Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Jonathan and Kelly Show. Jonathan Rush, it's
the biggest tax reduction in history, biggest regulation reduction in history.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Incredible for Medicaid, Medicare with.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Strengthening Kelly Nash.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
The Democrats are going to destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Jonathan and Kelly SHOWBOC. How long do you think it's
going to take the big beautiful bill to battle its
way through the Senate. I don't believe they're going to
make the July first.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Well, they're going to have to make some changes. I mean,
it's pretty obvious that the Senators have kind of dug
themselves in here. I mean, you got you.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Got House members now saying they don't even read the bill. Now,
they're going to encouraging the Senate to push back on
some of these things because they're getting pushed back in
their constituencies because they're buying into a lot of the
bs the Democrats are pushing.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
So, I mean, this is a list of Senators that
I have compiled put off of news reports. I haven't
seen any put together all the senators, but these are
the ones that I've seen in separate reports, interviews, whatever.
Mitch McConnell obviously, Rick Scott from Florida, Lindsey Graham, Josh Howley,
(01:14):
Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Lisa Murkowski, and Collins, Susan Collins.
That's the group that I've seen that pretty much. I mean,
I heard Ran Paul talking yesterday and he's talking about
until you present, if you want to a budget passed,
it has to balance. You can't add another three trillion
(01:37):
dollars in debt. Just not going to vote for it ever,
doesn't I don't care what it's for.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Yeah, Ron Johnson's pretty much the same. Heaser He said,
we're not going to do anything that's going to extend
the debt and deficits period.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
And so, I mean, look that we've talked numerous times.
Donald Trump is not a conservative, Donald Trump is not
a fiscal hawk. That this is not what this is
not what was voted on by the American people in
a lot of instances. They want Donald Trump to do
what Donald Trump does, which is to spend money on
things that they think is great and stop spending money
(02:14):
on things that they don't think is great. Now, the
debt has not caught up to us yet. I mean,
everybody said, we've been playing with fire for a few years,
and we're you know, we're now at over one hundred
percent of GDP and so this is now we're in
the danger zone right now. Trump says that if you
(02:34):
pass this bill, this will then reverse our fortunes. Like
when you listen to Scotts Scott Besson, he's talking about
they don't do dynamic.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Scoring the c CDB Congressional Budget Office CBO. It's all
static over there, and they're not taking into effect the
ramifications of the growth that you will see given the
Trump agenda.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
You got to spend money to make money, and so
that's part of it. There's another part, like I think
if you're being honest with yourself, I think most people
can say we don't need a trillion dollars for the military.
Most people would say that, not all I'm sure Lindsay
Graham wouldn't say that. Lindsay Graham is they go two
(03:18):
trillion on the military, right, But for most people, Like
when Trump was making his speech at West Point the
other day and he's talking about we're going to get
the most beautiful helicopters, We're going to start building ships again,
We're gonna start doing he did mention a lot of
warfare has changed and now they're using these things called drones.
Got to rethink all of it. But when you're rethinking
all of it, a lot of the stuff that you're
(03:40):
investing in moving forward, quite honestly, happens to be manufactured
in the United States by people who make a lot
of donations to Republicans, and a lot of that military
equipment seems to be outdated now, even if it's the
latest in technology.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Yeah, I mean the infamous senator from Ohio where they
build apparently, and in South Carolina we built some personnel carriers.
Forgotten the name of the company. It kind of me
in a minute, but I though th in Ohio that
was like the biggest issue ever was the production of tanks.
This guy happened to represent the constituency that that manufacturing
facility was in, so we were always up to our
(04:18):
elbows and tanks.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Well, it was like nineteen I want to say nineteen
ninety one, maybe ninety two. I forget the year. I
was a very young still young DJ and George Bush
was the president, so it has to have been like
ninety one, and they canceled a nuclear trident submarine they
had ordered two from Electric Boat in Grotten is the
(04:43):
name of the town. I was doing mornings at Q
and O five in Grotton, New London when they canceled
that order. Basically, Electric Boat just sent out notices to everybody. Okay,
once we finished this one here, you're all noticed that
you're now being let go so in like a month,
because that's about how much longer we have let to
(05:03):
build this first one. And it was like three quarters
of electric Boat was getting fired. Yea, well if three
quarters of electric Boat the number one employer in Grotten,
New London, let go. Of those people, they were showing
the economic impact, like fifteen grocery stores in that area,
We're going to have to close. All the car dealerships
(05:25):
were going to go out of business. I mean, it
was going to become a ghost town. So you know,
I'm twenty two or whatever I was at the time,
and so you know, I did this radio stunt where
I broadcast live for one hundred and five hours because
I'm like Q and O five, And for one hundred
five hours, I stayed up, got petitions, the teamsters came,
(05:46):
I remember, we got all these petitions and then we
drove together like a convoy from New London, Connecticut to Washington,
d C. And we met with our Senator Chris Murphy,
and then they walked us into the White House and
we presented our you know, thousands and thousands of names
that we had gotten there in New London to save
(06:06):
the second Trident submarine. And you know, I don't think
that we had much to do with it, but guess
what they said, Okay, we're going to get it.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
No, it's a huge win.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Did they ever use that nuclear submarine? I don't think so.
I don't think that nuclear submarine did a damn thing
other than just employee a bunch of people to make it.
That is bad policy. It was great for New London
for that year or two where we really desperately needed
that because we had been banking on it.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
And you've seen some of the impacts here in South Carolina.
There was a electric battery manufacturer in near for Lawrence,
could have been in Florence County, I'm sure it was.
