March 6, 2025 • 38 mins
The Trump Administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been making waves for promising huge cuts in federal bureaucracy. Part of DOGE's initiative has been asking all federal employees to justify their jobs/responsibilities by telling them about their accomplishments in the past week...This has also applied to critical medical volunteers who are only called during national disasters or emergencies. Is the DOGE initiative/crack down and cuts in federal bureaucracy going too far?
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the new iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the new iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm w Leazy Boston
News Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, welcome back. I want to thank my guests,
the Auditor of the come Wealth of Massachusetts, Diana de Zaglio,
And again I would encourage those of you who know
state representatives, who know state senators, you need to say
to the look. Now, this is a law that was
passed by seventy two percent of the voters of Massachusetts
and initiative petition seventy two percent to authorize the auditor
(00:29):
to audit the books of the state legislature. This is
one that we'll talk about more frequently here on Night
Side as time goes on. But this is just pure
political bluster by the Speaker and the Senate to a
lesser degree by the Senate President. But the Speaker who's
never been on this program and probably never will be
(00:49):
on this program, but he can come on this program
any night, any night. Or Karen Spielkill come on this program,
who has been on this program, She can come on
any night and just to find their unwillingness to comply
with the will of seventy two percent of the voters
here in Massachusetts. Now, let's talk about Washington and let's
(01:10):
talk about the Department of Government Efficiency, which is headed
by Elon Musk. Put it in perspective, put it in perspective.
At this point, about a third of the voters support
what those is doing overall. Now, about a third of
(01:35):
those voters also feel that this is not something that
is legal. And we'll talk about this, but there's a
really definitive split here. Seventy percent of Trump voters say
it's great and seventy three percent of Harris voters say
it's not so great. So there is now again to
(01:58):
the Victor Golders spoils, to all of that, is there fraud?
Is there waste within the federal government? You bet you.
If we can eliminate the fraud and waste, that is
a laudable goal. However, however, it came to my attention
earlier this week that you know these letters that Elon
(02:21):
Musk has been sending out, or he hasn't, but the
government under it, with his instructions, has been sending out
in which everybody has to list five things that they
did last week. Okay. Musk commented on that during a
recent cabinet meeting in which he was he held fourth
for quite quite a while, and he was talking now
(02:44):
about sending out these emails. I don't know if your
boss ever sent you an email that said, hey, we
want to make sure that you tell us five things
you did last week. Okay, I could tell my boss
five hundred things I did last week, and I'm sure
you could as well, but I really don't want to
have to waste my time telling my boss. Now, there
(03:05):
is some concern that some federal workers have checked out
because of the time that OVID, When COVID occurred and
federal workers were given the opportunity to work from home
or work remotely, and there's probably some abuse to that.
And if Elon Musk can find that abuse, I say,
go for it. But this was Musk in the Oval office.
(03:29):
I believe it was some time. It was last week,
and he was asked to talk about why he's sending
out these and requesting emails from literally everyone who works.
I don't know who's going to read them, but this
is what his response was when he was prompted by
the President to talk about the theory behind sending out
(03:53):
emails and having legitimate federal employees as well as maybe
people who have have zoned out. Maybe they're retired, maybe
they're dead. I don't know. This is what muskt to say.
Cut thirty three, rob President.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Mister, are there about half of the government and employees
so far up here to responded to your requests for
what they've been doing over the past week? Is there
a timeline in place for next moves for people being fired?
Speaker 4 (04:19):
You want to get in there to you will expect
to see you think results, yes, well to like the
I think that email as was best interpreted as a
proponent's review, but actually.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
It was a plus check review.
Speaker 6 (04:35):
Do you have a.
Speaker 7 (04:38):
You have a pulse and two neurons?
Speaker 2 (04:41):
I don't know.
Speaker 7 (04:41):
If you have a fulse in two neurons, you can
replace me an email. This is you know, I think,
not a high balk. That is what I'm saying. This
is a should we anyone can accomplish this.
Speaker 5 (04:52):
But what we are trying to get to the bottom
of it is we think there are a number of
people on pair well who are dead, which is probably
why they can't respond, and and some people who are
not real people, like beneficially fictional individuals that are collecting paycheck.
Speaker 8 (05:08):
I think, well, some of these collecting paychecks are a
fictional individual. Literally, Trump grant all these people real, are
they alive and can their right event? Which I think
is a reasonable expectation for there. You know, the American
public would have to least that expectation of someone.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
In the public center. Okay, so he basically wants to know,
are you alive, et cetera. Well, I think, and I've
used this phrase before, that they need to be a
little more careful in what they do. And it has
come to my attention that there is an organization that
some of you perhaps have heard of, perhaps you haven't
(05:44):
heard of it. It's called the Trauma and Critical Trauma
and Critical Care Teams. What these teams are? These these
are teams of medical professionals who volunteer their time to
respond to crises like nine to eleven, like Hurricane Katrina,
(06:06):
like all the fires I'm sure in South Carolina, the
fires in southern California. These are critical care physicians, surgeons,
emergency medican medicine physicians, physicians, assistants so called pas, nurse practitioners,
registered nurses, nurse anesthetists, paramedics, respiratory therapists, radiology technologists, surgical technologists,
(06:35):
and pharmacists. Basically, these are people who are on a
very very important list, short notice. They get a phone
call because there's been a disaster and they need help.
Some Americans need help. These people are volunteers. Think of
them as a volunteer fire department. If you've ever lived
(06:58):
in a volunteer in a town that was small, you
don't have a full time fire department, but you have
a group of people, men and women who when there's
a fire, they race to the fire station and they
jump in the truck and they do what the truck
or trucks and they do what they can to help
(07:18):
their neighbors. So think of it like that. Apparently these
folks have received these letters. So you're a volunteer. You
might go months or years without being called into action.
You have your twenty four hour bag packed and ready
(07:39):
to go. When you get the call. You don't say,
you know, I think I'll run on a toothpaste. Let
me hit to CVS and get myself some toothpaste. No,
you have to. There's an assembly point, logan airport or wherever.
That's where you go, and you get on a plane
and you go and you help people. So I think
that the Trump administration under the guidance, if not the
(08:04):
leadership of Elon Musk as the head of DOGE is
a little out over their skis here, and there have
been a lot of things that they have requested and
things that have been said that I think are hurtful
to the cause of finding genuine fraud. There's no way
(08:26):
that anyone who's looking for government deficiency should have sent
an email to people who are medical volunteers and who
are there to help their fellow countrymen in the time
of crisis as stupid dumb email. Well, we need to
have five things that you did for us last month. No,
(08:46):
they didn't last week. They weren't volunteering. So I want
to open this conversation, and I think that the Trump
administration will be a lot small it to deal with
something more like a scalpel than a jackhammer. We'll take
a break if you'd like to join the conversation on this.
(09:07):
And I know some of you are going to disagree
with me. Some of this is not intended as a
criticism of an effort to get rid of waste, fraud
and abuse, but this is a criticism if you're going
to be called the Department of Government Efficiency for God's sakes,
be efficient in terms of what you request from government employees.
