The Rod and Greg Show: Steve Moore on "Affordability"; Should the U.S. Deport One Million Illegals Per Month?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's a very classy establishment.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
Where rarely are we allowed into classic establishments. No, it's
very nice.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Look at the mountains. You can see everything from there.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Yeah, you talk. County people are nice, big fans.

Speaker 1 (00:11):
Maybe this should be our Utah County headquarters.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
That's all right.

Speaker 1 (00:14):
Maybe we should run it by him. Huh, should we
run it by him?

Speaker 2 (00:16):
They don't want us around all the time. No, they
want us here every minute of every day.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Well, let's see at the end of this what they
think we'll see if we get escorted out by security
or if they keep us.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Why they have the security people out out in the looks.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
You know they were looking there.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Well that's because you got a speeding ticket the other
day and you're still Yeah, you still have to bring
that up. Yeah, well of course I do. All right,
we've got a lot coming up today. Like we said,
we are broadcasting live from ever Lights. Boy, I tell
you I have seen some of the work that they
do on homes and businesses. Absolutely, may you've seen permanent lighting.
I don't know why I'm even asking you this.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
No answer bomb, No, the answer is yes, you do
put up your Christmas lights? Me personally, No, I thought
you'd ask me if my legs no.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Do you put up your Christmas light? Person? Person? I
don't you have someone do it for you?

Speaker 1 (01:05):
It's very dangerous with you.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
It would be safety. Safety for I'll tell you what
they can do wonderful things to a home or a business.
And we'll get into that today. So we'll be broadcasting
live from ever Lights today and they've got a special
offer that will share coming up here in the Semist
as well. Nice. All right, a lot to talk about today.
Steve Moore is going to join us. The buzzword right

(01:29):
now out there is affordability, and Steve is going to
talk about that. Of course, he's an economist. He's co
founder of Unleashed Prosperity, former top economic advisor to President Trump.
We'll be talking with him. We'll talk about what the USDA,
the Department of Agriculture, is going to do when it
comes to snap reapplications. That's, of course, the food stamp program.
A little bit later on, there was a funeral today,

(01:52):
of course for former Vice President Dick Cheney. Yes, Donald
Trump and JD. Vance were not invited. That would be
on brand, that would beyond brand. Yes, But it's kind
of like you see a difference between the old Republican
guard and the new Republicans. I don't even know if
you call them Republicans maybe conservative common sense people like
you and I.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
It's a bigger it's certainly a bigger tenant. It's certainly
feeled for everyday Americans who might not have affiliated with
the party in the past. But they're they're coming. Uh,
they're coming the Republicans way.

Speaker 2 (02:22):
Yeah, well, we'll talk about that. We've got a lot
of other things to talk about today, and we invite
you to join us and be with us all day.
We're here until seven o'clock tonight. Now, social media star
that you are today.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
Yes, I've been I've been wrong.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
Then time past, audience that what was posted on social
media today is in fact not entirely true.

Speaker 1 (02:43):
Well yeah, so you know, you know, Ben McAdams is
getting a bit of a buzz because the judge Diana.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
Gibson, Diana, dirty Diana.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
I don't know if you ray if you have the
bumper music for that, but dirty Diana. The Diana Gibson,
the judge, she drew her own maps, congressional maps that
she believes has the effective law. That is a plus
twenty four percent Kamala Harris district and probably two leftist
or liberal for Evan Ben McAdams to win. But Ben
mccadams and his fair shots of criticism online right now.

(03:16):
Nine years ago, nine and a half years ago, I
participated in one of these what they call them these
car karaoke deals you did. It was a bipartisan one.
I was driving. It was my vehicle. Ben McAdams is
in the driver in the passenger seat. We had for
former Republican house Member Kim Coleman in the car Representative

(03:37):
Ken Ivory, another Republican, and then Jim Debacchis, who's a
Democrat who was a state center at the time that
had been the Democrat state card member. We're doing is
right when Hamilton became all the rage the off Broadway
show was coming. They announced they were going to come
to saltlike Cea on the first run, and we all
of us, collectively, without regard to political party, believed that

(03:57):
high school students especially should see that music. We feel
it's more geared towards young people than anything else, and
it's a great civic education and a fun format. Sure,
so we did this car. We did this car karaoke
really as a campaign to convince the producers of the
Off Broadway show when they came to Salt Lake to
hold more productions so that we could have the Utah's
high school students attend. And it worked. And that was

(04:21):
nine and a half years ago. And I don't make
any apologies for that little YouTube diddy that we did.
It worked, They held more. There was an essay contest
with these high school students on what the American Revolution
was and what our freedoms and liberties mean to them.
Essays were selected everyone from the districts from where these
kids came from. The lawmakers got to read their essays

(04:42):
and they got to see the pro they got to
see the additional performances. That is the backstory to that.
But they just put that karaoke thing out there like
we're just all buds walking running around singing in a
car and they're having to be a camera on and
it's just not true.

Speaker 2 (04:56):
So you were there for a purpose, not to be
buddy b Well, it.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
Is a bipartisan effort, So it was we were all
doing that together and it was and like I said,
it was successful. But I will just say this as well,
if anyone thinks I'm too easy on Ben McAdams. Where
were you when we held the when we held this
rally outside of his congressional office in nineteen.

Speaker 2 (05:17):
I remember that. I remember this, yeah, because never in
my life.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
Well, we didn't have a lot of people. It turns
out that Republicans aren't very good at.

Speaker 2 (05:25):
Protest, so it's kind of cold.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
It's October. I've never held a bullhorn in my hand
in my life, but I'm giving the bullorn. I'm trying
to lead this protest. And the pictures of me with
this bullorn that the paper ran made me look like
I was crazy. So the irony for me is I
get all these people that say, look Greg is Allude
Hues alone, Look at them with this bullhorn going after
Ben McAdams. Everybody thinks that I'm crazy going after him

(05:47):
for wanting to impeach Trump. And then I get on
social media I'm too nice to Ben McAdams. Well, for
all the people could criticizing them, I'm too nice to
Ben mccadams. Where were you that cold October day? I
could have used you when we were testing Ben McAdams
outside of his congressional office. Sol that is.

Speaker 2 (06:03):
My people who are today trying to convince everybody that
you're chummy chummy with Ben McAdams. That's not true. I
mean we had a work we worked.

Speaker 1 (06:12):
He was the mayor of Solid Coarys the time. I
was the Speaker of the House at the time. We worked.
We had, there were issues we worked on. That's a
that's a small one. We we worked. We had the
mayor of Selixe then Jackie Biskubski, who was really against
what we were working on the state. Ben McAdams saw
the wisdom, so was you know, it's a it's an
effort of addition.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
So do you feel better now you've had this?

Speaker 1 (06:34):
I gotta get that out, but I get I don't know. Yeah,
I hope our good listeners spread the word that I've
been maligned unjustly. Yeah, I hope.

Speaker 2 (06:43):
I like the explanation. All right, when we come back,
we're all talking about affordability here on the Rod and
Gregg Show. A lot of talk today good news about
the economy, some good good jobs report today, not great,
but a solid one.

Speaker 1 (06:55):
Well, it does this, It outperforms the economists predictions forre cast,
which at this point do they have any They're always wrong. Yeah,
you know they're a bit scroogey, those, aren't they.

Speaker 2 (07:08):
Well, let me tell you. Steve Moore, who will talk
to you here in just a second, had a chart
out today. He looked at the inflation that's taking place
in the country right now. Eighty seven percent of that
inflation can be tied directly to Joe Biden, thirteen percent
to borrow or to Donald Trump. Yeah, pretty amazing number.

Speaker 1 (07:25):
And we say this on a program all the time.
Inflation is like gaining weight. So if you have if
you've had the nine percent inflation, that's like you gained
nine pounds. If you see it and it's gone two
and a half pounds, you didn't lose pounds and a half
or seven pounds, you you have, you've gained two more pounds.
So you're seeing that growth over the Biden administration. You've
seen that that come down below three percent now, but

(07:46):
it's still hard. It's still hard on the everyday people,
on their groceries, on a lot of things. So there's
a lot to grapple with.

Speaker 2 (07:52):
Listen to what Kevin has it. He is one of
the president's economic directors. He talked about this, and he
talked about the impact that Obamacare is having non inflation.
List of what he had to say.

