No More Vehicle Inspection Stickers

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• No more vehicle inspection stickers in Texas
• Professor Chris Tang on the supply chain and electric vehicles

Episode Transcript

(00:03):
What we need is more common sensecommon You got the youth plane breaking down
the world's nonsense about pow American commonsense. We'll see us through with the
common sense of Houston. I'm justpro common sense for Houston. From Houston
dot Com. This is the JimmyBarrett Show, brought to you by Viewin

(00:27):
dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett. All right, welcome to the show.
It's Wednesday. Glad to have youhere, everybody. Um, did
you hear the good news today?Do you drive here in the great state
of Texas? Do you get yourget your yearly inspection? Every year?
You can stop doing that. I'mnot sure when this takes effect, though,

(00:47):
I guess assuming the governor sides atnight, assume you will. Um,
I'm not sure. I know thatSheriff Ryer is luck would have it.
Just had her vehicle inspected last weekbecause she had to renew her registration
and right now you can't do thatwithout an inspection. That's going to change.
So she just had it done.Is it like ten bucks? I'm

(01:11):
trying to remember. It's not likeI haven't had my car inspected. I
have. I just can't remember howmuch it was. It was like ten
bucks. It was like next tonothing. But then again they did next
to nothing when you get right downto it. There's a lot of states
that don't have a mandatory state inspection, and when they pass these things,
they generally do it because they thinkthat, well, we're gonna make sure

(01:33):
you're you're driving a safe vehicle ifwe want to make sure you're not driving
a hooptie with the wheels getting readyto fall off. Although they really don't
do much. Here's all they generallydo at a state inspection, right is
they turn on your headlights, seeif they work. They have you put
your foot on the brake, seeif the tail lights work. You know,

(01:56):
if the red light goes on withthe break goes on. They have
you turn your turn signal on,whereas my wife likes to say the T
T and you do your left one, then you do your ripe one,
and if everything's working great, you'regood to go. Pretty much, I
mean, so it's slightly more involvedthan that. They do check your tires

(02:16):
to make sure you have some kindof dread, but you don't really have
to have much in the way ofdread in order to be able to pass
the inspection, they charge you.I think it's tembucks, of which a
portion goes to the state and aportion of which goes to whoever is doing
the state inspection. It's quick,it's relatively painless. But evidently Republicans decided

(02:39):
it was a bit of a burden. I'm not sure who the burden was
on, but okay, that's fine. I don't really don't care, because
I don't think it does much ofany good. I don't know if any
statistics, if you were to lookup any state, I don't know if
any statistics that would support the ideathat vehicle yearly vehicle inspections make the roads
any safer or less likely that yourvehicle will break down, or less likely

(03:04):
that you'll be in an accident thanyou otherwise would be. I just don't
think there's any statistics to back thatup. But here's the part that really
gets me. I didn't know itwas there like a human cry for people.
I am so put out, I'mso burdened by having to get my
vehicle inspected. Was there like ahuman cry amongst the taxpayers to get this

(03:27):
eliminated? And I'm guessing if therewas, let's say, for the sake
of argument, I don't think therewas, But let's say for the sake
of argument, there was some sortof demand to do away with this.
So what what would we expect wouldhappen if we did away with this that
we wouldn't have to we wouldn't haveto get an inspection in order to get
our vehicle registered. Well, firstof all, let's tackle that for a

(03:50):
second. That's not necessarily true.If you live in Harris County, for
example, you still have to havean emissions test, So you're going to
have to have it tested. Yourvehicle is going to get tested before you
can renew your registration. Only they'rejust going to be checking for emissions.
And you know, the same thingwill be true in Dallas, the big

(04:12):
city areas of Texas. You're stillgoing to have to have the inspections.
Maybe on the rural area you won'thave to have an emissions inspection or any
other inspection. But but for thoseof us who live in Harris County,
lucky us, we can look forwardto still getting the emissions checked on our
vehicle. That's number one. Thenumber two item, and this is this
is the one that it strikes meas so typical of government is they don't

(04:39):
want you to have to go throughthe hassle of having the inspection anymore,
but they still want you to payfor it because that would be lost revenue.
So now you're paying ten dollars,portion going to the state, portion
going to the institution whomever they maybe that's inspecting your vehicle. Now you're