But when Biden lost the re election shortly thereafter, if
I remember correctly on the timetable, it's when the company
(06:55):
announced that would not be building that facility. Now, given
that that was already in place, if I remember correctly,
for about six months, and if even if I got
the timetable wrong in this particular instance, these things happen
all over the country. People started buying up property next
to where that manufacturing plan was going to because you're
gonna want a subway, you're gonna want gas stations, you're
gonna want whatever you're gonna put around it. Sure, because
(07:18):
there's a lot of industry that follows. Just like when
Walmart announces they're going to build my gosh, the land
around it just goes five times in value because of
all the industry that always follows Walmart locations, or just
the amount of traffic that it'll bring in. So those
kind of things always happen whenever there's a policy change.
But you know, when you think about what Trump is
(07:39):
saying and what Scott Bessett's saying, because the CBO is
a static rating, if you don't calculate him what just
the budget part, but also the other aspects of his plan,
the external revenue service having to do with the tariffs
and those kind of things, then you really can't even
measure what the possibilities could be. Now I got it,
(08:01):
could be don't put bread on the table, could be
don't make mortgage payments. I'm with you on that, but
you know, you're at a point now where the American
people are probably thinking, even when the Republicans were in office,
just like you displayed, or when the Democrats are in office,
it's always the same damn game, and we always are
not always, but we have been for the past what
(08:22):
three decades, been running a deficit which turns into a
larger debt. And now we're at a point where we
either got a crap and get off the pot, and
they're saying Trump is the man who can make it happen.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
One of the things. See, you know, I'm very torn
here because I am I don't want to say a
legit conservative, but I believe in smaller federal government. I
would like to drastically shrink the size of federal government.
I mean, like by more than half, like legit fire
(08:57):
more than fifty percent of the people who are making
their income in the federal government. I believe that that
would actually help America at a large scale level. However,
most people I don't believe agree with me on that,
whether it's not of fear or whatever. They feel like
the government is here to help. I've never felt that way.
(09:20):
I don't believe that the government can help. I think
oftentimes they soften the blow, but if you actually experienced
the blow, then you as an individual, you as a family,
you as a town, you then shift and you repurpose
and you come up with something that's even better. You
(09:41):
can't what is it? It was like Joel Ostein and
those preachers, they always say, you didn't know you're set
back was actually a set up, right, That's one of
their favorite phrases. In life. Sometimes you need to be
knocked to your knees in order to get going. And
what we've done in America is we've allowed people to
just kind of wallow in this level of mediocrity. And
(10:05):
that's the government's doing this, I think, almost by design.
And if we could shrink, so Trump's but I understand
Trump's not going to shrink government, not going to do it.
He's going to try to quote unquote drain the swamp
whatever that looks like, which I think to him means
get rid of a lot of politicians, primary them out
of there or whatever. But he is great at growing revenues,
(10:26):
so it's a two part problem. We need to spend
less money and make more money. Spend less, make more.
We got to do both. He's going to help us
make more. I hate to say it. We may have
to kick the can down the road to the next
president and let him start to start shrinking government.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Well, I don't think that, and I think it's going
to be interesting to see, and I hope this actually
plays out. As you mentioned, you would love to see
government get smaller, so would I. One of the things
that the Congress is going to at least Republicans are
going to start pushing for, is if we take a
lot of the dose efforts and you codify them of
the law. We've got to get rid of the governmental
budgeting process US where everything gets an increase. You never
(11:02):
decrease the budget. You never even go back to a
zero based on any previous behaviors or expenditures or whatever.
You just increase it by X amount every year. It's funny. So,
like the lex in the county headline, Kelly and I
we're laughing about in the studio this morning, taxpayers in
Lexton County are going to get some relief. The tax
will stay flat.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yeah, I mean now that means it's a cut. Basically,
you're paying the exact same thing this year as you
did last year. So as we were expecting to grow it.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
When we don't grow the budget, you're cutting the budget.
That's what Democrats are constantly saying. And I'm hoping the
Scott Bessett and these type of persons that he's brought
in for doze in particular with the private sector, will
be able to talk with Donald Trump and go, hey,
you know something, We're going to have a certain amount
of nutrition in this agency and that agency and this
agency and that agency, but they're still hiring for these positions.
(11:49):
We need to cut that out. And then we need
to actually start managing this like you would a company,
where you go in and find out what the hell
these people are doing because a lot of them, as
we've found out, are doing nothing. So those people are
going to come off the payroll. And as you're able
to show that the efficiency of government or at least
sustain the level of what people are always saying is
going to happen. You're never going to get a Social
(12:11):
Security checkers. There's nobody there there to mail them out. Okay,
so you prove all that wrong as you continue to
thin the size of government just based on private sector
recommendations from these people who I pray that the Doze
Committee will be able to help Trump see that there's
an opportunity and that's how we'll get the shrink government
while they continue to focus on the external revenue service
(12:32):
and they can through the terrafs, and they continue to
also make cuts to fraud, waste, and abuse that's plainly
being shared by way too damn many people having to
do with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Well.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Look, so when I was listening to Rand Paul, obviously
I've never read the Big Beautiful Bill. I mean, I
don't even know that it's available to the general public yet.
