06-25-25 FULL SHOW - DougCo Says NO To Home Rule, And Is Social Security Broke? - The Mandy Connell Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Mandy Connell Show is sponsored by Belle and Pollock
Accident and injury Lawyers.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
No, it's Mandy Connell and Dona.

Speaker 3 (00:11):
Koam ninety one am God.

Speaker 4 (00:17):
Say the nicey us through three Mandy Donald keeping no
real sad thing.

Speaker 5 (00:26):
Buncle, Welcome, Welcome or couldn't do to the show. First
hour of the show. I'm your host for the next
three hours. Mandy Connell join, of course, by my weird
Al Yankovic loving producer Anthony Rodriguez, who is glowing today
off the triumphant return of weird Al Yankovic to Red
Rocks doing the show. I thought I was going to

(00:48):
a few years ago where he actually played songs I've
heard of, unlike the show I actually went to at
the Paramount, where he played a lot of songs I
had never heard of.

Speaker 6 (00:56):
You have no hits to her my fault.

Speaker 5 (00:58):
I didn't read the description. You did not not mad
at I'm not mad at weird Al. I'm still mad
at myself about.

Speaker 3 (01:04):
That third time I've seen him and everything and more.

Speaker 5 (01:08):
What exactly do you like the most?

Speaker 6 (01:11):
What is it?

Speaker 5 (01:11):
Is it the cleverness of the of the of the
parody songs? Is it the because he's such a performer.
I mean he's he's like a wild man on stage.

Speaker 6 (01:19):
He's a weird man. Yes, it's everything that you listen in.

Speaker 7 (01:22):
More.

Speaker 3 (01:23):
He is just so creative. He just has fun, He
pokes fun, he just goes all out. I mean, for me,
it's been a lifelong affair. You know, my dad raised
me on both the Beatles and Weird Alan Beach Boys.
I mean really all those weird awl is such a staple.

Speaker 5 (01:42):
Just the swing Wilson has now gone, so the Beach
Boys are over.

Speaker 3 (01:45):
Yeah, it's just the dorkiness, I don't just everything, the
creativity and sixty five years old and that guy went
all out, all the costume changes from all the all
the big time famous music videos.

Speaker 5 (01:57):
Yeah, I would have loved to have seen that had
had all.

Speaker 3 (01:59):
The clips he had, you know, a different little video
montage just had little parts from UHF, which is the
fantastic cult classic mutant moved to who he was in
during his heyday and uh yeah, it was everything and more.

Speaker 6 (02:11):
I mean, the dude brought out.

Speaker 3 (02:12):
I don't know if it was because the pop culture
cons coming up or just hired people.

Speaker 6 (02:16):
I don't know, if they travel all the time, but the.

Speaker 3 (02:18):
Dude had ten Stormtroopers and Darth Vader and R two
D two for the two Star Wars songs. I mean
everything and more. If you've ever seen Inside Out, last
night was a core memory.

Speaker 5 (02:28):
Nice. I'm so glad you enjoyed it and got to
go with your town. I love those special times like that.
You know, we've got a lot to talk about, and
we've got several guests coming up, So let's jump into
the blog. Hey Anthony, Hey, where can people find the blog?

Speaker 6 (02:42):
Yeah? I don't know.

Speaker 3 (02:43):
I couldn't tell you because you're not ever clear and
concise about it.

Speaker 5 (02:46):
Okay, here's what we're gonna do. We're gonna walk it through,
and I want you to record this one, okay, and
then we're just gonna play this one back. Because this
is as clear as I can get it. I've thought
about this all night. Okay. Ready, Now let's check the blog.
To find the blog, go to your web browser that
maybe Google, Firefox, or some other form that you reach
the Internet, and then in the in the bar at

(03:08):
the top, you type in w w W dot Mandy's blog.
I'm giving the clearest instruction that's easy, saying www dot
Mandy's blog three dot com. And there's no apostrophe because
you can't put an apostrophe. Ina r Oh, well, yeah,

(03:29):
I mean you don't have to. But I'm just saying
I'm making it. I'm just clearing any anything up that
people may have a question about. And then once you
hit you know send or start or hit your enter key,
it's going to take you to the koa baby, Nope
with a Y, I E Nope, just a y and
then no and then just right there, and then you're
gonna look for the section on this page that says
latest posts. And then in the latest postsection you are

(03:53):
then gonna go look for a headline that says.

Speaker 3 (03:56):
Six five blog Brandy Cromwell, No, Doug co.

Speaker 5 (04:02):
Says no to home Rule and is Social Security broke?
Click on that near are the headlines you will find within.

Speaker 3 (04:10):
I think one more time, just one more time, let
me just let me just rewind it back, if you can,
just one more time, give you RL, because I don't
think you were clear enough.

Speaker 5 (04:20):
Doub doubu doub dot mandy'sblog dot com, m A N
d y s blog dot com, all squished together, hit
you know enter, and it's gonna take you to the
page where you look for the latest posts, and then
you look for that headline. Any of the headlines that
say blog in them are going to be a blog.

(04:43):
And those numbers in front of the word blog that
is today's date or the date that the blog was posted.
I hope this clears it up and you can all
join me there, because here are the headlines you will
find within dot net Nope, just dot or dot com,
dot co just dot com.

Speaker 3 (05:01):
Nope, just dot nope, got me, nope, got tax just
dot com, got storage, just dot com, No man's blood.

Speaker 6 (05:07):
Dot Com office half of American Larships. You say nope
to the right one.

Speaker 8 (05:11):
Okay, as office half of American Larships and clippers and
say let's going to press plant.

Speaker 5 (05:17):
Today on the blog, Doug Coo says, notes, thank you.
Whether Wednesday is back war historian Paul raw on today
is social security broke? More on empathy Jax the rich
will maybe be on the ballot this year. Forest management
is back, Colorado backs down on gender ideology. I both
like and hate this editorial. The Arabians say their nuclear

(05:40):
facilities were badly damaged. Well, this bring ran to the table.
An awesome timeline cleanser for you. A cute generous city
benefit leads to nine to one one call issues. An
NFL player opens up about OCD disposable ease. Eggs may
be worse than cigarettes. You can help back pain with
therapy Hinder Park, Please do this. Mark Michael Winslow does

(06:03):
Star Wars, more, Metallica tickets, nuggets. President mentions the unthinkable
yes for two aisle seats our record. We didn't know
we needed. Hey Rod's Christmas gift. An old movie theater
gets new life. Those are the headlines on the blog
at mandy'sblog dot com Tech two O winner. Thanks Nancy,

(06:24):
I'm glad you approve. We so appreciate Nancy Pelosi's approval
on our blog.

Speaker 3 (06:29):
She'smandy'sblog dot god, but only her stop it. She's a
special do not confuse people, just her link.

Speaker 5 (06:36):
I just realized I've got a formatting issue here on
one of the stories that I'll fix here in just
a few minutes. But we've got really good guests coming up.
Of course, we've got weather Wenesday coming back. Dave Fraser
from Fox thirty one joins us at twelve thirty to
not only tell us what the weather's going to be
for the next look week or so, are we going
to stay in this kind of rainy afternoon pattern or what.
That'll also answer any weather questions that you might have,

(06:56):
so get them ready. This is about the time of
year where we start getting some really good hail questions,
because hale, of course, you know, is our it's it's
hail season. It's hail season. And you know what season
it actually is in Colorado right now? It is everyone's
least favorite season. It is road construction season. Is there
any road construction around you where you live? I'm back

(07:19):
in the same situation where there's no way for me
to leave my house and not have to deal with
road construction to get here.

Speaker 6 (07:24):
We always have it, always everywhere, all at once.

Speaker 5 (07:29):
It's road construction season, right.

Speaker 6 (07:31):
I'm sorry?

Speaker 3 (07:31):
Is there ever an off season that I'm not aware of?
Winter is better? Oh, you're right, Winter for winter snowstorms
that they don't get too fast enough. Got it? So
it is road construction season.

Speaker 5 (07:43):
I was almost late for work today because I did
not account for road construction season properly. My fault.

Speaker 6 (07:48):
You must be new here.

Speaker 5 (07:50):
As a matter of fact, it rod almost that same
thought went through my head as I was sitting in
road construction, and I thought to myself, am I going
to make it to work on time? And then I
thought to myself, Mandy, and I called myself a not
a nice name that I can't say on the radio.
You've been here for thirteen years, you know the drill.
So I kind of beat myself up for a second.

(08:12):
I'm like, oh, I made it to work.

Speaker 2 (08:13):
Is fine?

Speaker 4 (08:14):
Now?

Speaker 5 (08:14):
Big news out of Douglas County, where I live and
where all the roague construction that I have to deal
with is happening. Last night the election return started coming in,
and I did not ask any of the people that
I was exchanging text messages with last night if I
could share them. But let's just say the notion that
this home rule initiative was killed by Democrats or liberals

(08:37):
only no, no, no, no, no, no, no no. There
were so many conservatives, and most of them are conservatives
that find the idea of home rule interesting interesting enough
that they want to have more discussions about it. But
to a person, they were absolutely repulsed by the way

(08:58):
that this has been managed. I'm putting managed in air
quotes by the three sitting county commissioners who tried to
put themselves on the commission that would have written the
new charter for Douglas County. Not only did it lose,
this is such if there was a mercy rule in elections,
it would have been invoked in this election. Ninety three,

(09:18):
one hundred and seventy five votes were cast. Okay, so
that's a decent chunk, not great, but a decent chunk
of Douglas County. And seventy one percent voted against it.
Seventy one percent. That is an absolute butt kicking. And

(09:39):
if you look a little further, I went to Douglas
County Votes, the election return website, and not only did
I of course, I grabbed these numbers and I put
them on the blog today. I also looked at because
yesterday we voted on two things. We voted on whether
or not to form a Home Rule Charter Commission that
would have been written a new TI charter that would

(10:00):
have become the constitution for Douglas County. And we also
voted on people to put on that twenty one person
charter commission. Now, the three county commissioners in question, George Teel,
Abe Laden and Kevin van Winkle all shows to run
to be on the Charter Commission in the at large category. Now,

(10:21):
the at large category is different than the categories where
you're voting for people from each district. Now they all
live in one of those districts, but they knew that
the at large category would probably have fewer people in it.
So all three of them run ran in the at
large category, thinking, surely, if you're going to vote for
three and there's only going to be a few people

(10:42):
to vote for, some of us are going to get through.
They all got absolutely whooped, I mean whooped, and they
lost to people who were openly anti Charter. So this
is a complete repudiation of George Tele and ab Blayden.
And you know, Kevin van Winkle's a new County commissioner,

(11:05):
but so far he's done nothing to impress me.

Speaker 9 (11:08):
So far.

Speaker 5 (11:08):
He's just been like this, like little lap dog running
around behind George and Abe. Is that whatever you guys
are saying, that's fun with me?

Speaker 2 (11:14):
Oh?