(05:01):
gonna pay I think it's seven dollarsand fifty cents that will be added to
your registration fee to replace income lostby not doing state inspections. So the
state is going to keep their cutand thence up. Is that typical?
That typical or what it's like?The sun never sets on taxes once they

(05:28):
once they have a revenue stream,they never want to let it go.
You know what's what strikes me aboutthis is, and this has been true
everywhere I've ever lived, is mostof you know, I lived in Virginia
before I came here to the GreatState of Texas, and I remember having
a discussion with the state lawmaker.In Virginia, there was a five dollars
fee I think it was that thestate collected from everybody every year to go

(05:54):
into some sort of a tourism campaignfor the Commonwealth of Virginia, and you
paid into it. You probably didn'teven know you paid into it. You
just did because a state law hadbeen passed. But this was a state
law. Interesting enough, this wassupposed to be seed money for tourism.
So the law actually had a sunsetdate where they were going to stop collecting

(06:17):
the five bucks. And the sunsetday came and a Republican lawmaker, a
so called conservative, wanted to reallocatethe five dollars fee for something else.
And I got him, I gothim on the air, and I said,
but it's supposed to sunset. Thefee was collected for tourism. Now

(06:41):
you're not collecting the fee for tourismanymore, So can you give the money
back to the taxpayer? Bears,there's a sunset for a reason. Well,
if you can't afford five dollars,Jimmy Bart, it's not a matter
of if I could afford it ornot. I mean, what's the right
thing to do here. I don'tcare who they are, Democrats or Republicans.
Once they have an income stream,they never like to let it go.

(07:04):
And it's happening here in Texas withstate inspections back with Morning a Moment
Jimmy Barrett Show A nine fifty KPRC. All right, um, I'm gonna

(07:29):
devote this next segment to doing somethingI like to do from time to time
and from in usually. You knowwhat's funny is I should look for this
stuff more often. I really should, instead of waiting for a kind of
a slow newsday. And yesterday wasa little I think yesterday it was kind
of a slow newsday. You know, we got the death sailing stuff.
Nothing nothing really is happening there.Um, we don't really have anything new

(07:50):
on much of anything else in inthe death sailing is really the only national
story going on right now. Soyou know, I started looking for stuff,
and I invariably end up looking atcommittee meetings in the House or the
Senate, where you've got our representativescalling people in and asking them questions.

(08:11):
And I really, I really shoulddo it more often because it's startling sometimes
what you'll hear in these committee meetings. And I guess, I guess the
assumption is especially from elected officials,is that you probably won't see it or
hear it, And therefore I thinkthey're they're little they're little more honest or

(08:31):
dishonest, as the case may be, in answering questions because they assume you're
not going to see it and you'renot going to hear it, and they
won't get called out for it.And that's kind of what I'm thinking of
when I think of this exchange.I want to share this with you.
It is Lauren Bobert, pardon me. She is talking to the Secretary of

(08:54):
Health and Human Services, Xavier Bissera, and she's talking to him about wokeness
and about this manual that's been putout by HHS and where they where they
stop using terms, for example,like mother. They don't use the term
mother anymore in describing somebody who's hada baby. They call it a birthing

(09:18):
person, as if anybody else otherthan a mother could actually give birth,
which I think is what Lauren Bobertreally wants to ask him about. But
as they get into other definitions,it becomes even more apparent just how woke
this guy is and how little sensehe makes. So here you go.
It's it's relatively long, as aboutthree minutes long, but it's worth every

(09:41):
second. Lauren Bobert talking to theHealth and Human Services Secretary mister presserah about
birthing people, among other things.Mister Secretary, materials coming from your department,
you've referred to mothers as as birthingpersons. Replaced seeing that title with

(10:01):
our mothers not persons. Mothers arepersons. But it seems to be more
inclusive, like you're trying to includeanother gender in that. I'm all about
inclusion, Congress. There you go. Um so, well, you know,
just as a mother of four boys, I'm not necessarily offended at that.
I am a person, but it'sjust unscientific and absurdum So to include

(10:26):
men in that. If you're goingto be inclusive, if you're going to
be inclusive in birthing persons, yes, well, but it seems to me
that you're trup reclaiming my time.Can men get pregnant so then we don't
need to include them in this?Mothers are mothers. Moving forward, mister
Secretary, I want to read foryou from a document from your office,