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three,
(09:28):
one ten thirty. My name's Dan Ray. Will be back
starting with phone calls right after this quick break.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio Bell.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
I've used the metaphor that the Trump administration might be
out over their skis here a little bit, because I
think what's going to happen is if you threaten to
UH in such a way that the public thinks that
everybody is a federal employee, even doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical
(10:05):
professionals who are volunteering their time, volunteering their time to
help out any part of this country or even some
parts of the world when there's a crisis, I think
you'll lose the moral high ground. And that's what I'm
concerned about. And I think that they need to be
careful what they talk about, because the more they talk,
(10:26):
there's a lot of people saying, you want to do
what you want to close federal buildings. I mean, yeah,
should can there be some federal buildings closed? Sure? But
it's you can't do it tomorrow. Let's go to the phones.
Let me go to Ron in Newton first first up
this hour, Run and welcome back to Night's Side. Thanks
so much for calling. Hello, Hello, Hi, Ron, you're on ear. Okay,
(10:50):
we're having problems with the phones again, Rob that we
had had before. Okay, let's go to run now try
that trick. Rob. Let's see if Ron's there. We just
lost him. Ron, please call back. In the meantime, we're
gonna take Matt in Franklin. We'ren callback at six one, seven,
nine thirty. Let's go to Matt and Franklin. Matt next
(11:12):
on first this hour, Nightside. Actually, hmm, can you move
Matt over up? Are you able to do that for me? Please?
Six six what Let's go to Matt and Franklin. Matt,
you are next on Nightside. Go ahead, Matt.
Speaker 9 (11:33):
Is that am I in the air?
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Yes? You are, go right ahead? All right, right, but
what's technical difficulties Matt and to run? Yeah.
Speaker 9 (11:41):
One of my biggest issues of the full Doge thing, yeah,
is what they're focusing on is like next to like
peanuts in the grand scheme of things like, oh, they
spend eighty six thousand dollars on like some comic book
in Peru. Well, it's like we're thirty seven trillion dollars
in and it's like, that's that's your claimed the fan
(12:03):
that you found this.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Yeah, let me let me just ask you if you
have ever heard the phrase tis better to light one
candle than simply curse the darkness. I mean, they are
using those examples, if they're true, and I assume that
that's the one you just referred to is true. They're
using that as an example to basically say, here's something
(12:26):
that never should have been spent on. They're going to
have to deal eventually with the big topics topics, which
would be so Yeah.
Speaker 9 (12:32):
I know that Congress. Congress gave a blank check to
these agencies and relied on the senior executives of these
agencies to spend the money. And now they're upset how
the money was spent. It's like, where was Congress all
these years when the money was being spent.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
That's a good question, But so the question is do
you do you want? I want those to look at everything,
But what my concern is that they're looking in the
wrong place right now. They'll they've sent this email out
it's you know, just as you're focusing on an eighty
six thousand dollars comic book. After a while, all those
little items do run into big money.
Speaker 9 (13:11):
Yeah, and how much of the cost for all those
employees to respond to a redundant email. It's like their
managers should be aware of what they're doing. Not all
of them have access to the computer, so they do
have to get on it. But that's the whole thing.
It's like, that's probably a fifteen million right there. Hold on,
I'll tell you that.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Yeah, okay, Yeah, that's great. You're going to call us
back and call the person back. I think we lost you.
Thanks Matt let We do have run back Ron apologize.
We've had some technical issues.
Speaker 10 (13:41):
All damn not at all. I'm glad that I got
back and thank you so much for having this on.
As you know, I'm a part of the Trauma Critical
Care International Trauma Critical Care Team, having since nineteen ninety nine,
go around twenty six years now. In some of my
(14:01):
deployments had been the first on seeing at nine to
eleven World Trade Center working with the New York Fire Department,
Police Department, shortly thereafter Anthrax, where we went back to
New York City and mass prophylacts seventy five hundred postal
workers in seventy two hours. That's pretty efficient. To Hurricane Katrina.
(14:31):
Our team has also been to Guam, Haiti, Puerto Rico.
I can tell you when I went to Hurricane Harvey
and Houston, I hadn't even gotten deplaned from the plane
returning back to Logan and they were queuing me up
for the Ohio Ye team to go to Puerto Rico.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Right now, Look, no one is questioning the work that
is done by your organization, that the trauma and critical
care teams. The question is your ind of it. Your
volunteers have received an email, like every federal employee who
(15:15):
are not volunteers, what have you done last week? What
have you done last week? And look, you you worked
in your regular job because you were not activated last week.
You probably had when was the last time you activated?
A few a few months ago or a couple of
years ago.
Speaker 10 (15:30):
When was the last time a few years ago? But
the the you know, we still we have We have
a team, a roster I call every single month, so
uh and I'm not on this month's roster, but I
have during the past year have been on the roster
a few times and uh, so I received this email.
(15:54):
It was mandated that we respond, and I got I
actually got a call from the team commander at about
eight o'clock in the evening. I was at the hospital
where I worked, and we talked about it and I said, well,
can I do it tomorrow and he said no, it's
(16:15):
the deadline is tonight at midnight. So I finished up
at ten pm, punched out of my usual time, and
then went back to the office and completed this by midnight.
And that included you know what my title was. I
had to indicate that I maintain readiness to deploy in
(16:37):
the event of a disaster of public health emergency. You
participate on the team's on call roster when available and
received no compensation. When you're on call, you answer emails
and other communications from your team commander without compensation. And
(16:58):
so I did respond, and then subsequently that has been
rescinded to a lower level, that is, we don't have
to provide this at the moment unless we're deployed, but
it's logistically impossible it deploys was argent without communication or
(17:22):
electricity or water and working twelve hour shifts and if
you get three hours of sleep, that's a good night.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
No, I understand that. But the point I'm trying to
focus on is the name of this organization is the
Department of Government Efficiency. If they are so inefficient that
they are sending emails and demanding a response from people
who were volunteers, and the question of the email essentially
is tell us five things you did last week? You know,
(17:53):
unless you had been activated, there was no there's nothing
for you to answer.
Speaker 10 (17:59):
I mean, it'd be like, exactly, but I did any
I complied?
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Well, you complied because you you're somebody who follows rules
and regulations. It would be if they sent emails out
to to every federal employee, Please answer this email. Were
you in Paris at the Eiffel Tower last week? Now
that might be interesting information and you certainly could could
accomplish answer yes or no. If that's all that that
(18:26):
that much wanted to do was to find out if
people had a pulse. My understanding, ron is, as you mentioned,
is that this has been this obligation now has fortunately
been put on pause. But I think it shows that
the those people need to be efficient themselves before they
start demanding efficiency from the government.
Speaker 10 (18:49):
Can I can I say one thing before we closed in,
I was, you know, I've been thinking about this, and
it was somewhat insulting to receive this, to be honest
with you, but I've been thinking, you know, if if
our Congress could work as efficiently and as unified as
(19:12):
a team as as we do, when they can use
us as an example if they want, very easily. When
we deployed to nine to eleven, we had promised the
Mayor Giuliani and the fire Commissioner von Us and that
we would have our site set up by oh seven
hundred and take over care from Stuyvesant High School. We
(19:34):
beat our timeline in spite of the fact there were
no walkways.