Speaker 5 (11:15):
I mean that's how he appears to me. And he
was not involved at all and trying to sell this,
sell this this thing. I don't think he appeared anywhere
to talk about it. They got absolutely slacked. George Steele
got twelve point thirty seven percent of the vote, Abe
Layden got twelve point five percent of the vote. Kevin

(11:36):
van Winkle got thirteen point five percent of the vote,
where others the winning candidates got twenty percent, eighteen point
eight eight percent, and seventeen point sixty two percent. It
was just an absolute gutting. Now, what I'd like to see,
is a Douglas County resident is I would like to
see a concerted effort, and I don't care if the
County Commissioner's, you know, spearhead this effort, this movement. I'd

(11:58):
like to see genuine, commute unity conversations about home rule
even before we vote to put it on the ballot.
I'd like to have real conversations where people can come out,
kind of like the one we did at Douglas County
Citizenry with my friends Deb Flora and Jonathan Flora and
the other team at Douglas County Citizenry who've just done
such a phenomenal job. We had an informational event, and

(12:21):
we need to have input from everybody in the county.
And I would think that if somebody was trying to
do this in your county, you would want the same,
But I'm interested in the concept, but I would have
realistic conversations about it. And you know, you know that
the county commissioners, or at least George Steele, was full
of crap about it. When he goes on another radio
station and says, wait, wait till you guys hear this.

(12:43):
And you know what, I realized that Kyle Clark always
always finds a way to attack Republicans, you know, always,
and finds a way to make them look really stupid.
And he's done here. But unfortunately George gave him the ammunition.
So George Teele went on am radio station that is
not one of ours and said the following that it

(13:05):
was Chinese communists who were trying to stop home rule
in Douglas County. The Chinese Communist Party. Yes, because the
Chinese Communist Party has nothing on its plate other than
worrying about a tiny county in a massive country who
just decided they might want to self determine. He said,

(13:26):
and this is a quote. Here's a nationwide effort funded
by China, funded by a communist organization that is actually
trying to work against the people of Douglas County having
a say on local control issues. Tail confirmed to My
News that he was specifically talking about the local Political

(13:48):
Committee No Little Kings in Douglas County, an anti home
rule group organized by a Highlands Ranch resident, Ko Browning.
Ko Browning is of Japanese descent, so George saw the
slanty eyes and decided she must be from communist Johanna
must be. I mean, you guys, come on. Whenever I

(14:11):
see stuff like this, I'm like, that statement alone disqualifies
the entire thing for me. If that's where you're going,
if you cannot make a compelling argument about the facts
around why this would be good. And like I said,
I'm intrigued by the idea, I truly am. But there
was so much misinformation, so many lives put out there,

(14:33):
so much garbage, like Chinese communists are trying to interfere
in our elections in Douglas County. I mean, guys, come on.
So I'm hoping that the citizens of Douglas County will
maybe spearhead some honest and robust discussions that include people
from all over the county. Douglas County used to be
so dark red. It is not what's ironic is we've

(14:56):
probably had an influx of people into Douglas County seeking
the positives of Douglas County like really good school districts
and low crime, low homelessness that are often the result
of conservative policies. But now they stand the chance to
change elections. And I think that this Home Rule initiative

(15:17):
was designed to put things in the Home Rule Charter
to stop left wing people. I will tell you I
would prefer to make compelling arguments. I would I would
prefer to point to results. I would prefer to say,
look what we've done so far to create a vibrant community,
Why do you want to change that? It's it's fascinating.

(15:41):
I mean, I knew, I thought I was pretty sure
it was going to lose. I had no idea it
was going to lose that badly. And I'm fine with it. So,
like I said, maybe a discussion for a future time,
but right now it is dead, and you know the
way it was done. Huge huge problems I mean for
me anyway, huge huge problems I have on the column today.

(16:06):
I have on the column I have on the blog today,
a very interesting, longer column. If you heard my interview
at doctor Rigney yesterday about the Sin of Empathy, his
book that tries to make the distinction between empathy and
compassion in helping people who are suffering, and a listener

(16:28):
sent me this much more in depth column, much more
in depth. As a matter of fact, it was challenging
to read, and thanks Kim for sending it. And challenging
to read only in the sense that it has a
higher level of academic thought. I realized as I was
reading it that I have brain rot so bad when

(16:49):
it comes to reading elevated texts. And I don't mean
text messages, I mean elevated text you know, high level
thinking is required kind of books and reading, because I
spent so much time reading the news or reading you know,
political garbage, which is never high level thinking. But if
you want to get more, a little bit deeper into

(17:09):
how Christianity and compassion and empathy and how those things differ,
and if you're a person of faith, I think you'll
enjoy this column a lot more. I send it to
a friend of mine who is a person of faith,
but she is left wing, and she was like, this
is garbage. I don't think it's garbage. I think there's
really good points to be made. I think my friend
made some really good points about it as well. But

(17:30):
it's very very interesting, and if you want to do
a little deeper thinking on that, I would urge you
to read that column. It just is more on empathy
in the headline for that. Now, when we get back,
we've got weather Wednesday coming up, So get your weather
questions ready and go ahead and text them to five
six six nine.

Speaker 7 (17:46):
Oh.

Speaker 5 (17:46):
That is our common Spirit health text line. That's the
best way to make that happen. But later on in
the show, we have two guests that I'm very much
looking forward to. One is a guy from the Committee
for a Responsible Federal Budget. You may have seen the
story that said the Social Security Trust Fund will run
out of money in twenty thirty three, meaning that benefits
will have to be cut twenty six percent. Now my

(18:09):
first thought was, of course, isn't that when Gen X
starts to retire. I mean, it would just be so
perfect for that generation, for us to be the first
generation for them to go, oh, yeah, we spend all
your money. Uh, talk to the boomers, they spent it all.
So I mean it's you know, but is it accurate
and what needs to happen in order to shore up

(18:31):
the Social Security Trust Fund, to make sure that it's
not there just for me, but also for a Rod
and the people behind him. If we're gonna do it,
let's do it right, because they're not going to privatize it.
Texter Mandy, how can I get to the columns? Darn
toutin and no, Mandy's columns dot com is not a thing.

(18:54):
You people, you people, you're wearing me out. I am back,
and that means our weather good rue. Fox thirty one's
Dave Fraser is back as well. Dave, how you doing.

Speaker 10 (19:05):
There? Yeah?

Speaker 5 (19:06):
Well, yeah, I mean they made me came back after
my fabulous vacation. By the way, the weather in Japan
in June do not recommend zero stars. I cannot cannot
say I enjoyed the weather, but I loved everything else
about the trip. But the weather sucked. It's so hot
and humid and raining like every day. But other than that,
it was great, absolutely great, kind of like what we're

(19:28):
having now.

Speaker 10 (19:29):
I was gonna say, so you walk about wasn't a
total loss?

Speaker 5 (19:32):
Oh not at all. I loved everything except the weather.
It was like walking around in a sauna all day.
I felt like I was trying to cut weight for
a wrestling match most of the days. So you know,
what are we doing today?

Speaker 2 (19:43):
What is this?

Speaker 5 (19:43):
What is this? Blea outside?

Speaker 10 (19:46):
Yeah, Rich and repeat from yesterday we expected. You know,
yesterday we had the clouds in the morning, they burned
off a little faster. So by this time yesterday, around
noon to one, we were already seeing the sun coming out,
and that triggered the thunderstorms, which lasted till about six. Today,
our forecast whisper it to be delayed by an hour
or two, so we think within the next hour or
so you'll start to see some storms drifting off the foothills,

(20:09):
cut across eye twenty five, the east of the airport
by five, and then across the east from planes by seven.

Speaker 2 (20:15):
Again.

Speaker 10 (20:15):
Scattered is the key out of everybody listening in your
audience is going to get rained. But the gloomy skies
will kind of hang with us. You may get peaks
of sunshine, and with any thunderstorm, while we don't have
a severe threat like we did yesterday, but any thunderstorm,
as we always say, it can have lightning, wind and hail,
even if the hail's not large enough or the wind
isn't strong enough. So those are the things we'll monitor
from about two to say six o'clock.

Speaker 5 (20:37):
Do we have a defined hail season. We were kind
of talking about that a minute ago, and it feels like,
obviously we have at the same time of year, but
you know, we have hurricane season from June to November.
Is there a defined hail season when we are more
on alert.

Speaker 10 (20:53):
Yes, generally around middle to late May till about this
time as we start to get in And the reason
for that is as we get into the spring season
and the storms start to evolve every day, we still
have cold air alof in other words, we haven't completely
scoured out the winter season, so the cold there is

(21:13):
kind of looming aloft, and so it's easy for the
thunderstorms to reach up into that coal there and produce
the hail. As we transition a little further into summer,
the atmosphere warms even taller, so the cold air is
very very hard to reach, and so we transition. So
we generally tell people from early May till about oh, say,
the middle of June, you're going to deal with lightning.

(21:35):
As always, it's a number one threat to us. There's
going to be tornado threads at times, although the tornado
threads here are very very minimal, thankfully, you're going to
deal with hail, which is usually at its highest. The
most severe stretch we have is about the first ten
to fifteen days of June, which we're now beyond. After
that we start to transition into more of a rainy
season as the monsoons kick in. Generally we'll kick in

(21:56):
there sometime in early July and can last into early August,
and then after that storm season kind of slowly winds down.
But that doesn't mean in July or August you can't
get a hell producer if you get a really good storm.
But generally it's this part of the year and we're
winding that down, which is good, I mean, but.

Speaker 5 (22:11):
You know, and of course I've said this before. When
you arrive over the Colorado border to become a resident,
they hand you a card that says, if you talk
about rain, you must say, but we need the moisture.
So let's talk about that for a moment. Where are
we how did we come through the season. Are our
precipitation totals where they need to be right now? Or
what are we looking at overall.

Speaker 10 (22:32):
Yeah, no, we're in pretty good shape. I think just
driving around you put your eyeballs on what you're seeing
with natural grasses and sagebrush and all the rest of
the yuckers out there and everybody's yards and stuff. We're
in pretty good shape. May was very good to us.
We have stayed ahead for the month of June, even
though we get a hot, dry stretch there a little
more than a week ago where we connected a bunch

(22:53):
of ninety degree temperatures, especially last weekend when we were
knocking at the door at one hundred. We're about an
inch ahead for the month June and about the same
for the year. So in pretty good shape. And the
timing is always critical, as you and I have talked
about in the past. You know, you can't get a
bunch of rain in one month and then put it
in a ziplock down for the next month when it
turns dry, right, So you get it. It's a statistical thing,

(23:15):
you know. But I really think we're in good shape,
and if we can start to transition into the monsoons,
we'll keep everything looking green. And the outlook for July
as the outlook for June and as the outlook for maywards.
The long range outlooks continue to show warm and dry,
but that has not been the case of the last
months by far.

Speaker 5 (23:33):
So the rest of the country. Yeah, the rest of
the country is broiling right now. So what is our
media out like in terms of temperature. Are we seeing
any of those potential roasting temperatures coming back?

Speaker 4 (23:47):
No?

Speaker 10 (23:47):
As of right now. For the next ten days, we're
in pretty good shape because of the chance of storms
and the higher humidity. We only have two days in
the next ten days where we will be in the
low nineties. To reach records, you'd have to be in
the trip digits. Our average right now is eighty seven
degrees and so we'll be flirting with that, maybe a
few degrees below that, And so we have a chance

(24:08):
for storms today. As I talked about, we'll go dry
Thursday in seasonal upper eighties. We'll hit the low nineties Friday, Saturday,
Sunday back down into the eighties. There's the chances for
rain comeback. And then every single day next week has
at least a thirty or forty percent chance of afternoon
scattered storms, and that keeps temperatures down because when you're
dealing with higher humidity, the air can't warm as fast

(24:30):
as it does dry air. Dry air warms faster than
the air that has humidity in it. And unfortunately, I'll
just put it out there right now because I won't
talk to you till next Wednesday. I did do the
July fourth holiday, and it does look soggy.