(10:46):
the Office of Population Affairs. UM. It says in here and I quote,
Gender Affirming Care encompasses many facets ofhealthcare needs and support. It has
been shown to increase positive outcomes fortransgender and non binary children. Mister secretary,
what is a transgender child a childin America? As a child in

(11:11):
American I hope you and I canlove that child just as But can you
define what a transgender child is?That's a child in American It's American citizen
child who needs the services in lovejust the way any other child does.
Mister secretary, do you believe thata child is capable of making life altering
decisions? To name themselves? Solet me let me just say to you

(11:35):
that I don't agree with your premise. But what I will say to you,
as children know much about with themselvesand with the help of them,
believe that children are capable of makingthe decision to self mutilate. Again,
I don't necessarily acceptable. Well,mister secretary, I mean you have gender
affirming care for young people, sothis is something that you don't gender affirming

(11:58):
care to mutilation. So if that'swhere you're going, then you're not going
to get the answer you want.So, m mister secretary here, can
you can you tell me if therehave been massectomies, mass dec dominies,
penectomedi's or hysterectomies on children well,and have taxpayers funded that, so I

(12:22):
could probably use the help of mywife who's an obgyn. You could type
port or maybe doctor Burgess could couldhelp us out you or gender affirming care
to be included in that. I'msorry, pose a question one more time.
Please in this gender affirming care,mister Secretary, have there been tax
dollars put forward to fund maths,deectonomies, penectomies, and hysterectomies for sex

(12:48):
reassignment purposes for minors with gender dysphoria? So Americans are entitled to receive healthcare
services if they are entitled to receiveany of the services that you just mentioned,
and it would be against the lawfor us to try to deny them
their care. That would be ayes. In case you're wondering, that's
a yes. So what the whatthe Secretary of Health and Human Services is

(13:13):
saying is that yes. First ofall, he believes that men are persons
and women are persons. Therefore,birthing person can relate to any gender,
even though there's only one gender weknow, and that would be the female
gender that is capable of actually givingbirth. But evidently giving birth is not

(13:35):
what a birthing person is, whichdoesn't make much sense. That's number one.
Number two is that clearly, ifyou read between the lines of his
statement, it's pretty clear that hebelieves that miners should have the ability to
make their own decisions regarding gender dysphoriaand changing their sect if that's what they

(14:00):
desire to do, and if that'swhat they desire to do, then it
would be wrong of the government towithhold the funds necessary in order to be
able to make that happen. Sohe didn't necessarily come right out and say
it, but I think that's closeenough, right. I think we can
figure that one out for ourselves.This is your Secretary of Health and Human

(14:22):
Services. This is what he believes. This is what the people in this
administration believe. You just want tomake sure you're clear with that, all
right. And here's another. Here'sanother. Speaking of committees, here's another
very interesting committee. This one featuresTexas Representative Fluger, who is talking with

(14:46):
the FBI. He's talking to theassistant director of counter I think it's the
assistant deputy director. I can makesure I get the title right, assistant
deputy director of counter intelligence for theFBI, and they're talking about the Durham
report. When he figures out forfinds out, I guess, much to
his surprise, that this woman,Jill Murphy, really doesn't seem to know

(15:11):
much of anything about the Durham Report. Take a listen to this. Special
Council Durham assessed that neither US lawenforcement nor the intelligence community appears to have
possessed any actual evidence of collusion intheir holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire
Hurricane investigation, and the Bureau subsequentlydiscounted or willfully ignored material that did not
support the narrative of a collusive relationshipbetween Trump and Russia. As the deputy

(15:33):
Assistant Director for the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, are you familiar with this report?
I have not read that report,sir. You have not read the Durham
Report. I have not yet readthe Durham Report, And now, Sir,
I'm honestly speechless at this point intime. I'm not sure what to
think of this. As someone whohas spent an entire career in counterintelligence,

(16:00):
Special Counsel Durham found that the FBImoved too quickly with this investigation in the
twenty sixteen campaign and relied on uncevidence when launching its investigation. Does this
concern you? I'm sorry? Canyou repeat the question? That there was
a very fast pace of the investigationand that uncorroborated evidence was used when launching
the investigation, Does that concern you? So? Again, sir, I

(16:22):
haven't read the Gerham Report, soI'm not sure. You know, I
have no knowledge of is does thisfall under the counterintelligence umbrella the Durham Report?
I'm sure portions of it too,Yes, sir. Does a suggestion
or an accusation of election collusion betweena foreign government and the United States or