Speaker 3 (08:02):
So, Obamacare is one hundred percent democratic policy. It's always
beout one hundred percent democratic policy. What they did is
they expanded the subsidies during COVID and then all those
subsidies basically went right into the pockets of insurance companies,
and Obamacare insurance policies have doubled in price relative to
normal policies. And so the fastest inflation in the economy

(08:26):
is these big government subsidies thrown at Obamacare insurance. Think
about it's kind of like if you give lots of
student loans, then the tuition goes up. It's that effect.
And so now they're blaming President Trump for Obamacare as well.
They should have fixed Obamacare in the first place. And
President Trump had a plan in the Big Beautiful Bill
to give people some subsidies, but the Democrats didn't like

(08:46):
it because the subsidies weren't going to their campaign contributors,
the insurance companies.

Speaker 2 (08:50):
The President I like how he switched, and the conversation
now seems to be more about the economy. He understands it. Yes,
you know a lot of it. Supporters have said, you know,
mister Trump, you've done some marvelous things immigration, on foreign policy,
done some great things, especially what has happened in the
mid East. Now, we think you should really look at
about the economy because people are very concerned about it

(09:13):
and about the cost of it.

Speaker 1 (09:14):
Well, the one thing we've learned, and I think, and
I've heard President Trump now say this, I've heard Secretary
Best and say this. You cannot point to large economic
indicators like one hundred nineteen thousand new jobs higher than
what economists had predicted. That's a good news because it's
higher than they predicted. One point nine million new jobs
created for Americans, not foreign and they're not government jobs.

(09:36):
That's another great economic indicator. But if the president and
the administration never sees those indicators reach down into the
household budgets of everyday Americans, it doesn't mean anything. And
what Biden used to do is say, well, the economy
is doing better than you've ever seen. You're just not
sophisticated enough to appreciate it. And that is that's where

(09:57):
you start to lose people, is when you're telling everyone
how great it is, but they're not feeling it.

Speaker 2 (10:01):
Yeah, and if they don't feel think.

Speaker 1 (10:02):
They're aware of it. So the interesting discussion that we'll
have with Steve Moore when we get him on the
program is that when will people feel it in their
family budgets? When does all that happen? Because you can
have those we have, you know, my favorite rant, sixty
dollars a barrel of for crew, which is which meat,
which is supposed to mean we have low low gas prices.

(10:23):
When are we going to see two dollars gas in
our state?

Speaker 2 (10:27):
You know, we asked our listeners this a couple of
weeks ago, and I love the fact that they responded.
It took Ronald Reagan three to four years, yes, to
get the you know, the Jimmy Carter economy turned around.
A lot of people think that once you become president,
everything is there's a clean slate.

Speaker 1 (10:42):
Well, he's kind of his worse that because he'said he hustles,
this fan moves, you know, he's moving at a fast
pace and so you know, you kind of get spoiled.
You think everything should happen.

Speaker 2 (10:51):
Yeah, beginning in an inauguration day. Like you're saying, the
American people are very they don't have a lot of patience.
They wanted to happen like now now.

Speaker 1 (10:59):
I don't get the I don't get the mindset that
if if Trump and all that they're doing doesn't work
to your satisfaction, you go back to the people that
may be as miserable as before. I don't understand how
the Democrats get the benefit from that necessarily, but I
do know that that there's a lot of work that
has to be done. And in the midterms, look that
the voter turnout for President Trump comes from a lot
of people that don't like politics and don't trust politicians. Uh,

(11:22):
and that's why they come out and vote for Trump
in a midterm. They don't that they don't get as excited,
they don't look at that and that that can help
Democrats in from terms of their turnout and harm Republicans
that used to be the Republicans you talk about that funeral,
the old school Republicans. Well, they used to be the
the upper class, the people that you know, the upper Rechalants.
So they've turned out in midterms because they were, you know,

(11:44):
civically conscious about it all. It's not the case anymore. Now.
What you see are Republicans when you're a bigger tent
and your everyday Americans. Their turnout and the midterms are
not as high as they were in the nineties.

Speaker 2 (11:56):
And they need to be big challenges coming up next fall.
All right, More coming up on the Rod and Greg Show,
is we broadcast live from ever Lights here in Utah,
Coudymore coming up on Talk Radio one oh five nine
j NRS. A few weeks ago, the Agriculture Secretary, her
name is Burke Rollins. She's doing a terrific job. Released
a report on the abuse and the fraud that's taking

(12:16):
place in the SNAP program to many people, the food
stamp program. Well, now she's announced some changes and what
is going to be taking place in Joining us on
our newsmaker line to talk more about that right now
is our guest s A. McCarthy SA. Thanks for joining
us tonight. Let's talk about the changes and what she
wants to do with a SNAP program.

Speaker 4 (12:35):
I think the main thing that Secretary Rollins is working
on is she's having people reapply for the SNAP program.
I think one of the things that we've seen repeatedly
and in particular over the past few months that the
audit of the SNAP program that Secretary Rollins has been
conducting is there's a lot of fraud. There's a lot
of people double collecting on benefits. You know, there's a

(13:01):
number of dead people collecting benefits. Literally thousands, close to
two hundred thousand supposedly dead people who are collecting SNAP benefits.
They're getting a check from the government taxpayer dollars. And
so she's having people reapply to the program in order
to root out a lot of that fraud.

Speaker 1 (13:23):
So I think what's disturbing is I think she's found
so much fraud, but those are from willing states, willing
to let them see the data. How many states we have,
like Californa, all the blue states that just refuse to
show any of their data. How do you even begin
to drill down? And I know you can get everyone
to reapply, but there's like twenty one states that won't
show the books. How do you grapple with that? Or

(13:46):
how does she grapple with that?

Speaker 4 (13:50):
Yeah, I'm not sure. She's said that she's threatened legal action,
which is obviously a step in the right direction. She's
starting legal action against the states who have refused to
comply with the audits. Secretary role and said, note that
twenty nine states, And she said, and I'm quoting her
here that they're mostly read states are the ones who

(14:10):
willingly shared data with her so far. And she've got
other states, you know, presumably she didn't you know, detail
which states have and have not, but presumably some of
the larger blue states like California, New York, et cetera,
where you've got a lot of these heavy metropolitan urban
areas where you do have higher populations relying on SNAP benefits,

(14:32):
haven't shared data with us. That's the literally hundreds of thousands,
over half a million examples of fraud that she's found
so far in the program, which is an expensive program,
by the way. It's like literally billions of dollars are
poured into this program over I believe forty two million

(14:52):
Americans who receive SNAP benefits on a monthly basis. So
it's shocking. And she said that she's trying to use
legal action to find out the data from some of
these states that haven't complied with the audit yet. You know,
the threat of lawsuits, et cetera, which we've seen the
Trump administration use in a number of instances, particularly against

(15:14):
sanctuary policies and some of these blue states, blue cities.

Speaker 2 (15:17):
I say, how did this get so out of control,
And who's to blame? I mean, is the federal government's fault?
Is it the state's fault who don't watch it closely enough?
Who's to blame here? Is everybody to blame?

Speaker 4 (15:30):
I'd say that it's a case of to some extent,
everybody's to blame. Because the federal government doesn't actually run
or operate or administer the SNAP program. They simply provide
the funding that they give out to individual states who
are then responsible for administering it. So by and large,
the active participation, as far as responsibility goes, the active

(15:54):
participation has been the part of the states who who
have not maybe been too lenient in administering this in
some cases maybe have turned a blind eye knowingly to fraud.
But the federal government probably could have checked up more
routinely on exactly how this money is being spent.

Speaker 1 (16:18):
So it's not supposed to go to I mean, you're
not supposed to it's not supposed to go to illegal
immigrants as it is, But I think the fraud is
so rife. I don't know where one begins in the
next one ends. And so when people reapply, how how
confident are you that we're going to see a higher
level of compliance and that the fraud is going to
uh come down markedly. I worry that this this might

(16:40):
be too big to actually steer around, given how large
it is and how many people are dependent on it.

Speaker 2 (16:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (16:48):
Well, I'd love to see obviously the fraud slashed from
this program, because it's you know, my taxpayer dollars, your
tax payer dollars going into this perm I think that
a great effort probably will be made under the Trump administration,
with the administration's focus on immigration policy, a great effort

(17:12):
will be made to ensure that only those who have
proof of US citizenship are eligible, and Secretary Rollins has
said that she really wants to make sure that these
benefits are really only going to people who are like
absolutely in need of it, not people who, you know,
I'm not working right now. You know I could, but
I'm not, you know, and therefore I'm just going to

(17:33):
collect these benefits, you know, until either I find a
job that I really like or just indefinitely. But it's
actually going to these people who you know, they literally
cannot work and they'll probably die if they don't get
these benefits. That's the whole purpose of the program. She's
kind of returning the program to its original purpose.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
Say, does she have the sole authority to order these
reapplications or is it going to need congressional approval? Who
has the authority to do Does she have it all
by herself?