Speaker 5 (24:41):
Oh, it looks soggy. Okay, well you know what though,
here's the thing chance of storms in Colorado. I'd rather
have a soggy Fourth of July than a dried out Chrispy.
We're going to set everything on fire fourth of July,
right right? Yeah?

Speaker 9 (24:53):
Absolutely, this person and you know I.

Speaker 5 (24:56):
Asked you about hail season, and this person sent this
in not true. We had a major hailstorm a few
years ago on July tenth, nineteen ninety. We're not saying
hail can't happen outside that window. This is just predominantly
when we are most at risk for getting a hailstorm.
So it's like, I mean, you could have a hurricane
in May, you don't need to wait until June. And
this is just kind of our defined season. That's that's

(25:18):
what I was asking about. I have a weather Wednesday
question from a listener day for you, Please ask Dave
Frasier when National Weather Service alerts interrupt a radio broadcast.
So this is the EAS system. Who is the voice
in the announcements or is it an artificial voice generated
from a type script? Why does the voice always sound muffled?
I mean, do you want to answer that.

Speaker 10 (25:40):
I don't know the answer to. Oh, I do a voice,
but it's not great, I will tell you in today's
AI community.

Speaker 5 (25:47):
Yeah, it's computer generated, and it's old school computer generated.
But I would not Yeah, I would not expect that
to be updated anytime in the near future because it's
kind of one of those the thought of having to
replace every single EAS receiver is pretty cumbersome. So it'll
stay that way. And it does get your attention because

(26:09):
it's so bad, I guess.

Speaker 10 (26:11):
And it's a little antiquated too in that you're talking about,
Like you mentioned, the technology and the audio is not great.

Speaker 5 (26:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 10 (26:17):
What's also problematic for us as broadcasters is, of course
everybody pays attention to their phones these days. You can
set it to alert you even if you're away from home,
which is a fantastic tool. But one of the frustrations
we have as broadcasters. Is generally, if there's something going
on that the public needs to know about, we are
on the air right the EAS. So if you're a
provider for television, is a cable or a satellite provider,

(26:42):
the EAES COEs over the top of us. So you're
looking at me on DV, you can't hear me, and
you're hearing this annoying voice on top. Yet I'm standing
there trying to tell you the information in more detail,
which specific graphics, and the ES cuts us.

Speaker 5 (26:53):
Out and that does the same for us as well.
All right, Dave Fraser, Well, we'll see you next week
after our soggy potential week and we will chat again
about whether Thank you for making time for us today
as you always do.

Speaker 10 (27:06):
And hey, listen, I'll find tune that's fourth of July
forecast on the weekend next to Wednesday, just in time.

Speaker 9 (27:12):
And it's good to have you.

Speaker 5 (27:13):
Back, all right, my friends, it's good to be back.
We will talk to you next week at that my friends.
Is Dave Fraser back after this er? Do you go
to any of the mountain areas? I mean, do you
have like a favorite And I'm not a skier, so
my view of mountain areas is different than people who
ski because skiing doesn't matter to me. I love winter Park,
I love Frasier, I love Tabernash, I love all of it.

Speaker 3 (27:35):
I love it because it's close. Well Loan, it's Tabernash
for a bachelor party this next month.

Speaker 5 (27:39):
I love the whole area. But one thing I hate
about Winter Park is if you're in winter Park Village,
you can't get to winter Park Proper easily. You either
have to drive or you got to take the shuttle
or whatever, and it's like two miles away. So this proposal,
and I don't know how far along this is, maybe
we should get the mayor of Winter Park on to
talk about this. They're proposing a gondola from winter Park

(28:02):
Village over to winter Park Proper. I love this idea
because it would do two things. Number One, it would
allow those people who do stay in winter Park to
hop on the gondola to get over to winter Park
Village to go skiing. And it would also allow those
of us who just do the app ray ski to
get from little downtown winter Park over to the ski resorts.

(28:23):
I think that's the coolest thing ever. I love gondola travel.
We'll often go to the Winter Park resort and we'll
just ride the gondola over to the village and I'm like,
I enjoy this part. It's like a little mini ride.
It reminds me of when I was a kid, a
little kid when Disney World opened in nineteen seventy one.
Of course, I was living in Florida because that's where
I'm from, and I remember going to the park as

(28:46):
a little kid, and that was my first experience in
a gondola, which may sound funny for those of you
who grew up skiing, but they had a gondola that
went from like Frontierland over to tomorrow Land, and I
don't think they have it anymore. Wait a minute, now
that I'm thinking about this, Disney, I think they took
it down Disney because it always broke. Gondola let me

(29:08):
see here. Oh no, they do still have the Skyliner gondolas,
or maybe they did. Nope, the Disney Skyliner. Oh now
you can cruise around the Walt Disney resort and style what.
Oh that's fantastic. But this would make it so much
easier in Winter Park because I love coming there and
I love visiting Winter Park. Again, I don't ski. So

(29:30):
all of you skiers out there who are yelling your
favorite mountain you know out and now I love it.
So if anybody can make that happen, please do it.
Where else should we have a gondola? What was it
the guy that was talking about a gondola down sixteenth Street.
That seems stupid because that takes you all of like
above all of the businesses that you want to shop in.

(29:52):
This gondola would just take you over a bunch of trees,
just float, you're right over the top. I'm down for it, though,
I think it'd be amazing. Now see it's they're coming
in now on the Common Spiritdealth text line at five
sixty six nine. Oh nothing like veil Veil is its?
I mean, okay, let's just let's break down some non
skier reviews of the ski areas. Okay, I have now

(30:16):
been to Aspen. Not my cup of tea, way too pretentious.
When I go into a store and there's no price
tags on anything because it's all so expensive, that's not
Those are not my people. That is not at all
my people. Aspen, Nope, And it's tiny and there's not
that much stuff there. Veil and Beaver Creek. I love

(30:37):
to visit, but it's a little bouge here, you know,
and you got to deal with ieventy traffic. So the
skiing may be much better at Veil, but the reality
is for a non skier, you know, it's just not
worth the juice, is not worth the squeeze, as they
say in corporate speak. Right now, Uh, Breakinridge. I love
kind of woodsy and nice, but not as much much

(31:00):
as I love Winter Park. It's close, it's easy, it's affordable,
there's lots of places to stay there. It's just a
great vibe. I mean, it is Denver's plan, Mandy. That
gondola has been in the master plan for twenty five years.
I grew up in Frasier. Winter Park is my whole mountain,
and I think the one thing that set it back
was when they had to do the JOA with Intrawest

(31:23):
in the early two thousands. I don't know what that means,
joint operating agreement maybe, but I guess now the resort
is involved. Now, the resort's like, yeah, we want to
make this happen. I mean, parking in the resort is
tapped out most days. If you get up there by
nine o'clock. You're ten o'clock. You're not going to be
able to get a parking space. If you can, it's

(31:43):
going to be in the far lot. Resort at the
staff admit this from our friends at CBS News that
they haven't been tightly connected to the town of winter Park,
but with this new plan, should it come to fruition,
they're hoping that connection will strengthen, and it would also
make it easier for employees who are living over there.
I mean, I just I love the idea. I love

(32:05):
the fact that winter Park it just kind of keeps
trucking along. James Hetfield lives in Vail, Metallica. I didn't
know that. Does he ski a rod? Investigate that, look
and see if he lives there. I don't know. How
about a gondola dia between the main terminal and concourse A,
B and C AH. I mean, I like your out

(32:26):
of the box thinking, but I'm just thinking, like in
the middle of winter, when you're not dressed for skiing
or being outdoors and you're getting off a plane, that
would that would be horrible. But I like your moxy.
When we get back, we're going in a completely different direction.
I'm very excited to have a conversation about a or
have a conversation with rather war historian, an overall historian,

(32:50):
Paul and I think his last name is Raw. I'll
find out. When I talked to him. He says that
Iran and Israel being at war was the natural conclusion
of October seventh. We're going to talk to him next.

Speaker 1 (33:03):
Accident and injury Lawyers.

Speaker 2 (33:08):
No, it's Mandy Connell and don Ka ninety more ONEm God.

Speaker 4 (33:20):
Say the nicety through Ray Andy Doronald keeping is sad
bab Welcome, Welcome, Welcome.

Speaker 5 (33:29):
To the second hour of the show. I'm Mandy Connell.
That guy right there's Anthony Rodriguez and joining me now
is a guest I'm very excited to talk about. He
is a historian at the glorious Hillsdale University and Paul
Ray works. I don't want to put words in your mouth, Paul,
but you are a war historian, so you're one of
those people that that deeply gets into war and its

(33:53):
effects and its outcomes and all of that good stuff.
And today let's talk about a war whose history hasn't
been written. Of course, the President has tried to name
it the twelve day Iran Israeli War, but is it
really a twelve day war? Paul Ray, welcome to the show.
First of all, pleasure to be with you.

Speaker 9 (34:14):
Now, it's a forty six year war. It begins with
the takeover of Iran, the flight of the shaw take
of Iran by the heretic Sheeite Muslims following homony, and

(34:35):
then they set out on a path that has led
to continual conflict. It starts with the hostage crisis involving
the United States, and they were calling us the great Satan,
and they were calling Israel the little Satan way back then.
Now this is when it's when the crisis, which has

(34:56):
existed for a very long time comes to a head.
And you know, we think of it perhaps as a
battle between Iran and Israel that we are involved in.
The larger battle is between Iran and the Sunni Muslim powers.
And quietly, those people are welcoming what's happened in the

(35:19):
last twelve days because it means a significant reduction in
the threat to them. You know, just a couple of
years ago, there were Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia on
their oil fields. So they're involved too, And I don't

(35:40):
happen to believe it's over.

Speaker 5 (35:43):
You know, I don't either. And Paul and I were
talking off the air about the conversations that I've had
with my nephew in Israel, and he says, the Israeli people,
and of course there's so much robust discussion happening every
day in Israel about how to prosecute this war and
why haven't the hostages come home? And you know, so
many people are saying, we just want peace, but there's

(36:03):
a larger faction in his view of Israelis who say, look,
this is never going to end until we deal with
the Iranian regime. None of these proxy wars Hamas and
has Balah and the hooties, they're just they're just little
tentacles of the Iranian regime and this is their best opportunity,
don't you think to perhaps bring some kind of finality

(36:26):
to this battle.

Speaker 9 (36:29):
Yes, no, I agree with that entirely. Let me say,
we may have destroyed their nuclear weapons production. I say may,
because it's not absolutely certain, and they may have sent
for refugees elsewhere, and you know, warehouses and so forth.

(36:52):
Operating quietly that we don't know about. But it seems
to me that if there, if the ceasefire turns into
a kind of settlement, it just means they'll be back
in a few years. I agree the crucial issue is
the regime. And though I do not favor America going

(37:17):
in taking over Iran and trying to run things, I
do think it the only way that this will be
over is if the radical heretic she regime that was
founded by Honuani forty six years ago is overthrown.

Speaker 5 (37:38):
What do you mean by heretics?