(16:49):
a person or an entity in theUnited States fall under counterintelligence? Yes,
sir, So the alleged collusion betweenmister Trump and twenty sixteen and Russia would
have fallen under the Counterintelligence Division ofthe FBI, Yes, sir. And

(17:11):
you have not read the Durham Report. I have not read the Durham Report.
Is there a reason? Is itnot required to? No? I
just haven't had time. I'm justbusy. You know, I got shopping,
and you know I got some spiesI'm trying to track down. Yeah,
I'm busy. I just I mean, there's just enough, not enough
hours in the day for me tofigure out what's going on with the Durham

(17:33):
report. Is that amazing or what? Sure? You know I do this
more often, but it's scarcely craponto me. All right, coming up,
we're gonna talk cars. Let's say, I want to talk cars.
I was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan. I'm a car guy.
Let's talk. I mean not thatI know a ton about cars, but
I know I love cars. We'regoing to talk cars coming up next year
on AM nine fifty kprcton. Allright, and promised a little car talk.

(18:06):
We're regular little car talk, andwe're going to talk about the supply
chain, and we're going to talkabout EV's and everything in between. Now,
it's going to be kind of aninteresting perspective, and I'm gonna I'm
not going to try to in mymind imagine how I know how Our next
guest, Chris Tang, stands inall car issues, even though he's a
professor at University of California, LosAngeles UCLA. I know what you're thinking,

(18:27):
stand by, but this guy's keptquite the pedigree. By the way
I'm looking at the title list ofall the things he's done. He's a
UCLA Distinguished Professor and Edward W.Carter Chair and Business Administration. He's Vice
president of Publications of the Institute forOperations Research and Management Sciences, Department,

(18:49):
Editor of Production Operations Management Department,Editor of Service Science, editor of Stringer
Supply Chain book series that's out ofGermany, A calumnist of Business Leader out
of the United Kingdom. Chris canI assume there's no limited UCLA as far
as how many sign hustles you canhave. Thank you go afternoon. Thank

(19:11):
you for having me. I thinkit's fantastic. I just love what I
do well, and you do alot of it. You might, you
must, you must really love whatyou do. Now do I detect a
British accent? Are you from GreatBritain? No? I was educated there,
yes, earlier. You're absolutely right. Okay, So your country of

(19:33):
origin is I was born in HongKong form of British colony. That makes
sense, Yeah, yeah, okay, exactly, from Hong Kong to Great
Britain to the United States. Whatbrought you to the US? I was
educated in Connecticut at Year University,and then we'll work in New York and
then leaning Los Angeles. All right, so, like most people, you

(19:56):
came here, you love what yousaw, and you stayed absolutely all right,
what got you interested in these differentthings you're involved with. Let's let's
start with the supply chain. You'rean editor of Springer Supply Chain book series,
The Supply Chain. I think mostpeople are kind of, at least

(20:18):
up until COVID nineteen, we're prettyignorant about what the supply chain was.
Until all of a sudden, theywent to the grocery store and they couldn't
find bread and milk and other thingsthat they were looking for. Or they
went out to buy a car andthey couldn't get the car they wanted because
there weren't enough computer chips to finishthe car. Then all of a sudden
we started to become a little bitmore informed about what the supply chain is.

(20:41):
Absolutely well, I think you canthink of it this way. Supply
chain is like sende Claus, tryto get the gift for your kids.
Yes, so sene Claus need toget the gifts somewhere. Then the gifts
may not arise, and then thereindeer may not want you to work,
and all there's a slate may breakdown. So any particular point in time,

(21:04):
if there's any disruption and actually sendthe claus may not be able to
deliver the gifts to the child.Yeah, only in this case it was
toilet paper, which was even worsethan not getting the gifts for the child,
because we all need toilet paper.Christang absolutely so. In the case
of the automotive industry, it seemslike and this is only anecdotal on my

(21:26):
part, because on my way homefrom work in the city, I'd drive
past a train yard where they letoff the vehicles that have been built and
are for the local dealerships, andfor a while there the lot was almost
empty because there just were not thatmany completed cars that were coming in.
That seems to be back to normal. Has the supply chain returned to normal