But Rand Paul says one of the things that he
was shocked is that we are not eliminating any COVID
spending that's still there.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
That's problem.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Like literally hundreds of billions of dollars for COVID relief
is going to be in the twenty twenty six budget.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Why why, good question.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Donald Trump wants it. That's why Donald Trump thinks it's needed. Still,
Donald Trump is going to add three trillion dollars in
debt with this budget, are you ready to sign up
for that? I know we sure as hell would be
given Joe Biden a hard time about adding three trillion
in debt.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
No, we probably would be thankful. That's all he's going
to add.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
You know, like Rand Paul said, we're going to bring
in five trillion dollars and we're going to spend eight. Now,
if we bring in more than five trillion, that would
be a pleasant surprise. But there's no possible way you're
bringing in.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Eight, no, sir. All right now, we mentioned the Lectionton
County tax relief. I know that you guys are breathing
aside of relief. I did get a notice yesterday from
Lexton County. I got to look this up. I try
to look it up on the internet. I really can't
get any type of answers to my question. But it
(14:10):
was the Tax Assessment and Equalization Department.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
What is an equalization department?
Speaker 1 (14:15):
That's my question. I can't find the answer on the internet.
But I don't even know. I just thought it was
the tax assessor's office. So I got to find out
what that means because I think I'm paying more for that.
I know I'm paying more because I got the tax
assessment on that property, but I don't know how much
I'm paying just to make sure that we're equalizing and
who am I equalizing it with? Or maybe I have
the beneficiary. I doubt that's the case. Is someone helping
(14:39):
equalize out my fair share? I don't think that's what's
happening here. But we have a state representative who says
that this is just no place to have this conversation
as the General Assembly. Now do we have the finalized budget?
I even looked at the newspaper today.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Well, they've agreed to it last third, the two departments,
and they said they're supposed to vote on it today.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
That's right. Today? Is I keep getting my days off? Confused?
Today's Wednesday? This is when they vote on it. So
one of the things in that budget has created an
uproar again, as I guess the City Council of Columbia's
waiting to find out what's in the budget as well.
Columbia again defers the conversion therapy vote as South Carolina,
that will be the state threatens millions in funding. So
(15:25):
they had a meeting, remember a couple of weeks ago,
if not last week, about the city of Columbia ban
on conversion therapy, which attempts to change a person's sexual orientation,
gender identity. Conservative state leaders want Columbia to repeal the
ban on the conversion therapy and the city limits within
(15:46):
they passed us in twenty twenty one, and they're threatening
legal action and millions of dollars hangs in the balance
now because this is a proviso in the state budget.
So the city got together. It was a packed house.
A lot of people were up set. Leaders from the
LBGTQ community. We're calling for the city to stand on principal,
don't worry about the money. City manager Teresa Wilson was
(16:09):
quick to point out, we need to worry about the
money because now we've got to figure out where that
we're going to get that money from. That's pretty much
where our Mayor Daniel Rickerman stands.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
You know, Daniel Rickenman's a great guy, and he's a
fantastic cheerleader for the City of Columbia, and I'm sure
he's done a lot of good. Again, it's hard as
the mayor of Columbia because you have almost no power,
you're a glorified council member. But he has done a
wonderful job in that capacity. What he's not done a
great job at is actually putting forward the ideas and
(16:43):
that he would like to see and acted. I get
the you're not the guy who gets to make that decision.
You don't get to executive order it into action or whatever.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Like Teresa Wilso pointed out with Mayor Ben He's he's
just a council member. He just gets one vote.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yeah, you're a glorified council member. That's all you are.
But you are the glorified council member. You're going to
be the leader. So get up there and lead. Tell
us tell the community. Daniel, do you want the people
to have the ability to have what they labeled conversion therapy?
I hate that phrase because it's been so demonized, but
(17:22):
the ability if a person and this is conversion therapy
at any age. By the way, this is not just
on children. That if I is right now, as a
fifty almost eight year old man, decided, gosh, I am
really having these thoughts about becoming a woman, or I'm
having these thoughts about being attracted to men and I
don't like it. Can I go to a therapist and
(17:44):
have them help me with these gay thoughts that I'm
having with right now. In the city of Columbia, the
answers no. And if you're if you're a coming into puberty,
you're fourteen, thirteen, whatever, and you go to mom and
dad and say I'm might not even to mom and Daddy,
might go to a school guidance counselor and say, gosh,
I'm really having these weird feelings about people that I
(18:06):
don't think I'm supposed to be having these feelings. Can
you help me? In Colombia, the answer is no. In Lexington, yes,
I don't. Nobody is forcing you into therapy, and I
understand that there's probably fifty stories in the last one
hundred years where people have been quote unquote forced into
(18:26):
conversion therapy against their will, but the overwhelming majority and
by the way, it doesn't work. Side note, it can't work.
If you don't want to be changed, you're not going
to get changed, right. But it's like, if you want
the help, the fact that the city of Columbia is
banning the help, I mean, I'm pretty clearly on the
(18:48):
side of you should be allowed to try to convert yourself.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
Talk about it sounds like you're restricting my speech.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
It certainly feels that way. If you're a therapist, do
you have been restricted? Your First Amendment rights have been
infringed upon. But again that's why the state is now
making it so you can't. Are we saying you can't
ban conversion therapy bans or I forget how we're wording it.
It's there's a lot of banning going on over here.
But I just I wish Daniel Rickenman would come out forcefully,
(19:20):
either for it or against it, say look, we're going
to stand on business. We don't need that three point
seven million. We ideologically are against it. We think that
it does a lot of harm to teenagers, and so
we're not going to allow it. I would disagree with
you vehemently, but at least I would know where you stand.
All you keep saying is well, who's going to make
up for the three point seven million?