Speaker 4 (18:03):
You know, the SNAP program is administered through the US
Department of Agriculture, of which she's the secretary. Now, there
probably will be challenges to this. We've seen already challenges
to the Secretary of Homeland Security christinoam to her authority
to terminate temporary protected status for various immigration groups. You know,

(18:26):
lots of over five hundred and twenty thousand Venezuelans, Cubans, Haitians,
et cetera who've been living in the US under temporary
protected status and she's moved to terminate that. There have
been lawsuits under this statute. It's pretty clear that she
has the authority as the secretary to administer this. And
then they get into you know, semantics. Well, she has

(18:48):
the authority to know under the statute, determine whether to
extend this program, but it doesn't necessarily say that she
can terminate it, just decide whether or not to re
extend it or not, you know, and so it gets
into a matter of semantics. Imagine there will be some
legal challenges to this. It'll be a little bit trickier

(19:09):
just because so many people do rely on SNAP benefits
and you know, kind of pausing the program, especially following
the brief pause that we already saw during the government shutdown.
I think that that can play poorly politically for the
organizations bringing those challenges, which would predominantly be progressive organizations.

Speaker 2 (19:31):
On our Newspacker line. S A McCarthy joining us from
the Washington stand. He's a writer Family Research Council as well,
talking about some changes coming to the SNAP program. They're
rod in great show.

Speaker 1 (19:42):
All right.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
Have you heard of the company, the finance site called
lending Tree?

Speaker 1 (19:46):
Yes, I have heard of them.

Speaker 2 (19:47):
All right, Well, they've released a new study showing illustrating
ten cities in America where women are most likely to
out earn their husbands.

Speaker 1 (19:58):
Yeah, from that, why do I want to know that?
Why would you even that's probably fake news? Why would
you even share that?

Speaker 2 (20:05):
You know where most of them are in blue states?

Speaker 1 (20:08):
Is it because everybody's brokers? It just is everybody. I mean,
what's going on? What's what's what are they attributed to?

Speaker 2 (20:13):
New Haven, Connecticut, twenty nine percent of households have female breadwinners.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
Okay, does that mean that there's two there's two people.

Speaker 2 (20:22):
Working in Yeah, Syracuse, New York. That's when my brother lives.
They're in second, Minneapolis, third, Providence, fourth, all been in
New York and Philadelphia. Okay, okay. Cities that have the
fewest female breadwinners. Oh here, you're ready for this.

Speaker 1 (20:37):
That's because guys are taking care of business. They're taking
care of their families. That's what that means.

Speaker 2 (20:41):
Guess what's number one?

Speaker 1 (20:43):
Please make my day and say it's a city in Utah, Provo.

Speaker 2 (20:47):
There you go, Number two, Ogden nationally nationally, Okay, number nine,
Salt Lake City.

Speaker 1 (20:55):
Even liberal Salt Lakes liberals list. Wow, that's amazing.

Speaker 2 (21:00):
Ten cities where women are most likely there are still.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
Men in Salt Lake City.

Speaker 2 (21:04):
I can't believe it. I didn't say there are men
in Provo.

Speaker 1 (21:07):
No, I'm saying men are, but they're taking care of business,
they're taking care of their households.

Speaker 2 (21:11):
I would have thought.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
That that Salt Lake City would be with the with
the Blue states, that the guys wouldn't know how to
take care of their families.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Yeah, Provo is number one. Only sixteen persons.

Speaker 1 (21:19):
Proud of Provo. I think that I'm very happy for Provo.
It probably is because of the football team.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
How does that anything?

Speaker 1 (21:27):
I don't know. I just had to drop that somehow,
it's very you.

Speaker 2 (21:30):
Just had to drop that. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (21:32):
Sorry.

Speaker 2 (21:33):
Here are some of the top sources of tension between
husbands and wives.

Speaker 1 (21:38):
This is a bizarre topic. I don't even know why
you're talking about the.

Speaker 2 (21:40):
Differences, trouble differences and styles of spending and saving.

Speaker 1 (21:46):
Okay, what do you write product quiz?

Speaker 2 (21:51):
I can't answer it, can I I hate check books?
I believe that I don't.

Speaker 1 (21:55):
I don't. I don't use checks anymore. I don't.

Speaker 2 (21:58):
Most people don't expectations of who pays for what. Amongst two,
among married couples, if both are working, who pays for
this and who pays a household income? Well, that's what
I would think, but apparently not. Number three is childcare
and chores? Do you do any chorices around the house? Yes,
you do, Yes, I don't know that. You don't appear

(22:20):
to be like, oh god, you know, well, I don't
know if you tell my business.

Speaker 1 (22:24):
I thought you were going to talk about I thought
you're gonna talk about spending habits, Like how do you
buy things? Get? I buy things because social media tells
me to.

Speaker 2 (22:30):
Yeah, I know you do. You see something on social media?

Speaker 1 (22:33):
What happens? It just it just mind melds me and
it just shows me something it knows I like, I
didn't even know I was looking for it, and I
just hit buy.

Speaker 2 (22:39):
Yeah, And do you know what in doing that, you're
you're helping the Chinese economy? No, another thing you buy
is I don't know it's I don't yes it is. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (22:51):
Right.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
Steve Moore will be joining us coming up as we
continue our live broadcast this hour. Couple of things I
want to talk to you about this hour. By the way,
if we get time. Congressman Burgess Owens, great guy. By
the way, you know they've got they've got a plaque
for him down at Raiders Stadium.

Speaker 1 (23:10):
I didn't actually I did not know that.

Speaker 2 (23:11):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, they sure do. Uh yeah, uh and uh.
He wrote an open letter to guess who who judge Diana? Wait,
dirty Diana?

Speaker 1 (23:24):
Wait, I'm waiting do we.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
Have it dirty? And no? There it is there, it
is well, he wrote, a great letter to her, an
open letter about her ruling, which is ridiculous. We'll get
into that here a little bit. But we were able
to find the interview that we had done with Steve
Moore earlier today about the economy. Of course, a poll
out shows no surprise here. I think greg that voters
say the White House is doing more harm than good

(23:48):
to the economy. With the way people are feeling right now,
you kind of get that sense they understand how they
feel or why they.

Speaker 1 (23:54):
We know, in politics, perceptions reality. So it doesn't matter
what the economic reports are saying. If people don't think
that they're if they don't feel it, it's not happening.
So it does have to get down to the everyday people.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
Yeah, well, the buzzword out there right now is affordability.
We talked with Steve more earlier about that and ask
him for his analysis of what's going on with the
question of affordability.

Speaker 5 (24:14):
Steve, Yeah, the a word, and everybody You're right, everybody's
talking about it. Well, a couple things. I mean, First
of all, for young people, there's never been a time
in American history where all the kinds of things that
we want are more affordable than they are today. You know,
we have much much, much more disposable income, and so
this idea that you know, our parents could buy these

(24:37):
things but I can't buy them now is really a
little ridiculous.

Speaker 4 (24:41):
Now.

Speaker 5 (24:41):
The other thing is that the states that have the
highest cost of living, you know what states?

Speaker 1 (24:47):
Those are Democrats states?

Speaker 2 (24:49):
Democrats states.

Speaker 5 (24:50):
Yeah, exactly, New York, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts. That
you got states like you know, uh, Connecticut, and you
know they want to run Gavin Newsome for president, and
you know what thinking to do. We're going to make
make make californ the United States look like California. So, uh,

(25:13):
I think that that's something that's important to realize. Also,
we got a jobs report today that Joe wages were
up four point two percent, four point two percent. So
what that tells you is the people's incomes arising and
and they're they're getting more affordable. Eighty seven percent of
the higher cost of living because of inflation was due

(25:37):
to guess what, President, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (25:39):
Yeah, I saw that draft you put you published today.
One Joe Biden. Eighty seven percent of inflation is Joe
Biden's fault.

Speaker 5 (25:46):
Yeah, yeah, And so yeah, people say, oh, Donald Trump
is doing nothing to hold out on prices now.

Speaker 2 (25:51):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (25:51):
And by the way, that job's report today was pretty good.
It wasn't great, but it was pretty good. We doubled
the number of jobs that were expected.

Speaker 2 (25:57):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (25:58):
And we saw a nice wage growth for American workers
and continued decline in federal workforce, which is a good thing.
We're draining the swamps slowly but surely. So I'm super
bullish on this US economy. I think twenty twenty six
is going to be a monster Europe for the economy. Incidentally,
at last two quarters now you average on them, we've
had four percent growth.

