What's Happening with the Big Beautiful Bill?

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• Todd Sheets on the big beautiful bill

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, what we need is more common sense, the.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Comment breaking down the world's nonsense about how American common sense.

Speaker 3 (00:13):
We'll see this through with the common sense of Houston.
I'm just pro common sense for Houston. From Houston Way
dot com. This is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to
you by viewind dot com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.

Speaker 4 (00:31):
All right, it's Friday. It's a great day to talk
about cars. We did it this morning. Let's talk about cars,
because especially especially for for for men. You know, I'm
I'm not assuming that we have all male listeners by
stretch of the imagination, but certainly for men, I think
cars are hot topic, especially we start talking about the
car you drove in high school or college, or the

(00:52):
first car you bought or whatever. I'll tell you what
prompted this conversation this morning about ugly cars and pretty
cars or handsome cars if you prefer, is my wife.
She really thinks the Tesla's cyber truck is ugly. I mean,
but ugly, and every time we see one on the

(01:15):
roadway she comments. Every single time, she'll point out, she said,
that's ugly. Why would anybody drive that? That's horrible? Now,
I happen to agree with her. I don't find the
Tesla cyber truck something that I would want to drive.
But hey, whatever, float your boat. If you think it's
a good looking truck or a vehicle, or you just
thought it was going to be state of the art

(01:36):
so you wanted to have it, more power to you.
I wonder, by the way of people owned Tesla trucks,
did it turn out to be what you thought it
would be. I'm curious about that because I think there
were a lot of pre orders on those trucks, you know,
just in the anticipation of what they might be, and
I wonder if they've lived up to expectations or not.

(01:57):
But it got us into a conversation of vehicles that
we found found ugly, or vehicles that we found pretty
or handsome, however we want to say it, you know,
good looking cars and trucks. Now, my favorite car of
all time is the fifty seven Chevy bel Air Convertible.
I love everything about it. I love the fins, I
love all the lines on the vehicle. I've never owned one,

(02:21):
I've never driven one. I'm sure at some point when
I was a little bitty baby, I was probably in
a Chevy Bell or some sort. But it probably wasn't
a fifty seven, I'm sure. So I just like the
way the vehicle looks. I don't know how it drives.
Maybe if you actually own one of those, you would
feel differently about it. That could be true probably of
just about any car. But I found them to be

(02:43):
particularly good looking now as far as ugly, but personally
I found everything from AMC to be ugly. American Motors Corporation, Yeah,
and this is my father in law used to work
for American Motors in Detroit, and when my wife was
a kid, they always had, like, you know, a Pacer

(03:04):
or a Matador. They might have even had a Gremlin.
And personally, you know, I think cars in general from
the nineteen seventies were pretty ugly, but I found AMC
to be the ugliest of the bunch. That's my it's
my personal opinion. Don't mean to offend anybody, whether it's
just my personal opinion. So we had to talk back
this morning, I thought i'd share a few of those
with you. Cars that you either found really ugly are

(03:27):
really good looking, and why.

Speaker 2 (03:30):
Good morning this Mike.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
My favorite car is cor Venstein Rain nineteen sixty three
split window. Yeah, and the ugliest car is anything you
gotta plug into a wall.

Speaker 5 (03:44):
Good morning, Jimmy doc here in Alvin. I agree with
your wife. The cyber truck is one ugly automobile, but
the AMC Pacer definitely gave it a run for its money.

Speaker 2 (03:55):
And on the good.

Speaker 5 (03:56):
Looking side of sixty four Chevelle two door or a
late seventies smoking the band of trans am ooh, I
had most of them. I sure wish I still did.
I sold them a long time ago.

Speaker 6 (04:07):
The best looking vehicle of all time, Oscar meyer Wiener
will be.

Speaker 2 (04:12):
Yeah, the.

Speaker 4 (04:19):
Best looking vehicle of all time, the Oscar meyer Wiener
will beile. All right, let's grab some more.

Speaker 6 (04:25):
You're asking about vehicles. The ugliest vehicle that's out there
is the Chevy El Camino. Looks like they took a
station wagon and sliced off the back. The most beautiful
car ever nineteen ninety Lamborghini twenty fifth edition con Tosch

(04:48):
in beautiful red. Now that's a vehicle.