Speaker 11 (19:39):
You know, it was.
Speaker 10 (19:39):
Still we were still in process for the Bucket Brigade
at the time we beat it. We saw firefighter by
six ten in the morning, and and we accomplished what
in our nation's worst disasters.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Run Yet without interrupting or with interrupting, I don't think
anyone is questioning the work that you folks have done,
and done it voluntarily, not not doing it to earn
a federal pension or anything like that. I just think
that that I'm using this as an example of where
(20:21):
that those people basically have to learn how to be
efficient themselves. They have to understand who they're sending these
these requests for information to. And they made a mistake,
they should they should admit they made a mistake, because
if they don't admit they made a mistake, then they
might make the mistake again. So I'm into my my
(20:45):
ten thirty newscast by four minutes, so I got to
let you go. Thank you, thank you for what you've done,
and thank you for giving me a heads up on this,
because again, the Trump administration will be their own worst
enemy if they do not realize that this was an
example of absolute inefficiency by an by agency that has
(21:10):
inefficiency the word inefficiency in its title. Thanks Ron, we'll
talk sooner.
Speaker 10 (21:14):
Thanks for helping us skip see you local.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
All right, take a break. Here's the news coming right
back on Night's side. I just think that this is important.
I hope you do as well. If you agree with me,
feel free. If you disagree with me, you can even
feel more free. Six one seven, two five, four ten
thirty six one seven nine three one ten thirty. I
want the Trump administration if there is. I want any
(21:40):
administration to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in government. But
I don't think that this outreach to members of this
this team that has done such great work over the years,
is something that they can be proud of. They should
be They should actually hang their heads and say we
blew it. But see what you think. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Okay, back to the phones, you go. Let me go
to Bill and Danvers. Bill you are next on Nightside,
and we'll get the mice Rich Itch on the air.
Go ahead, Bill, welcome.
Speaker 11 (22:20):
Yeah, I believe. I don't know if you have the cut,
dam but I did see some of that cabinet meeting
that was one of the first ones the Musk was there,
and must did acknowledge that they will be making the
mistakes will be made, and they will try to be
as quick as they can to fix them. And I
think he gave an example, but I can't remember one
(22:40):
hundred percent, but he did acknowledge that that you know, uh,
you know, the size and scope and and and everything entailed,
they will be mistakes.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
I mean, you know, I mean one of the things.
One of the things that that worries me, okay, is
in the president's speech the other night, his addressed Congress,
he listed off all of these numbers of people who
are listed on Social Security. Who are you know, listed
as being over the age of one hundred or one
(23:11):
hundred and fifteen or one hundred and twenty. I forget
the specifics. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, right.
Speaker 11 (23:17):
Yeah, I've read different stuff about that, to be honest
with you. And I also read that a lot of
the computer systems, and I'm not sure if Social Security
Administration is one of them, but they spend more up
keep these older systems to maintain them than if they
had upgraded the technology, which will probably be more efficient
to a degree.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
And that's that's all I want of reform. That's the
sort of reform that I would hope everyone would support.
But what I'm saying is I've read enough which indicates
to me that the fact that there's somebody who's listed
as being one hundred and fifty years old doesn't mean
that that person exists. Now, if there's a check being
(23:59):
mailed to an address associated with that name, I would
think you want to find out who's where are those
checks being cashed and who's cashing those checks? Because there's
nobody on earth who's one hundred and fifty years old?
And I just what what I'm afraid of is that
the Trump administration will engage in this hyperbole about like that,
(24:22):
which I see as hyperbole, which is good for a SoundBite,
but people will lose confidence in their ability to actually
find the problems that are to be corrected because you know,
whoever that person is who's listened as one hundred and fifty,
I want to know the answer be pretty simple, and
(24:42):
I would assume that journalists would want to know the
answer too. And I'm a journalist. Is there actually a
person named Joe Smith who's listed as one hundred and fifty?
Where's is he being sent to check? Every month? Where
is that check being sent to? Who's cashing that check?
That's all pretty easy to trace.
Speaker 11 (25:02):
Yeah, well, well you have a writer as a journal
the uh you know, to request the information of freedom
you know, and an address. Well, although I don't know
if you could get the address, you know, just go
to the guy's house. I don't know, you know what
I mean, if there is an.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
Address, what I'm saying here. Look, what I'm saying is
there's Washington is inundated with reporters. Uh. And if the
Trump administration is smart as opposed to you know, reading
off numbers as it's listed as thirty thousand people over
one hundred and fifty, well, what does that mean? Does
(25:39):
it mean that there are thirty thousand people getting government
checks that they shouldn't be getting. If that's true, that's
an incredible story. If, on the other hand, some computer
list hasn't been cleaned, like a voting list hasn't been
cleaned as they should be cleaned periodically, that's less of
(26:02):
a story. Still a story, but it's less of a story.
Speaker 11 (26:08):
But I think, I mean, there's Social Security is one thing,
but I think some of that other stuff that goes down,
I don't know how anyone can defend it. I mean,
there's a lot of things that you know, and it
adds up. I mean supposedly I've been reading. I mean,
I don't know if it's one hundred billion or one
hundred and fifty billion. And actually there's accounts that they found. Zelden, right,
(26:28):
the EPA guy, he said there should be an investigation
because the EPA. It was the grant money, and I
went to certain groups that were it was very uh,
and they're finding these accounts. I don't know if they
forgot about them or they couldn't spend the money quick enough,
or the slush funds. I mean, very sloppy, very sloppy.
What's going on?
Speaker 2 (26:48):
All right? Okay, Well, again I wanted to root out waste, fraud,
and inefficiency, but I also want to make sure that
it's done legitimately and that you know, you know the
old phrase bill it's always better to under promise and
over deliver. And if if at the end of the
(27:09):
day Elon Musk is over promising but underdeliver, that's not
a good thing. Yeah, that's not a good thing.
Speaker 11 (27:18):
No, that's not but uh, you know, but in a
way I look at it, I mean, I don't know,
you can look at the last fifty years. I mean,
there's been a lot of instances it hasn't been great.
So this is something new. Kick the tie is and
you know, see what happened, and if anything, yeah, let's
see what happens.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
But be careful. That's That's all I'm saying, is that
if people get their hopes up and they're going and
talking to their friends and say, well, Donald Trump said,
there some you know, thirty three thousand people in this
country who are over one hundred and fifty years old,
and they're getting so secrety checks. That's not real.
Speaker 11 (27:50):
They maybe, well, if you look at the big picture
with Musk, I think he's kind of I mean he's
in business to a degree. He's hurting himself long term
think because you know he's oh, he's gonna be saying.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
Well, Tesla's save sit down. There's no question about that. Okay,
I'm not saying he's doing it for publicity of money.
But whether you're doing it for publicity of money or
you're doing it out of public service, do it right,
do it right, don't over don't over promise, and under delivery.
Thanks Belle, We've got to run.