Speaker 1 (26:16):
Well, I saw that. I saw that you mentioned and
you compared that to other countries that are just flatlining,
or even China that seems to be dipping a little.
So we're really kind of outpacing the rest of the world.
But this is I do hear things like the average
age that you can afford a home now is in
your forties. And I do think whether it's perception or
reality younger people. If you pull people over fifty years old,

(26:37):
they say the economy is great. If they're under fifty,
they're worried or they don't think it is if it
takes that long to buy a home, and maybe our
younger people feel like the free market, maybe they're not
accessing it. Tell me how the macro of these economic indicators,
so we don't sound like Thomas Friedman back when Biden
was in charge saying it's so good, you're just not
sotiscicated enough to know it. When does it become the

(26:58):
micro that America and feel because I worry you see
the interest rates that when they low lower, it's supposed
to bring your credit card rate down, auto loans down.
But it doesn't look like that's happening. It looks like
there's a harvesting of those interest rates. I might be wrong,
but tell our listeners how are when are young people
going to feel the good economy that you're seeing and
you know in these big indicators.

Speaker 5 (27:19):
Well, well, one of the problems with young people, you know,
and the you know, Generation Z and the and the
and the millennials is that they've all graduated from college
with sociology degrees, psychology degrees and ethics study degrees is
just what nobody cares. Nobody wants those. You know, there's
six million job openings in America, but there are people

(27:39):
who know how to do things. You know, we need electricians,
we need people who who you know, we need nurses,
we need doctors, we need people who actually know how
to do something. And yet our kids are graduating with,
you know, these degrees that are completely worthless. So that's
a real indictment of our education system, I think. But
the other thing is, you know, so many cities have

(28:00):
very dramatic zoning restrictions on where you can build housing.
I don't know. I don't think the Salt Lake has
the strict regulations that so many other cities do, but
especially in the Blue Cities, they have not allowed multifamily
homes to be built and that has really reduced the
supply of available housing.

Speaker 2 (28:19):
Steve, I want to ask you about a point you
just made, the availability of skilled workers. I saw Jim
Farley that I had to Ford the other day talking
about the thousands of job openings he has. They pay
one hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year, but no
he can't find the workers. They hear other CEOs out
there basically singing the same song, Steve, Can we catch
up to this demand because there appears to be a

(28:42):
lot of companies are willing to invest in America again.
But have we got people to do the jobs?

Speaker 1 (28:48):
No?

Speaker 5 (28:48):
I mean, the big issue really is not a shortage
of jobs, but a shortage of workers. So you know,
the one statistic that I like to use is that
because I'm a baby boomer, I just turned six sixty five,
I could technically require next retire next year. But I'm
not going to do that anytime soon because I don't
want to give up doing your radio program.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
Thank you team, but that's.

Speaker 2 (29:11):
What you are.

Speaker 5 (29:12):
But eleven thousand Americans every day on average are now retiring,
but only about eight thousand Americans are entering the workforce.
So just do the math there. We're having more people
withdraw from the workforse because of the demographic cycle than
people entering the workforce. And we we're going to need
more immigrant workers for sure, but we're going to have
to make sure that our workers of tomorrow are you know,

(29:34):
really well trained. You know, I think I may have
told you guys this story, but I just joined the
board of a company called light Speed, and we build
houses with robots. With robots, so we will be able to,
starting in a couple of years, build a house with
forty percent less man hours, forty percent faster, and forty
percent cheaper. So technology is going to solve this affordability

(29:57):
problem very quickly.

Speaker 1 (30:00):
Yeah. So finally, I guess I want I want to
signal because again I think that the Democrats, the regime media,
they do a wonderful job, even though the irony is
that they never mentioned affordability. When Trump or when Biden's
an office, all of a sudden they're clutching pearls now.
I mean it's been right. Sometimes that irony is lost.
What do we what do we say to our listeners?

(30:20):
And people say, look, you're going to feel it if
you feel like you know, we've taken on eighty seven
percent of this inflation's been Biden. When when does it?
When do we feel it? Or when will people feel it?
Because it took us some time for Reagan round Reagan
in his term to recover from what Carter did. When
can we point to this Is it going to happen
before the midterm? Steve Well?

Speaker 5 (30:40):
One thing that's going to Yeah, the answer is yes,
because one thing that has been left out of the
equation is the Trump tax cut. And I'll hear from
a lot of young people. So I haven't seen any
tax cut. You're right, because you haven't gotten it yet.
Most Americans have not changed their withholding on their tax forms,
and starting in January, they're going to get a big reduction,
you know, reduction in the mind of money withheld. That

(31:01):
means you're going to get a bigger paycheck, and we
estimate for the average worker that's going to be fifteen
hundred to two thousand dollars over the year. So that's
just an example of something that will pump up the economy. Plus,
we have hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that
are being invested in the United States thanks to Trump
with these trade deals bringing in all this money to
the US that's going to be invested here, and that's

(31:21):
going to lead to higher wages and more jobs. So
this is the reason I really believe next year we
could have a growth rate of four percent, which we
haven't seen in a long long time.

Speaker 2 (31:30):
Steve, thank you very much. Steve Moore joining us on
our Newsmaker line and economists he's talking about, you know,
the big beautiful Bill really hasn't gotten into effect yet
as far as the economics.

Speaker 1 (31:40):
Actually attached ras attach as big, big deal.

Speaker 2 (31:42):
But my concern is, as these companies from around the world,
these countries are pledging money to invest in America, do
we have the skilled workers to do it.

Speaker 1 (31:53):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (31:53):
And if you're a young guy right now, young women
out there saying what do I want to do? Find
a technical skill. That's what we need.

Speaker 1 (32:00):
Absolutely, And I've seen, you know, there's a narrative that
we don't. But I've seen some stats out there in
terms of professional or labor jobs where there's a large
unemployment rate and a lot of these, including even engineers,
Americans are suffering a disproportionate unemployment rate that they don't
have to. But I'm booking at Steve Moore says, we
see a big comeback, it's coming before the midterms, and

(32:22):
I'm gonna I'm gonna go ahead and check that bar.

Speaker 2 (32:25):
Top, all right. An event took place today in the
nation's capital, a service remembering Dick Cheney. Yes, and there
was a real interesting article today written about that, a
funeral for Dick Cheney and the adults in the room
GOP establishment. Apparently the GOP establishment still think they are
the adults in the room. Yeah, I tend to disagree,

(32:47):
and I know you do as well, But I want
to get your thoughts on this because this article pointed
out that are there any Dick Cheney style Republicans left
in the party anymore? And do they have any infid anymore?
And what is the difference between a Dick Cheney Republican
and a Donald Trump Republican.

Speaker 1 (33:05):
Well, I think Liz Cheney, his daughter is kind of
was the most recent version of a Dick Cheney Republican.
And they're globalists, their neo cons You have the Gulf War,
that was a twenty year war. It didn't get us anywhere.
What you have today in the Republican Party led by
Donald Trump is a party that's for every day American people.
We saw the outsourcing, we saw our industries leave this country.

(33:30):
If you're somebody who thinks that the old school Republicans,
you miss them, You wish they'd come back. First off,
the Democrats hated your guts the whole time, and then
all of a sudden you became a uniparty where there
was no daylight between any of you, and every day
Americans suffered, and this economy suffered, and we have our
industries suffered here. So I don't find anything of the

(33:52):
old brand and how it kind of merged with the
Democrats over time and became a uniparty and to some
extent still is. And why Washington, I don't know who
would ever want to go back to that formula. Honestly,
I'm the Republican as a Republican.

Speaker 2 (34:05):
They're trying. There was a story today in Breitbart about
the Bush family and other of the old establishment coming
up with a plan to take control again of the
Republican Party when Donald Trump is no more.

Speaker 1 (34:19):
You know, and a sad party. That's what the Democrats
have demonized. The Chinese. They I mean, they were enemy
number one for the longest time. And as soon as
the Chinese didn't like Trump, they they totally changed their
tune about them. But they're not your friends. Anybody who's
subscribing to that and things, Oh, you know, we don't
like Trump, but we're going to come back. And the
people encouraging to do that, they never liked you in

(34:40):
the first place. They just want Trump's persuasive and effective
leadership to go away because it's a threat to their globalism.

Speaker 2 (34:47):
I think greg in this state, yes, because we want
to be so inclusive. There are a lot of Dick
Cheney's style Republicans. You know, I think I think that's
the struggle within there were publican party here in the
state of Utah. You've got the Mitt Romney, John McCain,
Dick Cheney, George Bush Republicans, and then you've got the

(35:08):
Donald Trump Republicans. And that's the struggle that I think
goes on in this way.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
And I think that is all based on personality and
personality only. I don't think it has anything to do
with policy, because I'll tell you that if Ronald Reagan
were alive today, you would see him taking on issues
for the everyday American people. This is why he won
forty nine states in nineteen eighty four because he was
for everybody. There were Democrat Reagan Democrats, there were people

(35:33):
that aligned with him because he aligned with the people.
If Reagan was facing the geopolitical world we have today,
if we had no industry in this country, we had
lost at all, don't take the nineteen eighties and had
the decisions he made then with what the geopolitics look
then and think that's exactly what he do in twenty
twenty five or twenty twenty six. He would be on

(35:54):
the side of the everyday people. How did he win
forty nine states?