Speaker 3 (04:54):
Have a great day.

Speaker 4 (04:56):
That was real specific, But then again, I mean I
could be just as specific about my favorite car, you know,
fifty seven Chevy Bell and Bell Air convertible candy apple
red and white two tone right, two tone. Yeah, that's
pretty specific. Um, I wouldn't even mind if it had

(05:19):
three on the tree. You remember three? Do you know
what three on the tree is? Did you think you
could explain that to a twenty year old right now
what three on the tree was and have them understand
exactly exactly what that is.

Speaker 2 (05:29):
Let's grab some more cars.

Speaker 7 (05:31):
Hello, this is Rocky.

Speaker 8 (05:33):
The youngest car in the world was the Kang Car
Leia Cooca and the most beautiful cars the c chevrol
A Corvette with CEO six packs. Have great day.

Speaker 9 (05:49):
Hi, this is se s Free. My favorite previous car
to me is a nineteen sixty six Gtuanak.

Speaker 2 (06:01):
Convertiblely Skip from Webster.

Speaker 9 (06:06):
I object to everything from AMC being considered ugly. The
sixty eight through seventy AMX was a beautiful car, especially
the seventy and the Jeep Grand Wagoneer is the early ones.
The real ones AMC powered are still highly coveted to
this day.

Speaker 4 (06:24):
Well, okay, you know that's again. This is why they
make chocolate and vanilla, y'all. We can we can disagree
on what we find ugly and what we find pretty.
You know, I think as we look back to I
remember when I was, when I was a kid, you know,
I was a kid, mainly in the nineteen seventies and eighties,

(06:44):
but the nineteen seventies in particular. I just remember my
dad always bought a Chrysler Newport and they were big.
You know, they were big honking cars. They were long,
they were powerful, I'll grant them that, but they were
not Chrysler did not make very good look at least
in my estimation. Chrystler did not make very good looking

(07:07):
vehicles in the nineteen seventies. A lot of vehicles were
ugly in the nineteen seventies. Y'all remember the Ford Ltd.
Another big, boxy car. The only good thing you could
say about is they had a big back seat, if
you know what I mean. So if you're a high
school kid back in the seventies and you borrowed the
family Ford Ltd. You had a lot of room back

(07:27):
there for your buddies and anything else you might want
to do. Anyway, just having a little fun on a Friday.
We'll take a little break. We're back with one in
a moment. Jimmy Baird Show here on am ninety fifty KPRC.

(07:58):
All right, we're gonna start with state legislature news. They
were celebrating in Austin yesterday the passage of property tax relief.
At least that's how it's being told to us. It's
property tax relief, So we'll get the details. Got a

(08:20):
little report here from Fox four in Dallas about about
the form of property tax relief that's going to be
on the ballot. But I feel like I should point
that out right away. And this is kind of important
because it involves a constitutional amendment. It has to go
on the November ballot, so it's something that all Texans

(08:41):
have to vote for or against. So if you are
in favor of this property tax relief, then you'll have
to show up and vote in November and you'll have
to vote yes for this constitutional amendment. Here is the
report from Fox four in Dallas.

Speaker 10 (08:56):
There is nothing that affects every Texan property tax relief.

Speaker 11 (09:01):
Texas senators took an end of session victory lap on
their promise to lower property taxes.

Speaker 10 (09:06):
This is great news because these commitments are unless they're
shrined in the Constitution, are going to stay there forever.

Speaker 11 (09:13):
Two bills sell through the Texas House and Senate, but
it will ultimately need voter approval in November because it
amends the Constitution.

Speaker 10 (09:20):
If you live in an average home in Texas, which
is now about three hundred and fifty thousand dollars to
round off numbers, that means you take one hundred and
forty off of that to pay taxes on. So your
school taxes are going to go down about forty eight
to fifty percent for everyone under forty sixty five.

Speaker 11 (09:38):
Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick is talking about the details of sbfore.
Another bill, Senate Bill twenty three, would increase separate exemption
for homeowners who are older than sixty five or have disabilities.
The hope is that homeowners will see some relief on
their school district property taxes. We talked to SMU economists

(09:59):
Mike Davis.

Speaker 12 (10:00):
Homeowners vote a lot more frequently than do renters or
people who are kind of in and out of a
particular community, so the politicians quite naturally have to pay
a lot of attention to what the homeowners want and
what the homeowners don't want.

Speaker 2 (10:17):
David said.

Speaker 11 (10:17):
While this is being sold as a win for all Texans,
renters could be left out.

Speaker 12 (10:22):
It's not at all clear that renters are going to
get nearly as much benefit, maybe not even any benefit,
of the kinds of tax proposals they're changing. Although, you know,
let's see what actually comes out before we get to
carried away.

Speaker 11 (10:37):
Dallas County State Senator Royce West said, in a session
where there was a lot of division, this tax Relief
BacT has showed how both sides can come together.

Speaker 13 (10:46):
As we leave here this session, hopefully the media will
say that we got it right.

Speaker 2 (10:52):
We work together.

Speaker 13 (10:53):
Everyone had input into the process, and when we have
input into the process, we end up with great results.
Session half the session record property tax relief.

Speaker 11 (11:06):
Property tax because was a priority for Governor Abbott this session.
He's expected to sign both of those bills. But again
it's on the November ballot and so it only takes
effect and the changes to the constitution if the voters approve.

Speaker 4 (11:19):
It there you go, only takes effect if the voters
are proved. And it was sort of an interesting point
that he made about you may have been thinking or wondering,
why is he bring up renners. They're not homeowners. Renners
don't pay property taxes. Why should they get a property
tax relief. The reality is that I think runners probably do.

(11:43):
It's included in their rent. I mean, if you are
a management company and you're running out a bunch of
apartments in the building, you know you have to pay
property taxes on that building. So I'm sure they consider
the property taxes on that building in health being to
determine what the rental rate is going to be for tenants.

(12:05):
So in a way and around about way, you are
paying property taxes. The question is you know how much relief,
how much of this relief is going to impact commercial
property versus residential property before you could make that kind
of determination. Now at the end of the day, you know,
we're really not going to get a whole bunch of

(12:25):
relief unless you know, we we see home prices stabilize,
and I think maybe they have for now, But for
a while there, you know, we we were losing out
on a lot of that property tax relief because the
home values and the appraisals kept escalating. If the appraisal
goes up, then then you're you're gonna end up, you know,
maybe not paying as much as you were going to pay,

(12:46):
but you still end up paying more than you were paying.
So if property property prices stabilized, then okay, good, we
we might find ourselves in a in a better situation.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
Oh here's another one I wanted to share with you
and I did.

Speaker 4 (13:02):
It's another one I didn't get to this morning. I
don't mean to sound like I'm giving you a morning
show leftovers today, but but it's it's something you know
worth sharing with you, so especially if I didn't get
to it this morning. Now it's not a local story,
it's out of San Francisco, but it goes to show
you how nothing has really changed as far as the
progressive left, and especially as it relates to things like

(13:26):
education in San Francisco public schools. I think they're backing
off from this now. But what they wanted to do
is they basically wanted to dumb down the grading system
by allowing kids that get like a twenty one out
of one hundred, you know, twenty one percent success rate
on the test, to allow that to be a passing grade. Now,

(13:49):
it's not gonna be an A or a B, but
it's enough to get a D. It's enough to get
a passing grade twenty one percent. I don't know what
kind of a grading system you grew up with. But
most of the classes I had, if it was under
sixty percent, it was an F or at least if
it was if it was fifty percent or less, it
was an F twenty one percent. They want to pass

(14:11):
kids who are getting twenty one percent on their test.
Here's the story about this sliding scale includes a California
teacher who's no longer teacher in California because she grew
frustrated with these things. In their opinion on what it
is that San Francisco is trying to do.

Speaker 14 (14:28):
It seems like they want to put a band aid
on a bigger issue by just seemingly trying to get
as many students as possible, to get not f's, not a's,
but v's and.

Speaker 15 (14:39):
C's, and then pass them on to the next grade level.
And while San Francisco has apparently gotten some common sense
and backed off on this for at least the time being,
apparently it's already been implemented in over two hundred schools
and districts and colleges across the nation, including here in California,
and surprisingly to no one, the disparities that were there

(14:59):
before for equity are still there and sometimes are magnified
after the implementation of this, so it's really, again just
a band aid on a bigger issue.

Speaker 12 (15:08):
Jessica, what's the strongest argument in favor of equity grading.

Speaker 16 (15:13):
I really don't think there is one. I hope by
now that our nation has realized anything with the word
equity in it belongs in the trash. Look, the core
of this program that they tried to bring forward is
lowering the standards for our students, and that is not
what is going to improve American education. Students rise to
the standards that we place for them, and again, lowering

(15:34):
them is not going to as Natalie mentioned, get to
the core of the problem. The core of the problem
why our students can't read, can't write, can't do math,
is because they're missing the foundations. We need to get
back to the roots, back to the foundations, back to
the phonics, the addition, the subtraction, and then build from there.

Speaker 2 (15:53):
Maybe a little history thrown in for good measure.

Speaker 4 (15:56):
Yeah, maybe a little finance. You know how to balance,
how to balance your your finances, you know how to
how to save money. That wouldn't hurt either. But again,
how about we just kind of get back to the basics.
You know, Mississippi has done that, and they've done that
with great success. And and I never thought I would

(16:17):
live to see the day where I'm saying, why don't
we copy what Mississippi is doing in education? But it
would appear that were that's kind of where we're at
at this point. Oh how far? How far can you
dumb this down? Who would ever think this is a
good idea? What parent in San Francisco is liberal and
crazy as that place is, What parents school aged parent

(16:39):
would think that this is a good idea? What what
thinking adult would think that's a good idea to pass
kids that are getting twenty one percent on tests as
a passing grade, just so you can move them through
the system. Just crazy, just absolutely crazy, all right? Coming

(16:59):
up next segment. I didn't think I was gonna have
a guest day, but I just got a confirmation on this.
This is good. Todd Cheese will join us. He's the
author of the Substack newsletter on wealth and Progress to
talk about Trump's big beautiful bill. We have the same
problem in the Senate that we had in the House,
which is the conservative Republicans versus the moderate or as

(17:22):
I like to call them, Rhino Republicans, the ones who
you know, the Mitt Romney's of the US Senate, those people,
you know, there's a lot of there's probably four or
five or more at this point. US senators who say
they cannot support the quote unquote Big Beautiful Bill. So
the question becomes, how do they change it? If they

(17:44):
if they do change it to try to get it
through the Senate, does that help or heard it when
it goes back to the House. We'll talk to Todd
coming up next here on a nine to fifty kPr
seeing the Jimmy bair Ship. Todd Cheez joined us yere

(18:12):
on a nine fifty kPr seen the Jimmy bair shows,
the author of the sub stacked newsletter on Wealth and
Progress to talk to us about Trump's Big Beautiful Bill.
It's looking like we're in for a replay in the
US Senate like what we had in the House. The
conservative representatives in the House, we're holding it up until
the last minute, and finally Chip Roy decided to vote

(18:33):
in favor of it. But it sounds like we have
even more conservative senators in the US Senate that are
against the Big Beautiful Bill that we did in the House.

Speaker 2 (18:42):
What do you think.

Speaker 7 (18:45):
Yeah, I think that that's accurate. I think from a
big picture perspective, the most important thing is that this
bill gets passed and the tax cuts are preserved. But
hopefully what will happen here is that the Senate can
act actually use some of this resistance to get some

(19:05):
progress made on the spending side of the equation as well.

Speaker 4 (19:09):
You know, I thought it was interesting I saw an
interview with Mike Johnson, know if you saw that or not,
where they asked him about what kind of changes the
US State might want to make to the big beautiful
bill and how those that go over in the House,
and Mike Johnson was very adamant about saying, don't make
too many changes because we only got this through with
one vote, so we don't need you to be making

(19:29):
a whole bunch of changes in this thing.

Speaker 7 (19:32):
Yeah, I think that's accurate. But at the same time,
there's always room for some additional improvements, and it's hard
to tell how much can be accomplished if especially if
President Trump steps in and you know, makes a big
point that they really need to show that this is
not just business as usual on the spending side of things,

(19:53):
and that it's important for everyone. Most important for the country,
but also for the Republicans and their re election is
to show that they're willing to step up and do
something difficult and move away from the spending patterns that
have existed for the last twenty or twenty five years. Here.

