NPR gets called out for bias

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• Senior Editor for NPR calls out the organization for bias.
• TPPF's John Bonura on strange voting tactics.

Episode Transcript

(00:03):
What we need is more common sense, common common breaking down the world's nonsense
about how American common sense with thecommon sense of Houston. I'm just pro
common sense for Houston from Houston Com. This is the Jimmy Barrett Show,

(00:26):
brought to you by viewind dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett. Hey,
welcome to the show. Everybody's Thursday. We are getting close to the weekend.
The weekend is so close, likean almost taste it. But we're
not there yet. We have workleft to do before we start our weekend.
Uh. And that includes talking aboutNPR National Public Radio, of which

(00:47):
your tax dollars go to support.The federal government supports NPR because, after
all, without MPR, where wouldwe be able to find unbiased news a
minute unbiased news? NPR. Imean, you probably always thought of NPR
as liberal. I certainly have alwaysthought of them as liberal, and I

(01:14):
don't think you know, for along time, I think they maybe tried
to pretend that they play it downthe middle, but they don't, And
as it turns out, they don'teven come close to playing it down the
middle. Your tax dollars go tosupport, basically an arm of the Democratic
National Committee NPR equals d NC,and that should comes to surprise to nobody.

(01:38):
To nobody for one thing. Imean, their approach has always been.
Listening to Mr NPR Pardoners is kindof like listening to a golf match
on TV. The voices go down. Yeah, they almost speak in whispers.
Welcome to NPR today. We wouldlike to talk about whatever. Just

(02:02):
welcome to the program. Here's whatwe're not going to talk about today,
Hunter Biden's laptop or anything having todo with the possibility that the Biden White
House may have something to do withcorruption. We're not going to talk about
that. And as it turns outthat's the case. They are biased and
finally somebody on the inside, andby the way, the insider who kind

(02:23):
of outed them officially out of themis a guy by the name of Yuri.
I know if it's Berliner or Berliner, but one of the two at
any rate. He is a senioreditor at NPR. He has been there
for over twenty five years, andhe's from the crunchy granola crowd. He's
his liberal as the day, aslong freely admits it. He's for some

(02:46):
reason though, he's having a bitof a conscious attack on what's going on.
I think he senses I think thateven though he's a liberal, he's
one of those liberals who went intoNPR thinking I'm finally working for somebody who's
going to the unbiased, is goingto tell the truth, and doesn't have
a political act to grind, andnow finds out that, you know,
he's working for a company that isjust you know, they have just as

(03:09):
many political access to grind as anybodyelse, only they're doing it from the
left. And evidently he doesn't likethat. To his credit, he doesn't
like that. So here he isdoing by the way, he's still employee
even after he did this interview.Here he is doing an interview talking about
the biases at NPR. We havesome follow up on the other end from
Harris Faulkner around Outnumbered. After awhile, we started covering Trump in a

(03:34):
way that, like a lot ofthe legacy news news organizations, that we
were trying to damage his presidency evenif find anything we could to harm him.
And I think what we latched ontowas Russia collusion, like a lot
of new organizations, which was asa right, sort of catnip, although
it was just rumors, and alot of it based on pretty shoddy documents.

(03:59):
We really latched on to Adam Schiff. He was like our muse to
the Trump collusion story. We hadhim on constantly, and then the Muller
report came out and no collusion,and you know, I think we sort
of this sort of the story kindof disappeared. At one point, I
got so frustrated with what I sawwas the sort of the lack of different

(04:20):
perspectives in our coverage that I decidedto look at voter registration among our staff.
And what I found was eighty sevenregistered Democrats on our editorial staff,
so there were Republicans. I presentedthis at All Hands or a largest news
meeting, and I said, hey, look, something's gone wrong here.