Speaker 2 (35:57):
Otherwise, well, my question would be who is more like
Reig because Cheney always described himself as a Reagan Republican. Yes, okay,
So is Chaney more like Reagan? Or is Donald Trump
more like Reagan? Oh?

Speaker 1 (36:10):
I think it's easy. I think it's Donald Trump. But
I'll tell you this too. The Cheneys are angry with
you know, because he interrupted. He absolutely interrupted the succession plan.
I mean, they all had people they thought were supposed
to be in charge next. It was all kind of
already foreseen. Reagan or Trump interrupted that. But one of
the things that I think that Dick Cheney would say

(36:31):
about Ronald Reagan that I think that Donald Trump is
showing is being strong, strong on defense. Yes, very you
look at Iran and you look at what Donald Trump did,
and you tell me that that isn't what Ronald Reagan
would have done. You show the leadership that he is
showing in his Asian tour or his Middle East tour.
Those are That's the kind of world leadership you saw
out of Ronald Reagan. That's why the Cold War ended.

(36:53):
That is very very I mean, those are similar things.
And if it wasn't so personal with the Cheneys or
the Bush family. They would they would see that as well,
but they don't because again they.

Speaker 2 (37:04):
Started derangent syndrome. I think I think Greg. I mean,
if you think about it, Dick Cheney, in my opinion,
was a buy the book Republican. Would you agree?

Speaker 1 (37:12):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (37:12):
He was. Donald Trump lost everything Trump and don't forget too.
And that's what you love about Trump. He's willing to
test everything.

Speaker 1 (37:21):
Look Jeb Bush, he had been governor of Florida. He
was the next he was the anointed one. He was
the anointed one, and everybody under the sun thought that
he would be the Republican nominee next. And when when
Donald Trump beat him like a drum as well as
a crowded and large field.

Speaker 2 (37:38):
In twenty seventeen of the seventeen.

Speaker 1 (37:40):
Mark Arrubio and that group, Ted CRUs and that crew,
when he when he beat them, all, boy, you had
a lot of a lot of people that felt like,
you know, their turn had been skipped, and they were
not happy and they are still not happy about it.
But I'll tell you, I think that we look at
the Supreme Court, we have I think there is so
much by way of good fruit we've seen from the
work that he's done on his president first term and

(38:01):
now second.

Speaker 2 (38:02):
I'm glad, yeah, I'm glad.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
We don't. We don't just it's no one's an heir
to these offices.

Speaker 2 (38:07):
He is an agent of change, yes, And I've described
him once as a bull in a china shop, and
that's that's what he is. So I want to get
your opinions tonight from our great listeners because we have
so many out there the difference they see between the
Cheney Republican Party of the past and the Trump Party
of today. Because I think there is a difference. First
of all, Donald Trump has shown Republicans how to stand

(38:30):
up and now all fight. He really has, because the
Cheney Republicans would say, well, less compromise, and they would.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
Roll over, or they just be quiet, or they.

Speaker 2 (38:39):
Just be kind instead of talking. So I want to
get your thoughts on that, your thoughts on the passing
of Dick Cheney, the difference between the Republicans back then
like Mitt Romney, John McCain, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and
Donald Trump today eight eight eight five seven O eight
zero one zero eight eight eight five seven o eight
zero one zero on your cell phone dial Pound two fifteen,
say hey Rod, or leave us comment on our talkback

(39:01):
line by downloading the iHeartRadio app. More, the Rott and
Greg Show live from ever Lights in Utah County coming
out if you're just joining us now, we're talking about
the difference between a Dick Cheney Republican or an establishment
Republican and a Trump Republican. Dick Cheney, a memorial service
was held frohim today. As expected, the the established Republican

(39:22):
showed up in mass There was George Bush and his
wife Connla Harris showed up today. You know, former President
Joe Biden showed up. Liz Cheney was there her father,
of course.

Speaker 6 (39:34):
You know.

Speaker 2 (39:34):
And I read today about the funeral and the establishment
versus the new Trump Republican Party, and you know, and
I asked the question, what's the difference between the two.

Speaker 1 (39:47):
Well, you're saying that they think they're going to make
a comeback.

Speaker 2 (39:49):
Well, there is a scoff. Now, there is a story
today Bright Bart has the story that in the works
behind you know, behind closed doors, the or the curtains,
there is work after Trump is gone. What does the
Republican Party become? Does it go back to the old
Republican Party or the newer party that Donald Trump is.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
I don't know that we want to repeat of the past.
I think we've learned a lot and we've moved in
a very positive direction. So I would be surprised if
there is any traction for them.

Speaker 2 (40:16):
It's just interesting to see how the party has changed
and how the party I think, is willing to fight
where before they weren't.

Speaker 1 (40:23):
So, you know, it used to be. And I remember
I always thought that the party was for everyday people.
I really did. I I've always believed that. I remember
even in the what was his name, Tim Poalente, he
was the governor of I think with Wisconsin, Minnesota or Minnesota,
that's right, Minnesota. Imagine Minnesota having a Republican governor. But

(40:43):
he said, we're not the country Club Republicans, were the
Sam's Club Republicans. He was trying to say, Hey, we're
the everyday people that are looking for the bargains. We're
looking for those things and and and that resonated with me.
But I'll tell you that that what the Paul Tics
was producing was the uniparty. And I'm going to tell
you that if you go back and you look at

(41:05):
when George W. Bush had the White we had the
White House, we had control of Congress, and we had
the control of Senate. How did spending work? It only
went straight up? How did look at all the things
when you have when you have that they called the trifecta,
when you have that, the window of opportunity that you have,
show me what that you'd find in a Republican platform

(41:25):
that we accomplished in those years where we had the
majority in the House, the majority in the Senate, and
George W. Bush in the in the White House. I
would say it was a missed opportunity. And that's putting
it lightly or nicely.

Speaker 2 (41:38):
Well, if you look at it, how was the Republican
Party viewed before Donald Trump came along? The country club yep,
the elite right, yep. And now it's not viewed that way.
How did Donald Trump change that? I think he was
authentic and he spoke to people on their level.

Speaker 1 (41:53):
Well, here, and here's what was happening. Because those parties
were just merging and they were becoming There really wasn't
my daylight between them, at least the neo cons and
the you know, those that wanted to be interventionalists in
all the world and all the what they're doing there,
and and there was I think that the people were
getting left behind. And I think I took a guy
like Donald Trump to spot it and see that people

(42:16):
felt like they you had more and more people that
hated politics and didn't trust politicians and didn't want to
participate in any election at all. And he went out
and reached out to them and said, hey, you know
this is And do you remember the moment in the
debate when he when he was telling how big of
a rig system it is for those that donate to
the candidates and everything, and it was that Hillary Clinton
or something that says, how do you know? He says,

(42:37):
because I did it because I played that game, because
that was the game, and I've played it. That's how
I got invited to your kid's wedding. That's how I did.
Remember when he said all that, and the honesty to
say that I played that raided game because that was
the game in front of me, and that's how I
got invited to your kids wedding. When he said that,
I think Iberica people were like, I haven't heard that
on a stage before. I don't know that that was
focus grouped. I don't know that that. I don't know

(42:59):
that it was check out the color of his tie
with the people and what his message was going to be.
That sounded like a pretty raw statement, and I think
that disarmed a lot of people to listen up and
hear what he had to say. And I think that's
the movement you see in the Republican Party right now.
I just know this. The Democrats, they are very good
at organizing. They have a very effective get out the
vote campaign. And if those same people that don't really

(43:22):
get out at every election site because they don't really
trust any of them and they don't get more involved
than the midterms could harm and harm us. And if
you if the Democrats get in control of the House,
still just impeach.

Speaker 2 (43:35):
Yeah, oh that'll be the I think for breathing.

Speaker 1 (43:37):
I think it's breathing that's impeachable at this point. If
they get if they get.

Speaker 2 (43:40):
Controlled, they'll be the first dec for sure. All Right,
your calls, your comments eight eight eight five seven eight
zero one zero, triple eight five seven eight zero one
zero on your cell phone dial pound two to fifteen,
say hey, Rod, or leave us a message on our
talkback line by downloading the iHeartRadio app if you're joining
us now. We've been talking about the memorial service for
Dick Cheney, a former vice president, died at the age

(44:02):
of eighty four. The establishment was all there today, the
establishment Republican I wrote that, or I saw this article
about the difference the funeral for Dick Chenney. You had
the the established Republicans, you know, the ones the country club,
the elites, versus the Republican Party of today and the two.