Speaker 9 (37:39):
So I would be hitting their political leaders.

Speaker 5 (37:44):
What do you mean by heretic?

Speaker 9 (37:45):
Decapitate that and the Revolutionary Guard? Because they're an awful
lot of people in Iran who hate that regime.

Speaker 5 (37:55):
So what do you mean by heretic is she regime?
What is that phreeze?

Speaker 9 (38:00):
Historically, within Sunni Islam there has been no difference between
what we call church and what we call state.

Speaker 2 (38:12):
They were.

Speaker 9 (38:14):
Very closely tied to one another. Islam is a religion
of holy law, so it is by its very nature
a political religion that the law requires enforcement and the
you know, originally within Sunni Islam, the caliph was what
we would call a secular ruler and a religious ruler

(38:36):
at the same time. And what I'm trying to say
is that distinction between sacred and secular doesn't exist. Right
there among the Shiites, it did exist, and the Shite
clergy of the Mullahs have never before been involved in ruling.
There was always a secular ruler, and then there was

(38:59):
a sort of Shite establishment. Homani breaks with that and
is regarded as a heretic by many Shiites, both outside
Iran and inside Iran. So this is a sort of
revolutionary movement, something rather new within Sism, and there will

(39:22):
be people, including religious leaders in Iran who'd like to
see it come to an end.

Speaker 5 (39:28):
Well there. I saw an interesting video on x a
few days ago, and it was the sun of the
Shah of Iran. Obviously, he was thrown out of the
country during the revolution in the late seventies, and he's
essentially saying, look, we're ready to step in. We're not
going to allow Iran to fall into a failed nation state.

(39:49):
We're ready to provide structure and government that can lead.
And I don't know if he said free elections. I'm
not sure if he went that far, but essentially saying
to the Iranian people, we have an alternative. How realistic
is that for the Shaw's Sun or anyone connected to
that prior regime, which was very US friendly, to be
able to come back to power after fifty years of

(40:10):
indoctrination of death to the Great Satan.

Speaker 9 (40:14):
It's conceivable. But my guess is if he went back
and tried to rally people, he'd be assassinated. In other words,
there are going to be people on the side of
the regime. There are many people against the regime. I'll
give example. In two thousand and one, after nine to

(40:36):
eleven and stretching into two thousand and two, there were
spontaneous demonstrations at soccer games in Iran, spontaneous pro American demonstrations.
I was in Istanbul. I lived in Istanbul for some years,
so I know that part of the world a bit.
And I was at a party of journalists. Ended up

(41:00):
in a corner with an Iranian journalist who was assigned
to cover Turkey, and I asked him if the regime
was going to go under, if these demonstrations were the
beginning of the end for the regime, and he said no,
the people who run this country right now. Were educated
in Eastern Europe and the communist period. They know how

(41:21):
to control the population. And then he paused and he said,
there's one thing they don't know how to control their
own children.

Speaker 4 (41:28):
Ah.

Speaker 9 (41:30):
And a lot of, you know, regimes like this, think
of the Soviet Union, tend to come apart when the
generation that made the revolution has departed from the scene.
So Garbatchoff was the first Soviet leader who was not,
even as a very young person, a witness of the

(41:51):
revolution of the Russian Revolution. And we may not be
at that stage in Iran yet, but after forty six years,
we're approaching it. Because the people who are really present
for that are in their sixties at the youngest, and

(42:12):
most of the people who led that revolution are older.
So it's possible that this is the moment when they
depart from the scene and other people in Iran assert themselves.
This would have to come from within the armed forces.
It probably will not come from within the Revolutionary Guard,

(42:34):
but it might come from within the regular army. So
things could happen, and it would be a very good thing,
because this obsession with taking over the entire Middle East,
to which we are an obstacle. The Israelis are an obstacle,
the Saudis are an obstacle. Egypt is an obstacle that

(42:56):
might come to an end, and you could have a
reconciliation between Iran and the Sunni Arab States and Iran
and Israel, but it won't happen as long as the
heirs of Homany are running Iran. I don't think it's
over yet.

Speaker 5 (43:15):
Trump came out the other day and said, well, let's
we'll call this the twelve day Israel Iran War. And really,
I do believe that Donald Trump, for all of his
many foibles and faults, is probably the most anti war
president we've ever had. He's not interested. I think he've
used war as a waste of blood and treasure and
capital and you know, a manpower that could otherwise be

(43:37):
devoted to building something economically, and you know that would
be productive. I really think that's his worldview. But is
he being realistic? Is this over?

Speaker 9 (43:50):
It's it's not over, but our direct involvement may be
coming to an end. Hard to be certain of. That
depends on what the Iranians do, right. You know, they
could start by launching an attack on American basis all

(44:12):
over that region and not one that's been forecast, and
knowing that we can shoot everything down, but something big
in West case it will erupt again because Donald Trump
will not tolerate that. He's made that clear.

Speaker 5 (44:29):
Do you think the way that they gave Katara heads
up about the attacks, I mean, they've essentially warned everybody, Hey,
we're going to fire some missiles. The only reason I
could think they would do that is because they don't
actually want to hit anything. They don't want to hurt anybody,
because they don't want a larger entanglement with the United
States of America. But whereas when we were at the

(44:51):
Cold War with the Soviets, we had usually assured destruction
on our side, I don't feel like the Iranian regime
of Mulla's has same sense. I mean, we've heard all
of these stories about how suicide bombers are going to
get their seventy two virgins. Do they have the same
sense of self preservation that ensured that mutually assured destruction

(45:11):
would be a deterrent.

Speaker 9 (45:17):
It's hard to know. Keep in mind, for religious zelotry
comes into the picture. There may be decisions made on
the basis of calculations that you and I would not
recognize as rational, but that they think are rational. So

(45:38):
I'm hesitant in that regard. Donald Trump's position has been
They're not going to get nuclear weapons. I think that's
pretty smart. Yeah, And our interests are deeply involved in
their not getting nuclear weapons. Our interests may not be
so deeply involved in other matters.

Speaker 5 (46:01):
Can Israel go it alone and pull this off? I mean,
I have a lot of respect for the Israeli military.
I have a lot of respect for their technology. I
do think that they in doing the kind of targeted
strikes in Iran to take out leadership, to take out
very specific military positions that may maybe weren't supposed to
be known as military positions, they're definitely signaling to Iran

(46:25):
that they know way more than they've led on about
the Iranian activities. So can Israel pull this off if
we essentially say, look, we'll sell you weapons, but we're
not involved other than that, can they pull this off?

Speaker 9 (46:43):
I think so? You know, I think they know who
their political leaders are and where they live. They certainly
know a lot about the Revolutionary Guard, which is the
sort of guardian of the regime, includes you know, true
believers mainly. I think they might well be able to

(47:06):
pull this off, but that would take a renewal of
the war, and they're sufficiently dependent upon US for weapons
and so forth for replenishing their stocks that they may
not be able to risk a renewal of the war
if we don't want it. Hard to know, I mean.

(47:30):
One other possibility is that the remaining figures in the
Iranian regime want out, if you know what I mean,
They want out of the whole mess, and that would
cause them to negotiate, and to negotiate seriously an end

(47:53):
to the nuclear threat and also an end to their
support for their proxies in let in Yemen and of
course in Gaza. It's hard to know.

Speaker 5 (48:10):
I'm talking with historian Paul Ray about war in general.
I want to ask you this question because it seems
like whatever ceasefires have been signed in the past or
eventually broken promises made. Even in the Iran deal that
was done with Obama, they did not follow through on
their responsibilities to allow inspectors into certain sites. Has there

(48:30):
ever been a negotiated peace that stuck when someone was
not brought to their knees first.

Speaker 9 (48:40):
I can think of one when I was living in Istanbul.
I spent a fair amount of time on both sides.
In Cyprus, there was a ceasefire in Cyprus in nineteen
seventy three. It's fifty plus years later and they haven't
gone back to war. Now, part of the story is

(49:03):
the Turk's got everything they really wanted, and the Greeks
don't see any way to overcome the disadvantage in which
they live, right, And so the two sides have cooperated.
You know what, in Nicosia, one side supplies the water

(49:23):
pre and the other side supplies the electricity pree.

Speaker 5 (49:28):
So everybody's invested.

Speaker 9 (49:33):
And neither side agrees to accept the status quo. Right,
but they have done anything about it in a very
long time.

Speaker 5 (49:40):
So let me ask this, because I have watched documentaries,
I've seen countless news stories about the level of indoctrination
that has occurred in these Islamic regimes, whether you're talking
about in Gaza or you're talking about in Iran. So
in terms of being able to negotiate any kind of

(50:03):
real peace with Israel that includes the agreement that Israel
simply has the right to exist, is that even possible
in a population that has been not just steeped in hatred,
but trained in hatred from birth. Often that's the part
that I feel like is really insurmountable.

Speaker 6 (50:22):
How does that work?

Speaker 9 (50:25):
Well, you know, in a lot of these places, Iran
in particular, there are people who hate the regime and
who would embrace Israel for the simple reason that the
enemy of my enemy.

Speaker 6 (50:43):
Is my friend, right, And the.

Speaker 9 (50:49):
Leadership in countries like Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia
and UAE have embraced Israel, and the reason is they're
afraid of Iran. Now you'll remove revolutionary Iran from the scene.

(51:13):
What happens with the relations between the Israelis and the
Sunni world, I don't really know, but they won't go
sour immediately, and I don't think they'll go very very sour.
And that might change relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians,

(51:38):
which is to say, if there is no outside supporter
for radicalism among the Palestinians, there may be accommodations reached.
There's certainly accommodations in daily life.

Speaker 5 (51:55):
Well, I think it's easy to embrace hatred when there's
no cooperation with the person that you're hating. And right now,
with the leadership in the Gaza strip and to a
certain extent, the leadership of the West Bank. There's no
incentive to be more collaborative or to work with Israel.

(52:16):
And I think that that does allow those barriers to
not only be raised, but to be sort of fortified
in terms of the way people feel about Israel. And
we were talking before the break, and when I was
in Israel, I talk to everybody when I travel, I
talk to taxi drivers, and I talked to waiters, and
I talked to everyone. And I met several Arabs that
I just chatted with, and they all said, I live

(52:37):
in Israel because I want to live in a free society.
They don't want to live in the West Bank. They
don't want to live in Gaza because of the restrictive nature.
I would hope that once people in the West Bank
or people in Gaza got to understand that that freedom
would come their way, if if they simply embraced a

(52:58):
more open style and a that a relationship with Israel.
What are your thoughts on that as an incentive.

Speaker 9 (53:06):
I think it exists, but the obstacles have proven to
be insuperable. And the key thing is do the irreconcilables
have outside support. Ah outside support is crucial. Look, the

(53:30):
Russians supported the PLO. The Russians actually put Arafat in
charge of the PLO. He was their man. They supplied money.
Hamas received money from the United States, from Europe through
the United Nations Relief Works Administration, and quite a bit

(53:51):
of money from the Iranians. Earlier they received money from
Saudi Arabia, but that's over so it's hard to know.
What I can tell you is people in that part
of the world are extremely good at negotiation. The negotiation.

(54:18):
You know, if you go and do a bizarre the
price is very often negotiable.

Speaker 1 (54:22):
Right.