(04:42):
My focus is really on those votersof all stripes, so particularly Democrats who
are listening and getting most of theirnews from National Public Radio. What are
they being led to believe? Well, one thing is true. Apparently whoever
is putting out the content for MPRis not interested in debate, so you
don't so if you're getting a realpool of contested, greatly debated factual information,

(05:06):
because it's all coming from the samethink tank. It's all coming from
the same people who think alike probablyhave the same value system. And look,
if you're going to church, that'sone thing. But NPR is not
supposed to be a church. It'snot supposed to be a worship haul.
It's supposed to be where all ideasare debated, where all facts are collected
and presented. So I worry aboutthose Democrat voters. There may be a

(05:28):
reason why some of them see thingsthe way they do because their pool of
information is polluted and not you know, they haven't sifted out this stuff that's
not true. I think that's prettyobvious, well said, but pretty obvious.
So here's the question I would have, which is, you know,
I've never been in favor of supportingNPR through tax dollars. You know,

(05:49):
I'm in the broadcasting business. Iwork on commercial radio. Excuse making a
little frog my throat. I workon commercial radio. The only way that
we can and get support as throughadvertisers. That's what keeps us on the
air. We don't have advertisers,we don't stay on the air NPR.
However, in addition to fundraising fromthe listeners, which is fine if you

(06:13):
want a fundraise from your listeners.That's fine, But in addition to that,
they also take federal tax dollars,and I don't believe they should.
National Public Radio is just as biasedas my radio station is, only it's
biased from the completely opposite perspective.The federal government is not interested in funding
my radio station, nor should theybe interested in funding my radio station.

(06:38):
Yeah, that's up to us tomake our own way. I think it's
time for MPR to make their ownway too. If they can raise either
run commercials like everybody else. I'msure George Soros be glad to write a
big check or get donations for thelisteners. That's fine. But as far
as your taxpayer dollars, you shouldnot, as a taxpayer, have to
pay for NPR. You shouldn't haveto pay for Democratic actional committing radio.

(07:00):
Let democrats pay for that happened morningmoment. Jimmy Bartchow here on the M
nine fifty k PRC. All right, well, here's the deal. We're
still waiting for the Senate to dosomething on the Alejandro. Is it funny

(07:25):
when the name of like Alejandro,you always kind of go into you know,
your own little uh, you know, Hispanic accident. Alejandro bi Orcis
his trial, which Chuck Schumer doesnot want to see happen, and quite
honestly, he because Democrats always seemto get their way, probably won't happen,
at least won't happen before the election. Uh, there's there's a lot

(07:47):
of reasons why they would not wantthis trial going on before the election.
Although I think they're unnecessarily worried.You know, I'll tell you why I
say that. I think the reasonwhy they don't want the trial before the
election is they're afraid that the Americanpeople will hear the testimony or hear about

(08:09):
the testimony of exactly what has beenhappening at the border or hasn't been happening
at the border, and that Democratswill get blamed for it. Not that
they aren't being blamed already, butyou never know in a line of questioning,
what kind of witnesses may come forwardand what sort of damning testimony might
be said about just how far thisadministration has gone to make sure that we

(08:33):
have maintained it open bordered and someof the people that were allowing in and
how unsavory some of them are,and how there's terrorists getting in and in
other things that are endangering the country. They don't want that kind of reminder
this close to the election, eventhough, well, for one thing,
the border, the border is thenumber one issue, It's the top issue
in the entire country, so peopleare paying attention to it, and I

(08:56):
think they're afraid that if this testmoney should happen, that people will really
be paying attention. And they don'thave a good answer for what it is
they've done, and they don't wantto make any changes to what they've done.
So Chuck Shiverer is going to dohis level best to make sure that
the trial does not happen, eventhough he would be setting another dangerous precedent

(09:18):
of another impeachment coming down from theHouse that isn't being dealt with with a
trial. They've all had trials.The only exception of that has been on
the rare occasion where somebody was impeachedin the House and they resigned before they
came to a Senate trial. That'sthe only time a trial hasn't happened.
But to back up all this here, Senator John Kennedy talking about why they