(44:24):
And I shared with you the story in Breitbart that
there are people in the establishment who are now talking
about how do we take control of the party back
from the maga Republicans once Donald Trump leaves.

Speaker 1 (44:36):
It's just surreal for them that they lost all that control.
They just didn't know how that, they don't understand see
it coming, and they're very upset about they'd like it back,
but just like any of the I mean, remember how
first off you had you had John McCain, who when
he was run against George W. Bush, the media loved him.
He was a straight talk express, he was the maverick.
Then when he ran against Obama, he was at public

(44:58):
enemy number one. Yeah, you know, even even thought Romney
was well received by Democrats, was the was the warner
of Massachusetts. Soon as he ran against for his dog,
he became enemies. So all these people that are the
old school Republicans, that the the you know, the globalists
as I call them, the people that are they think

(45:18):
that are their friends have left them at the older
time after time.

Speaker 2 (45:21):
Yeah, all right, when we come back, well here from
Pope Leo, he had waged in on the immigration debate,
on the routing great through. Our number three is on
his way to stay with us. We've got a lot
to come this hour still, but right now we want
to talk about immigration. The pope, Pope Leo Bishop, I'm

(45:44):
worried about that. Well, it kind of goes both ways, okay, okay.
He came out and he talked to reporters. Listen to
what he said, and there were a lot of people
who were upset that he wasn't as pro immigration as
they were hoping he would be.

Speaker 6 (46:00):
Well, I've made some statements about that already. I appreciate
very much what the bishops have said. I think it's
a very important statement. I would invite especially all Catholics,
but people of goodwill to listen carefully to what they said.
I think we have to look for ways of treating
people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have.

(46:22):
If people are in the United States illegally, there are
ways to treat that. There are courts, there's a system
of justice. I think there are a lot of problems
in the system. No one has said that the United
States should have open borders. I think every country has
a right to determine who and how and when people enter.
But when people are living good lives, and many of

(46:45):
them for ten, fifteen, twenty years, to treat them in
a way that is extremely disrespectful, to say the least,
and there's been some violence unfortunately. I think that the
bishops have been very clear in what they said, and
I think that uh, I would just invite all people
in the United States to listen to them.

Speaker 2 (47:04):
Interesting comment from the pope basically saying, Hey, the United
States has a right to control his borders.

Speaker 1 (47:11):
Yeah. I thought that's about the most Again, go back
to common sense. I thought that was for a pope.
You know, it's fun. Hey, it's fun to hear a
pope that's from America, where, Yeah, we don't need a
translator to hear him because he's just speaking.

Speaker 2 (47:23):
Do you see Clay Travis was over there the other
day and they've invited Pope Leo to come to Chicago
and throughout the first pitch he's a big white Sox fan.

Speaker 1 (47:31):
Oh wow, they invite him to come out, that'd be cool.
Does he have to come in a popemobile? All right?

Speaker 2 (47:37):
You know I wanted to put the bubble I.

Speaker 1 (47:38):
Want, Yeah, but does he have to come in that?
If he drives here, he comes here?

Speaker 2 (47:42):
Who knows? Who knows? All right, let's talk about immigration.
The administration has done a great job on protecting and
securing our borders, cracking down on people who are here
illegally and committing crimes. But there are some who say
we need to deport one million illegals a month just
to break even. Let's find out more about that. Joining

(48:04):
us on our Newsmaker line right now is breckon These.
He has a correspondent at the Federalist Breckon you right
about this? What's the deal? What can we do? Are
we going to be able to make that someday?

Speaker 1 (48:14):
Yeah?

Speaker 7 (48:14):
Well, I mean, you know, deporting one million a month
to me is about kind of two primary things The
first is the mindset that the American people expect behind deportations,
expect behind the Trump administration being quick and effective and
showing a.

Speaker 8 (48:29):
Level of seriousness.

Speaker 7 (48:30):
And that's not to say that they haven't shown a
level of seriousness. It's it's that they, you know, they
need to to kind of keep going. And the second
primary things that the recognition is that no one really
knows how many illegal illegals are in this country. And
you know, it could be fifteen million, or it could
be forty million, and actually that might not even be

(48:51):
far off. Forty million sounds like a lot, but it
but we really don't know. And you know, they're only
thirty seven months left in Trump's first term to do
something about that.

Speaker 8 (49:01):
You know, you alluded to it.

Speaker 7 (49:03):
Right now, only about two million have left the country
in ten months, and the vast majority of those have
been self deportations. And that's great, but that pace is
not going to come close to the number that we're
gonna need to see over the next three years. I
want to caveat that with two things. By the way,
it just really quick. You know, the Department of Homeland

(49:23):
Security has been grossly understaff for a long time, and
I think that's probably purposeful so that we can't actually
have the people to deport to to do the deportation enforcement.

Speaker 8 (49:36):
And they're supposed to be bringing on ten thousand.

Speaker 7 (49:38):
More agent steps here, so we should wait and see
what they're capable of doing. But I think one million
a month is the goal that the administrations has set.

Speaker 8 (49:46):
It's also not lost.

Speaker 7 (49:47):
This is a massive logistical undertaking, and it's sure to
have an enormous amount of legal challenges, but you know,
I think the result will be well worth it.

Speaker 1 (49:58):
So Breckon, it's been said that the Obama administration was
actually very efficient and did deport many people. They had
an easier job because these were turnarounds maybe in border
states or counties versus NGOs shipping them across the country.
But they did have court immigration stand up court immigration

(50:19):
rocket dockets. I guess they called them. What does that
pace look like? Are we able to even compare the
work that the Obama administration did in its deportation which
I hear those numbers are high compared to what's happening now,
Are they comparable at all?

Speaker 8 (50:36):
Well?

Speaker 7 (50:36):
So, I mean, I think I have heard the same thing,
although you know, I don't know how people are calculating
all of that.

Speaker 8 (50:43):
The reality is that.

Speaker 7 (50:45):
You know, it's sort of it's when the Obama administration
took over. It's sort of a civilization situation we're seeing
now because the Bush administration. Under the Bush administration, the
amount of illegals in the country increased by thirty seven percent.
So you're kind of starting with the bar high or low,
however you want to think about it, and you know
you're you're kind of deporting people. From what I understand

(51:07):
right now, the pace is a historic pace, and it
is very fast. It's just again, you know, it's not
fast enough to meet the demand of deportations that we
actually need. And you know this this isn't just like
getting people out of the country. And this is I
think DHS actually put this on social media earlier today.
You know, they had you know, quotes of common complaints.

(51:29):
Rent is too high, groceries cost too much, there aren't
enough jobs, you know, crime, traffic is terrible, and the
rest of it that I can't afford a house. That's
been a major one in the news. And you know
that that shows that the mindset is correct. But again,
it's just like the pacing is the math doesn't make
sense for how many illegals are likely in the country.

Speaker 2 (51:51):
Pre can you pointed out in your article in The
Federalist about the administration the Biden administration took great pains
to give illegal aliens parole. What do we do with
people who are granted parole by the Biden administration but
still broke the law by coming into this country. How
does the administration handle those those people?

Speaker 8 (52:11):
I mean, you just have to deport them.

Speaker 7 (52:13):
I don't you know, it doesn't It shouldn't matter that
the Biden administration had this legal loophole workaround that they
used for a huge amount of illegals crossing over into
our country. It shouldn't matter that they were granted parole.

Speaker 2 (52:27):
I mean.

Speaker 7 (52:28):
The thing is, and I mentioned this in the article too,
is that you know this is this is about an
American kind of cultural revival and taking seriously the understanding
that America is for Americans and that it can't be
sold sort of to the most convenient foreign bitter. And
that's why the planet to roof immigrants cannot stop at
you know, illegals who have committed other crimes, which is

(52:50):
sort of where their focus is. Now, and it can't
stop at those are here who are legally but.

Speaker 8 (52:54):
They're not you know, they haven't committed other crimes. You know,
a lot of these people.

Speaker 7 (52:59):
Who are led in lead by whatever means they were
let in legally, also need to be looked at for deportation.

Speaker 8 (53:04):
And that includes everyone you were talking about.

Speaker 7 (53:06):
That also includes a lot of visa recipients, and quite frankly,
it should probably include people who have even obtained have
that privilege of obtaining American citizenship who have shown that
they're not worthy of it anymore because they hate our country.
We need to be looking at ways that they can
be denaturalized and deported as well.