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Yeah? Conservative state lawmaker Josh Kimball Republican Spartanburg out of
the clause in the state budget that would cost Columbia
roughly three point seven million if it keeps the conversion
therapy policy, as we mentioned, that is banned. So they
want them to reverse their ban that if it comes
(19:58):
out of the budget that way. I haven't seen the budget,
so we don't know which is I guess where the
city council is. We don't know because we haven't seen
the budget yet. So as soon as we find that out,
then we know we got to do now. State Representative
Seth Rose, Democrat Richland, former Richland County Council members, spoke
to reporters Tuesday ahead of the city council vote along
with the ACOU and other members, and he said he
would hope that no elected official would actively ask for
(20:24):
state level restrictions to affect local laws. Have we ever
done that before, Kelly, I mean, like every damn day.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
I mean, that's why you have a state law. I
mean it's like saying, you know, I wish that the
federal government would stop imposing laws sure that would affect
the states, or the counties, or just me as an individual.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
I never heard of a state's rights argument of you,
if you want to do away with an ordinance that
has been publicly put in place by locally elected officials,
then you should do it in a public setting, not
behind a curtain.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
If they did do it in a public setting, yes,
I mean they said a bill. Yeah, it's a bill,
and they voted on it and it was all publicly recorded.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
Do we have to have X number of minutes guaranteed
in the House and the Senate floor in order to
argue whether Columbia can have this man in place? He continues,
quote to do it in a cowardly way and the
shadows out of the public view. I think is absolutely wrong,
and the people of Columbia deserve better. Has anything been
talked about that's come across the House of the Senate
(21:27):
floor more so than the damn budget? I don't think so,
can you?
Speaker 2 (21:32):
I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Rose also took issue with the attempt to set policy
through the budget, and effort called fundamentally unfair in that
it usurps the existing state legislative process. Again, do we
have to have X number of minutes of the House
and Senate floor in order for it to be what
held to public account and scrutiny and or argued? For
how long? How long does this argument had to go on? Look,
(21:57):
you got one city in the state of South Carolina
that has a ban in place. The state of South
Carolina's Attorney General, Alan Wilson threatened the city with legal
action if it kept the ordinance, saying the policy violates
state law and the First Amendment. So I don't understand
where you think you have a leg to stand on here.
Even if you do break it out of the damn budget,
(22:19):
and we're going to put it on the House floor
and the state Attorney General has already given you the opinion,
most of the legislators they are going to say, yeah,
you can't have this policy in place because it violates
state law and the First Amendment. But is that what
we have to do? Because you always want to line
up people outside to scream stuff like, let me see
what this guy says. Hang on a second. They want
(22:43):
to prioritize its values over the budget. They want the
City of Columbia to prioritize its values. Well, we don't
even add the value stated by the mayor, So what
is the value?
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Well, here's where it gets to me. Been more confusing
according to this. So they had the first meeting on
May twentieth. I think they voted unanimously on May twentieth,
we're not going to vote on it. So then they
said we're gonna have to do it at the next meeting.
The next meeting was last night. So this is a
three hour meeting, and the council voted six to one
(23:21):
to again defer the vote. Councilmember Peter Brown the only
member to vote against deferring. Now, council members Oddity Bustles
and Tyler Bailey publicly stated that they plan on voting
against acting that ordinance. They want it. We're going to
eat the money. That's so Tyler bear Berry, Tyler Bailey
(23:45):
and Oddity Bustles. You spell her name ad t I
in case you're looking her up. Those two are saying
we're standing on business. So now we know where they stand.
That's great. So that's two. We don't know where Peter
Brown stands. We just know that Peter wanted to have
the vote last night. Nobody else would would speak publicly
as to how they felt about anything. You are not
(24:08):
leaders if you will not tell us how you feel
about this.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
How willing is the city to stand up against political
pressure than more than one person who's the equated to extortion.
This is an interesting paragraph and leads back to your question.
As we start to play the word games again, we
got to keep our definition straight. Quote I am asking you,
as he addresses the city council. I am asking you
(24:33):
to stand up for what's right in the face of
an oppressive government, said Dylan Gunnals, president of sc PRIDE.
So let me just read that again. Remember we talked
about the fact is the banning is that you are
not allowed to have a conversion therapy conversation licensed or
(24:56):
unlicensed as a therapist with anybody in the state of
Columbia or in this city of Columbia. Now you can't
not have that conversation, you can't speak of it. Now,
I'll go back to the quote again. I'm asking you
to stand up for what's right in the face of
(25:16):
an oppressive government. Wow.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Yeah, that's word games right there.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
Bother you're you're saying because.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
If you don't ban it, you're oppressive.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
That's right. If you do not ban this conversation, yeah,
you're being oppressive.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
Yeah, by allowing it to happen.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
That's classic.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Daniel Rickenman in twenty twenty one was a council member.
He voted against this ban in twenty twenty one, So
he was on the record what four years ago saying
he thought it was a bad idea to ban these conversations.
But now I'm going to go and read the words.
This seems like a twist. This is I guess from
(25:57):
last night. Okay, to be quite frank, I haven't even
thought about this ordinance since it was passed. It's been
years and we didn't hear from the legislators or the
Attorney general or anybody else regarding this ordinance. Now you
have an AG and a senator who are running for governor,
and we are being penalized, and we have to come
up with money to see where we're going to go
(26:19):
if we don't repeal it. Rickenman also mentioned during the
meeting that he and his family are now receiving death
threats over this issue. I think on both sides of
the aisle. Rickenman said that because of the twenty twenty
one Conversion Therapy Ordinance only hand outs civil penalties to
the therapists, that the religious organizations can still practice the therapy.
(26:41):
The local law can only do so much in protecting
the LGBTQ plus community.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
We voted on an ordinance that actually really has no teeth,
says Rickenman, and apparently.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Have not prosecuted anyone for yet.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Teresa Wilson says this is a political hot potato. I
guess she's probably happy she doesn't need your vote.