Speaker 11 (28:22):
Yep. Thanks man by.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
Talk to you soon. Quick break coming right back only
one line at six, one, seven, two, five, four thirty.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Now back to Dan ray Mine from the Window World
Nice Sight Studios on WITBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
By the way, by the way, with all of the tariffs,
uh uh and which is confusing people. Uh Donald Trump,
President Trump loves tariffs. Look what the stock market is doing.
You know that sort of girations in the stock market
is not something that's going to instill a lot of
confidence uh in the voters in the middle.
Speaker 11 (28:58):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
And that can be you can you can lose your
momentum very easily, Alison new Himshire, Al, welcome back to
that night side.
Speaker 12 (29:06):
Right hit sir, Yes, sir, it's It's very rarely that
I'm the skunk in the room, but I'm going to
be it tonight.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
I might be the skunk in the room.
Speaker 12 (29:16):
Go ahead, well, we'll join each other together. I listened
very intently to the team of people, to volunteers. He
said something very interesting. He said that they're compensated for
if I wrote it down correctly, compensated for on call.
So it's a possibility that they're part of the government, uh,
(29:39):
you know program where money is being paid, and they
were asking them what they were doing.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
You say, when you say, just so, I understand, Al
when you say, he said they're being compensated for all
on call. Who who do you believe said that?
Speaker 12 (29:56):
No, are the gentlemen that called you and said and
he thanked you for being part of the groupe. He said,
I listened to him very intently. What in a wonderful man.
Speaker 11 (30:06):
But what he said is.
Speaker 12 (30:07):
We were compensated for being on call. My position, my
question to you is that not him? I wish he
could answer.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
And they're not. They're not compensated for being on call.
I think you misheard him.
Speaker 12 (30:20):
I'm very familiar, Okai.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
The analogy I would use. The analogy al that I'd
like to use is do you have a fire department
in your town or do you have a volunteer fire department?
Speaker 12 (30:34):
A volunteer sir?
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Yeah, So what happens in your town when when there's
a house that gets on fire? The volunteer fire department. Uh,
I've lived in a town like you. Was heads to
the firehouse and they jump in the equipment in the
trucks and they head to the to the fire right.
Speaker 11 (30:55):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
And they may be compensated for their efforts that day.
But that's or they may be compensated if they show
up for a drill. But that's about it.
Speaker 12 (31:05):
No, No, I'm not disparaging. I'm not disparaging the team
or the gentleman. I'm saying is I can understand how
a government agency could could question something for people who
are getting paid. That's all I'm not saying. I'm not
questioning their integrity or.
Speaker 11 (31:22):
What they.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Receive a stipend now as I understand.
Speaker 12 (31:29):
That when they are no, no, I don't, I hear
you one thousand percent. But I'm saying is I can
actually understand why emails would be going out asking them
the question only because when people receive something, some funds,
regardless of stipend or not. I'm sure the government is
so big that no one knows exactly that the intent
(31:53):
was not initially to cause disrespect to volunteers. I think
the intent was to find out is money going to
these people and what is it for? I don't I
see it a little differently than you do it.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Again, you know, l thank you for that that suggestion.
I don't think that is what happened. And as you
may have heard, the DOGE team has rescinded or paused
the requirement that these volunteers fill out and return this email.
(32:28):
So I think that they now understand they sent it
to an inappropriate group. But but again, you have a
different view of it, and I'm not going to persuade you,
I think, and you probably aren't going to persuade me.
So I think you made your case and to justify
the email and I and I appreciate that you took
(32:49):
the time to call.
Speaker 11 (32:51):
Thank you, sir.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Thanks Al, talk soon. Okay, let's keep rolling, at least
try to get one more in here. Let's go to
Louis and Norwood. Louise. You were next, Alle nice, welcome,
Thank you Dan.
Speaker 6 (33:03):
I want to tell you that I agree with the
college just before me I E. I disagree with your perspective.
And here's why. I didn't know anything about this particular
volunteer group. But as you talked about it when you
(33:24):
first introduced it, you said, these people are on call,
they drop what they're doing. They may go to California,
they may go to a hurricane site South Carolina. So
while they are volunteering their time, I highly doubt that
they're paying for their own airfare, hotel, or meals.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
So, first of all, you're absolutely correct that if all
of a sudden, a physician at mass General Hospital, or
a pharmacist or a nurse is on the list, and
all of a sudden there's a crisis nine to eleven,
for example, they are flown, they're told to assemble somewhere.
(34:05):
Maybe they go to hanscom Field. They have to be
there within a certain period of time. They get on
a plane and they then are transported. I would hope
that they're given some accommodation, and I would hope that
they're fed. But these are doctors, nurses, anesthesiologists, others who
(34:25):
are volunteering their time. They're not receiving any great amount
of money. They receive some small stipend. And yes they
don't have to pay for their airfare they're lodging or
their meals.
Speaker 6 (34:37):
You're correct on that, Okay, So now let's take it
from an audit perspective. If DOZE is truly going to
do a trail on expense reimbursements for hotels and airlines,
they need to start somewhere. So if they are sending
out one hundred emails to one hundred volunteers and they
(35:00):
get back one hundred responses that no one volunteered anything
for two months, yet they have expense reimbursements to a
million dollars, that is a pretty good opportunity for them
to open up a real good auditive. Well, why are
we spending money under this grant or under this program
(35:24):
for people that haven't really done the volunteering.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
It's not a grant, it's a program. Okay, a program. Okay.
If let us say in Norwood tomorrow there was a
tornado and the Norwood Police department was overwhelmed. And let's
say that the tornado hit not onlye Norwood, but it
hit Walpole and Westwood, at Denham and most of the
(35:48):
South Shore, similar to what happened, you know during Hurricane Katrina.
And they just weren't enough doctors, they weren't enough nurses,
there weren't enough medical people. Uh, and we were overwhelmed.
There would be some of these teams that have volunteered
in other parts of the country who would come here.
(36:09):
It's the same principle as a volunteer fire department. It's
the same principle when we lose power in a snowstorm
and you see the ever source is overwhelmed and they
bring in utility trucks from other states. It's kind of
the same principle. And uh, it's the last thing that
(36:30):
I'm going to audit. If if I'm Doge and I
just think they're out over their skis, I understand the
point you're making. Would they get some hotels time, Yeah,
would they get yeah, you would have some. But I
just think it's crazy that that this is what the
Doze team is doing. Well. The only the only I
(36:52):
want to give you final word. I don't want to
cut you off, go ahead.
Speaker 6 (36:55):
The only comment that they may have changed what they
say said in their email. And I personally, I happen
to be in a volunteer program myself, I would not
be offended if anybody asked me how much time I
spent on my program, because they have to know. But
they could have rewarded their email and said to tip
(37:19):
off an investigation or just to ensure that all of
the money that's being spent in this program is spent correctly.