Speaker 9 (54:23):
They're used to negotiations, and that could suddenly take.

Speaker 5 (54:31):
Over, let's hope. Paul Ray, thank you so much for
your time today, fascinating conversation and for everything. I wanted
you to give me a firm answer on You didn't,
so you didn't make me feel better, but you did
educate me, so I will accept that. Thank you for
your time today, Paul.

Speaker 9 (54:49):
Pleasure to be with you, and pleasure to be in Denver,
where I was once a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh,
and eighth grader.

Speaker 5 (54:57):
I told Paul, it's changed a bit since. And then
thanks a lot, man. We'll talk again soon, I hope. Okay,
take care, right, thank you, We'll be right back. This
is the latest, and I'm grabbing this from Al Jazeera.
And there's a reason when trying to figure out where
the truth lies, you've got to look at both sides
of the issue. So I go to the Jerusalem Post
and then I go to Al Jazeera and a couple

(55:18):
other like Middle Eastern websites to try and figure out
what's going on. Okay, so far, this is what Al
Jazeera has to say. President Trump says US and Iranian
officials will talk next week to continue a dialogue interrupted
by the Twelve day war. He also added, the war
is done. I'm not so certain. I like his optimism,

(55:41):
but I got to tell you when he said, you know,
the war is done, all I could think of was
mission accomplished. Eh Arod's parliament, however, passed a bill to
suspend cooperation with the uns IAEA. Now what's ironic about
that is they've long been violated the inspection requirements of

(56:02):
the irandial. They've long been refusing to let IAEA inspectors
into their nuclear facilities. So this is I mean, what's
the point is just formalized it. Net Yahoo, also from
Al Jazeera, is denying on social media that he, in
any way, shape or form, or Israel in any way,

(56:24):
shape or form, pushed President Trump into bombing the Iranian
nuclear facilities. He said, look, they acted in the best
interests of the USA based on the same intel we had.
Of course, you know, people who want to believe that
Trump is net Nahu's puppet will not will not believe that.
And the head of the UN's Palestinian Refugee Agency says

(56:47):
Ounrah the UNRWA is being deliberately targeted in a broader
effort to erase Palestinian's human rights. Felipe Lazzarini, the agency's commissioner, generals,
UNRWA has become an objective of this war, which aims
to strip Palestinians of their refugee status. You know what,

(57:10):
that entire UN organization is so incredibly corrupt. One of
their employees, we know, dragged the body of an Israeli
man into a car and threw it in there. We
know that some of them actually harbored some hostages in
their homes. So whatever happens to that garbage organization? And

(57:32):
how do you remain a refugee for seventy five years?
How is that even possible? The only way it's possible
is because the un RWA has enabled it. Anyway, so
we shall see that from Al Jazeera. Those are the
latest updates on that. So anyway, Mandy, I'd like to

(57:55):
know your most scariest flight ever as a flight attendant
or passenger scar ever period. I was a flight attendant
and we were flying into Hartford, Connecticut, and it was
a doomy wintery night and it was a blizzard. I
mean it was a full on blizzard. And the pilot
told us before we got close, he said, this is
going to be really bad, so buckle down the cabin,

(58:16):
you know, let everybody know it's going to be really
rough coming in. We don't want people to be scared,
but it's going to be really rough. And moy howdy,
was it really really rough? And we ended up and
when I stay slamming into the runway, but I've never
been so grateful to be on the ground in my life.
As soon as we landed, they closed the airport. That's
how bad it was. The airport lost power right before

(58:39):
we landed. Now, of course in the control tower you
have emergency lights and all that stuff, so they keep going.
They have generators, but they the airport was completely out
of power. When they opened the door, the snow was
snowing so hard sideways that it came in one door
and hit the other side of the aircraft because it
was sideways. And that was the only time ever my

(59:00):
entire life flying that I was like, holy crap, we
are going to crash. We did not crash, but we
had an extremely hard landing. And pilots do not like
it when you use the phrase hard landing because that
requires paperwork. If you officially write the words hard landing,
that is paperwork with the FAA, and even the captain

(59:20):
of this because I was the flight attendant in charge,
even the captain of the plane said that was an
official hard landing and we have to do paperwork, and
I was like, okay. It was just terrible. I mean,
we got tossed around in that storm like we were nothing.
It was terrifying, really terrifying. Anyway, that was random. I

(59:44):
have a couple of stories on the blog today that
I want to get into, and one of them it
doesn't necessarily affect Colorado. But I want to just talk
about this story for a second for the overarching sort
of message here. The Trump administration on Monday announced it
would repeal a Clinton error rule on logging in order
to improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk. This is

(01:00:05):
a perfect example of how good intentions can have very
very negative ramifications. In nineteen ninety nine, actually, this bill
went into effect in nineteen ninety nine. It was called
the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and it inoculated inventoried roadless

(01:00:26):
areas within the National Forest System from road construction. So
we were not allowed to build any kind of roads
into those areas, and that meant that you can't do
any kind of timber harvesting, you can't do any kind
of forest maintenance. It was finalized in two thousand and one.
It covered approximately fifty eight point five million acres of
national forest land. And now we know what's happened in

(01:00:48):
the last few years. My god, we've seen the forest fires.
We've seen the wildfires. We know, I mean, we still
have very very very unhealthy stands of dead trees in
Colorado that we probably need to figure out how we're
going to address it at some point in the near future.
And part of that is because we've not been able

(01:01:10):
to go in there and take those trees out because
there's no roads now Colorado, And as I said, this
doesn't necessarily affect Colorado because we got an exemption back
in nineteen ninety nine. Colorado and Idaho received federal approval
to be exempt from the policy. So this is not
going to effect us. But this is a perfect example
of a well intentioned policy we have to protect the

(01:01:32):
forests turning into an absolute nightmare where if we've just
been managing these forests better, especially in places like you know, California, Montana, Idaho,
then perhaps we wouldn't have had some of the catastrophic
forest fires that we've had over the last few years.
You know, one good lightning strike and I think it's

(01:01:53):
medicine bow. There's so much deadwood up there, I mean, wow,
so much dead wood. It would be really nice, creative
if we could figure out how to incentivize people to
go in and get out that dead wood. I know
that Corey Gardner was promoting a plan that basically allowed
people who use that kind of reclaimed wood the beetlekill.

(01:02:14):
Would I have a dining room table made out of
a Douglas fir that was beetlekilled, and it is stunning.
It's one of my favorite pieces of furniture. I got
it from a man who made it in Montana and
it's just phenomenal. And if we incentivize those people, say hey,
you know what, come and get this free wood, then

(01:02:35):
maybe we could do something about it. But this is
just I'm glad they're repealing it. I'm glad we're going
to be able to do forest management now. Of course
again doesn't affect Colorado because we already got an exemption.
But I would argue our forest management here is not great,
if you know, could be better, and maybe this kind
of thing will kickstart better forest management so we don't

(01:02:57):
have those forest fires in the near future. I am
just enjoying looking over the new Democratic nominees platform.

Speaker 4 (01:03:06):
Uh huh.

Speaker 5 (01:03:07):
It's everything a good socialist would want and more. Let
me just give you a little snapshot of Zoorn Mumdani's platform,
because finally, you guys, finally we're gonna do socialism. Right
here is just a little snippet, just a little snippet
of what New York has just voted for. He's gonna
freeze rent. Yeah, institute rent control. There will be no

(01:03:31):
rent increases at all. Oh yeah, yeah. Then he's gonna
build more affordable housing.

Speaker 6 (01:03:38):
Yep.

Speaker 5 (01:03:38):
He's gonna put their public dollars to work in triple
the city's production of permanently affordable, union built, rent stabilized homes,
constructing two hundred thousand units over the next ten years.
Where I don't know. For safety. You know, safety is
a big deal in New York City. It's a big city.
They got lots of crime. He is going to create

(01:03:59):
a Department of Community Safety to prevent violence before it
even happens. Yeah, that's right. The department will invest in
citywide mental health programs and crisis response, and that is
going to make sure that the criminals all feel better
about themselves and they're not going to commit crimes. My favorite,
and Rob Dawson gets credit for sharing this with me,

(01:04:21):
My favorite is he is going to create a network
of city owned grocery stores.

Speaker 6 (01:04:26):
Yep.

Speaker 5 (01:04:27):
They're going to focus on keeping prices low, not making
a profit. How are they going to do that, Well,
they're not going to have to pay rent or property taxes.
Can you imagine what he would do if grocery stores
in New York now didn't have to pay rent for
property taxes. That would be cool. They're going to buy
and sell at wholesale prices, centralizing warehousing and distribution. They're

(01:04:48):
gonna partner with local neighborhoods and everything else cannot. I'm
so excited about that. Fast free buses. Oh yeah, they're
gonna make buses free. Mm hmmm mm hmm.

Speaker 2 (01:05:01):
Yep.

Speaker 5 (01:05:02):
No cost childcare. That's on here too. He's gonna implement
free childcare for every New Yorker age six weeks to
five years.

Speaker 6 (01:05:10):
Yep.

Speaker 5 (01:05:12):
Now, how's he gonna pay for all this? And by
the way, I didn't even get to the climate or
the you know, healthcare stuff. Uh, raising the minimum wage
to thirty dollars by twenty thirty, this is my favorite.
How's he gonna pay for it? Now, you've just heard
a laundry list of stuff that you and I both
know is gonna cost so much money, so so much money.

(01:05:39):
So how's he gonna do it? How's he gonna pay
for it? Well, I'm glad you asked, because it's very simple,
and I think you already know the refrain, say it
with me. Tax the rich, that's his proposal. This guy
is wrong about everything. I mean everything. There's there's nothing

(01:05:59):
that he has got right in this entire plan. It's
absolutely insane. He is going to be taxing the rich.
By the way, the rich have already demonstrated in New
York that they will be happy to sell their condos
and their apartments and move to Palm Beach, where they
already have a second home. He's planning on taxing them
a flat tax of two percent. Yeah, just going to

(01:06:25):
on anyone earning over a million dollars. By the way,
that's a plan that they're trying to bring to Colorado.
I'll get to that after the one o'clock or the
two o'clock break here at a moment. They're also going
to raise the corporate tax rate to New Jersey's eleven
point five percent. Now that's on top of the federal
corporate taxes. What in the world, what would make any

(01:06:49):
company stay in New York City After all of this,
he says it's going to bring in five billion dollars.

Speaker 6 (01:06:58):
Yep.

Speaker 5 (01:06:59):
He's also going to crack down on no big contracts,
hire more tax auditors, and crack down on fine collection
from corrupt landlords to raise an additional one billion. I
can't wait to see how New Yorkers react when they
realize that in their fit of peak in voting against

(01:07:20):
Andrew Cuomo, who, by the way, total scumbag. I get it,
but even a scumbag is better than this. This plan
will run New York completely into the This guy is
going to make Bill Deblasio look like a genius, and frankly,
I'm here for it. I'm gonna pop some popcorn, sit
back and watch the failure of socialism in real time

(01:07:42):
once again.

Speaker 1 (01:07:43):
Accident and Injury Lawyers.

Speaker 2 (01:07:48):
No, it's Mandy Connell and Don FMT. Sad Canicey Connal,
Sad Bab.