Welcome to the Jonathan and Kelly Show. Jonathan Rush, it's
the biggest tax reduction in history, biggest regulation reduction in history.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Incredible for Medicaid, Medicare with.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Strengthening Kelly Nash.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
The Democrats are going to destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Jonathan and Kelly SHOWBOC. How long do you think it's
going to take the big beautiful bill to battle its
way through the Senate. I don't believe they're going to
make the July first.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Well, they're going to have to make some changes. I mean,
it's pretty obvious that the Senators have kind of dug
themselves in here. I mean, you got you.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Got House members now saying they don't even read the bill. Now,
they're going to encouraging the Senate to push back on
some of these things because they're getting pushed back in
their constituencies because they're buying into a lot of the
bs the Democrats are pushing.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
So, I mean, this is a list of Senators that
I have compiled put off of news reports. I haven't
seen any put together all the senators, but these are
the ones that I've seen in separate reports, interviews, whatever.
Mitch McConnell obviously, Rick Scott from Florida, Lindsey Graham, Josh Howley,
(01:14):
Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Lisa Murkowski, and Collins, Susan Collins.
That's the group that I've seen that pretty much. I mean,
I heard Ran Paul talking yesterday and he's talking about
until you present, if you want to a budget passed,
it has to balance. You can't add another three trillion
(01:37):
dollars in debt. Just not going to vote for it ever,
doesn't I don't care what it's for.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Yeah, Ron Johnson's pretty much the same. Heaser He said,
we're not going to do anything that's going to extend
the debt and deficits period.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
And so, I mean, look that we've talked numerous times.
Donald Trump is not a conservative, Donald Trump is not
a fiscal hawk. That this is not what this is
not what was voted on by the American people in
a lot of instances. They want Donald Trump to do
what Donald Trump does, which is to spend money on
things that they think is great and stop spending money
(02:14):
on things that they don't think is great. Now, the
debt has not caught up to us yet. I mean,
everybody said, we've been playing with fire for a few years,
and we're you know, we're now at over one hundred
percent of GDP and so this is now we're in
the danger zone right now. Trump says that if you
(02:34):
pass this bill, this will then reverse our fortunes. Like
when you listen to Scotts Scott Besson, he's talking about
they don't do dynamic.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Scoring the c CDB Congressional Budget Office CBO. It's all
static over there, and they're not taking into effect the
ramifications of the growth that you will see given the
Trump agenda.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
You got to spend money to make money, and so
that's part of it. There's another part, like I think
if you're being honest with yourself, I think most people
can say we don't need a trillion dollars for the military.
Most people would say that, not all I'm sure Lindsay
Graham wouldn't say that. Lindsay Graham is they go two
(03:18):
trillion on the military, right, But for most people, Like
when Trump was making his speech at West Point the
other day and he's talking about we're going to get
the most beautiful helicopters, We're going to start building ships again,
We're gonna start doing he did mention a lot of
warfare has changed and now they're using these things called drones.
Got to rethink all of it. But when you're rethinking
all of it, a lot of the stuff that you're
(03:40):
investing in moving forward, quite honestly, happens to be manufactured
in the United States by people who make a lot
of donations to Republicans, and a lot of that military
equipment seems to be outdated now, even if it's the
latest in technology.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Yeah, I mean the infamous senator from Ohio where they
build apparently, and in South Carolina we built some personnel carriers.
Forgotten the name of the company. It kind of me
in a minute, but I though th in Ohio that
was like the biggest issue ever was the production of tanks.
This guy happened to represent the constituency that that manufacturing
facility was in, so we were always up to our
(04:18):
elbows and tanks.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Well, it was like nineteen I want to say nineteen
ninety one, maybe ninety two. I forget the year. I
was a very young still young DJ and George Bush
was the president, so it has to have been like
ninety one, and they canceled a nuclear trident submarine they
had ordered two from Electric Boat in Grotten is the
(04:43):
name of the town. I was doing mornings at Q
and O five in Grotton, New London when they canceled
that order. Basically, Electric Boat just sent out notices to everybody. Okay,
once we finished this one here, you're all noticed that
you're now being let go so in like a month,
because that's about how much longer we have let to
(05:03):
build this first one. And it was like three quarters
of electric Boat was getting fired. Yea, well if three
quarters of electric Boat the number one employer in Grotten,
New London, let go. Of those people, they were showing
the economic impact, like fifteen grocery stores in that area,
We're going to have to close. All the car dealerships
(05:25):
were going to go out of business. I mean, it
was going to become a ghost town. So you know,
I'm twenty two or whatever I was at the time,
and so you know, I did this radio stunt where
I broadcast live for one hundred and five hours because
I'm like Q and O five, And for one hundred
five hours, I stayed up, got petitions, the teamsters came,
(05:46):
I remember, we got all these petitions and then we
drove together like a convoy from New London, Connecticut to Washington,
d C. And we met with our Senator Chris Murphy,
and then they walked us into the White House and
we presented our you know, thousands and thousands of names
that we had gotten there in New London to save
(06:06):
the second Trident submarine. And you know, I don't think
that we had much to do with it, but guess
what they said, Okay, we're going to get it.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
No, it's a huge win.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Did they ever use that nuclear submarine? I don't think so.
I don't think that nuclear submarine did a damn thing
other than just employee a bunch of people to make it.
That is bad policy. It was great for New London
for that year or two where we really desperately needed
that because we had been banking on it.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
And you've seen some of the impacts here in South Carolina.
There was a electric battery manufacturer in near for Lawrence,
could have been in Florence County, I'm sure it was.