(09:41):
don't want to have an impeachment trialon Alejandro Majorcis. I was in the
hearing today with Secretary of mit Orcus, and he has He did say that
the bad administration's thinking about taking stepsto secure the boarder. I don't know
why they didn't do it three anda half years ago. He also asked

(10:03):
for more money. I think Iguess he wants more money to buy more
welcome mats. Look after a lengthyinvestigation the United States House of Representatives,
we're not talking about some snowbro whoeats sicken McNuggets and smokes weed and has

(10:26):
an opinion. The United States Houseof Representatives has thoroughly investigated this and voted,
and they have impeached Secretary of Majorcuson two counts. And Senator Schumer
wants to violate two hundred years ofSenate president and not hold a trial.

(10:46):
I just tried to pass a resolutionsetting the terms of the trial on the
Senate floor. My Senate colleagues objected. It's interesting why they objected. They
said, well, the evidence supportthe allegations by the House. And my
response was, how do you knowyou haven't heard them? You haven't heard

(11:07):
them, and that's the purpose ofa trial. Why don't you want to
let the American people hear the evidens. All I can tell you is that
I'm pretty fired up about it.I'm not fired up about it on the
basis of the politics. I thinkthe Constitution gives the United States Senate the
duty and the responsibility to conduct atrial. We've only had twenty one impeachments

(11:31):
in this country's history, and we'veconducted trials and all of them except when
the official resigned before we could conducta trial. And now Senator Schumer,
because he knows President Biden and Secretaryof Majorcus's policies at the border are so
unpopular, he doesn't want to havea trial so the American people can see

(11:54):
the evidence. And I think he'sworried about the election. And I don't
think violating pressing it for political experience. Is it exactly covers him in glory?
No it doesn't. But you know, you're assuming that a lot of
Americans will pay attention to whatever comesout of that trial, and and I'm

(12:15):
not thoroughly convinced that's going to happen. You know, even though Americans understand
we have an immigration problem, Idon't know how closely they're paying attention to
the nuances of why we're having thatproblem. They blame the Biden administration for
what's going on, because well,they're the ones in charge of what's going

(12:35):
on at the border. But asfar as them understanding just how deliberate this
all is and what the purpose behindit is, as far as fundamentally changing
the country, I don't know howmany people get that or necessarily believe that
aspect of it. Okay, here'sanother one. This is a tough one.

(12:56):
I promise I only spend a coupleof minutes on this because I do
not like talking about abortion. Youhave your opinion. I have my opinion.
You may be pro life, Imay be pro choice, vice versa.
You didn't, you rarely, younever. I don't think I've ever
seen anybody have their opinion swayed.You're either one or the other. And

(13:22):
this has become because of the SupremeCourt decision on Roe v. Wade.
This has become a very detrimental issueto the Republicans. It cost them a
lot of votes in the midterm election, and it could potentially cost them a
lot of votes in the fall electionNovember election if if the left gets fired

(13:43):
up enough about it, because thereare a lot of people on the left
that can't get excited about Joe Biden, but they can't get excited about you
know, my body, my choice, and they're willing to show up and
vote for somebody like of Biden asbad as he is for that reason and
that reason alone. So I thinkPresident Trump tried to play it down the

(14:05):
middle. He tried to play itpretty smart. But I don't know if
there's a way for Republicans to winon this issue. Here's macan kelly along
with Victor Hanson discussing all this.I think they can handle it. I
think Trump had a pretty good lineor position that it's now up to the
states and each state has their ownculture and it's not a national issue.

(14:28):
I don't think nationalizing the issue isgoing to be a winning argument for the
Republican And so if he says it'sup for the states and we have a
tripartheid government, legislative, executive,judicial, all Trump has to say or
candidates, we don't have anything todo with the courts. They're independent,
they're a toonomous and we believe thatit's up to the states legislatures to reflect

(14:50):
the will of the stay. Letme jump in and ask you something.
I agree with that. But theproblem that he's going to be facing is
this issue if on the out inNovember, will drive all the Democrats to
turn out. It will so thoseDemocrats will not only vote for their local
officials, They're going to vote upand down the line for their US Senator,
for their congressman, and for president. And the bigger the Democratic turnout,

(15:13):
the worse it is for the Republicans. It is, but that's they're
in a position where some of themembers of the party went to the eight
week, and that's in the wholechain of reaction. They demogogue the issue.
So at this late hour, allthey have to say is we welcome
people to vote on it. Whateveryou want to do, vote, but

(15:37):
it's up to you in the state, and we as Republicans, believe that
you have the right to do.That's about the best fallback position you can
have. And if I was Trump, I wouldn't weigh in on any particular
week. And I think he dida really smart thing. I know Mike
Fence got angry at him and stuff, but you go to the eight if
you let people do the eight week, you're going to lose, You're gonna

(16:02):
lose a lot of the elections.Yeah, see the problem. I agree.
I think Trump gave the only answerhe could give. What Democrats are
going to try to play up isthe idea that if Republicans are in control,
that they're going to have a nationwideban on abortion. So Trump is
trying to say, here's what we'redoing. We believe it's a state by
state issue because that's what the SupremeCourt said it is, and that each

(16:26):
state can decide on its own.If Texas wants it, they can vote
for it, or if they don'twant it, they can vote against it.
And that's true of every single state. It was always a state issue
until it was taken up by theUS Supreme Court before. But I don't
know that you can win with this, you know. I think the best
thing that because they're going to youknow, the left is going to use

(16:47):
this issue to they saw what happenedin the midterms, They're going to use
this issue to their best advantage possible. And all I think Republicans can do
is try to avoid it, orat very least try to keep coming across
with the message we have no interestin a nationwide band where this is a
state by state decision, and that'sthat's how it's going to be. And

(17:08):
keep hitting that home and hope thatpeople believe them. All right, have
a great day. Well that's nottime believe yet. We got another segment
coming up. Do yes, ofcourse, we do back with more in
a moment. Jimmy Baird show hereat name of nine fifty KPRC. Right,

(17:30):
the left has an idea on howwe can change elections. This would
be a much better way to runelections. You don't vote for a Democrat
or Republican. You know your choiceof only one of two candidates. You
vote for your first choice, thenwho would hey, who would be your
second choice? One? And two? And then if there's another candidate running,

(17:56):
who would be your third choice?The heck would they even begin to
calculate that or figure that one out? And and this is this has got
to work to the left's advantage somehow, or else they wouldn't be suggesting this.
Join us from the Texas Public Policyof Foundations, John Bonnura, John,
welcome, j M nine fifty KPRC. What is behind this has got
to be a scam? It isscam and you you really hit it right

(18:21):
on the head and you said itwas, you know, a leftist idea.
You can see that. You know, Progressives are are losing, uh,
you know, they're losing elections allacross the state. Texans are sick
of their their expensive policies that theypush on the people. So instead of
trying to win elections in the traditionalway that we've been doing for you know,

(18:45):
over two hundred and forty years asa nation, they want to change
the rules so that they can startwinning contests more across the state and across
the nation. You can you cankind of kind of already tell because this
ring to its voting idea. Itlooks a lot similar to what's called the

(19:07):
jungle primary in California. So youcan always you can already kind of see
where this is coming from. Youknow. I went on a website,
and forgive me, I can't rememberthe name of the website, but it
was a website promoting this style ofvoting. And right on the front page
of the website, they had aballad example up there, and they had
three candidates, and then they hadsomebody marking first, second, third choice,

(19:33):
and interestingly enough, they had sortof it's a cartoon, but you
could tell the picture of who thecandidates were, not the candidate's pictures appear
on ballots, but I think theywere planning a seed with this. The
first choice that they had on thiscartoon ballad was a black female candidate.
The second choice that they had onit was some other probably hispanic, some
other female, darker skinned female.And then the third choice that they had

(19:59):
on this ballad one those marked thirdchoice. Guess who he was? Middle
aged white guy. Yeah, sothey're trying to they're promoting diversity while they're
promoting this. Yeah, it's it'sit's a really odd way to try and
do voting or elections in any realmeaningful manner, especially when it's funny that

(20:23):
you bring up the three choices there. There was a there's an election in
Alaska for the one prongressional seat.They're not a huge population state, but
there were two Republicans on the ballot, there was one Democrat, and even
though Alaska has traditionally sent out Republicanand conservative uh you know representatives, Uh,

(20:49):
the Democrat actually won. What happensis that kind of split the vote
with that that third candidate called thespoiler. But what's even more heinous is
that voters who only selected one candidatehad their ballot exhausted if they selected a

(21:11):
loser. So what ends up happeningis their ballot ends up getting completely thrown
out. It's not just oh,I voted for you know, the losing
candidate. My vote got tallied,but I feel but I feel like it
didn't count. Your vote actually doesn'tcount and will be removed. Essentially,
eleven thousand ballots in that election wereexhausted and not applied to the final vote

(21:36):
count. It ends up where youhave, you know, people winning with
less than fifty percent of total votescast. It's it's a system that might
be okay for selecting your dorm likeI did when I was in college,
but it is no way to selectto legitimately select the government by the people.

(21:59):
It sounds it sounds like a greatway to eliminate the competitors. You've
got the example you gave you twoDemocrats a Republican running if you you know,
here's here's what I wonder, Here'shere's what'sopping in my head right now.
John, But what do you what? What does this ultimately lead to?
Here? We know in California,you end up with a plethora of

(22:21):
runoff elections. How much does thisadd to the cost of a running an
election just to try to do itthis way? You're gonna have constant runoffs,
aren't you. Well, that's it'sit's also a rape. Choice voting
is also known as instant runoff voting. So if no one reaches since you
know, you have you know,three or in most cases, up to
five candidates, it's going to benearly impossible for anyone to reach that fifty

(22:47):
percent plus one person mark to makeit go over you know, a majority
vote to elect the candidate, Soyou're almost immediately going to have another runoff.
There was a for example, therewas a Democratic primary for mayor in
New York. They went through Ithink at least nine rounds of voting in

(23:07):
that primary, instant run off afterinstant run off after instant runoff, and
in the end, the person whowas already in the lead ended up getting
you know, ended up getting thenominations. So they went through nine rounds,
you know, undred thousands of dollars, hundreds, you know, thousands
of votes being exhausted and discarded justto come up with the same result that

(23:33):
they would have had if they justwould have had traditional elections. Not to
mention the fact that, I mean, that's that's for a primary. Imagine
applying this to a general election exactly. It would be calling to question the
legitimacy of elections during a time whereAmericans are already questioning, you know,

(23:55):
the integrity of how elections are beinghandled. This would just add much more
confusion. I'm just imagining hundreds,if not thousands of offices around the entire
country where you don't have a winnerthe morning after election day, you just
have to have another date set foranother election. God. Yeah, if
you thought the snaffoo back in twothousand, I don't know if if everybody

(24:18):
remembers that, If you think thatthat was bad, it could take months
to certify an election with that.And not only let's stick about just the
uh, the voter going into thatvoting booth, you know, in November
and having to rank five people forevery single office. I mean, I

(24:40):
like to use the example just herein Texas. You know, we have
that plural executive. Almost every personin the executive branches voted for. Could
could you even name five candidates whowould be running for, say, railroad
commissioner, let alone rank them allin your specific order. It's it's it's
not that voters aren't smart. It'sjust that there is an inherent information that

(25:07):
to sit when it comes just tohaving to vote between two different people,
let alone five, sounds like agreat way to decrease voter participation. There's
a lot of people that just aren'tgoing to want to have to deal with
any of this if that were tohappen. Is that what the leftist counting
on is that how they gain anadvantage in all this by having Republicans not
you off to vote. It's evena bit more devious than that, because

(25:32):
even if you do show up andyou know your ballot gets exhausted, like
you've only ranked two out of thefive because you don't want to have to
vote, or you don't even wantto have to consider ranking someone that you
would be entirely opposed to voting for. If your ballot only has two out
of five and your first choice losesand then your second choice loses the next

(25:56):
runoff, your ballot exhausted and itwill no longer count the total number of
votes. It's not just discouragement fromvoting. It is actual disenfranchisement. Mm
hmm. Obviously you mentioned New Yorkand California at least using it for their
primary systems. How close is this? I mean, are states able to

(26:19):
make this change on their own fora federal election. Good California and New
York and other Blue states make thischange to this, this style of voting
with with the rest of the countrycontinuing in a traditional method. Yeah,
Alaska switched to doing it. Theyand they like to blame like their their

(26:40):
large geography and on how long ittook them to get results in. But
it took abnormally long to get thoseresults in. They did it. It
doesn't work here in Texas. Austintried to do it, but that when
when Abbott was Attorney General he wrotethis long opinion detailing point by point why

(27:07):
it actually by its structure, contradictsthe Texas election code. And right now
Dallas is also trying to implement thisas well. So it's not like these
these states are. It's not likeit's not a Texas problem. It's it's
actually trying to be implemented here andwithout real uh you know, statutory prohibitions

(27:30):
on this. You know, progressivecity. There is going to keep trying
and trying it until we put anactual stop to it. Okay, So
it's going to be up to thestate legislature due to to pass the law
in order to prevent it. Makesure you prevent it from happening here,
yes, sir, Okay, John, Hey, thanks for telling it's the
story. Appreciate it, man.Lots of good information. Sure thing you

(27:51):
try. You have a good one, you too, John Banara, he
is with the Texas Public Policy Foundationhere on a nine fifty k PRC.
Yikes, that's a bad idea.Back with going a moment on the Jimmy
Barrett Show. All right, Sothe March CPI came out yesterday and inflation,

(28:18):
surprise, surprise, surprise, inflation, it was hotter than expected,
which seems to be a regular monthlything. Hotter than expected. This is
the way they put it, allright, let's run with that for a
minute. In particularly, it washot in areas that don't normally become a
part of the Consumer Price Index,which is things that are considered too volatile

(28:40):
to include, like gasoline prices andfood prices. They don't include that in
the CPI, so everything else wasat three point five percent on an annualized
basis compared year to year this Marchversus last March it was up zero point
four percent I think for the month. But again, this is this is
compound. Is you have to thinkof this like bank interest, right,

(29:03):
this is compounded. We've had wehad about an eighteen percent increase in inflation
overall somethings more or something's a littleless on average, about eighteen percent since
COVID or since the Biden administration tookover. Actually, so that that point
four percent goes on top of theeighteen percent or however much it is at

(29:26):
this point in time, and itjust kind of keeps compounding and compounding and
compounding, and as a result,we're finding ourselves in a situation where people
are having a very difficult time makingends meet, where people are borrowing in
order to buy necessities, which isa very very dangerous thing to have to
do. How long can you possiblykeep that up? Here is Senator Ted
Cruz with his thoughts on the CPI. Well, these are terrible numbers for

(29:51):
Joe Biden. They're terrible numbers forthe Senate Democrats and House Democrats. You
know it speaks volumes that the WhiteHouse is no longer using the phrase biden.
They tried to roll that out there. They thought it was a good
thing. The American people said,wait a second, Bidenomics is a train
wreck. It is a disaster.When you look at inflation, this is
what happens when you spend trillions ofdollars you don't have, When you print

(30:15):
trillions of dollars you don't have,When you borrow trillions of dollars, you
don't have inflation. And by theway, you and I and many others
said at the time, when theDemocrats went on a wild spending spree,
you're going to get inflation. You'regoing to drive costs up. And they
insisted, noe, that's not atall. Remember they had all these talking
points about how it was transitory,it wasn't going to happen. Well,
it has been persistent. And I'lltell you every family at home. If

(30:38):
you go to the grocery store,you've noticed that buying food for your family
is an extra one hundred hundred andfifty dollars. If you fill up your
gas tank, you've certainly noticed thedifference at the gas pump. If you
pay your bills, whether it's electricity, whether it's healthcare, whether it's credit
cards. The cost of everything hasgone up. And I'll tell you two
groups in particular that are really feelingthe pain of bidenomics. One is seniors,

(31:02):
those on fixed incomes, who arediscovering that their costs, their every
day monthly costs are going up andup and up, and their incomes aren't
keeping pace. And it's really hurtingseniors badly. And the second group that's
being badly hurt by bodomics are youngpeople. You got a lot of young
people coming out of coming out ofschool, they've never known inflation. Suddenly

(31:22):
the cost of their rent they canbarely afford. You get a young married
couple that wants to buy their firsthome and they're discovering right now they can
buy half the house they thought theycould because a two and a half percent
interest rate on a mortgage is very, very different from a seven percent rate.
This is what bodenomics is. Yeah, it's what it is, no

(31:45):
doubt about it. Nobody's very happyabout it. That's a fact. Here's
another story related to the consumer priceindex. How many of you have an
older family member that you are kindof responsible for in one way or another,
seeing that they get the help theyneed, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera. Or how many ofyou have a family member who has

(32:06):
some sort of at home health careservice, whether it's somebody who comes in
and spends, you know, makesure that grandma takes their medication and maybe
does some lighthouse keeping and that kindof stuff, and makes a meal or
two, is there for maybe fiveor six hours a day, whatever it
may be. The cost of that. Just in the last year March of

(32:27):
last year compared to March of thisyear, the cost of that is going
up fourteen point three percent. Theaverage person performing those types of duties now
is making thirty three dollars an hour, which is a problem for two things.
Number One, if you are arehelping provide this coverage for your loved

(32:49):
one and your loved one doesn't havethe financial means to do it themselves,
and you're paying for it or helpingto pay for it, it's more money
coming out of your pocket. Andfor seniors who are fixed income who are
paying forth themselves, well, samething, you know, money coming out
of their more money coming out oftheir pocket that they're gonna have to figure

(33:10):
out how to pay for or notuse the service anymore. And that that,
to me, is a pretty importantservice, because otherwise you're maybe talking
for somebody a nursing home, andyou know, I'm not here to run
down nursing homes. But I'm prettysure if it were me and I had
the choice between either having somebody comein my home and help me so I

(33:37):
can maintain some independence and stay myown home, I would much prefer that
to going to a nursing home facility. To me, that'd be like going
to God's waiting room. I justwouldn't particularly care to do that, thank
you very much. Now, maybeall the end of point and sometime in
life, I won't have a choice, right or I won't have my faculties
about me and I won't have avoice in it, and maybe I won't

(33:58):
even care. But point in life, you know, if you can maintain
some level of independence as a seniorand just have in home help to you
know, to take care of thethings that you can take care of.
To me, that would be preferable. But it's getting to the point,
like everything else, is getting tothe point where you virtually can't afford to
do it anymore. You know,it's not like salaries are keeping up with

(34:20):
this stuff. It's not like peopleit's not like any of us got a
eighteen to twenty percent raise in thelast four years. I know I certainly
didn't. I doubt if you dideither. Maybe the fast food fast food
workers have gotten a much bigger percentageraise, but the rest of us not
so much. So here we arejust trying to, you know, make

(34:40):
ends meet and pay for the necessitiesand take care of our family. Is
getting tougher and tougher to do.So. I think that I hope anyway,
that that's something that voters remember comeNovember. I fear because of the
way Republicans have handled the abortion issue, that that will drive a lot of
people to the pole. Whose soulissue that they care about is that issue.

(35:02):
But you know, we got alot of time to worry about that.
Listen, hey, y'all, havea great day. I'll see you
tomorrow morning bright nearly five am onnews Radio seven and forty KTRH. We're
back here at four I think ofnine to fifty KTRC