We would like to know have you volunteered in the
last X period of time, et cetera, et cetera. So
maybe the email could have been rewarded. But I do
think that they had the right to ask these people
(37:42):
because they would have generated an expense of some sort,
even though it's not going into their pocket.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
Yeah right, okay, thanks very much, I said, I'll respond
on the other side of the eleven o'clock news. Thank
you very much. Feel free, folks, if you want to
fill up these lines here because this is razy. Doge
is way out over their skis here and so I'm
gonna take the gloves off on the other side. Feel free,
coming back after the life
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm w Leazy Boston
News Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, welcome back. I want to thank my guests,
the Auditor of the come Wealth of Massachusetts, Diana de Zaglio,
And again I would encourage those of you who know
state representatives, who know state senators, you need to say
to the look. Now, this is a law that was
passed by seventy two percent of the voters of Massachusetts
and initiative petition seventy two percent to authorize the auditor
(00:29):
to audit the books of the state legislature. This is
one that we'll talk about more frequently here on Night
Side as time goes on. But this is just pure
political bluster by the Speaker and the Senate to a
lesser degree by the Senate President. But the Speaker who's
never been on this program and probably never will be
(00:49):
on this program, but he can come on this program
any night, any night. Or Karen Spielkill come on this program,
who has been on this program, She can come on
any night and just to find their unwillingness to comply
with the will of seventy two percent of the voters
here in Massachusetts. Now, let's talk about Washington and let's
(01:10):
talk about the Department of Government Efficiency, which is headed
by Elon Musk. Put it in perspective, put it in perspective.
At this point, about a third of the voters support
what those is doing overall. Now, about a third of
(01:35):
those voters also feel that this is not something that
is legal. And we'll talk about this, but there's a
really definitive split here. Seventy percent of Trump voters say
it's great and seventy three percent of Harris voters say
it's not so great. So there is now again to
(01:58):
the Victor Golders spoils, to all of that, is there fraud?
Is there waste within the federal government? You bet you.
If we can eliminate the fraud and waste, that is
a laudable goal. However, however, it came to my attention
earlier this week that you know these letters that Elon
(02:21):
Musk has been sending out, or he hasn't, but the
government under it, with his instructions, has been sending out
in which everybody has to list five things that they
did last week. Okay. Musk commented on that during a
recent cabinet meeting in which he was he held fourth
for quite quite a while, and he was talking now
(02:44):
about sending out these emails. I don't know if your
boss ever sent you an email that said, hey, we
want to make sure that you tell us five things
you did last week. Okay, I could tell my boss
five hundred things I did last week, and I'm sure
you could as well, but I really don't want to
have to waste my time telling my boss. Now, there
(03:05):
is some concern that some federal workers have checked out
because of the time that OVID, When COVID occurred and
federal workers were given the opportunity to work from home
or work remotely, and there's probably some abuse to that.
And if Elon Musk can find that abuse, I say,
go for it. But this was Musk in the Oval office.
(03:29):
I believe it was some time. It was last week,
and he was asked to talk about why he's sending
out these and requesting emails from literally everyone who works.
I don't know who's going to read them, but this
is what his response was when he was prompted by
the President to talk about the theory behind sending out
(03:53):
emails and having legitimate federal employees as well as maybe
people who have have zoned out. Maybe they're retired, maybe
they're dead. I don't know. This is what muskt to say.
Cut thirty three, rob President.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Mister, are there about half of the government and employees
so far up here to responded to your requests for
what they've been doing over the past week? Is there
a timeline in place for next moves for people being fired?
Speaker 4 (04:19):
You want to get in there to you will expect
to see you think results, yes, well to like the
I think that email as was best interpreted as a
proponent's review, but actually.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
It was a plus check review.
Speaker 6 (04:35):
Do you have a.
Speaker 7 (04:38):
You have a pulse and two neurons?
Speaker 2 (04:41):
I don't know.
Speaker 7 (04:41):
If you have a fulse in two neurons, you can
replace me an email. This is you know, I think,
not a high balk. That is what I'm saying. This
is a should we anyone can accomplish this.
Speaker 5 (04:52):
But what we are trying to get to the bottom
of it is we think there are a number of
people on pair well who are dead, which is probably
why they can't respond, and and some people who are
not real people, like beneficially fictional individuals that are collecting paycheck.
Speaker 8 (05:08):
I think, well, some of these collecting paychecks are a
fictional individual. Literally, Trump grant all these people real, are
they alive and can their right event? Which I think
is a reasonable expectation for there. You know, the American
public would have to least that expectation of someone.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
In the public center. Okay, so he basically wants to know,
are you alive, et cetera. Well, I think, and I've
used this phrase before, that they need to be a
little more careful in what they do. And it has
come to my attention that there is an organization that
some of you perhaps have heard of, perhaps you haven't
(05:44):
heard of it. It's called the Trauma and Critical Trauma
and Critical Care Teams. What these teams are? These these
are teams of medical professionals who volunteer their time to
respond to crises like nine to eleven, like Hurricane Katrina,
(06:06):
like all the fires I'm sure in South Carolina, the
fires in southern California. These are critical care physicians, surgeons,
emergency medican medicine physicians, physicians, assistants so called pas, nurse practitioners,
registered nurses, nurse anesthetists, paramedics, respiratory therapists, radiology technologists, surgical technologists,
(06:35):
and pharmacists. Basically, these are people who are on a
very very important list, short notice. They get a phone
call because there's been a disaster and they need help.
Some Americans need help. These people are volunteers. Think of
them as a volunteer fire department. If you've ever lived
(06:58):
in a volunteer in a town that was small, you
don't have a full time fire department, but you have
a group of people, men and women who when there's
a fire, they race to the fire station and they
jump in the truck and they do what the truck
or trucks and they do what they can to help
(07:18):
their neighbors. So think of it like that. Apparently these
folks have received these letters. So you're a volunteer. You
might go months or years without being called into action.
You have your twenty four hour bag packed and ready
(07:39):
to go. When you get the call. You don't say,
you know, I think I'll run on a toothpaste. Let
me hit to CVS and get myself some toothpaste. No,
you have to. There's an assembly point, logan airport or wherever.
That's where you go, and you get on a plane
and you go and you help people. So I think
that the Trump administration under the guidance, if not the
(08:04):
leadership of Elon Musk as the head of DOGE is
a little out over their skis here, and there have
been a lot of things that they have requested and
things that have been said that I think are hurtful
to the cause of finding genuine fraud. There's no way
(08:26):
that anyone who's looking for government deficiency should have sent
an email to people who are medical volunteers and who
are there to help their fellow countrymen in the time
of crisis as stupid dumb email. Well, we need to
have five things that you did for us last month. No,
(08:46):
they didn't last week. They weren't volunteering. So I want
to open this conversation, and I think that the Trump
administration will be a lot small it to deal with
something more like a scalpel than a jackhammer. We'll take
a break if you'd like to join the conversation on this.
(09:07):
And I know some of you are going to disagree
with me. Some of this is not intended as a
criticism of an effort to get rid of waste, fraud
and abuse, but this is a criticism if you're going
to be called the Department of Government Efficiency for God's sakes,
be efficient in terms of what you request from government employees.
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three,
(09:28):
one ten thirty. My name's Dan Ray. Will be back
starting with phone calls right after this quick break.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio Bell.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
I've used the metaphor that the Trump administration might be
out over their skis here a little bit, because I
think what's going to happen is if you threaten to
UH in such a way that the public thinks that
everybody is a federal employee, even doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical
(10:05):
professionals who are volunteering their time, volunteering their time to
help out any part of this country or even some
parts of the world when there's a crisis, I think
you'll lose the moral high ground. And that's what I'm
concerned about. And I think that they need to be
careful what they talk about, because the more they talk,
(10:26):
there's a lot of people saying, you want to do
what you want to close federal buildings. I mean, yeah,
should can there be some federal buildings closed? Sure? But
it's you can't do it tomorrow. Let's go to the phones.
Let me go to Ron in Newton first first up
this hour, Run and welcome back to Night's Side. Thanks
so much for calling. Hello, Hello, Hi, Ron, you're on ear. Okay,
(10:50):
we're having problems with the phones again, Rob that we
had had before. Okay, let's go to run now try
that trick. Rob. Let's see if Ron's there. We just
lost him. Ron, please call back. In the meantime, we're
gonna take Matt in Franklin. We'ren callback at six one, seven,
nine thirty. Let's go to Matt and Franklin. Matt next
(11:12):
on first this hour, Nightside. Actually, hmm, can you move
Matt over up? Are you able to do that for me? Please?
Six six what Let's go to Matt and Franklin. Matt,
you are next on Nightside. Go ahead, Matt.
Speaker 9 (11:33):
Is that am I in the air?
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Yes? You are, go right ahead? All right, right, but
what's technical difficulties Matt and to run? Yeah.
Speaker 9 (11:41):
One of my biggest issues of the full Doge thing, yeah,
is what they're focusing on is like next to like
peanuts in the grand scheme of things like, oh, they
spend eighty six thousand dollars on like some comic book
in Peru. Well, it's like we're thirty seven trillion dollars
in and it's like, that's that's your claimed the fan
(12:03):
that you found this.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Yeah, let me let me just ask you if you
have ever heard the phrase tis better to light one
candle than simply curse the darkness. I mean, they are
using those examples, if they're true, and I assume that
that's the one you just referred to is true. They're
using that as an example to basically say, here's something
(12:26):
that never should have been spent on. They're going to
have to deal eventually with the big topics topics, which
would be so Yeah.
Speaker 9 (12:32):
I know that Congress. Congress gave a blank check to
these agencies and relied on the senior executives of these
agencies to spend the money. And now they're upset how
the money was spent. It's like, where was Congress all
these years when the money was being spent.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
That's a good question, But so the question is do
you do you want? I want those to look at everything,
But what my concern is that they're looking in the
wrong place right now. They'll they've sent this email out
it's you know, just as you're focusing on an eighty
six thousand dollars comic book. After a while, all those
little items do run into big money.
Speaker 9 (13:11):
Yeah, and how much of the cost for all those
employees to respond to a redundant email. It's like their
managers should be aware of what they're doing. Not all
of them have access to the computer, so they do
have to get on it. But that's the whole thing.
It's like, that's probably a fifteen million right there. Hold on,
I'll tell you that.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Yeah, okay, Yeah, that's great. You're going to call us
back and call the person back. I think we lost you.
Thanks Matt let We do have run back Ron apologize.
We've had some technical issues.
Speaker 10 (13:41):
All damn not at all. I'm glad that I got
back and thank you so much for having this on.
As you know, I'm a part of the Trauma Critical
Care International Trauma Critical Care Team, having since nineteen ninety nine,
go around twenty six years now. In some of my
(14:01):
deployments had been the first on seeing at nine to
eleven World Trade Center working with the New York Fire Department,
Police Department, shortly thereafter Anthrax, where we went back to
New York City and mass prophylacts seventy five hundred postal
workers in seventy two hours. That's pretty efficient. To Hurricane Katrina.
(14:31):
Our team has also been to Guam, Haiti, Puerto Rico.
I can tell you when I went to Hurricane Harvey
and Houston, I hadn't even gotten deplaned from the plane
returning back to Logan and they were queuing me up
for the Ohio Ye team to go to Puerto Rico.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Right now, Look, no one is questioning the work that
is done by your organization, that the trauma and critical
care teams. The question is your ind of it. Your
volunteers have received an email, like every federal employee who
(15:15):
are not volunteers, what have you done last week? What
have you done last week? And look, you you worked
in your regular job because you were not activated last week.
You probably had when was the last time you activated?
A few a few months ago or a couple of
years ago.
Speaker 10 (15:30):
When was the last time a few years ago? But
the the you know, we still we have We have
a team, a roster I call every single month, so
uh and I'm not on this month's roster, but I
have during the past year have been on the roster
a few times and uh, so I received this email.
(15:54):
It was mandated that we respond, and I got I
actually got a call from the team commander at about
eight o'clock in the evening. I was at the hospital
where I worked, and we talked about it and I said, well,
can I do it tomorrow and he said no, it's
(16:15):
the deadline is tonight at midnight. So I finished up
at ten pm, punched out of my usual time, and
then went back to the office and completed this by midnight.
And that included you know what my title was. I
had to indicate that I maintain readiness to deploy in
(16:37):
the event of a disaster of public health emergency. You
participate on the team's on call roster when available and
received no compensation. When you're on call, you answer emails
and other communications from your team commander without compensation. And
(16:58):
so I did respond, and then subsequently that has been
rescinded to a lower level, that is, we don't have
to provide this at the moment unless we're deployed, but
it's logistically impossible it deploys was argent without communication or
(17:22):
electricity or water and working twelve hour shifts and if
you get three hours of sleep, that's a good night.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
No, I understand that. But the point I'm trying to
focus on is the name of this organization is the
Department of Government Efficiency. If they are so inefficient that
they are sending emails and demanding a response from people
who were volunteers, and the question of the email essentially
is tell us five things you did last week? You know,
(17:53):
unless you had been activated, there was no there's nothing
for you to answer.
Speaker 10 (17:59):
I mean, it'd be like, exactly, but I did any
I complied?
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Well, you complied because you you're somebody who follows rules
and regulations. It would be if they sent emails out
to to every federal employee, Please answer this email. Were
you in Paris at the Eiffel Tower last week? Now
that might be interesting information and you certainly could could
accomplish answer yes or no. If that's all that that
(18:26):
that much wanted to do was to find out if
people had a pulse. My understanding, ron is, as you mentioned,
is that this has been this obligation now has fortunately
been put on pause. But I think it shows that
the those people need to be efficient themselves before they
start demanding efficiency from the government.
Speaker 10 (18:49):
Can I can I say one thing before we closed in,
I was, you know, I've been thinking about this, and
it was somewhat insulting to receive this, to be honest
with you, but I've been thinking, you know, if if
our Congress could work as efficiently and as unified as
(19:12):
a team as as we do, when they can use
us as an example if they want, very easily. When
we deployed to nine to eleven, we had promised the
Mayor Giuliani and the fire Commissioner von Us and that
we would have our site set up by oh seven
hundred and take over care from Stuyvesant High School. We
(19:34):
beat our timeline in spite of the fact there were
no walkways.
Speaker 11 (19:39):
You know, it was.