But when Biden lost the re election shortly thereafter, if
I remember correctly on the timetable, it's when the company
(06:55):
announced that would not be building that facility. Now, given
that that was already in place, if I remember correctly,
for about six months, and if even if I got
the timetable wrong in this particular instance, these things happen
all over the country. People started buying up property next
to where that manufacturing plan was going to because you're
gonna want a subway, you're gonna want gas stations, you're
gonna want whatever you're gonna put around it. Sure, because
(07:18):
there's a lot of industry that follows. Just like when
Walmart announces they're going to build my gosh, the land
around it just goes five times in value because of
all the industry that always follows Walmart locations, or just
the amount of traffic that it'll bring in. So those
kind of things always happen whenever there's a policy change.
But you know, when you think about what Trump is
(07:39):
saying and what Scott Bessett's saying, because the CBO is
a static rating, if you don't calculate him what just
the budget part, but also the other aspects of his plan,
the external revenue service having to do with the tariffs
and those kind of things, then you really can't even
measure what the possibilities could be. Now I got it,
(08:01):
could be don't put bread on the table, could be
don't make mortgage payments. I'm with you on that, but
you know, you're at a point now where the American
people are probably thinking, even when the Republicans were in office,
just like you displayed, or when the Democrats are in office,
it's always the same damn game, and we always are
not always, but we have been for the past what
(08:22):
three decades, been running a deficit which turns into a
larger debt. And now we're at a point where we
either got a crap and get off the pot, and
they're saying Trump is the man who can make it happen.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
One of the things. See, you know, I'm very torn
here because I am I don't want to say a
legit conservative, but I believe in smaller federal government. I
would like to drastically shrink the size of federal government.
I mean, like by more than half, like legit fire
(08:57):
more than fifty percent of the people who are making
their income in the federal government. I believe that that
would actually help America at a large scale level. However,
most people I don't believe agree with me on that,
whether it's not of fear or whatever. They feel like
the government is here to help. I've never felt that way.
(09:20):
I don't believe that the government can help. I think
oftentimes they soften the blow, but if you actually experienced
the blow, then you as an individual, you as a family,
you as a town, you then shift and you repurpose
and you come up with something that's even better. You
(09:41):
can't what is it? It was like Joel Ostein and
those preachers, they always say, you didn't know you're set
back was actually a set up, right, That's one of
their favorite phrases. In life. Sometimes you need to be
knocked to your knees in order to get going. And
what we've done in America is we've allowed people to
just kind of wallow in this level of mediocrity. And
(10:05):
that's the government's doing this, I think, almost by design.
And if we could shrink, so Trump's but I understand
Trump's not going to shrink government, not going to do it.
He's going to try to quote unquote drain the swamp
whatever that looks like, which I think to him means
get rid of a lot of politicians, primary them out
of there or whatever. But he is great at growing revenues,
(10:26):
so it's a two part problem. We need to spend
less money and make more money. Spend less, make more.
We got to do both. He's going to help us
make more. I hate to say it. We may have
to kick the can down the road to the next
president and let him start to start shrinking government.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Well, I don't think that, and I think it's going
to be interesting to see, and I hope this actually
plays out. As you mentioned, you would love to see
government get smaller, so would I. One of the things
that the Congress is going to at least Republicans are
going to start pushing for, is if we take a
lot of the dose efforts and you codify them of
the law. We've got to get rid of the governmental
budgeting process US where everything gets an increase. You never
(11:02):
decrease the budget. You never even go back to a
zero based on any previous behaviors or expenditures or whatever.
You just increase it by X amount every year. It's funny. So,
like the lex in the county headline, Kelly and I
we're laughing about in the studio this morning, taxpayers in
Lexton County are going to get some relief. The tax
will stay flat.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yeah, I mean now that means it's a cut. Basically,
you're paying the exact same thing this year as you
did last year. So as we were expecting to grow it.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
When we don't grow the budget, you're cutting the budget.
That's what Democrats are constantly saying. And I'm hoping the
Scott Bessett and these type of persons that he's brought
in for doze in particular with the private sector, will
be able to talk with Donald Trump and go, hey,
you know something, We're going to have a certain amount
of nutrition in this agency and that agency and this
agency and that agency, but they're still hiring for these positions.
(11:49):
We need to cut that out. And then we need
to actually start managing this like you would a company,
where you go in and find out what the hell
these people are doing because a lot of them, as
we've found out, are doing nothing. So those people are
going to come off the payroll. And as you're able
to show that the efficiency of government or at least
sustain the level of what people are always saying is
going to happen. You're never going to get a Social
(12:11):
Security checkers. There's nobody there there to mail them out. Okay,
so you prove all that wrong as you continue to
thin the size of government just based on private sector
recommendations from these people who I pray that the Doze
Committee will be able to help Trump see that there's
an opportunity and that's how we'll get the shrink government
while they continue to focus on the external revenue service
(12:32):
and they can through the terrafs, and they continue to
also make cuts to fraud, waste, and abuse that's plainly
being shared by way too damn many people having to
do with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Well.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Look, so when I was listening to Rand Paul, obviously
I've never read the Big Beautiful Bill. I mean, I
don't even know that it's available to the general public yet.
But Rand Paul says one of the things that he
was shocked is that we are not eliminating any COVID
spending that's still there.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
That's problem.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Like literally hundreds of billions of dollars for COVID relief
is going to be in the twenty twenty six budget.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Why why, good question.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Donald Trump wants it. That's why Donald Trump thinks it's needed. Still,
Donald Trump is going to add three trillion dollars in
debt with this budget, are you ready to sign up
for that? I know we sure as hell would be
given Joe Biden a hard time about adding three trillion
in debt.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
No, we probably would be thankful. That's all he's going
to add.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
You know, like Rand Paul said, we're going to bring
in five trillion dollars and we're going to spend eight. Now,
if we bring in more than five trillion, that would
be a pleasant surprise. But there's no possible way you're
bringing in.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Eight, no, sir. All right now, we mentioned the Lectionton
County tax relief. I know that you guys are breathing
aside of relief. I did get a notice yesterday from
Lexton County. I got to look this up. I try
to look it up on the internet. I really can't
get any type of answers to my question. But it
(14:10):
was the Tax Assessment and Equalization Department.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
What is an equalization department?
Speaker 1 (14:15):
That's my question. I can't find the answer on the internet.
But I don't even know. I just thought it was
the tax assessor's office. So I got to find out
what that means because I think I'm paying more for that.
I know I'm paying more because I got the tax
assessment on that property, but I don't know how much
I'm paying just to make sure that we're equalizing and
who am I equalizing it with? Or maybe I have
the beneficiary. I doubt that's the case. Is someone helping
(14:39):
equalize out my fair share? I don't think that's what's
happening here. But we have a state representative who says
that this is just no place to have this conversation
as the General Assembly. Now do we have the finalized budget?
I even looked at the newspaper today.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Well, they've agreed to it last third, the two departments,
and they said they're supposed to vote on it today.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
That's right. Today? Is I keep getting my days off? Confused?
Today's Wednesday? This is when they vote on it. So
one of the things in that budget has created an
uproar again, as I guess the City Council of Columbia's
waiting to find out what's in the budget as well.
Columbia again defers the conversion therapy vote as South Carolina,
that will be the state threatens millions in funding. So
(15:25):
they had a meeting, remember a couple of weeks ago,
if not last week, about the city of Columbia ban
on conversion therapy, which attempts to change a person's sexual orientation,
gender identity. Conservative state leaders want Columbia to repeal the
ban on the conversion therapy and the city limits within
(15:46):
they passed us in twenty twenty one, and they're threatening
legal action and millions of dollars hangs in the balance
now because this is a proviso in the state budget.
So the city got together. It was a packed house.
A lot of people were up set. Leaders from the
LBGTQ community. We're calling for the city to stand on principal,
don't worry about the money. City manager Teresa Wilson was
(16:09):
quick to point out, we need to worry about the
money because now we've got to figure out where that
we're going to get that money from. That's pretty much
where our Mayor Daniel Rickerman stands.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
You know, Daniel Rickenman's a great guy, and he's a
fantastic cheerleader for the City of Columbia, and I'm sure
he's done a lot of good. Again, it's hard as
the mayor of Columbia because you have almost no power,
you're a glorified council member. But he has done a
wonderful job in that capacity. What he's not done a
great job at is actually putting forward the ideas and
(16:43):
that he would like to see and acted. I get
the you're not the guy who gets to make that decision.
You don't get to executive order it into action or whatever.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Like Teresa Wilso pointed out with Mayor Ben He's he's
just a council member. He just gets one vote.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yeah, you're a glorified council member. That's all you are.
But you are the glorified council member. You're going to
be the leader. So get up there and lead. Tell
us tell the community. Daniel, do you want the people
to have the ability to have what they labeled conversion therapy?
I hate that phrase because it's been so demonized, but
(17:22):
the ability if a person and this is conversion therapy
at any age. By the way, this is not just
on children. That if I is right now, as a
fifty almost eight year old man, decided, gosh, I am
really having these thoughts about becoming a woman, or I'm
having these thoughts about being attracted to men and I
don't like it. Can I go to a therapist and
(17:44):
have them help me with these gay thoughts that I'm
having with right now. In the city of Columbia, the
answers no. And if you're if you're a coming into puberty,
you're fourteen, thirteen, whatever, and you go to mom and
dad and say I'm might not even to mom and Daddy,
might go to a school guidance counselor and say, gosh,
I'm really having these weird feelings about people that I
(18:06):
don't think I'm supposed to be having these feelings. Can
you help me? In Colombia, the answer is no. In Lexington, yes,
I don't. Nobody is forcing you into therapy, and I
understand that there's probably fifty stories in the last one
hundred years where people have been quote unquote forced into
(18:26):
conversion therapy against their will, but the overwhelming majority and
by the way, it doesn't work. Side note, it can't work.
If you don't want to be changed, you're not going
to get changed, right. But it's like, if you want
the help, the fact that the city of Columbia is
banning the help, I mean, I'm pretty clearly on the
(18:48):
side of you should be allowed to try to convert yourself.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
Talk about it sounds like you're restricting my speech.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
It certainly feels that way. If you're a therapist, do
you have been restricted? Your First Amendment rights have been
infringed upon. But again that's why the state is now
making it so you can't. Are we saying you can't
ban conversion therapy bans or I forget how we're wording it.
It's there's a lot of banning going on over here.
But I just I wish Daniel Rickenman would come out forcefully,
(19:20):
either for it or against it, say look, we're going
to stand on business. We don't need that three point
seven million. We ideologically are against it. We think that
it does a lot of harm to teenagers, and so
we're not going to allow it. I would disagree with
you vehemently, but at least I would know where you stand.
All you keep saying is well, who's going to make
up for the three point seven million?
