President Joe Biden are
among the public officials whohave faced plagiarism claims for
their speeches.
Meanwhile, Sanchez also said theHolland campaign's plagiarism
(34:07):
allegations against Bregmancould reverberate during the
primary election cycle andpossibly be raised during
candidate debates.
SPEAKER_09 (34:14):
Okay, that's just a reflexive comment that isn't
true.
So uh this is likely not goingto be a big issue in the
campaign.
It's not.
Bregman doing some of thisstuff, uh, it's not going to be
anything that's gonna make anysort of difference.
It's just not going to.
And so saying that this could besomething that could be
long-lasting, it's eight monthsuntil the primary.
This is not going to be an issuethat's going to be defining in
(34:37):
any way, shape, or form.
And as we've said before, DebHolland, if she is smart, never
steps on the stage with SamBregman.
She is, if she's smart, shesays, I am busy listening to New
Mexicans.
I do not have time to get on astage and listen to Sam Bregman,
listen to his own voice.
That's what you say if you'rehim.
And by the way, I'm not evensure which Sam Bregman would
(34:57):
show up and I'd I'd have todebate.
Is it the Sam Bregman who's Mr.
Oil and Gas, or is it the SamBregman who's Mr.
Environmentalist?
Is it the Sam Bregman whoreaches across the aisle, or is
it the Sam Bregman who hatesDonald Trump?
I can't tell which Sam BregmanI'm gonna get, so I'm gonna talk
to New Mexicans.
That's what she should do, and Ithink she will.
All right, let's move on.
And I want to touch on somethingthat happened last week with uh
(35:18):
Eleanor Chavez, who is a rep forAlbuquerque in the New Mexico
legislature.
She made some of the mostinflammatory comments I've ever
heard from a legislator in thestate of New Mexico in reference
to ICE.
And now she's getting pushbackfrom law enforcement on how
irresponsible her comments are.
So I I do want you to listen towhat she said, and then we'll
(35:40):
break down what the responsewas.
SPEAKER_02 (35:42):
And I'm gonna call it what it is.
It's fascism, and ICE is actinglike the KKK.
And we've got to stop our localpolice, our state police, we've
got to stop those employees whoare collaborating with ICE,
we've got to stop them, andwe've got to make our laws
(36:04):
stronger so that we protectourselves because when they're
done coming after our immigrantcommunity, they're gonna start
picking everybody else off aswell, and we need to understand
that.
So the time to stand up is now.
It's not time to stand down.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
SPEAKER_09 (36:22):
That is incredibly irresponsible.
She not only says, don't takecriminals off the street, that's
what she's saying.
Number two, she's saying they'recoming for us next.
That emboldens people that areon the edge of their mental
faculties.
People like Eleanor Chavezsaying things like this are
incredibly irresponsible.
She has no business inleadership speaking like this.
(36:42):
It is, it shows you the extremenature of some of our
legislators.
SPEAKER_04 (36:46):
Yeah, and just the irresponsibility of their
rhetoric, just not knowingagain, once I mean, have we not
learned yet that peoplesometimes that are not
necessarily well balanced takethese messages as okay, now I
need to do something about that.
We've already talked about thefact that we've seen uh
Republican headquarters here inthe state, they get pipe bombed
(37:06):
with words on there, KKK equalsICE or ICE equals KKK.
Wake up and realize that likenot everybody's balanced when
they listen to your what you'retalking about.
SPEAKER_09 (37:15):
And what's so crazy is the most heated, unhinged
rhetoric has now become therhetoric of the leaders.
That that and then that exactlywhat you said.
When you get the bombing andit's written on the side of the
building, that's an unhingedwhack job.
And now our legislators arelike, well, sign me up for the
unhinged whack job crew, andthat's completely irresponsible.
(37:37):
It just is so disappointing.
Yeah.
So, but so so the head of thethe New Mexico uh police
officers association, the policechiefs association, is Chief
Hebby in Farmington.
And he wanted to respond to whatshe said, and he let her have
it.
SPEAKER_08 (37:51):
In summary, I'm calling on Representative Chavez
to apologize to the policeofficers across this state who
daily are committed to keepingus safe and who are not
collaborationists with the KuKlux Klan in any way.