(21:48):
as relates to the automotive industry orare there still issues? Partly, I
think that in terms of the comeand it's actuous, I think that gets
most of the parts back on track. But I think that we still have
a shortage for certain type of chips. So therefore, for example, the
heated seats, they may not havethe chips for it, and also some
of the functionality they may not stilldo not have enough off, so therefore

(22:12):
they can deliver the car for you, but not for the complete all the
functions, so in the case youmay have to wait for it. You
get the partially functional car, butthen they can addle some of the chips
that later on. You know.That makes me wonder if maybe this is
where this idea came from. I'mnot sure if you're aware of this or
not, but evidently more and moreof the automakers are considering taking things like

(22:34):
heated seats and offering them up asa subscription. In other words, if
you want to have will put heatedseats in your vehicle, you can have
them work if you pay a monthlyfee, whatever that monthly fee may be.
And they're talking about doing that withboosting engine power and some other things.
I think automakers are trying to finda regular monthly additional income stream above

(22:56):
and beyond what they have right now. What do you think of that idea.
I think there is brilliant ideas inthe making for a long time.
I think this is a good wayto change the model from selling you a
product to make it become a service. So this would be like in terms
of before you buy a TV,you only pay for the TV and then

(23:18):
you don't need to pay it again. So now with Netflix, with Amazon,
the indicates to get the income streamson a continuous basis. On top
of that, they can guarantee brandloyalty. For example, if you going
deleat or to subscribe a Tesla,then indicates you've been paying for you know,
for a few hundred dollars a month. Then they say, hey,

(23:40):
after while, it may be timefor you to upgrade from one model three
to models, but you give ustop of a little bit more. So
in the case they can reach youon the continuous basis and cast sell some
other services to you as well.So this would be just like the Amazon
they add on. So in thecase the company can generate more revenue on
the continuous basis. Do you thinkalthough American consumers are going to be accepting

(24:04):
of this because they've never had todo this before. This is a big
change for them. Absolutely, ButI think that the younger generations will like
that because they don't need to putup a lot of money upfront. So
if you do the subscription and basicallyyou'll need to pay maybe one or two
months in advance, like renting anapartment. So in the case you just

(24:26):
pay on a monthly basis, thenyou can have a electric vehicles to drive
to show off to your friends.So I think the younger people actually love
it. Okay, So it soundslike you're talking about maybe an eventual model
where we don't really buy cars anddrugs anymore. Maybe we rent them for
X amount of months. It dependson the consumers. Some people delight to

(24:48):
own their own car, then theycan actually fix it, maybe they can
decorate differently. But some of theyoung people they viewed the car it's more
like a commodity to help you toget some pony to pomp by. Don't
ownerships like the younger generations. Theydon't feel they need to own a house.
So I think that this new modelis really clear towards the younger generation,

(25:08):
Okay, And that makes sense.They're the ones that are most likely
to change their minds about the waythings are being done right now. They're
the ones that are most likely notto actually own a car right now anyway,
or have a car that maybe theirparents bought for them and they don't
really have any money into it anyway. I want to ask you too,
while we have a few minutes hereabout what you see going on with electric

(25:29):
vehicles is you know, they areexpensive. The gaverage price of an electric
vehicles about forty thousand dollars, soand we don't seem to have been making
a lot of progress towards setting upan infrastructure that is viable for recharging vehicles.
They take too long to charge andthere's not enough places to charge them.
What do you see is the futureof evs going forward here? How

(25:52):
long is it going to take theinfrastructure to catch up if we really are
serious about making a conversion d evs? Well? Right, the Biden administration
is actually pouring a lot of moneyinto building the infrastructure. I think that
they're using the Infrastructure Bill for billionsof dollars to actually to install around five
hundred thousand charging stations. But thepace is not enough the construction there is

(26:19):
installation and also the maintenance. Whybecause we're shortage of workers in the America.
We don't have duct people building thething. So I think that will
take some time, but I thinkthat's way now. There's also the discussions
asking Tesler and other charging stations toprovide a universal charger such that ANYKA,

(26:41):
any brands go there to get charged, but I think that the charging time
is to too long. And Ithink that now they're going to develop some
fast charging batteries and far charging stationscharges such that charging time will be shorter.
They will make it more accessible inthe but we take a round two.