Speaker 5 (01:08:09):
Welcome, Welcome, Welcome to the third hour of the show.
I'm your host, Mandy Connell. That guy right, there's Anthony Rodriguez.
That's right, and we are working our way through a
very busy broadcast day. Coming up a little bit later
in the show, we are going to talk to a
gentleman from the Center for a Responsible Federal Government about
social security. You may have seen the story that social

(01:08:31):
securities trust fund will be depleted in twenty thirty three,
and if they don't do something to fix it, it
will necessitate cuts to the program, even for current retirees.
So we're going to talk to him at two thirty
about the reality of that, whether it is reality or not.
Now you just heard, if you listened to Canan's News,
a story by Rob Dawson about the settlement between a

(01:08:53):
Christian camp, Camp Irahadji, and the Colorado state authorities over
a new bill that would require according to the bill,
it's spelled out very clearly in the bill that public
accommodations must allow boys who believe they are girls into

(01:09:14):
girls spaces. And the camp was like, no, we're not
going to allow boys to room with girls just because
they think they're girls. And so they filed suit. And
now the state that they filed suit in May. So
now the state has come out and said, oh my gosh,
this is just so silly. We have never enforced this
on religious organizations, and we're not going to enforce it
on religious organizations. Then why isn't that spelled out in

(01:09:37):
the bill. I have a different view of this. My
view is that the state of Colorado knows They absolutely
know that if they went after religious organizations, it would
be a clear violation of the First Amendment and they
would lose again at the Supreme Court. So in order

(01:09:58):
to preserve this whole horrible bill that they've passed, horrible,
absolutely horrible bill, they are simply choosing to say, oh,
it doesn't apply to religious organizations. Oh, that's so crazy.
Why in the world would we do that. Well, they've
done it in the past with different bills. Not wanting
to give money to Catholic charities because they don't support

(01:10:21):
abortion on demand, not wanting Christian preschools to have access
to the free pre K program. Of course it's not free,
you know what I mean. So this whole Oh my gosh,
how silly of this camp to even worry about this.
This is all just bluster. They are just covering. What
I'd like to see is I'd like to see someone

(01:10:42):
challenge these laws, these laws which say things like a
therapist can't try to talk you out of your gender
dysphoria or help you work through it, or God forbids
suggest that maybe you should work through it instead of
jumping on a medicalization program that's going to cost you.
I mean or insurance companies millions of dollars every year.

(01:11:03):
This is just a way to pretend like they're not
going to get their ass kicked at the Supreme Court
if it goes there again, and they will. I actually
think the reason the settlement was announced today, and maybe
the timeline was earlier, but last week when the Scrimmetti
decision was handed down, that was a big blow to
these bills like in Colorado, that are essentially telling parents

(01:11:25):
you have to affirm that your children is a different chander,
You have to affirm that your kid is something that
they cannot be. So it's it's just so disingenuous, absolutely disingenuous. Mandy,
quick question. Do you have a column now too, in
addition to the blog.

Speaker 6 (01:11:44):
I do not.

Speaker 5 (01:11:46):
I said column earlier, but it's just the blog. But
the blog, by the way, is better than most columns
that I read. I'm just saying the settlement is bad.
It should be used to crush this BS. Here's the thing,
you guys. I mean, these are extremely expensive, and if
the state completely capitulates and the plaintiff cannot prove damage,

(01:12:07):
then there's no point in pursuing this because then it
becomes an exercise in futility as long as the state says, sorry,
we're never going to do this. But I would like
a follow up question, like, why isn't that spelled out
in the law that this doesn't apply to religious organizations
or religious exemptions are available. Why doesn't it say that
because this particular administration has decided to play it this way.

(01:12:31):
But what about what if a zealot is in charge
of that in the future. What if a zelot takes
over and decides, yes, we are going to hold all
religious institutions to this law. There's nothing that would prevent
them from doing that.

Speaker 2 (01:12:44):
Nothing.

Speaker 5 (01:12:46):
Mandy, Colorado hates Christians, period. I tend to agree with that.
Not Colorado ends. Colorado government has shown its absolute disdain
for government over and over and over again. Mandy. It
will preserve the law, will only prolong its demise, and
they know it. I agree. Like I said, I need

(01:13:07):
people to sue over this, and really that are not
religious organizations that are really can push back because this
is terrible. And I don't blame the Christian camp at all,
you guys, I do not, because, as I just said,
when you continue to pursue things, when when the state
has already rolled over. I think it gets really difficult
to prove damage, and damage is necessary in order to

(01:13:29):
kind of get this taken care of. Mandy. Oh, that's
a dumb comment. I'm not going to read that. It's
camp Andra Hadja. I know, I know, I don't know
how to say it. It's a weird name. I know
it stands for I'd rather have Jesus. Thank you, Texter.
I hope this gets challenged very very soon. You know

(01:13:50):
our conversation with Rich Guggenheim yesterday, there are now more
there's more and more medical information coming out about the
dangers of cross six hormones and the law long term
effect between that and detransitioners now suing because as children
they were given the care that they demanded as children,
when there should have been an adult in the room

(01:14:11):
to say, yeah, no, we're not going to do that.
I think a couple of those lawsuits being successful, and
can you imagine getting that in front of a jury
and having that conversation about what these kids have gone
through and the permanent changes to their bodies that they
were not prepared for. I think it would be very compelling.
Two giant, two or three giant lawsuits, and I think

(01:14:34):
that the gender affirming care business model starts to look
a lot worse. Mandy. The camp needs to get that
we're not going to enforce that in writing. I believe
they did as part of the settlement bill. I believe
that was part of the settlement that it's in writing, Mandy.
Religious exemptions are bs. Anyone should be able to opt out. Wait,

(01:14:54):
they shouldn't even exist. Yes, exactly right. I you know,
I don't want I don't discrimination. I think discrimination is terrible.
And back in the day when it was harder to
sort of get the information out about discrimination, I could
see where maybe this seemed like a good idea. But

(01:15:14):
at this stage in the game, let's just say I
call an uber and the uber shows up and it
is a muscle man or even a a any kind
of culture that doesn't believe that men and women should mix. Right,
and then and then he says, well, I'm not going
to drive you because you're a woman. Well then I

(01:15:34):
take to the Internet and I'm like, dude, this just
happened at uber. I take to Twitter, Dude, Uber, what
is going on? There's so many ways to amplify that message. Now,
there's so many ways to say this business discriminates that
it would be much easier to punish them through the
free market than with any sort of you know, whack

(01:15:55):
a doodle bill that has to have exemptions. The majority
of Colorado hate Scott. I don't believe that. I do
not believe that at all. I would read a Mandy
Condall column. Oh you are so nice. I've thought about
offering some columns to the Denver Gazette, but then I'm like, eh,
you know, I don't know. I might write a column

(01:16:16):
about the downtown vacancy rates because that has just been
a fascinating thing to watch on X.

Speaker 9 (01:16:20):
Oh.

Speaker 5 (01:16:20):
By the way, I need you guys's favor, please, I
need your I need your help. I posted a tweet
today on my Twitter page if you don't follow me
at Mandy Connell and the question is, I know Jeff
Bezos and Lauren Sanchez said no gifts, but I hate
to show up empty handed. What should I get them
as a wedding gift?

Speaker 6 (01:16:39):
I need you to.

Speaker 5 (01:16:39):
I need your suggestions because I'm going to fill my
side hustle this afternoon and I want to use it
on that show. Help me out. Go do that right now?
While we're on a break. A couple of things on
the blog today that I want to point out. First
of all, there's a video that I got from Joe
listener Joe and I love this video. Did you watch
the piano playing video? Oh my gosh, a rod It's
so good. And as one who cannot play the piano

(01:17:01):
at all, I'm like, they can play the piano with
their feet better than I can play it with my fingers.
And I don't mean an actual piano, I mean a
giant piano. It's so good, it's so, so, so good.
But then I have to take issue with an editorial
from an editorial board that normally I love. I find
myself in one hundred percent agreeance with the Colorado or

(01:17:22):
the Denver Gazette's editorial board more often than I can
even tell you, and today's editorial I also agree with,
except one part made my head explode. The editorial itself
is on how we need to not give medicaid to
illegal immigrants as we do now here in Colorado for

(01:17:42):
a variety of reasons. One, you're taking money out of
the pockets of other medicaid recipients, the poor, women and children,
and elderly people that rely on Medicaid. It's driven up
wait times for Medicaid patients, and a whole bunch of
other issues. But this is what made my head explode.
I'm just going to read the sentence to you and
see if it's bothering you or bothers you as much
as it bothers me. Colorado's Omni Salute and coverall Colorado's

(01:18:05):
programs each provide care to those experiencing illegal residency, costing
twenty million and fifty million, respectively. What do you think
in that sentence made my head pop like a grape.
If you guessed those experiencing illegal residency, you are correct.

(01:18:28):
As if somehow these people from another country were abducted
by aliens. They were just sucked up into a spaceship
and all of a sudden, the spaceship flew to the
United States and the book just dropped them out, and
all of a sudden, these people were like, oh my god,
I'm living here illegally. How did this happen?

Speaker 8 (01:18:44):
How?

Speaker 5 (01:18:44):
Why is this happening to me? The reason I hate
stuff like that, people experiencing homelessness, people experiencing illegal residency,
what kind of garbage nonsense, victim ideology crap is that
good grief, people, they are living here illegally. They are

(01:19:06):
not experiencing illegal residency.

Speaker 1 (01:19:10):
Ah.

Speaker 5 (01:19:12):
It takes the onus entirely off them, and it implies
that somehow this is just a circumstance they find themselves
in it, and that I I almost had to make
some phone calls, like I don't have a direct line
to the Colorado or the Denver Gazette editorial board. As
I said, I agree with them so much of the time,

(01:19:32):
part of me wants to believe that they put this
in just to drive me crazy, like they were like,
you know what, We're gonna slide this in here and
watch Mandy Connell's head explode. I mean, my ego is
such that I could believe they would do that. You know,
maybe I don't know, Mandy. It's like Kirk's experiencing Burglar.
It's like Crook's experiencing Burglary. I don't think Agreeance is

(01:19:56):
an actually word, actually a word. Let me see I'm
looking at up right now. Agreeance is a noun meaning
the act of agreeing or a state of shared opinion.
I find myself in agreeance is correct. While it exists
as a word. It's often considered less common and potentially
archaic compared to agreement, And as I am somewhat less

(01:20:19):
common and potentially archaic myself, I will continue to use
the word agreeance and use it with vim and vigor,
two more words that are potentially archaic, but I will
still continue to use when we get back. Is social
Security really broke? I got a guess on that. Next,
the Social Security the trust fund as they call it,
is going to be belly up by twenty thirty three,

(01:20:41):
and that could mean benefit cuts for everyone, even current retirees.
But is it really Because I got to tell you, guys,
I have heard in my lifetime over and over and
over again this same story. So let's go to somebody
who has what has to be the most frustrating job
in the entire world. Mike Murphy works for the Center

(01:21:02):
for the Responsible Federal Budget, which obviously we don't have,
but he is here to talk about Social Security and
what that really really looks like. Mike, Welcome to the show.
First of all, thank you, Mandy.

Speaker 7 (01:21:14):
Great to be with you. Thanks thanks for having me.

Speaker 5 (01:21:16):
Is your job trying to create a responsible federal budget?
Is it just like walking up and just slamming your
head against the desk every single day watching what's happening
in Washington DC.