And I want to remind everyone,especially our elected leaders,
that as leaders, words haveconsequences.
SPEAKER_09 (38:13):
There it is.
And I think it makes completesense.
Words do have comp consequences.
He's right, and it's people likehis officers that are put in the
line of fire when you sit thereand enable people that are not
on their best behavior lookingto go after law enforcement.
Okay, one more thing, and and itis actually important, it has to
(38:33):
do with healthcare.
Uh, on Tuesday, President Trumpannounced that the United States
would start getting cheaperprescription drugs because we're
gonna start being charged as amost favored nation.
Okay, so that's gonna bring incheaper drugs here from our
manufacturers and others.
How we weren't part of this fora long time, I don't know.
But here's what Dr.
Oz had to say about this, andthen we'll kind of break down
(38:56):
exactly what kind of savingswe're going to be looking at.
SPEAKER_01 (39:00):
We are protecting the Medicaid population because
they are our most vulnerable,and it is completely
indefensible to charge more forthem than you would an affluent
person in living in Europe.
So this is gonna help take someof the pressure off Medicaid,
which of course states have topay.
We compensate as well, but it'sa hurry, it's a number one
growing budget item forgovernors around the country.
It just gives them relief.
(39:20):
We also included in today'sprogram all new products, all
new products have to be releasedat most favored nation pricing.
So as we evolve and advancescience in America and save more
people with cancer and treatmore people with asthma or uh
problems with skin ailments, allthose will be priced
appropriately.
And we have several drugs, somebig ones that were also included
(39:40):
by Fogger that are already goingto be uh at most favored nation
pricing within Medicare.
So across the board, we'reachieving that.
And the again, the magnitude ofwe're talking about selling
drugs at one-tenth what they arelisted for right now, which is
again dramatically below eventhe list price.
And the Trump RX opportunityalso gives direct access to
these prices to everybody inAmerica, including in the
(40:02):
commercial market.
So if you don't like the pricesyou're getting from uh your
company, you can have Trump RXas your backup, and you'll see
even broader strokes of successuh upcoming.
SPEAKER_09 (40:12):
Okay, so yes, there is Trump RX.
So they will be offering drugs.
If your own plan isn't as low asyou want, you can go and
basically get the governmentpricing here.
It's about time this happens.
But just to give you a quickidea here, look at the prices
that we tend to pay.
U.S.
prices for brand drugs are 40 or422% higher than other nations,
(40:34):
like say Canada, France,Germany, Italy, you know, Japan,
the UK.
So how we were not part of themost favored nation when we're
producing a lot of this stuff,or at least our companies are,
is unbelievable.
It's a good thing for everybody.
It will bring prices down.
But also, what this will do isit will allow 50 states plus DC
(40:54):
to be eligible starting in 2026.
That's when these numbers willstart coming down.
Millions of dollars in savings.
Average discounts will be from80 to 85%.
This is something I don't carewhat political party you're in.
This is something that's abenefit.
And then here are some of thediscounts we're looking at here.
Uh a treatment for dermatitis,80% discount, a treatment for uh
(41:17):
postmenopausal osteoporosis,85%, migraine 50%, rheumatoid
arthritis 40%.
So some very good news there, nomatter where you stand on this
thing.
SPEAKER_04 (41:26):
Okay.
All right.
Well, thanks you guys forjoining us this morning or
today.
Whenever you actually tuned intous, we appreciate you spending a
little bit of your day with us.
We will see you back here onSunday.
Until then, please rate andreview our show.
Like and subscribe on YouTube,and thanks so much for all your
support.
Have a great one.
SPEAKER_12 (41:44):
You've been listening to the No Doubt About
It Podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate, andreview.
We'll be back soon.
But in the meantime, you canfind us on Instagram and
Facebook at No Doubt About ItPodcast.
SPEAKER_09 (42:01):
No doubt about it.
SPEAKER_12 (42:04):
The No Doubt About It Podcast is a choose adventure
media production.
See you next time on No DoubtAbout It.
There is no doubt about it.
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.