(27:03):
I would say that two to threeyears to get that. Here's the
other issue that I see here inTexas, we have barely enough power in
order to be able to provide forthe residents we have now, and we're
a state that continues to grow.California doesn't really have enough power at this
point. As far as imagine,if every California at this point had electric

(27:23):
car, there's no way there'd beenough power generated in order to be able
to charge those cars. So whendoes the infrastructure come as far as producing
more power plants in order to beable to charge these vehicles? Great question.
Well, we are Californias. Wedon't think about that. We want

(27:44):
to be green first before we figuringhow to get the uniticity. Well,
you're gonna be green in the darkif you keep going about it that way.
Chris, absolutely, so, Ithink that actually every articles. I
think that the plan in California isgetting too ambitious thing that I person will
push for hybrid pockade. That meansthat you can use the euletricity and you

(28:06):
can still use some gaso leads.Because right now a lot of consumers they
are afraid of the range see itbecause they may run out of euletricity,
they cannot get charged in case theycannot go anywhere, can we get stuck?
So I think that is why itis really impeding the sales of the
evs in many countries, in manystates. Well, I think that's probably

(28:27):
true. Here's the other thing Ithink people are wondering about. Here.
We seem to be very concerned aboutthe emissions that the gasoline powered vehicles give
off. But from a practical standpoint, we're gonna have to build more power
plants they run on natural gas orother fuels in order to be able to
create enough electricity to power all thesethings. Is that still a net wind

(28:51):
as far as is carbon goes.Are we going to end up producing as
much pollution with additional electric producing facilitiesas we would if we were driving the
gas bowered cars. This is agreat question on the service the EV is
supposed to cut the emissions on theroad, but you still need a lot
of energy to generally to charge thecar. Then if we bois on the

(29:15):
question, how can we ender theelectricity in a more clean way? So
I think that is where the solarenergy, renewable energy, some other energy
kicked in. So we're not thereyet. But then the kind of argument
is that if we don't start makingthis kind of movements, we'll never get
there. Then the question will weactually get there? No one knows,

(29:36):
but I think that this is whatthey're trying to see. If it's this
is experiment, we hope they willwork. I don't know yet. Okay,
well that's that may be the mostfair assessment I've heard yet from somebody.
Well, the work, we don'tknow. We just don't know yet.
Chris Tang, Chris, thank youfor joining me today. Good to
talk to you, sir. Iappreciate it. Thank you. Likewise,
thank you, Christopher Tang. Yousay like distinctish professor, And as you

(30:00):
can tell from his resume at thebeginning, he does a lot of the
other things too. I think he'sI think he's pretty typical of somebody who
who would like to see the worldgo green, But at least I think
he realizes we're not there yet,and we're nowhere near being there yet as
far as having the capability of makingthat happen. Back with more in a
moment, Jimmy Barrett show here atname of nine fifty KPRC. All right,

(30:33):
ends of the time of putting thisshow together, there's nothing really new
to report on the debt ceiling negotiations. We still have debt. We solve
a debt ceiling. We're going tobe hitting sometime, we're told next month.
When in the month, I'm notsure. I don't think. I
don't think even the government knows whenin the month that is likely to be.

(30:53):
We have the President who is atleast meeting with McCarthy, the Speaker
of the House, and from allreports, by the way, has been
willing to kind of back off alittle bit on his idea that there would
be no cuts, no cuts whatsoever, and the idea that there would be

(31:15):
a raising taxes. We're told thatthose are two things. I mean,
there's a lot of things in thisthing, I guess that are negotiable,
but two things that aren't negotiable aretaxes, raising taxes and not cutting debt
or not cutting back in some way, shape or form. Now, how
much they end up cutting back remainsto be seen, and maybe minuscule,

(31:37):
but at least not growing the governmentin any way, shape or form in
return for increasing the debt ceiling.Let's start with Representative Jim Jordan, who
sounds pretty optimistic that this thing isgoing to work itself up. I am
optimistic because I mean, remember SpeakerMcCarthy say Claiback in January twelfth, Hey,
Joe Biden sit down to negotiate withme, and President Biden said,

(31:59):
no, no, no, justkeep giving me more money, even though
we've had record spending, record inflation, record debt. Just give me more
money. No streams. That's nothow it works, and the country understands
that. So the position we've takenis the reasonable Republican position, the common
sense position. The Democrats have takenthe default position. Frankly, so I
do think we're going to get alot here. And really what we're saying