Speaker 7 (01:21:27):
Yeah, pretty much.

Speaker 8 (01:21:28):
At the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, Yes, we advocate
for fiscal responsibility and Mandy go also do it in
in a non partisan, bipartisan way, so we're trying to
work with both parties, which is also tough, okay these days,
to try to work on both sides of the aisle,
but sorely needed and that did.

Speaker 2 (01:21:44):
Yeah, it is.

Speaker 7 (01:21:44):
It was a little bit of pushing a boulder up
the hill, to say the least.

Speaker 5 (01:21:47):
I would say that I have been so incredibly disappointed
by the lack of seriousness demonstrated in Washington DC when
it comes to spending on either side of the aisle.
With the exception of Thomas Massey, who is as principled
about spending as any human being is ever going to get,
there doesn't seem to be any measure of seriousness in

(01:22:09):
DC about cutting spending because they simply refuse to acknowledge
the impact that it has on the overall economy in
my view, But now we've got social security, this is
a sacred cow. This is the third rail of politics.
And once again we're being told that in twenty thirty three,
the trust Fund will be insolvent, which means that they
will only be able to pay seventy seven percent of

(01:22:30):
benefits for all retirees. And I say that because a
lot of times before we've been told, well, these cuts
will be in the future, this will, But now the
future is now, according to this, what's the reality of this, Mike.

Speaker 7 (01:22:44):
The future is now.

Speaker 8 (01:22:45):
Just to put one point on that too, it's it's
clear to me that next year at the election box,
there's arguably the first time people are going to be
voting for people on a federal ballot that will be
in office when this insolvency days right up against it
is if you think a six year Senate terms. So
this this windows here now, because you're right man, he goes.
It's been talked about for a while, it's always been

(01:23:07):
in the early twenty thirties, but it's coming now and
then we need to get on it. So so the
issue here is social security, you know, stepping back, it's
a vitally important federal program.

Speaker 7 (01:23:18):
I just seventy million people about on solid security.

Speaker 8 (01:23:20):
There's going to be more by the time, you know,
twenty thirty three rolls around over forty percent of people
rely on for a majority of their income. So it's
not it is the third rail of American politics, but
it also is a vitally important program.

Speaker 7 (01:23:32):
And then when we reach that point, by law, they.

Speaker 8 (01:23:37):
Are required when it goes insolved, to match what the
schedule benefits are, what the revenues are coming in, and
you said it already.

Speaker 7 (01:23:43):
When that happens, it would have to be in a
twenty three.

Speaker 8 (01:23:46):
Percent across the board cut that is estimated to be
about equating to about seventeen thousand dollars for the average
middle income couple on solid security.

Speaker 5 (01:23:56):
To put that in context, that is a big chunk
out of relative I mean, here's the thing. The forty
percent of Americans that are living on Social Security, they're
not living high on the hog. These are people who
are probably living very modestly already, who are probably already
very budget conscious already. At a seventeen thousand dollars hit
would be devastating.

Speaker 7 (01:24:18):
It would be truly devastating.

Speaker 8 (01:24:20):
And it's even more so why you mentioned how you
know that you're discouraged. I guess is a light way
of saying about the lack of attention truly on fiscal challenges.

Speaker 7 (01:24:32):
Obviously we are too. But the one that really gets
me when it relates to this is this is.

Speaker 8 (01:24:37):
Kind of a bipartisan agreement now to talk about how
we're not talking about social security. We're not touching social security.
That is now the campaign talking point on both sides.

Speaker 4 (01:24:46):
Of the aisle.

Speaker 8 (01:24:47):
And the reality is when someone says that they're not
going to touch social security and not going to talk
about social security and continues that stance, they're guaranteeing that
twenty three percent across the board cut.

Speaker 7 (01:24:59):
It's going to have happened.

Speaker 8 (01:25:00):
By law, and it's better to solve it sooner rather
than later for all sorts of reasons. You can spread,
spread the changes out, you can phase it in. There's
logical reasons to do things soon, Arab and later, and
not wait to the deadline, which is what Washington always does.

Speaker 5 (01:25:14):
I have a very smart listener. His name is Joe,
and he sent me this earlier, and he says, the
simplest and farest solution is the same one that's been
used six other times in the past ninety years. Raise
the payroll contribution rate. The current fiker contribution rate is
seven point sixty five percent for the employee and the
same amount from the employer. Of that, six point two

(01:25:35):
percent goes into Social Security and one point four to
five percent goes into Medicare. Increasing the contribution rate i
point five percent each moves the program from its current
annual cash deficit position into an annual cash flow positive
position and begins to rebuild the trust fund. How accurate
is that and is it possible?

Speaker 8 (01:25:57):
The number sound accurate and it's certainly possible. The solution
to Social security. People have been looking at soci security
for years in the kind of public policy world, Okay,
in DC, and the levers that you can change on
Social Security ACTRC pretty well known. And you have to
look at the both sides of the equation. It's on
the revenue side that comes into the program, and can
you adjust benefits that are going out and on the

(01:26:18):
revenue side, so you touched on what the gentleman's recommending
is sort of adjusting the rates of taxes. Another very
common proposal. I was actually just a couple of speaking
events in Colorado yesterday talking about this, and three times
this idea came up, which is not necessarily adjusting the rate.

Speaker 7 (01:26:34):
But many people realize that you stop paying.

Speaker 8 (01:26:37):
Social Security tax contributions when you reach a certain income,
so right throughout one hundred and seventy thousand dollars above that,
you don't pay any payroll tax right now, you don't
get benefits either, and as a social insurance program, so
it's designed that way, but they haven't adjusted that level
to account for total wages and years, and you can
easily adjust that cap. That's actually a much more popular

(01:26:58):
and it actually polls well on both sides of the
aisle to adjust that cap. So I think on the
revenue side that's a more likely scenario that maybe adjusting
the rates. But then there are things you can do
on the benefit side as well.

Speaker 5 (01:27:10):
Do you eliminate the cap entirely, because that seems like
the most practical way to just say, look, if we're
going to do this, let's do it all in one
fell swoop instead of piece mealing it and saying we're
going to raise it to three hundred thousand or whatever
it is. I mean, that seems to me to be
the most practical way if you're going to do it,
And frankly, that would be preferable than some of the
other asinine proposals that I've seen, things like, you know,

(01:27:33):
if you are above, we cap everybody at the same level.
So basically, if you have made more money in your
career and you've paid in at a much higher level,
you're going to get the same benefits as someone who didn't.
And that offends me. That irritates the crap out of me,
because it's just a wealth redistribution scheme at that point,
and I'm very uncomfortable with that notion. So I'd rather

(01:27:54):
pay more in on the front side and leave that
sort of you know, if you pay more, you get
more the way it is.

Speaker 8 (01:28:02):
Yeah, I think there's a there's there's several considerations, and look,
that could ultimately be part of the solution. We wet
the committee first plans for a budget. Don't advocate this
is your exact solution. There's lots of ways to do this.
That could be one, but there's some considerations that to
be had there. So one you already I think mentioned before.
So if you let's say you lift that cap, and
that the name that always says you're lifting the caps,
say warm Buffet's going to be paying it up to

(01:28:24):
his full income, right right, Well, are you paying benefits
to warm buffett up to that full income too? Right,
because those are the considerations you have to have, and
that that obviously changed the equation and the other factors
you have to have thought there are Well someone might
say well, no, you shouldn't do that, but then also
you've got to be cognizant of then it's somewhat changes
the nature of the program. There's always been somewhat sort

(01:28:46):
of as a fairness issue of like there's something related
to the contributions, related to what benefits really to what
you pay in. So if you start messing with that
doesn't infect the political viability of the program in different ways.
So the other thing you have to think about is
what's the other dollar potential purpose for that same tax
revenue Because a lot of people have ideas, right of
different programs, new programs, ways we want to spend money

(01:29:08):
on different things, and if we're going to try to
pay for them potentially more revenue. A lot of times
people try to put that revenue on the wealthier side
of the tax base. And if you're doing it for
this and also want to do it for something else,
you got to take that into accounts. So those are
just other considerations, Mandy, But I think different ways to
adjust that cap are certainly going to be part of
the discussion when politicians get around to this.

Speaker 5 (01:29:31):
And that's the sad part, because the longer they wait,
the more this is going, the bigger this adjustment is
going to have to be. And my frustration is is
that we have now normalized allowing Congress to create an
emergency and then they last minute, at midnight run in
with some crap plan to fix the emergency that they
created because they didn't act on it earlier, And then

(01:29:53):
we're all supposed to be grateful that they came up
with a garbage solution because they did it at the
last minute. And I'm like, this is too big an
issue to just continue to kick the can down the road.
Is there any real movement? Are there enough members of Congress?
Are there enough members of the Senate that are concerned
about this that anything could happen feasibly in the next

(01:30:13):
couple of years instead of waiting till twenty thirty two
for the last minute garbage solution that will inevitably be horrible.

Speaker 8 (01:30:21):
Yeah, there are some I can tell you that there
are certainly many actually that understand the problem, they know
it's coming. It is the quintessential third rail. That's why
if you do step out and offer specific solutions. But
I'm I'm going to try to be an optimist that
I tend to be an optimist that some of the
things we were already talking about gives me hope it's
going to start to be on the on the table.
When you start seeing this within the election windows of people,

(01:30:44):
I think that can start to make it an issue.
When you know, the next presidential election, which will be
here frankly before you know it, that's.

Speaker 7 (01:30:50):
Going to be in bad term.

Speaker 8 (01:30:52):
So thinking about how to raise this in the context
of campaigns and make sure when it's talked about in
camp that can make it be more of an issue,
because right now it's not being talked about curtent campaigns
and we need to And that's why I'm talking to
folks like yourself and your listeners who want to press
their polutmakers and candidates to how will you save Social Security?

(01:31:14):
Don't tell me we're not touching it, because not touching
it leads to that cut.

Speaker 5 (01:31:17):
Well, here's the thing. The thing is this, The thing
is I've already solved that problem because I am a genius.
I don't know if you know this. I'm a mastermind
of everything. I'm kidding, but I have given this a
lot of thought and how to make this a campaign issue.
In this article last week actually solidified this for me. So,
if I am a Republican who is serious about cutting
us or fixing Social Security, or if I'm a Democrat

(01:31:39):
serious about fixing Social Security, my accusation of my opponent
is he wants to cut your Social Security twenty three percent,
because that's what inaction does, and that is the campaign
slogan that I go with. The opponent wants to cut
your social Security twenty three percent, We've got to fix it.
We've got to figure it out. And that person is
unseerious and wants your benefits to be cut. Now, it's

(01:32:01):
a scare tactic one hundred percent, But since the creation
of Social Security, it's been used as a scare tactic
in campaign. So I'm just leaning in on it. But
I think until we get people that are serious about
this and recognize that doing nothing is a twenty three
percent cut, we're gonna end up with this. And I
will say this, Mike, I'm gen x when I read

(01:32:22):
this article last week. I was like, of course gen
X is getting ready to retire. Of course social security
is going broke. Of course it happens to this generation.
So you know, millennials, I think really believe that social
security isn't going to be there.

Speaker 7 (01:32:37):
I know I believe it.