Speaker 1 (53:25):
You know, when we're when this border crisis happened under
my orchis and the Biden administration and Joe Biden himself,
you know, they didn't say we love it. They didn't
say it was great. They said it's a problem. We're
fixing it, We're working on it. I never heard of
Democrats celebrate the fact that we had this illegal immigration
happening at record pace. But now that you see that,

(53:47):
they are fighting tooth and nail at every turn. You
see the cities that are fighting back against ice enforcing
federal law is openly being opposed by Blue states and
their elected leaders. I'm shocked by the pushback. My question is,
given the kind of extraordinary or other worldly pushback of
Democrats elected leaders judges, can is there a trajectory where

(54:10):
we can get even close to a million deportees a month,
removals a month.

Speaker 8 (54:16):
Yeah, you know, that's a great question. It is. I
think the answer to that is it.

Speaker 7 (54:20):
Will remain to be seen, and it's also going to
take a lot of legal maneuvering because we have seen
I think that maybe even the biggest hurdle to this
isn't the Democrats. It's actually the these kind of district
court judges who are these sort of petty tyrants across
the country who think that the Democrat regime and importing
all of these foreigners has been a really good idea,
and they're there to sort of stand in the breach

(54:43):
and not allow federal immigration enforcement to take place. You know,
they think that they control our foreign policy and our borders.

Speaker 8 (54:53):
I think you're going to see the most problems there,
and it's.

Speaker 7 (54:56):
Going to be up to the Trump administration to figure
out how to respond to that and I know a
lot of people really want them to just simply ignore
these orders. I also know that the Supreme Court has
tried to rein in a lot of these judges who
are slapping these these nationwide injunctions on a lot of
things that the Trump administration has tried to do, but

(55:17):
it's gonna take a lot more work. It might even take,
you know, congressional reform of the of the of what
these lower court judges are able to do, because that's
within Congress's jurisdiction, not the Supreme courts. There's gonna be
a lot of problems here. But I think that the
underlying reality is that the Trump administration needs to spare

(55:37):
no expense and do everything in its power to make
sure that this these numbers are met by the time
Trump leaves office. Everyone hopes that, you know, Republicans win
in twenty twenty eight, but it's never a sure thing,
and it would be better if all these people were
gone by the time a Democrat potentially took over after
twenty twenty eight. Then to just have them remain in

(56:00):
here and have make the problem even worse as it
inevitably will be if a Democrat were to.

Speaker 2 (56:04):
Take over on our Nunesmaker line. That is Brecon thes
he is with the federalists talking about the need to
deport one million illegal immigrants a month so far. I
think he said, we've done six hundred thousand, a long
way to go.

Speaker 1 (56:17):
Well, I don't think you can't compare it exactly the same.
But I actually think that the number of removals and
deportations under Obama is a number that I don't know
that Trump will get to because they they turn them
around quicker because they're in border counties or states. But
he didn't get any grief for that, No, I mean
it wasn't as as dramatic as it is now when
the president is trying to enforce federal law.

Speaker 2 (56:37):
Well what Brecon did mention it two million illegals have
left the country voluntarily, that's right, in the past year.

Speaker 1 (56:44):
Yeah, they're getting good. I think there's a lot. I
think that'll accelerate too. The more that enforcement is consistent,
the more that people because they get a chance to
come back legally if they self deport and I think
they even get a stipend or something.

Speaker 2 (56:55):
Yeah, they do see a thousand dollars and then they
kind of moved to the front of line if they
want to come back in.

Speaker 1 (57:00):
Legally, yes, and so I think that I think that
kind of carrot would be good.

Speaker 2 (57:04):
We tried to get him on today and Burgess Owens,
we're talking about Utah Congressman Burgess Owens wrote a great letter,
an open letter to judge what's her name, Diana Gibson,
Diana Gibbson.

Speaker 1 (57:16):
Judge Diana Gibson, Debbie Gibson, Diana Gibbson.

Speaker 2 (57:20):
I haven't Diana Gibson. Well, he wrote a terrific open
letter to her today and I want to read a
portion of it, Greg, because I think it really points
out you know, he's basically saying, look, lady is screwed up. Yeah,
if you're to sum it up in one sentence, look,
lady screwed up.

Speaker 1 (57:35):
Leman doesn't have a district. I mean, this is so
up in the air, and it's so uncertain. I mean
that anyway, Yeah, I imagine that all the members of
delegation are incredibly frustrated. Right now.

Speaker 2 (57:45):
Well, let me read a little bit of this, if
you don't mind, Greg. Here's what he said, appealing to
the judge. An open letter to Judge Diana Gibson. He
said you disrupted the system. You did not say you
did so not with one ruling, but with a sequence
of decisions. You've talked about this delivered at moments that
consistently weakened the legislature's ability to act. You waited when

(58:08):
clarity could have helped them prepare. You accelerated when acceleration
would corner them. You set deadlines that were almost impossible,
and when the legislature complied under the pressure you created,
you waited until the last possible moment to reject their
work and replace it with a map advanced by advocacy
groups who never had to answer to a single voter.

(58:30):
That's exactly what you have talked about. It is waited.
She waited, she delayed, You waited, and basically leaving lawmakers
here in the state no time to count.

Speaker 1 (58:40):
And if you read our state constitution, it's not vague.
It is about as clear as you can get that
the separate, equal power of our legislative branch is to
draw those district lines and the best options. The only
option she had, and if you've seen other states, is
that she could have remanded it back and said I
don't like it, which even that I think is overreaching.
But for her to take a private organization, a left

(59:02):
of center private organizations maps which, by the way, legislative
colleagues or former colleagues or people that I know, I'm
finding out that the map they drew, they split houses
in half, they have boundaries that aren't the real boundaries
of the cities that they drew. It is chaos what
she has taken by a way of a private map,
and the clerks don't know what to do with it.
They can't even they can't geo map it and create

(59:25):
the precincts because it doesn't work. Why because it's not
the legislature that did it. You've put some leftist group
to draw our maps for the state.

Speaker 2 (59:33):
Yeah. Well, I love how we ended this open letter
and then we'll get on. But he said, history will
not record this is a moment of judicial courage. It
will remember it as a moment when one judge tried
to remake Utah according to their own vision. And he's
spot on, he is.

Speaker 1 (59:49):
And it is so egregious that even I mean, it's
such a liberal district that people were saying that Ben
McAdams would win, that it's too liberal. I think he's
getting Bernie Sanderson coming here and pick his own candidate.
It's not going to be him, all right.

Speaker 2 (01:00:03):
More coming up the Rodd and Graig Show, final half
hour coming your way on Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine knrs. Speaking of houses, Greg, we were talking
earlier with Steve Moore about affordability. The average age of
the median age of first time home buyers is now
forty years old. That's compared twenty years ago when it
was twenty one, twenty eight. What'd you get in your

(01:00:25):
first home? Twenty eight?

Speaker 1 (01:00:26):
I was twenty nine nine, twenty four, that was yeah,
and so I think even in the article it was
in mid to late twenties and nineteen ninety one, and
it's just kind of eaked the longer loan. But forty's
a deal breaker. I mean, you got to you're having
your kids, You're in that season of life where you
you want to have the opportunity to have a home.

Speaker 2 (01:00:43):
Well, what a starter starter home? What do we need
to do to help people get into homes? Build more homes?
Maybe joining us on our Newsmaker line as our good friend.
Victor Jake's a columnist at the Las AGAs Review Journal. Victor,
thanks for joining us. What's your reaction to that report
from the National Realtors in which the our median age
now for first time home buyers is now forty years old.

(01:01:04):
What are your thoughts on that victory?

Speaker 9 (01:01:07):
Well, it's gone from you know, around thirty to now forty.
It's discouraging, it's disappointing. And the thing that people have
to understand is it's not just about you know, oh,
you're twenty seven and you can't buy a home. You
have to look at the health of society and this
is an indicator of an unhealthy society where our young
people are not going through the traditional normal stages of adulthood, marriage,

(01:01:32):
buying a home, having kids. Obviously there's problems with the first,
and the last one is there too, But when you
look at home buying, what you're seeing is that this
is this option is being closed off to people. And
that's a concern, you know, obviously for those people who
want to get into a home and can't, but it
has much broader societal implications that really does make it

(01:01:53):
a societal problem.

Speaker 1 (01:01:55):
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think it's such
a problem that if we don't if we don't have
young people emerging workforce that feel like they're part of
the American dream and really a free market economy, then
the free market economy doesn't look as appealing. Maybe a
mom Donnie narrative looks more appealing, even if it's not
in reality. That's what you're doing when they don't feel
like they have a part in the economy. So I

(01:02:16):
agree with you, it's it is a very very problematic.
What would you propose we do? I mean what I
shy away from government fixing it, But what can we
do as a conservative and pushing for good, smart policy
to see home ownership become more attainable.