Speaker 10 (19:39):
Still we were still in process for the Bucket Brigade
at the time we beat it. We saw firefighter by
six ten in the morning, and and we accomplished what
in our nation's worst disasters.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Run Yet without interrupting or with interrupting, I don't think
anyone is questioning the work that you folks have done,
and done it voluntarily, not not doing it to earn
a federal pension or anything like that. I just think
that that I'm using this as an example of where
(20:21):
that those people basically have to learn how to be
efficient themselves. They have to understand who they're sending these
these requests for information to. And they made a mistake,
they should they should admit they made a mistake, because
if they don't admit they made a mistake, then they
might make the mistake again. So I'm into my my
(20:45):
ten thirty newscast by four minutes, so I got to
let you go. Thank you, thank you for what you've done,
and thank you for giving me a heads up on this,
because again, the Trump administration will be their own worst
enemy if they do not realize that this was an
example of absolute inefficiency by an by agency that has
(21:10):
inefficiency the word inefficiency in its title. Thanks Ron, we'll
talk sooner.
Speaker 10 (21:14):
Thanks for helping us skip see you local.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
All right, take a break. Here's the news coming right
back on Night's side. I just think that this is important.
I hope you do as well. If you agree with me,
feel free. If you disagree with me, you can even
feel more free. Six one seven, two five, four ten
thirty six one seven nine three one ten thirty. I
want the Trump administration if there is. I want any
(21:40):
administration to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in government. But
I don't think that this outreach to members of this
this team that has done such great work over the years,
is something that they can be proud of. They should
be They should actually hang their heads and say we
blew it. But see what you think. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Okay, back to the phones, you go. Let me go
to Bill and Danvers. Bill you are next on Nightside,
and we'll get the mice Rich Itch on the air.
Go ahead, Bill, welcome.
Speaker 11 (22:20):
Yeah, I believe. I don't know if you have the cut,
dam but I did see some of that cabinet meeting
that was one of the first ones the Musk was there,
and must did acknowledge that they will be making the
mistakes will be made, and they will try to be
as quick as they can to fix them. And I
think he gave an example, but I can't remember one
(22:40):
hundred percent, but he did acknowledge that that you know, uh,
you know, the size and scope and and and everything entailed,
they will be mistakes.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
I mean, you know, I mean one of the things.
One of the things that that worries me, okay, is
in the president's speech the other night, his addressed Congress,
he listed off all of these numbers of people who
are listed on Social Security. Who are you know, listed
as being over the age of one hundred or one
(23:11):
hundred and fifteen or one hundred and twenty. I forget
the specifics. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, right.
Speaker 11 (23:17):
Yeah, I've read different stuff about that, to be honest
with you. And I also read that a lot of
the computer systems, and I'm not sure if Social Security
Administration is one of them, but they spend more up
keep these older systems to maintain them than if they
had upgraded the technology, which will probably be more efficient
to a degree.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
And that's that's all I want of reform. That's the
sort of reform that I would hope everyone would support.
But what I'm saying is I've read enough which indicates
to me that the fact that there's somebody who's listed
as being one hundred and fifty years old doesn't mean
that that person exists. Now, if there's a check being
(23:59):
mailed to an address associated with that name, I would
think you want to find out who's where are those
checks being cashed and who's cashing those checks? Because there's
nobody on earth who's one hundred and fifty years old?
And I just what what I'm afraid of is that
the Trump administration will engage in this hyperbole about like that,
(24:22):
which I see as hyperbole, which is good for a SoundBite,
but people will lose confidence in their ability to actually
find the problems that are to be corrected because you know,
whoever that person is who's listened as one hundred and fifty,
I want to know the answer be pretty simple, and
(24:42):
I would assume that journalists would want to know the
answer too. And I'm a journalist. Is there actually a
person named Joe Smith who's listed as one hundred and fifty?
Where's is he being sent to check? Every month? Where
is that check being sent to? Who's cashing that check?
That's all pretty easy to trace.
Speaker 11 (25:02):
Yeah, well, well you have a writer as a journal
the uh you know, to request the information of freedom
you know, and an address. Well, although I don't know
if you could get the address, you know, just go
to the guy's house. I don't know, you know what
I mean, if there is an.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
Address, what I'm saying here. Look, what I'm saying is
there's Washington is inundated with reporters. Uh. And if the
Trump administration is smart as opposed to you know, reading
off numbers as it's listed as thirty thousand people over
one hundred and fifty, well, what does that mean? Does
(25:39):
it mean that there are thirty thousand people getting government
checks that they shouldn't be getting. If that's true, that's
an incredible story. If, on the other hand, some computer
list hasn't been cleaned, like a voting list hasn't been
cleaned as they should be cleaned periodically, that's less of
(26:02):
a story. Still a story, but it's less of a story.
Speaker 11 (26:08):
But I think, I mean, there's Social Security is one thing,
but I think some of that other stuff that goes down,
I don't know how anyone can defend it. I mean,
there's a lot of things that you know, and it
adds up. I mean supposedly I've been reading. I mean,
I don't know if it's one hundred billion or one
hundred and fifty billion. And actually there's accounts that they found. Zelden, right,
(26:28):
the EPA guy, he said there should be an investigation
because the EPA. It was the grant money, and I
went to certain groups that were it was very uh,
and they're finding these accounts. I don't know if they
forgot about them or they couldn't spend the money quick enough,
or the slush funds. I mean, very sloppy, very sloppy.
What's going on?
Speaker 2 (26:48):
All right? Okay, Well, again I wanted to root out waste, fraud,
and inefficiency, but I also want to make sure that
it's done legitimately and that you know, you know the
old phrase bill it's always better to under promise and
over deliver. And if if at the end of the
(27:09):
day Elon Musk is over promising but underdeliver, that's not
a good thing. Yeah, that's not a good thing.
Speaker 11 (27:18):
No, that's not but uh, you know, but in a
way I look at it, I mean, I don't know,
you can look at the last fifty years. I mean,
there's been a lot of instances it hasn't been great.
So this is something new. Kick the tie is and
you know, see what happened, and if anything, yeah, let's
see what happens.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
But be careful. That's That's all I'm saying, is that
if people get their hopes up and they're going and
talking to their friends and say, well, Donald Trump said,
there some you know, thirty three thousand people in this
country who are over one hundred and fifty years old,
and they're getting so secrety checks. That's not real.
Speaker 11 (27:50):
They maybe, well, if you look at the big picture
with Musk, I think he's kind of I mean he's
in business to a degree. He's hurting himself long term
think because you know he's oh, he's gonna be saying.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
Well, Tesla's save sit down. There's no question about that. Okay,
I'm not saying he's doing it for publicity of money.
But whether you're doing it for publicity of money or
you're doing it out of public service, do it right,
do it right, don't over don't over promise, and under delivery.
Thanks Belle, We've got to run.
Speaker 11 (28:22):
Yep. Thanks man by.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
Talk to you soon. Quick break coming right back only
one line at six, one, seven, two, five, four thirty.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Now back to Dan ray Mine from the Window World
Nice Sight Studios on WITBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
By the way, by the way, with all of the tariffs,
uh uh and which is confusing people. Uh Donald Trump,
President Trump loves tariffs. Look what the stock market is doing.