Speaker 4 (20:08):
Yeah, but the objections all seem to be that this
doesn't cut enough, this adds to the deficit. Evidently, there
are plenty in both the House and the Senate who
buy into the Congressional Budget Office. And we were talking
this morning about the CBO report and how it doesn't
take a whole lot of things into consideration, including the
tariff revenue stream that we have coming in now. Of course,

(20:29):
you know who knows with all these judges going back
and forth on terrass if that's going to stand up
over the course of time. Hopefully it does. But the
economy growing, this bill should help the economy grow. It
should generate revenue of its own, shouldn't it.

Speaker 7 (20:43):
Yea, It will definitely help with the growth side of
the equation. And I agree with you completely that the
CBO process has you become too dominant of a player
in this. It's too confusing. The year projections gives congress
an opportunity to play this game where they have something

(21:05):
in the in for four years and then it expires,
which means it's not as big of an impact as
it would be otherwise. And I think it's much more
important that we kind of just start with where any
business or any household trying to manage their budget would
which is where are we today and what does this
do for us over the next few years. And so

(21:27):
where we are today is that revenues are already within
the range that they've been at for the last fifty
or sixty years. We're running in the low seventeen percent
of GDP range, and that's been consistent with where we've
been throughout democratic and Republican administrations going back over this
long period of time. The problem is on the revet

(21:48):
excuse me, on the expense side, where that's about twenty
three and a half percent of GDP, and where I
think there is room for us to make some significant
progress at least put it in motion. And I think
it's important to show the country, like I said earlier,
that this is not going to just be spending as
usual as it's been.

Speaker 2 (22:08):
For far too long.

Speaker 4 (22:09):
Yeah, And you know, and I stand with these conservative
senators who are concerned that the budget deficit could continue
to grow, that this doesn't do enough to dress that
particular problem. But you've got to start somewhere, right, You've got.

Speaker 7 (22:25):
To absolutely and not passing anything would be the biggest disaster,
I mean, because then we're not only not starting somewhere,
we're going backwards backwards, because it allows those tax cuts
to expire, and it imposes a heavy, you know, new
tax burden on the country at a time when we're
trying to.

Speaker 2 (22:45):
Get growth going, which would be.

Speaker 7 (22:47):
About the worst possible thing that we could do. So
we should pass a bill, but hopefully it's one that's
improved somewhat from what came out of the House.

Speaker 4 (22:55):
You know, I think one of the big arguments that
was made in the beginning of all this Todd sheets
was that, you know that they're biting off more than
they can chew, that we're trying to put too much
into one bill here, that we need to put this
into more bite sized pieces. Should they have just presented
a bill to extend the Trump tax cuts or make
them permanent and then work down the rest of it

(23:17):
after that, what do you think?

Speaker 7 (23:19):
You know? I think in this area it's best to
trust Trump's judgment, and I think Mark Mike Johnson has
done a very good job in helping move this forward
with momentum and getting something passed so that they can
continue to focus on all these other initiatives. You know,
is a good idea and a good approach, and so

(23:41):
far it's working.

Speaker 2 (23:43):
That's true. So far it is so.

Speaker 4 (23:46):
I don't know how in depth you've looked at the
Big Beautiful Bill, but we call it the Big Beautiful
Bill for a reason because it's huge. It's got a
lot of stuff in there. I have no idea how
many pages it is, but I think anytime that Congress
passes a bill, you know, you hear the generic definition
of what's in there, like you know, the Trump tax guys,

(24:07):
making them permanent, no taxes on tips, those types of things.
But is there anything that you've heard about that's in
that bill that you find concerning.

Speaker 7 (24:20):
Well, I think the biggest thing is what we've already
talked about with the spending. And then I would say, well,
I'm glad that the tax cuts are going to be
made permanent. Here I would be more in favor of
going back to what we had with the Reagan approach,
which is that you get rid of as many deductions

(24:44):
as possible and bring the tax rates down as low
as possible. And that's a lot of what Trump did
the first time around with the corporate side of things
with corporate taxes, and I think it was very successful,
and I think moving more in that direct as opposed
to some of these targeted tax benefits, even though I

(25:06):
know they appeal to a lot of working class people,
which is very important. But I think the bigger objective,
you know, as you alluded to at the beginning of this,
is to really get the American economic growth engine going,
which will put as many people to work in the
most rewarding jobs as possible. And I think the best

(25:28):
way to do that is to lower tax rates as
far as possible by eliminating deductions as much as possible.
So that'd be the constructive criticism that I'd offer on
that side.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
Of the equiptment.

Speaker 4 (25:40):
Well, President Trump seems to think, or at least you've
seen to intimate that he thinks that we could raise
enough money with tariffs that maybe we could just completely
back off of the entire income tax system. In other words,
we don't have to charge you on your income if
we make enough money from tariffs. Do you think that's
even feasible or achievable?

Speaker 7 (26:00):
You know, I think it's a nice ideal. I think
it remains to be seen where we end up with
these tariff negotiations. So I think we can clearly have
the tariffs to make a contribution to reducing these deficits.
Whether or not we can get that far remains to

(26:21):
be seen. I'd say I'd be somewhat skeptical about that idea,
but it's a nice objective to have.

Speaker 4 (26:26):
Yeah, I would tend to agree with you there. And
in the timing of all this, the president theems to
think that we need to have this done by I
know why he wants to have it done by the
fourth of July, in time for the two hundred and
fiftieth anniversary of the country. But from a realistic standpoint,
when do you think this needs to be done in
order for it to have the desired economic impact that
will have a positive result in the midterm elections.

Speaker 7 (26:49):
Yeah, I would guess that the fourth of July might
be a tough, tough deadline, you know. And this is
kind of Trump's approach, which has worked well for him,
which has set these big goals and push everybody towards that.
At the end, it tends to seem like you, we
normally have either this negotiation or that negotiation. Takes a

(27:10):
little bit longer than everybody would like, but in the aggregate,
it may not get done by the fourth of July,
but probably not that long afterward, and much quicker than
it would if we didn't set that kind of goal
up front.

Speaker 4 (27:25):
All right, did And finally, I'm gonna ask for a
prediction from you. Do you believe that they come up
with a deal in the Senate and then take it
back to the House and continue to get the deal.
Does this deal get done?

Speaker 7 (27:36):
Yes? I believe a deal will get done here.

Speaker 4 (27:39):
Yes, I absolutely believe that. All right, sir, listen, thanks
for your time. Sure do appreciate it.

Speaker 7 (27:45):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (27:45):
It's great to be with you again.

Speaker 4 (27:46):
Pleasure Todd Sheets, author of the Substacked newsletter on wealth
and Progress. Back with more in a moment. Jimmy Birds
show here an am nine to fifty ay PRC. All right,

(28:09):
last order of business for today. I'm gonna replay a
little interview I had this morning on KTRH because I
think you're gonna want to hear this. This is about
corruption in Harris County, which I think we can all
pretty much agree. We know what's going on. We know
that Lena Hildago is guilty of it. We know that
that Rodney Ellis is guilty of it. What we have
not seen is any punishment, and what we have seen

(28:34):
is a desire to cover things up. A lawsuit has
been filed by Dulchafino, you know, Wayne Delchafino, the investigator reporter.
Lawsuit has been filed by Delta Fino Media to block
Harris County from potentially destroying public records, assuming they still exist,
regarding the scandal involving former Harris County Health Director Barbie Robinson.

(28:57):
It was in court today. I haven't heard out it's
turned but there's worth sharing with you. No matter how
that thing turns out in court, what Wayne Deltafino's trying
to do is to make sure that records are not destroyed.
I think he also wants to try to determine whether
or not Sean Tier, the District Attorney's part of this
cover up and and why he dropped all the charges

(29:19):
against Barbie Robinson when kim Ogg, his predecessor had asked
the FEDS to investigate this whole thing. So here's my
interview from earlier this morning with Wayne Deltrafino. We're joined
by Wayne Delchofino Del Trafino Media, who will be in
court at nine o'clock this morning to try to prevent
the destruction of public records involving the former Houston Health Director,

(29:42):
Barbie Robinson, who had her He may recall kim Ogg
wanted a federal investigation into her case and some of
the things that she'd been doing his health director and
directing contracts to certain individuals and groups and companies. There's
a lot of that may have been stolen as a
result of this. Seawn Tier decided her replacement that there

(30:06):
wasn't a case. I think our next guest would probably disagree.
Do you think there's a case against Barbie Robinson, Wayne, Yes,
I do, And I.

Speaker 17 (30:14):
Think there's real questions about the district attorney, whether or
not he's just soft on public corruption, whether or not
the dismissal of the Barbie Robinson indictments the former health
director was some sort of political payback to public officials
who supported him, namely Roddy Ellis. Look, killgg's letter to

(30:36):
the FBI asked you for a federal investigation, claimed that
there was a policy to allow the destruction of emails
and phone rakers of an employee thirty days after they left.
Diana Ramirez, who was Barbie Robinson's boss, the very highly
paid administrator of Harris County, she left thirty days ago today,

(31:00):
and after kim Ov's letter, we decided that we had
to go to court to protect those records. I'm also
going to end up in a fight with the DA
because he refuses to release any event records of the
Barbie Robbinson investigation. Look, this is a story that is
yet to be fully told. This is also a tentacle

(31:22):
of an octopus.

Speaker 2 (31:23):
Okay.

Speaker 17 (31:24):
We are investigating the tens of millions of dollars being
spent on databases essentially for allegedly providing services to people. Right,
we need money for deputies, and so that's also part
of this. We are looking into the waste and fraud
in Harrows County government. We're being fought every step of

(31:47):
the way by the Harris County attorney and it's a monster.
But I'm going to get to the bottom of it,
and I'm not going to allow the county to destroy
anything while we are investigating.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
Bill.

Speaker 4 (32:00):
Let me ask you this, Wayne, are you sure those
records exist, that they have not already been destroyed?

Speaker 17 (32:06):
Well, kim og bangs, the phone records have already been
white clean, Okay. Now, the county attorneys told our lawyers
late yesterday that they have no such policy okay, and
we said, great, put it in writing so we don't
have to go to the judge this morning, and.

Speaker 7 (32:25):
They refuse to do it.

Speaker 2 (32:27):
Look, you know this.

Speaker 17 (32:29):
The county plays games and tries to keep the public,
the taxpayers, from knowing the full story of how their
money is spent. At the end of the day, That's
what this is about. This is a growing problem in government,
in local government. But Harris County has been spending money
on all kinds of nonsense that we have to get

(32:51):
to the bottom of. And Barbie Robinson's firing and our indictments,
I believe is a story that will invent real corruption
millions and millions of dollars and nobody gets held accountable.
Nobody gets held accountable for the aftercon our deal, Nobody
gets held accountable for the COVID deal involving leading a dog.

(33:15):
Those people that just can't be right. We have to
be tough on public corruption. We have to indict people
who falsified government records. The fact that we're not doing
it tells me the DA is either soft on crime
public corruption or the DA is paying back his political
support from Rodney Ellis Well.

Speaker 4 (33:35):
I think the DA is probably both. But I've only
got about thirty seconds for Wayam. But but tell me this,
do you believe and it sounds like I'm breathing between
the lines here that you do that Barbie Robinson is
just the tip of the iceberg.

Speaker 17 (33:47):
She's definitely the tip of the iceberg, no doubt. And
the fact that she was allowed to do what she
did smells so bad. And the fact that the district
attorney out will not let the public see what they
found out that led them to.

Speaker 7 (34:05):
Believe there was no case here is a real problem.

Speaker 17 (34:09):
And I'm going to fight this battle as we always
do for transparency. Let the folks who pay the darn
bills know the truth.

Speaker 4 (34:17):
Yep, keep fighting the good fight. Wayne Delchafino, love that dude.
Need more of them here in our town to help
protect all of us. All right, listen, that's it for today.
You'all have a great weekend. We'll see you Monday morning,
bright and early, starting at five AM on News Radio
seven forty KTRH. Hope to see you back at four
nine fifty KPRC.