Speaker 9 (01:02:34):
Well, there are a couple of things. And one thing
that the federal government needs to do is it needs
to let go of all of this land that it
is holding on to in the West, in Utah, in Nevada,
all of these Western states. It's like, you know, Nevada,
there's nowhere to build. We're down to I think like
twenty five thousand acres. And you know, in Las Vegas,

(01:02:57):
you drive for thirty minutes outside of the city and
it's like you look at and it's like there's nothing here.
There's no National Park. There's nothing beautiful. It's just desert,
sandy barn like this land. The reason that land is
so expensive here in Las Vegas is the federal government
owns it. And if you look at a map of
land ownership, Las Vegas looks like an island. It looks

(01:03:20):
like we're Hawaii, where oh that land's undevelopable and undevelopable
because in Hawaii it's water. For us, it's federal landownership.
But I think, I think that's part of it. I think,
you know, I think the idea, you know, people have
to understand. And this is what Mam Dambi gets wrong.
Is it's not about we take from the rich and
we give to the poor, because what that does is

(01:03:42):
it just destroys wealth and income creation for everyone. But
we have to incentivize building more homes. So I don't
know exactly what that looks like because I share a
lot of the same concerns that you do in terms
of knowing that government intervention has negative downstream effects. But
a couple of things that I've thought about is a
tax credit for completed starter homes, and you know, obviously

(01:04:06):
you know then that would could lower the price for
those homes, and obviously you need to limit who could
buy those homes. You know, Nevada we just had a
proposal to limit corporate home buyers, and you know, probably
two years ago I would have been very skeptical about that,
and I still think there are concerns, but you know,
maybe a cooling off period where you know, the first

(01:04:28):
people to get a crack at a home for three
months are just average home buyers. Because you know, homes
aren't just a unit of economic activity like they are
for black rock. They're what ground people in a community
there would allow them to have children. They are what
allows our society to continue in advance and stay strong

(01:04:49):
for the next hundred years. And so the lack of homes,
the lack of people getting into homes is isn't just
an economic problem, It's a societal problem.

Speaker 2 (01:04:58):
Victor a lot about the builders of do we need
to incentify builders to build affordable homes? Do they even
want to do it? Is there enough money in the
work for them to build affordable homes? How about the
builders themselves?

Speaker 9 (01:05:12):
Yeah, I think that's that's part of it. Tariffs is
another thing that has raised prices, you know, I know
Trump has done some good stuff with tariffs, but the
teriffs raised prices, and so if you're building a home
and you're raising the price of lumber, that's a problem.
And you know, maybe we can remove some regulations on
US lumber because we have plenty of lumber in the

(01:05:34):
US that that should be available and we should be
competitive with Canada. And so let's go in and figure
out why we aren't competitive with Canada right now. Tariffs
raised prices, and so yes, I do think. You know,
the Trump administration, his first tax bill, had these opportunities
zoned where he offered tax benefits to basically underdeveloped areas,
and there was a lot of good that came out

(01:05:55):
of it, not because the government went in and fixed
it all, but because it incentivized companies that knew what
they were doing and how to create business to go
in and do better. And I think we could do
something similar with home buying through tax credits or maybe
some other tax advantages that encourage those homes. And one
of the other problems is that when there's permitting costs,

(01:06:17):
and this is a local and state level, the permitting
costs are generally the same if the home is one
thousand square feet or twenty five hundred square feet, and
so if you have this fixed cost, then sometimes it
makes more sense to build these larger homes when what
we really need is we really need these starter homes
so that people can get in and buy their first home.

Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
So let me.

Speaker 1 (01:06:38):
Float this by. And I don't know Nevada as well
as you do, but it's my understanding that Harry Reid,
when he was a US senator took that area that's
a suburb now called Summerland, and that used to be
federal land, and he was able to free up that land.
For the point you're making about supply, getting us more
supply for land, we see here in the state of
Utah we suffer from the same thing. You have more
percentage of federal land in Novata than we have in Utah,

(01:07:00):
but we serve sixty five percent still a lot. Sixty
six percent in Utah is a lot of federal land.
But even in the areas that aren't federally encumbered, infrastructure,
the water, the sewer, some of the infrastructure needed so
that you can build in those areas is lacking. And
there's been some financial mechanisms truck that have been attempted
to try and pay for that is the role of government,

(01:07:22):
maybe just to when you have the land, get the land,
and then the infrastructure, the water, the roads, getting that
in there so that it can spur new development. Because
I think the role of government can be on that
infrastructure side. If we do that, we know there's a demand,
I think the economy would follow. Does that jive with you?

Speaker 2 (01:07:40):
Does that work?

Speaker 1 (01:07:41):
It's a balloon, I'm floating, what do you think?

Speaker 9 (01:07:44):
No, I mean, the government absolutely has responsibility and take
care of that infrastructure, because you know, you can't do
it as a private person. We can't go to Lake Mead,
we can't go to the Colorado River and siphon some
of it off and say I'm going to start my
own water company. The government has declared a monopoly and
they have a responsibility to provide that infrastructure. And that's

(01:08:06):
one of the roles of local government. I don't think
you know, as conservatives, obviously we know the importance of
limited government, but that doesn't mean no government. There are
roles for government, and providing that infrastructure that allows a
community to develop is certainly one of those. And local
governments need to do as much as they can to
encourage development. To provide just what you said, that kind

(01:08:29):
of base level utilities and things like that that allow
builders to come in and do the construction.

Speaker 2 (01:08:38):
He is a columnist with the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Victor Jake's talking about building more homes and what we
need to do in this country. As you and I
were saying, Greg Holmes are so important. I mean, that's
part of the American dream.

Speaker 1 (01:08:49):
I think it is. And I honestly, when you've seen
when you've seen the infrastructure of the roads, the water,
the power, all of that. When government plays its role
in infrastructure, I do think it opens the up toy
for more homes to be built, communities to form. It's
not it's not a mystery. So I think that's the
way you should do it. Don't become housing czars as
a government that's we don't need.

Speaker 2 (01:09:09):
You don't need that. No, we do not, you know.
I think I think Donald Trump once called this issue
a ninety eight to two issue where ninety eight percent
of the American people believe boys should not be allowed
in girls restaurrooms. I yes, would you agree with that?

Speaker 1 (01:09:24):
Yes, I'm in I'm in that camp, all right, So.

Speaker 2 (01:09:26):
Tell me why one hundred and thirty Democratic lawmakers are
asking the Supreme Court to side with trans athletes in
upcoming cases.

Speaker 1 (01:09:36):
It's I hope it's the last remnants of this derangement,
in this in this insanity that we've had to deal
with for a number of years. Here, I I we
we've we've talked about this. You know, UK doesn't want
any part of this anymore. They're they're banning this. The
puberty transition stuff of the Olympics just came out and said,
you know, whatever your chromosomes say, that's what your Olympic
gender for the sports you will compete in will be.

(01:09:58):
I think you're seeing a pivot back to normalcy and
common sense. But I guess you got to you got
some of what a hundred members of Congress still uh
think that way?

Speaker 2 (01:10:07):
Yeah, yeah, Well, Hawaii Democrat Senator Mazie Prano, is that her. Yeah,
she's a whack joe.

Speaker 1 (01:10:15):
Listen to her for a while. You were literally dumber
after hearing her talk. You lose brain cells.

Speaker 2 (01:10:20):
Well, she helped her colleagues fill out on and she
said the subject women and girls to harassment, discrimination, policing
of children's bodies. She said it's unfair to the trans athletes. Yeah,
she didn't bring up that. It's also unfair to the
young girls who would be exposed to this.

Speaker 1 (01:10:36):
She had a granddaughter, she would hope she'd feel otherwise.

Speaker 2 (01:10:39):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:10:40):
Yeah, but lempathy and good teacher.

Speaker 2 (01:10:42):
And the Democrats wonder why Americans say that's a party
that is just so out of touch.

Speaker 1 (01:10:47):
Yeah, they've lost it and they are.

Speaker 2 (01:10:49):
Hey, it's been fun today, Yes, meeting this great team.

Speaker 1 (01:10:52):
It's been in Utah County and cougar Land and byu Land.
You've been wearing your red shirt.

Speaker 2 (01:10:57):
You sure did, baby, all right, that does look for
a tonight. Head up, shoulders back. May God bless you
and your family in this great count your hours. We'll
talk to you tomorrow

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: Steve Moore on "Affordability"; Should the U.S. Deport One Million Illegals Per Month?

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News .css-1q01m3q{margin:0 0 -2px 0;}

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes