The Rod and Greg Show: Trump's New Healthcare Plan; Middle Class Can't Keep Up/Inflation; No End to Oil Demand

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Sim Gill finally got around to charging this seems like
captain obvious. I think he shoot a guy that's unarmed
and didn't do anything wrong. Minimally, it would be manslaughter
and I would make sense, wouldn't it. I don't know
why they had to stare so long at this case
to come up with that conclusion, but they finally did, and.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
They did something about it today, and we'll get into
that that we're talking about. Of course, the shooting at
the No King's protest back in June, June fourteenth. I
believe it was Greg downtown liberal city guns.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
Like I love Second Member rights, but liberals with gun,
leftists with guns, that's a scary theal yea, yeah, I
mean she started opening fire and he's so bad of
a shot he shoots for some menacent bystand.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
Yeah. Well, we're going to be talking about that hill,
well more than that in a minute. Also coming up,
we're going to focus a little bit on the economy
here in the first hour of the show today, we're
all talking about the president's knew health care plan. Let
me tell you what, Greg and I am hoping, and
I think the President is working on this in his
team right now. Come the end of the year. Of course,
the Obama Obamacare subsidies are going to expire, right and

(01:01):
probably prices could be going up, right, So hopefully the
President will have a plan saying we know they're going
up right now, but we've got a plan to bring
them down. We'll talk about that. We'll also talk about
how the middle class is struggling to keep up with inflation. Great,
this is a real challenge for a lot of people
out there.

Speaker 1 (01:16):
Yep, it is. And I think, you know, the economy
is a complex thing, and I feel so I'm hyper
sensitive to the fact of not trying to say it's
things are going well because I was so frustrated when
Biden was in office and we could clearly see things
we're not and hearing the narrative out of that office
that everything was fine, nothing to see here. I never
want to sound like that when you know that people

(01:38):
when things still cost so much. But I say, but,
but I do think that with gas prices coming down
even in Utah, but not enough, I will tell you,
and with inflation under control at three percent or under
two and a half percent, interest rates coming down, seeing
good numbers coming out of Black Friday, that looks like
people are spending that seem to be good reports. I do.

(02:01):
There's some people saying that they think that Secretary Best
and thinks next year the economy, We're going to start
to feel it in the economy next year.

Speaker 2 (02:07):
Yeah, and I think the American people, Greg honestly need
to feel it.

Speaker 1 (02:10):
Yeah, they need to, because.

Speaker 2 (02:11):
Right now I think they're a little Wait a minute,
Donald Trump, you said you'd addressed the economy or what
eleven months now into his administration. Yeah, a few things
have come down. Egg prices have certainly come down. Gasoline
prices are starting to drop, except here in the state
of Utah, even though they are lower, not as low
as we.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
Do like Buck eighty nine, like Colorado.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
But there are other areas. I mean, still going out
to grab a sandwich at lunch, it's still twelve to
fifteen dollars.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
I have a friend who is just buying lunch for
his kids and his wife and they want to do
door dash and they was the place they went when
they realized they literally we're talking five people, They saved
sixty dollars going and getting it at the at the
restaurant themselves and using instead of amusing mobile yeah, one
of these mobile delivery places. I don't know how long

(02:57):
those places stay. If you're going to say sick because
you get the hip and you got the That turns
out some of those apps have their menus are more
even more expensive than the one at the place.

Speaker 2 (03:06):
Have you ever used or Dash?

Speaker 1 (03:07):
I have? Yes.

Speaker 2 (03:08):
Do you like it?

Speaker 1 (03:09):
It's convenient, but it does cost you an ordinate amount.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
I've never used it. I just get off my butt,
drive somewhere and go get some dat.

Speaker 1 (03:17):
Don't try it, you'll love it. You'll just once you try,
it'll be just yeah, you'll never want to go back.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
I don't trust them. I don't trust them because I
just think one of them there could be in a
bad mood and they'll spit on my amber.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
That's what that's my problem with with drive throughs. I
always want to be really, really courteous of the drive
through because I'm always afraid someone's spit my foot if
they think my answer was crude, rude, when I might
have not been able to hear very well.

Speaker 2 (03:45):
All right, So we've got a lot to get to today.
We invite you to be a part of the program,
as we do each and every day. Eight eight eight
five seven eight zero one zero on your cell phone
dial pound two fifteen, say hey Rod, or download the
brand new iHeartRadio app and look up Knars and you
could leave us a message on our talk back line.
So all right, let's talk about this. I'm still trying
to understand Greg, why it took investigators so long to

(04:08):
figure out what happened at the No Kings protest. I
don't get it.

Speaker 1 (04:14):
So the story goes that that sim Gil didn't want
to just use his eye as he does other cases
and file these charges, which I again one of the
most obvious cases minimally for manslaughter, it could have been
even worse manslaughter at least, But he wanted to unpanel
a grand jury, and there's a process by doing that,
and he was denied that. It says in the article

(04:34):
that he saw there was an example of a grand
jury that was impaneled in Massachusetts that he was able
to bring to these judges that decide whether you can
do a grand jury or not. They decided to let
him do it. Interesting, and maybe we want to have
on can r s his own Clark Opposion who has
the gun show On'm sorry? He said this was very
nuanced and complex. Really, it seemed pretty easy to me.

(04:56):
But he points to Utah's gun laws sim Gil does
as being among the complexities that made this so hard
to understand how to move forward?

Speaker 2 (05:07):
Hmmm, really yeah.

Speaker 1 (05:08):
The gun laws maybe created nuances and complexities that made
it so he couldn't really move forward.

Speaker 2 (05:16):
Well, I was out of town when when this went down,
back in mid June, around June fourteenth, like I said,
and I'm still trying to figure out. So they're having
they're having the no kings protests. Apparently hundreds, if not
thousands of people in downtown Salt Lake City, a person
who was hired to keep the peace panicked. Is that
am I is my take? Right? He sees a guy
with a rifle and he thinks he's getting in a

(05:37):
position to do a mass killing, and he started shooting
at him, and he missed him, and one of the
one of the stray bullets hit somebody and killed killed her. Right,
is that the basic story?

Speaker 1 (05:48):
That's the basic story. I don't know did the gambo
guy have a gun. I don't even know if I'd
a rifle. If he did, I'm not sure, But I
but I but I will tell you that the guy
he thought was going to come in a mass shooting.
He began firing his weapon, but he didn't hit the
guy who he thought had a weapon or thought was
going to do the shooting. He had hit an innocent bystander.

(06:09):
If that isn't man, I don't even know what manslaughter is.
If that's not I don't know what. Again, I'm not
an officer of the court. I didn't pass the bar.
I was a lawmaker, and I would argue that's higher
on the food chain than those that practice laws, those
that make it. I don't understand what in the world
if you look at the definition of manslaughter, I don't
even know what they were staring at so long. This
is like the example, take shallow water, muddy it up

(06:31):
and call it deep. That's what That's what they're doing.
Because there's nothing that should have been this hard to
decide and and file charge.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
Didn't you say that? Sim Gill said today that because
of Utah's gun lawns, that they're so complex that it
took a while to weed through all of this and
figure out exactly what happened and what to do.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
Yeah, it begs the question. When he finally announced his charges,
what hook so long, and he said it was very
the quote is a very nuanced and nuanced and complex
and then he went on to explain that Utah's gun
laws were among those complexities. Sorry, I mean what the
right to bear arms was, it was a complexity. I'd
love to know what that means, because again, you can

(07:12):
have the right to baronies, then you don't get to
kill people on purpose or accidental. It's it's there's that's
a crime. So I don't know, and I don't know
why he needed a grand jury to do it. I
mean apparently, I think it's I think it's silly. I
think that's political. I think he just didn't want to
It's a no king's rally, and they all wanted to
be treated differently under the law, and they didn't want

(07:33):
to see any charges.

Speaker 2 (07:34):
Probably, well, these peacekeepers who were hired greg to keep
the peace at this rally, which obviously they did not.
I mean, are they an outside Are they Utahs who
volunteered to keep the peace? What exactly?

Speaker 1 (07:48):
So, if you remember, there wasn't a application for armed security,
There was no proper process that was alerted the Salt
Lake Police or anyone that there would be armed security
at that So I guess they came in a volunteer status,
but it wasn't disclosed in their application for that because
a lot of the times those rallies have application processes

(08:10):
that in this application didn't include any details of armed
individuals that would be acting as a security. So, you know,
I think there's liability with those that held the organized
this rally, and I think sure there is. And I
think that this person that killed someone, I think he's
lucky it's just considered manslaughter. Yeah, well, there's different degrees

(08:31):
of negligence that you know, criminal negligence, where the negligence
is so egregious that it goes beyond a simple mistake,
that's a higher crime. I don't think he got charged
with that.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
So the man who's been charged here, his name is
what Matthew Alder. I believe that's his name. Matthew Alder
saw this guy with a rifle or a gun or
whatever he had. I guess apparently it was a rifle,
and he thought he was psyching himself up to do
a mass killing. And then my question is greg, first
of all, does he even have the authority to start
firing at this guy? I I you know, if he

(09:07):
if he's a peacekeeper volunteer, does he first of all
have the authority to start returning fire? Is the guy
hadn't even fired a shot yet. No, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (09:14):
I you know, I'm not sure.

Speaker 2 (09:15):
Was that complexity that we're talking about with sim Gill.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
It doesn't matter whether he was allowed or not. The
fact that he shot missed, killed somebody. Ye just mind
their own business. Yeah, that's it. Yeah, I mean that
the rest of it to me, even if they're illegal,
they're not as severe as killing someone. The part that
the part of the story where you killed someone who
who didn't do anything wrong bystander, that is, there's the crime.

(09:39):
There in lies the crime, and and how negligent you
are to be able to do something like that. I
don't know. I don't know why that was a Rubik's cube.
No one could you know, fall solve But it doesn't.
It doesn't to me appear to be that that difficult.
There is there was manslaughter to start with, and then
you look at how negligent you had to be possibly
to be to do what he did. Yeah, and I

(10:02):
so that's thee this one goes. That's sim Gill.

Speaker 2 (10:06):
Here's why six months to figure this out. That that's
the question. That's the question. A lot of people are asking.
Six months.

Speaker 1 (10:14):
It's too it was too long. Yeah, justice delayed, justice denied.

Speaker 2 (10:18):
More coming up. It is the Wingman Wednesday edition of
The Roden Gregg Show right here on Utah's Talk Radio
one oh five. Die can arrest. The Obamacare is a
complete disaster. Would you agree or disagree with? I would agree,
you would raise your hand in the affirmative. Yes, right.

Speaker 1 (10:32):
Nothing is affordable. That act did not make anything affordable.
It is all way way expensive.

Speaker 2 (10:38):
It did not well part of the plan to get
the government reopened, apparently because it was tupid. The Democrats
got nothing out of this other than John Thune said, yeah,
we'll take a vote on the Obamacare subsidies, which I
guess is coming out. But no, you know, yeah, that
the Republicans are going to go along with this. But
there are some people who are concerned that when those
subsidies are gone at the end of the year, we

(10:59):
are going to see increases in insurance costs, right, health
insurance cost Yes? So is the administration? What are they
doing to take a look at it and try and
help Americans come up with a better plan. Well, joining
us on our Newsmaker line right now to talk about
that is Dean Clancy. Dean is senior healthcare policy fellow
at Americans for Prosperity. Dean, how are you welcome to

(11:20):
the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 3 (11:22):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (11:23):
Great to be here.

Speaker 5 (11:24):
Dean.

Speaker 2 (11:24):
Does the Trump administration have a plan to deal with
the rising cost of health care? In your opinion?

Speaker 4 (11:31):
Yes, they do, and I'm delighted by it because, as
you remember, in last year's election, Donald Trump was kind
of mocked for having only concepts of a healthcare reform plan.
Turns out he has a very good idea and he's
actually turned the tables on the Democrats politically with it.
His idea is very simple, fund patience, not insurance companies.

(11:54):
Obamacare has been a disaster, as you were mentioning, and
it's the unaffordable care And the Democrats are running on
the unaffordability of healthcare, which is ironic since they've really
driven that problem. And Trump is saying, we're spending all
this money and just sending it direct to insurance companies
through Obamacare, why don't we just give it to patients,

(12:16):
let them pick the doctors and the healthcare that they
want without the insurance company middleman.

Speaker 1 (12:22):
I couldn't agree more. I think if you look at
elective surgeries, you see the free market take place, and
you see the prices become affordable, Lasik surgery, things like that.
I think putting patients in the having the power of
the purse would be would do wonders. Let me ask
you this, though, is the what is the bipolar personality
with Democrats where they fight so hard for Obamacare and

(12:43):
the enrichment of these insurance companies. Well, at the same
time they think Luigi's a hero, this guy that assassinated
this healthcare executive. It seems like there's two narratives that
within that party going on. One that wants to demonize
health insurance companies, but then when you look at the
politics of it, they want to shovel as much money
as they can through Obamacare to those very same health
insurance companies.

Speaker 4 (13:05):
Yeah, it is schizophrenic. You hear people like Bernie Sanders,
you know, socialists saying we need to get rid of
private insurance companies, just have the government in charge of
everybody's healthcare, Medicare for all so called. And then you
have Obama who created Obamacare, and it did. It was
a huge, basically deal between big government and big insurance.

(13:27):
It's really enriched the insurance companies to the tune of
hundreds of billions of dollars every year of our tax money.
And you know, so, which is it. There are some
people who say, well, actually Obamacare is just a step
to Medicare for all. They wanted to collapse. They want
the insurance companies to get the blame and then have
the government swoop in and take over. I'm not sure.

(13:49):
I'm that cynical, but that's one theory. My feeling is
Democrats kind of don't mind what we do as long
as they're in charge. And Obamacare was an opportunity to
expand government control healthcare. So they took it and they
made a deal with the devil, and now we're all.

Speaker 2 (14:06):
Paying for it. Yeah, unlike you, DNA, I am that cynical.
So I think that's the overall plan that the Democrats had.
Explain to our listeners. Ding in your opinion, how these
hsas promote more affordability? How will that promote affordability?

Speaker 5 (14:23):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (14:23):
An HSA is a tax advantaged health savings account. It's
a tool that exists now, although only a minority of
Americans have one or even know about it. Lets you
purchase medical expenses, you know, anything, you can think of,
doctor's appointments, MRIs A, surgery, whatever, with tax advantage dollars.
So it's like getting a discount on every medical purchase.

(14:46):
You have to use the account for medical expenses. But
the money going in is tax free and the money
coming out is tax free, and it's really a wonderful tool.
And what Donald Trump is saying is, let's take money
that we're sending to insurance companies, let's just put it
in you HSA, and then you decide what to do
with that money, and you don't have to deal with

(15:06):
the insurance company trying to deny the care or deny
the claim, which has been a huge problem under Obamacare.
By the way, and there is the problem that only
about twenty percent of Americans are eligible for a tax
free HSA today, and at Americans for Prosperity, we'd very
much like to change that and basically let everyone have

(15:27):
the option of having this wonderful tool. And then for
those who are low income and vulnerable, take money that
we're currently spending and sending to insurance companies put it
in your HSA.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
Dean, would that require a catastrophic health care plan? HSA
seems good, but you might have cancer, you might have
something catastrophic happen. Would it still require either be some
insurance coverage health insurance coverage for those catastrophic incidents if
they arise.

Speaker 4 (15:58):
Yes, absolutely, I should have mentioned that with the HSA,
you do have to have health insurance, and that would
still be the case under any proposal that I've seen
on this. And so you have insurance to protect you
against cancer or if you get hit by a bus,
which is what insurance is for large uninsturrected expenses. But

(16:20):
the HSA is great for you know, the routine medical expenses,
the doctor's appointment, things that you could schedule, or that
you can shop around and get savings on it. Any
money you don't spend you get to keep in your HSA.
You don't lose it at the end of the year
or something.

Speaker 2 (16:35):
You keep it.

Speaker 4 (16:35):
You could even invest it and grow it into a
nest egg for future medical expenses. Right now, you're not
allowed to use your HSA dollars to pay for insurance.
There are folks who want to change that so you
could also buy your insurance with your tax free HSA money,
and that might be a good idea, But the main
thing for us is let's make sure everybody at least

(16:57):
has the option. But you're right, it is tied to insurance.
So nobody would, you know, suddenly find they have cancer
and they can't afford it because there's just not enough
money in their account.

Speaker 2 (17:07):
Yeah, Dean, before we go, are you optimistic we may
be headed in that direction?

Speaker 4 (17:13):
I am. I think the past year we've seen some
great debates in Washington about healthcare, and the two parties
have really set out two different visions. And with Donald Trump,
you know, putting his finger on on the vulnerability that
the Democrats have by basically wetting themselves to big insurance,

(17:33):
Republicans have a wonderful opportunity to actually reform healthcare and
it would be great.

Speaker 2 (17:39):
It would be Dean. Thank you. We appreciate a few
minutes of your time today. Enjoy the rest of the day.
That was my pleasure, all right, thank you. On our
newsmaker line. That's Dean Clancy, senior health policy fellow at
the Americans Four Prosperity.

Speaker 1 (17:51):
I love that.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
I love this idea. I mean, we've got to figure
this out because Obamacare is just killing this and I
believe that's the ultimate plan. They want to go to
a single player's been the plan all along. So they
bring on Obamacare, destroy the healthcare industry as it is,
so they can introduce say, well, the only solution is
single pair.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
Well, there's no price for healthcare there. You have different
groups that get different prices there. You know, healthcare delivery
has never landed on a price for a procedure. There's
not There's they shift, there's a there's a medicaid, there's
a cash there's an insurance, there's They're all over the map.
None of them make any sense.

Speaker 5 (18:25):
There.

Speaker 1 (18:25):
If you had an hs A and you got to
decide how much you're gonna get a you're gonna get
a menu, you're gonna get a price. Yep, and that's
what we need.

Speaker 2 (18:31):
It is all right, mare coming up. It is the
Wingman Wednesday edition of The Rotten Gregg Show. Name of
the town is Ashland, Virginia, where apparently a raccoon broke
into a liquor store.

Speaker 6 (18:42):
Yeah, this is this is one smart raccoon knocked out.
He started out smart. Yeah, knocked down some of the bottles,
had himself a real treat. They found him later in
the bathroom, passed out. Uh, it's such a great Now
we're watching this video. Man, he knocks all these bottles
down and starts licking away.

Speaker 1 (18:58):
And the next scene he's in the bathroom on his back,
just spreading or just said. And you can see he's
still awake. You can see him breathing, but he's just
too wasted. He just can't get up and go.

Speaker 2 (19:08):
He was. It's a smart raccoon because he went to
the bathroom knowing he'll have a hangover. May up, chuck
a little bit, needs to be near.

Speaker 1 (19:15):
The toilet or the toilet.

Speaker 2 (19:17):
I guess it's smart. Smart, all right. We were talking
to a little bit about healthcare and affordability if you
weren't listening in the last segment. But how challenging do
you think it is? Greg And maybe somewhere listeners can
weigh in on this. For the middle class to keep
up with inflation, Now, some prices have come down, We've
talked about gas, we've talked about eggs. We're seeing some

(19:37):
prices coming down, but boy, it's still hard for a
lot of people out there.

Speaker 1 (19:41):
It is it is and I again I'm sensitive to
saying all is well because it is expensive out there,
but I do think we see some good signs.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
Yeah. Well, joining us on our newsmaker line to talk
more about this. As the founder and CEO of Juniper
Research Group. His name is Chris Jacobs. We've had Chris
on the show before. Chris, Welcome back to the show.
You've been looking at some of the surveys, the numbers,
what the middle class is facing. What have you found out?

Speaker 3 (20:05):
Sure, middle class families have been increasingly squeezed over the
past few years. It's not just this year, but it's
the cumulative effects of years after years of Biden inflation
and net after inflation incomes. When the amount you're getting

(20:26):
every month doesn't go as far as it used to
at the gas station, at the grocery store, etc. There's
a cumulative effect of that that families are really feeling squeezed.

Speaker 1 (20:37):
So, and you're right. I mean, my wife just showed
me I color Queen Bee. She showed me something that
she had bought. It was some kind of juice or
something at the grocery store. Said the price is the
same or it might be a little more but shrunk.
And I'm talking within weeks or a month of each other,
that when she went back to the store to get more,
it's less flow ounces and it's as much or more

(20:58):
than it was when she last purchased it. Have we
ever seen I mean, I know that during COVID we
had a supply chain problem. We saw prices, we saw all,
we saw the challenges there. Did anything ever just kind
of reset and go back to what it was in
twenty nineteen or or did they just stay where they
were and we've just been climbing ever since.

Speaker 3 (21:18):
Unfortunately, it's been more of the ladder that things have
been climbing. And they might be climbing slightly less quickly,
but when there's you don't slightly less quickly doesn't cut
it for most people. The price of gas has certainly
come down from where it was. Certainly the actions of

(21:38):
the Trump administration bringing down the price of eggs have helped,
but by and large families are feeling squeeze.

Speaker 5 (21:44):
And you're right.

Speaker 3 (21:45):
I remarked that what used to be half a gallon
of orange juice is now like forty four ounces, which
means you're getting a third less.

Speaker 2 (21:54):
Chris, what what will it take to convince Americans that
things are coming down. You mentioned ghastline prices, egg prices.
I talked to my wife the other day. She sees
some things coming down, but they're still high. Is this
perception that prices are high? Is it difficult to overcome
that perception even though reality maybe that they are down
a little bit.

Speaker 3 (22:17):
It's a little bit of both. When prices are still
rising but not rising as fast, that's the perception becomes
the reality. I think it's also a case that incomes
need to be rising faster. If incomes are rising faster
than inflation, then it doesn't necessarily matter. If the price
is going up five percent, but your income is going

(22:37):
up ten percent, well then it's easier to afford the
higher expenses because you have more net income at the
end of the month. That's really what we need to
be focused on. The Trump administration in the first go round,
did a wonderful job increasing real net incomes and people
at the top. It was people at the bottom of.

Speaker 7 (22:59):
The end come scale.

Speaker 3 (23:00):
It was Hispanics, it was average, it was everyone. That's
one of the reasons people remember that from Trump's first administration.
That's one of the reasons why you won last year
the biggest reef right.

Speaker 1 (23:12):
You know, I always compare inflation to gaining weight. Okay,
and during Biden you were gaining nine pounds and now
you're only gaining two and a half or three pounds,
but you're not losing weight. You're still gaining. So and
I don't know that deflation is on the horizon and
at all. So I think you're right about this. The
in personal income. What about the tax relief. We've been
told that maybe middle class is going to see maybe

(23:33):
a bigger rebate in their taxes and their tax returns,
taxes on tips. Some people say it exists, some people
say that it doesn't has any of the tax relief
or tax reform. Is that going to improve people's income
and maybe feel like it's not as hard as it's been.

Speaker 3 (23:51):
The tax relief certainly will help when people file their
taxes in April.

Speaker 7 (23:55):
Most people, more people should.

Speaker 3 (23:57):
Get a refund than perhaps a bigger refund than they
are affecting because of some of the tax relief that
was enacted earlier this year. I think that another form
of tax relief, frankly should come via tariffs. I mentioned
in the article I know President Trump is a big
tariff supporter, but in reality those taxes get those tariffs
are taxes that get passed on to people via higher prices.

(24:20):
The Trump administration went and lowered and eliminated some of
the tariffs on things like bananas and coffee, which frankly,
we cannot grow in the United States. They never should
have imposed those tariffs to begin with. That will make
your morning Starbucks slightly less expensive and might moderate the
price increases. I think, frankly, the Supreme Court would do

(24:42):
President Trump a big favor if it would strike down
some of the tariffs which are currently pending at the
Supreme Court, because that might actually give people relief from
some of these higher prices because those tariffs are getting
passed on to consumers.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
Chris one about it. I want to get your take
on how you think the administration is handling this right now.
Of course, we went through Biden where they called it transition,
transitory and it will slow down. It didn't. How do
you think the second Trump administration is handling this challenge
when it comes to the issue of the economy, prices
and affordability. How are they doing right now?