(32:20):
if we get this steward was whatSpeaker McCarthy and Republicans want is let's spend
less this year than we spent lastyear. That has never happened. That
has never in my time in thathas not happened. So this would be
huge if we can get that plussome good work requirements that will help our
economy and frankly help people who aretrapped in our welfare system. I think
those are good things that we're pushingfor, and most importantly, the American

(32:43):
people think they're common sense. Ido think will come together because again it's
so common sense, it's so reasonable, and it's so needed. I mean,
the Democrats all give us a cleandebts. The biggest problem is the
thirty one trillion dollars debt, andit continues to grow. If for the
first time and I don't know decades, we can actually say we're gonna spend
less this fiscal year than we spentlast fisk is that is exactly kind of

(33:06):
the kind of restraint we need tobegin to better grow our economy and start
to start to get this debt undercontrol, start to get it under control.
I'll like you, you know,in a perfect world, Yeah,
we're having this conversation this morning,Shara and I. In a perfect world,
we'd be making cuts. We wouldjust say five percent, ten percent,

(33:30):
whatever whatever it is, and we'dmake them go in all these different
departments, go in and find thewaste, because there's plenty of it.
They would never miss it. Theywould never ever ever miss it. But
Yo Shuah believes that that can't bedone. Too many forces lining up again.

(33:51):
That's what the swamp is all about. Right, It's always been done
this way. We can change theway we do things. That's why for
so long there was a real movementto try to get a constitutional amendment on
the balanced budget that would force thegovernment, like most state governments, to

(34:13):
live within its means. You wantto spend more money, you're gonna have
to raise taxes. You want toraise taxes, you got to get this.
You got to sell the citizens onthe idea that taxes need to be
raised. That's how we do itat the state level. That's not how
they do it at the federal level. They keep spending money they don't have.
I mean, it's nice that there'ssome optimism with Representative Jordan. Let's

(34:35):
see if there's some more optimism.I think Larry Cutlow over on Fox Business
is optimistic too. I think hesenses that McCarthy has has got all he's
got all the what's the word I'mlooking for here he's got all the leverage
in this thing. I'm not sureif he does or not, but here
is Larry Cutlow's assessment of where we'reavit with all this. Politically, you're

(34:58):
watching Kevin McCarthy take Joe Biden tothe cleaners. I mean, basically,
it's McCarthy ten Biden zero. Becauseeverything Biden said he wouldn't do, he's
now doing, which is to say, they are going to work towards raising
the death ceiling and they are goingto have budget reforms and budget cuts accompanying

(35:20):
it. That was Biden's, youknow, that was his fight originally.
McCarthy's won that. And I think, you know, before this thing is
said and done, and I thinkthey're probably coming down the home stretch now.
I think basically McCarthy's going to geteighty percent of what he wants.
I mean, I think the Republicansare gonna win. And really the political

(35:42):
story here is nobody thought Kevin McCarthycould get the Republican House to put up
a budget deal, a dead ceilingdeal. They did. They've underestimated McCarthy
and the House Republicans from day oneand right now McCarthy's running away with it.
It's gonna get any percent of whathe wants. They won't be any
tax hikes, and it's gonna bespending cuts. All tax bills originate in

(36:06):
the House, All money bills originatein the House, So it doesn't matter
what mister Biden wants. If theHouse doesn't want it, it's not going
to happen. So there aren't canbe any tax hikes, not this go
around anyway. Okay, all right, and you know, I know we
always go back to that idea thatthe House of Representatives controls the first strings,

(36:28):
and they do. But we havenot had anything other than a continuing
resolution as far as funding the governmentfor how long though they haven't been able
to pass a budget. They can'tget agreement on passing a budget, so
somehow, somehow government goes on.We can't get Congress to enact much of

(36:50):
anything anymore, so we are leftwith presidents who end up doing things through
executive order, which is why Democratswould talking about trying to figure out a
way to use the fourteenth Amendment toprevent Republicans from getting their way on cutting
the budget and preventing tax increases.Imagine if they could figure out a way

(37:12):
to use the fourteenth Amendment to thePresident good to just hike your taxes whenever
he wanted more revenue. Wow,that is a scary thought. All right,
listen, that's enough for today.We'll be back tomorrow, Thursday Edition.
A few stair given. Well,we'll be back tomorrow morning and use
this morning news starting at five am, and we'll be right here tomorrow at

(37:34):
four on AM nine fifty KPRC.Have a great day.