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Yeah? Conservative state lawmaker Josh Kimball Republican Spartanburg out of
the clause in the state budget that would cost Columbia
roughly three point seven million if it keeps the conversion
therapy policy, as we mentioned, that is banned. So they
want them to reverse their ban that if it comes
(19:58):
out of the budget that way. I haven't seen the budget,
so we don't know which is I guess where the
city council is. We don't know because we haven't seen
the budget yet. So as soon as we find that out,
then we know we got to do now. State Representative
Seth Rose, Democrat Richland, former Richland County Council members, spoke
to reporters Tuesday ahead of the city council vote along
with the ACOU and other members, and he said he
would hope that no elected official would actively ask for
(20:24):
state level restrictions to affect local laws. Have we ever
done that before, Kelly, I mean, like every damn day.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
I mean, that's why you have a state law. I
mean it's like saying, you know, I wish that the
federal government would stop imposing laws sure that would affect
the states, or the counties, or just me as an individual.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
I never heard of a state's rights argument of you,
if you want to do away with an ordinance that
has been publicly put in place by locally elected officials,
then you should do it in a public setting, not
behind a curtain.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
If they did do it in a public setting, yes,
I mean they said a bill. Yeah, it's a bill,
and they voted on it and it was all publicly recorded.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
Do we have to have X number of minutes guaranteed
in the House and the Senate floor in order to
argue whether Columbia can have this man in place? He continues,
quote to do it in a cowardly way and the
shadows out of the public view. I think is absolutely wrong,
and the people of Columbia deserve better. Has anything been
talked about that's come across the House of the Senate
(21:27):
floor more so than the damn budget? I don't think so,
can you?
Speaker 2 (21:32):
I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Rose also took issue with the attempt to set policy
through the budget, and effort called fundamentally unfair in that
it usurps the existing state legislative process. Again, do we
have to have X number of minutes of the House
and Senate floor in order for it to be what
held to public account and scrutiny and or argued? For
how long? How long does this argument had to go on? Look,
(21:57):
you got one city in the state of South Carolina
that has a ban in place. The state of South
Carolina's Attorney General, Alan Wilson threatened the city with legal
action if it kept the ordinance, saying the policy violates
state law and the First Amendment. So I don't understand
where you think you have a leg to stand on here.
Even if you do break it out of the damn budget,
(22:19):
and we're going to put it on the House floor
and the state Attorney General has already given you the opinion,
most of the legislators they are going to say, yeah,
you can't have this policy in place because it violates
state law and the First Amendment. But is that what
we have to do? Because you always want to line
up people outside to scream stuff like, let me see
what this guy says. Hang on a second. They want
(22:43):
to prioritize its values over the budget. They want the
City of Columbia to prioritize its values. Well, we don't
even add the value stated by the mayor, So what
is the value?
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Well, here's where it gets to me. Been more confusing
according to this. So they had the first meeting on
May twentieth. I think they voted unanimously on May twentieth,
we're not going to vote on it. So then they
said we're gonna have to do it at the next meeting.
The next meeting was last night. So this is a
three hour meeting, and the council voted six to one
(23:21):
to again defer the vote. Councilmember Peter Brown the only
member to vote against deferring. Now, council members Oddity Bustles
and Tyler Bailey publicly stated that they plan on voting
against acting that ordinance. They want it. We're going to
eat the money. That's so Tyler bear Berry, Tyler Bailey
(23:45):
and Oddity Bustles. You spell her name ad t I
in case you're looking her up. Those two are saying
we're standing on business. So now we know where they stand.
That's great. So that's two. We don't know where Peter
Brown stands. We just know that Peter wanted to have
the vote last night. Nobody else would would speak publicly
as to how they felt about anything. You are not
(24:08):
leaders if you will not tell us how you feel
about this.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
How willing is the city to stand up against political
pressure than more than one person who's the equated to extortion.
This is an interesting paragraph and leads back to your question.
As we start to play the word games again, we
got to keep our definition straight. Quote I am asking you,
as he addresses the city council. I am asking you
(24:33):
to stand up for what's right in the face of
an oppressive government, said Dylan Gunnals, president of sc PRIDE.
So let me just read that again. Remember we talked
about the fact is the banning is that you are
not allowed to have a conversion therapy conversation licensed or
(24:56):
unlicensed as a therapist with anybody in the state of
Columbia or in this city of Columbia. Now you can't
not have that conversation, you can't speak of it. Now,
I'll go back to the quote again. I'm asking you
to stand up for what's right in the face of
(25:16):
an oppressive government. Wow.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Yeah, that's word games right there.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
Bother you're you're saying because.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
If you don't ban it, you're oppressive.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
That's right. If you do not ban this conversation, yeah,
you're being oppressive.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
Yeah, by allowing it to happen.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
That's classic.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Daniel Rickenman in twenty twenty one was a council member.
He voted against this ban in twenty twenty one, So
he was on the record what four years ago saying
he thought it was a bad idea to ban these conversations.
But now I'm going to go and read the words.
This seems like a twist. This is I guess from
(25:57):
last night. Okay, to be quite frank, I haven't even
thought about this ordinance since it was passed. It's been
years and we didn't hear from the legislators or the
Attorney general or anybody else regarding this ordinance. Now you
have an AG and a senator who are running for governor,
and we are being penalized, and we have to come
up with money to see where we're going to go
(26:19):
if we don't repeal it. Rickenman also mentioned during the
meeting that he and his family are now receiving death
threats over this issue. I think on both sides of
the aisle. Rickenman said that because of the twenty twenty
one Conversion Therapy Ordinance only hand outs civil penalties to
the therapists, that the religious organizations can still practice the therapy.
(26:41):
The local law can only do so much in protecting
the LGBTQ plus community.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
We voted on an ordinance that actually really has no teeth,
says Rickenman, and apparently.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Have not prosecuted anyone for yet.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Teresa Wilson says this is a political hot potato. I
guess she's probably happy she doesn't need your vote.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.