Speaker 5 (01:32:38):
When I was younger, I wish i'd plan more for retirement.
I'm playing catch up now, But I don't know what
to do to unscare or maybe scare them in the
right direction, especially people who are already getting benefits. Because
I've had a few people text me today and say, well,
this is just for people going forward, right, They're not

(01:32:58):
gonna cut my benefits, but that's going to cut everyone's benefits, right.

Speaker 7 (01:33:04):
By law required across the board, everybody on the program.

Speaker 8 (01:33:07):
And so I think, look, I think your tactic to
is exactly a lot right, easy for me to say, right,
because I completely agree with that, where we just have
to be warning people that this is what's coming as
a result of people not, you know, putting forward a solution.

Speaker 7 (01:33:22):
If they're going to attack somebody.

Speaker 8 (01:33:23):
Else, you not putting forward a solution is leading to
that twenty three percent cut. I completely agree with that,
and I think that you know, what we really need
to do is have it's going to have to come
from voters, because voters actually this This is kind of
when you're folks like ourselves who we talk about this
all the time, we always actually find it surprising because

(01:33:44):
we say it all the time and it's in the
news a decent amount, but people still don't know that
that date's coming. I said it multiple times in some
of these events yesday, and I had several people go, wait,
that's in twenty thirty three.

Speaker 7 (01:33:54):
That's actually not that far away. Yeah, And so people
actually don't know what's coming.

Speaker 8 (01:33:58):
So we really need to get out there tell the
truth about the state of social security during the campaigns,
going out to voters, making sure they're aware so they
then can convey that same message.

Speaker 7 (01:34:08):
May that you just said.

Speaker 5 (01:34:10):
Let me put this in the context of a bigger
conversation about the federal budget itself. Here's my problem, right, Okay,
so raise the cap, take more of my money. I
don't trust the federal government to just keep it for
social security because we already know how that song and
dance sense. I mean, that's my problem. Is there anything
that in the course of reforming what we've got now,

(01:34:32):
we could create or rather remove the ability of the
federal government to pilt for the Social Security funds.

Speaker 8 (01:34:41):
Yeah, I think that should be part of the discussion
going forward, to think about how you're putting some guardrails
around this.

Speaker 7 (01:34:48):
But the broader point there is that.

Speaker 8 (01:34:52):
They just have to get the whole fiscal house in order, okay,
because what's been going on, which I think is what
you're alluding to, is that, yes, like the Social Security
quote unquote surplus that was there, what's been going on
is they actually just use a lot of that revenue
that's coming in to kind of, you know, make the
deficit frankly appear less than it otherwise would have been. Okay,

(01:35:13):
but it's still huge, and so it's just a matter
of if we got to get the overall deficit under control.
That goes back to your original point, Mandy, of what's
been going on in Washington.

Speaker 7 (01:35:20):
People talk a big.

Speaker 8 (01:35:22):
Game on the deficit and spending, and then when they
get to governing and they have the opportunity to do so,
they don't get it time. And that's actually is what
we're seeing right now with the big beautiful billets moving forward,
that's concerned that that will increase the deficit based on
the way it's structured right now, because they're not cutting
enough spending to offset the spending increases in the taxes.

Speaker 7 (01:35:42):
So that's the.

Speaker 8 (01:35:43):
Issue is yes, they should try to figure out to
put some guardrails, but the broader point is they need
to get more responsible at the entire federal budget.

Speaker 7 (01:35:50):
Right As part of the conversation.

Speaker 5 (01:35:52):
You appreciate with the choir on that. I really appreciate
your time, Mike. I wish that you know some of
the ideas that are floating around there. I think think
are way better than others. But I hope that we
can inspire the conversation and maybe, as I said, those
politicians need to run on they're in action, and somebody
rightfully texted this they said, but the candidate must present
a plan, not just run on the mantra. But I

(01:36:14):
think if you came out as a candidate and said, look,
we have multiple options, and here are the options that
I like best, but I'm open to a bigger conversation
about fixing this issue, I think then you can at
least begin to have the conversation and get people who
are serious about fixing the problem in office, because I
do believe that laying it out in those stark terms

(01:36:35):
would motivate older people who are already getting benefits, who
are absolutely going to vote, to really think about that.
The solvency of their own pocketbooks maybe the thing that
makes this happen. Mike Murphy, I'll let you have the
last word from the Committee for the Responsible Federal Government.

Speaker 7 (01:36:54):
Well, I just agree.

Speaker 8 (01:36:55):
I agree with everything you just said about the fact
that people, when they're talking about in the campaign, actually
I think it, frankly is better that you're actually putting
out there. You don't have to put out your specific solution.
This is exactly how I'm going to say. But that
would be nice, not be preferable, but frankly, the political
reality is that that actually might hurt people to basically, like,
all of a sudden, you're kind of honing in on
that one thing, and people are going to attack that.

(01:37:16):
When there's a range of frankly common sense options, we
have them on our website. People can go and check
that out at RFB dot org. We have a tool
it's called the Reformer that you can go on there
and basically fix all scared of yourself.

Speaker 7 (01:37:28):
It shows a lot of these options.

Speaker 8 (01:37:30):
So I think that's a great approach, and I just
thank you, Mandy for caring about this issue and drawing
attention to it. I just hope for for folks that
are concerned about it to get more involved, impress their
representatives to make this an issue that they're going to solve.

Speaker 5 (01:37:47):
Mike Murphy, I appreciate your time today, and we'll keep
preaching the same message.

Speaker 7 (01:37:51):
Thank you, Mandy, Thank you for having me.

Speaker 5 (01:37:53):
All right, have a good day, and now joining me
in the studio. One mister Benjamin ol Bright has joined
us present.

Speaker 3 (01:37:59):
Hello.

Speaker 6 (01:38:00):
It was that what are you doing? Are you doing
a bit?

Speaker 5 (01:38:02):
This is a British accenting. No, sometimes I just do
funny voices. Don't you ever listen to the program? I mean,
it's it's kind of a regular thing. I didn't okay,
I didn't know if I was supposed to do. Like
mister Woodchuck from Full House, you can do.

Speaker 6 (01:38:14):
Whatever you want.

Speaker 5 (01:38:15):
It doesn't matter. You can do whatever you want that
turble world. Accept that, okay, Okay, accept that that's not
a thing that you cant I've got worse on the
program anyway. Now it's time for the most exciting segment
all the radio. I was gone.

Speaker 6 (01:38:34):
Of that day.

Speaker 10 (01:38:36):
There we go.

Speaker 3 (01:38:38):
What is our dad joke of the day? Please, Anthony,
I got camping insurance. You camping insurance. But if someone
steals my tents in the middle of the night, I'm
no longer covered.

Speaker 6 (01:38:54):
Way better.

Speaker 5 (01:38:55):
Yeah, what did you tell him earlier?

Speaker 6 (01:38:57):
I'm not.

Speaker 5 (01:38:57):
I'm trying to their little scandalous a little more risky. Okay,
well then no, let's not do that. Let's get Mandy
fired for she just got that vacation. Today's word of
the day, please a.

Speaker 2 (01:39:12):
Flotsom.

Speaker 5 (01:39:13):
No flotsom and jetsam. That's stuff that's.

Speaker 6 (01:39:17):
Floating around.

Speaker 5 (01:39:18):
Yeah, jump, it floats around the water. Flotsome.

Speaker 2 (01:39:20):
Correct.

Speaker 5 (01:39:21):
Today's trivia question who wrote the hit song Will You
Still Love Me Tomorrow? Recorded in nineteen sixty by Girl
Briefs to Chirrell's I think it's Carol King. It's either
I'm pretty I think it is.

Speaker 6 (01:39:34):
I know the song.

Speaker 5 (01:39:35):
Yep, I'm correct. You can stop going, don't just I
only know that because I saw the Carol King musical. Okay,
so good by the way, loved it. It was a
jukebox musical and it was so good, so so good. Anyway,
I had gotten my butt kicked for two days in
a row. Then Jeopardy. Yeah, fully, my brain is not
not functioning all the way. What is today's category?

Speaker 3 (01:39:56):
Well, let's hope it is functioning at least musically, because
category his song words? Okay, this old word for a
song also follows Fredo on a.

Speaker 6 (01:40:07):
Bag of chips?

Speaker 2 (01:40:08):
Then what is a lay?

Speaker 7 (01:40:09):
That is correct?

Speaker 5 (01:40:10):
What that's a song?

Speaker 6 (01:40:11):
What the song is?

Speaker 3 (01:40:13):
I guess John Mellencamp gave us a little one, Maddy,
what's a diddy?

Speaker 2 (01:40:18):
Is correct?

Speaker 5 (01:40:20):
He's going down by the way the battle it's going down?

Speaker 7 (01:40:24):
Oh yeah, I.

Speaker 6 (01:40:25):
Forget to say that in that exact context either, well,
the battle one of the republic begins?

Speaker 5 (01:40:32):
Then what is him?

Speaker 9 (01:40:33):
Correct?

Speaker 6 (01:40:35):
Also a seasonal song?

Speaker 3 (01:40:37):
It was a top ten US girls first name from
nineteen thirty six to nineteen fifty, but not since.

Speaker 6 (01:40:45):
What wasson?

Speaker 4 (01:40:46):
Song?

Speaker 3 (01:40:47):
A seasonal song and also was the top ten US
girls first name from thirty six to fifty.

Speaker 6 (01:40:58):
What what is harrold?

Speaker 5 (01:41:00):
Oh God, I'm glad I didn't guess that because I
that wrong. It is two to one. I'm still in
it today, unlike yesterday.

Speaker 3 (01:41:06):
What You're up to I know Ben's got to okay
tune full Sailors know this term for a small dinghy dwelling,
often in a whole town of.

Speaker 5 (01:41:16):
Them, a small day dwelling. What's the correct We are tied,
so I could see it's either shanty or shack.

Speaker 6 (01:41:29):
But I'm gonna let that go.

Speaker 5 (01:41:32):
We're going to go with you sat on the lead.
You played prevent defense. You could have you could have
gone from the glory, we still would have been tied.

Speaker 6 (01:41:40):
Okay, with the tiebreaker. If you're having a heart attack,
A three five?

Speaker 5 (01:41:45):
What is an aspen?

Speaker 6 (01:41:46):
The first win since vacation.

Speaker 5 (01:41:48):
Thank you, Thanks for having playing defense exactly every single time,
single time. You absolutely could have made it. What's coming
up on KO Sports?

Speaker 1 (01:41:56):
Would know it's gonna be uh, Dave, Susie and I
think Rick in the show today.

Speaker 5 (01:42:01):
I've got to go do some Rocos country nights. Well,
aren't she fancy?

Speaker 4 (01:42:04):
Then?

Speaker 5 (01:42:04):
All right, KAO Sports with somebody coming up next. We'll
be back tomorrow for a very short show. We got
a half hour baseball tomorrow, but it's gonna be awesome,
as it is every half hour that we do on
the air, keep it right here on kiowa,

All Episodes

06-25-25 FULL SHOW - DougCo Says NO To Home Rule, And Is Social Security Broke?

Episode Transcript

The Mandy Connell Podcast News

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

Cold Case Files: Miami

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}06-25-25 FULL SHOW - DougCo Says NO To Home Rule, And Is Social Security Broke?

Episode Transcript

The Mandy Connell Podcast News .css-1q01m3q{margin:0 0 -2px 0;}

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

Cold Case Files: Miami

All Episodes