You know that sort of girations in the stock market
is not something that's going to instill a lot of
confidence uh in the voters in the middle.
Speaker 11 (28:58):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
And that can be you can you can lose your
momentum very easily, Alison new Himshire, Al, welcome back to
that night side.
Speaker 12 (29:06):
Right hit sir, Yes, sir, it's It's very rarely that
I'm the skunk in the room, but I'm going to
be it tonight.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
I might be the skunk in the room.
Speaker 12 (29:16):
Go ahead, well, we'll join each other together. I listened
very intently to the team of people, to volunteers. He
said something very interesting. He said that they're compensated for
if I wrote it down correctly, compensated for on call.
So it's a possibility that they're part of the government, uh,
(29:39):
you know program where money is being paid, and they
were asking them what they were doing.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
You say, when you say, just so, I understand, Al
when you say, he said they're being compensated for all
on call. Who who do you believe said that?
Speaker 12 (29:56):
No, are the gentlemen that called you and said and
he thanked you for being part of the groupe. He said,
I listened to him very intently. What in a wonderful man.
Speaker 11 (30:06):
But what he said is.
Speaker 12 (30:07):
We were compensated for being on call. My position, my
question to you is that not him? I wish he
could answer.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
And they're not. They're not compensated for being on call.
I think you misheard him.
Speaker 12 (30:20):
I'm very familiar, Okai.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
The analogy I would use. The analogy al that I'd
like to use is do you have a fire department
in your town or do you have a volunteer fire department?
Speaker 12 (30:34):
A volunteer sir?
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Yeah, So what happens in your town when when there's
a house that gets on fire? The volunteer fire department. Uh,
I've lived in a town like you. Was heads to
the firehouse and they jump in the equipment in the
trucks and they head to the to the fire right.
Speaker 11 (30:55):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
And they may be compensated for their efforts that day.
But that's or they may be compensated if they show
up for a drill. But that's about it.
Speaker 12 (31:05):
No, No, I'm not disparaging. I'm not disparaging the team
or the gentleman. I'm saying is I can understand how
a government agency could could question something for people who
are getting paid. That's all I'm not saying. I'm not
questioning their integrity or.
Speaker 11 (31:22):
What they.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Receive a stipend now as I understand.
Speaker 12 (31:29):
That when they are no, no, I don't, I hear
you one thousand percent. But I'm saying is I can
actually understand why emails would be going out asking them
the question only because when people receive something, some funds,
regardless of stipend or not. I'm sure the government is
so big that no one knows exactly that the intent
(31:53):
was not initially to cause disrespect to volunteers. I think
the intent was to find out is money going to
these people and what is it for? I don't I
see it a little differently than you do it.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Again, you know, l thank you for that that suggestion.
I don't think that is what happened. And as you
may have heard, the DOGE team has rescinded or paused
the requirement that these volunteers fill out and return this email.
(32:28):
So I think that they now understand they sent it
to an inappropriate group. But but again, you have a
different view of it, and I'm not going to persuade you,
I think, and you probably aren't going to persuade me.
So I think you made your case and to justify
the email and I and I appreciate that you took
(32:49):
the time to call.
Speaker 11 (32:51):
Thank you, sir.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Thanks Al, talk soon. Okay, let's keep rolling, at least
try to get one more in here. Let's go to
Louis and Norwood. Louise. You were next, Alle nice, welcome,
Thank you Dan.
Speaker 6 (33:03):
I want to tell you that I agree with the
college just before me I E. I disagree with your perspective.
And here's why. I didn't know anything about this particular
volunteer group. But as you talked about it when you
(33:24):
first introduced it, you said, these people are on call,
they drop what they're doing. They may go to California,
they may go to a hurricane site South Carolina. So
while they are volunteering their time, I highly doubt that
they're paying for their own airfare, hotel, or meals.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
So, first of all, you're absolutely correct that if all
of a sudden, a physician at mass General Hospital, or
a pharmacist or a nurse is on the list, and
all of a sudden there's a crisis nine to eleven,
for example, they are flown, they're told to assemble somewhere.
(34:05):
Maybe they go to hanscom Field. They have to be
there within a certain period of time. They get on
a plane and they then are transported. I would hope
that they're given some accommodation, and I would hope that
they're fed. But these are doctors, nurses, anesthesiologists, others who
(34:25):
are volunteering their time. They're not receiving any great amount
of money. They receive some small stipend. And yes they
don't have to pay for their airfare they're lodging or
their meals.
Speaker 6 (34:37):
You're correct on that, Okay, So now let's take it
from an audit perspective. If DOZE is truly going to
do a trail on expense reimbursements for hotels and airlines,
they need to start somewhere. So if they are sending
out one hundred emails to one hundred volunteers and they
(35:00):
get back one hundred responses that no one volunteered anything
for two months, yet they have expense reimbursements to a
million dollars, that is a pretty good opportunity for them
to open up a real good auditive. Well, why are
we spending money under this grant or under this program
(35:24):
for people that haven't really done the volunteering.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
It's not a grant, it's a program. Okay, a program. Okay.
If let us say in Norwood tomorrow there was a
tornado and the Norwood Police department was overwhelmed. And let's
say that the tornado hit not onlye Norwood, but it
hit Walpole and Westwood, at Denham and most of the
(35:48):
South Shore, similar to what happened, you know during Hurricane Katrina.
And they just weren't enough doctors, they weren't enough nurses,
there weren't enough medical people. Uh, and we were overwhelmed.
There would be some of these teams that have volunteered
in other parts of the country who would come here.
(36:09):
It's the same principle as a volunteer fire department. It's
the same principle when we lose power in a snowstorm
and you see the ever source is overwhelmed and they
bring in utility trucks from other states. It's kind of
the same principle. And uh, it's the last thing that
(36:30):
I'm going to audit. If if I'm Doge and I
just think they're out over their skis, I understand the
point you're making. Would they get some hotels time, Yeah,
would they get yeah, you would have some. But I
just think it's crazy that that this is what the
Doze team is doing. Well. The only the only I
(36:52):
want to give you final word. I don't want to
cut you off, go ahead.
Speaker 6 (36:55):
The only comment that they may have changed what they
say said in their email. And I personally, I happen
to be in a volunteer program myself, I would not
be offended if anybody asked me how much time I
spent on my program, because they have to know. But
they could have rewarded their email and said to tip
(37:19):
off an investigation or just to ensure that all of
the money that's being spent in this program is spent correctly.
We would like to know have you volunteered in the
last X period of time, et cetera, et cetera. So
maybe the email could have been rewarded. But I do
think that they had the right to ask these people
(37:42):
because they would have generated an expense of some sort,
even though it's not going into their pocket.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
Yeah right, okay, thanks very much, I said, I'll respond
on the other side of the eleven o'clock news. Thank
you very much. Feel free, folks, if you want to
fill up these lines here because this is razy. Doge
is way out over their skis here and so I'm
gonna take the gloves off on the other side. Feel free,
coming back after the life
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.