Speaker 3 (25:17):
I think they're doing better Frankly, this was something that
concerned me in the fall, even before the elections in
November that Trump was spent the better part of August
focusing on getting an agreement with Putin over Ukraine. And
regardless of whether or not you agree with Putin or Ukraine,

(25:38):
most families would say, why are you spending time shuttling
around the world doing diplomacy when my grocery bills keep
going up. Let's focus on the problems here. I think
after the election kind of was in November was a
wake up call to the administration. I think they need
to be focused more on affordability. They need to be
out selling this the tax relief that they've already enacted,

(26:02):
because a lot of people don't know about it, they
don't understand what's in it, though. They need to be
out messaging on it and talking about it and hopefully
promoting policies that enhance affordability without just throwing money at
the problem, because that's the democratic quote unquote solution. But
we saw in the Biden years how that just ends

(26:23):
up exacerbating inflation, not helping it.

Speaker 2 (26:26):
Chris Jacobs joining us on our Newsmaker line talking about
the middle class and dealing with inflation. More coming up
on The Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio one
oh five nine. Kay in arrest. I have lived in
two states where you don't pay income text, Texas and Washington,
and it's lovely.

Speaker 1 (26:42):
Now what are they?

Speaker 4 (26:43):
You know?

Speaker 1 (26:43):
Sometimes you got to make it up somewhere else? Did
you got did you have a high property tax?

Speaker 2 (26:46):
Probably a hired sales tax, a little bit higher sales tax,
a little bit higher property tax.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
Ever hear of the fair tax? It was this idea
is it's kind of something I've.

Speaker 2 (26:53):
Heard of about. I'm trying to remember what it was exactly.

Speaker 1 (26:56):
It's called it's like a value added text.

Speaker 2 (26:58):
Is that what it is?

Speaker 1 (26:59):
It's a tax on top of all the sales tax
that would be a federal tax instead of the income tax.
But they would collect so much They said that these
estimates are from a while ago. They could collect so
much money that you could actually the people that don't
make that are in the powery level and lower, you
could actually fund. Yeah, you know, they're what they need
because you'd be able to collect so much in a

(27:21):
value added tax or a fair tax.

Speaker 2 (27:22):
Well, the president dreamed like you and I did just
a moment ago during the cabinet meeting, yes today talking
about the idea of eliminating the income tax.

Speaker 8 (27:31):
And I believe that at some point in the not
too just in future, you won't even have income tax
to pay it because the money would take it in
is so great, it's so enormous that you're not going
to have income tax to pay. Whether you get rid
of it or just keep it around for fun, or
have it really low, much lower than it is now,
but you won't be paying income tax.

Speaker 2 (27:52):
Wouldn't be nice taxing.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
One thing. I just think that the federal government's not
entitled to know what you make, what you do. I
just think it's I think it's a privacy issue as well.
I think that you know, you want to know how
much I make, put a value out of tax and
what I spend. You can take a percentage of it
and that's that's that's what the proportion amount is. The
tax code is like a phone book if you, if
you young kids, remember what those are. It has so many,

(28:17):
you know, so many deductions and ways. You can't get
ten accountants and give them someone's complicated to income revenue
streams and come up with the same tax return you can't.
So if it's that ridiculous, that complicated, and the rich
have tax attorneys and taxi and then have accountants, you know,
the middle class doesn't have this. I think it's a scam.
I just really do. I think I think a better

(28:39):
way to collect it would be at the till, and
that would be what you spent and and you get
rid of this game of the income tax.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
We would wipe out the accounting industry.

Speaker 1 (28:50):
Yeah, well, too bad, so sad. You know what they
could do is start doing a state planning instead of
trying to figure out our taxes.

Speaker 2 (28:57):
I don't think you'll ever happen. I think that would
be Donald Trump's dream, but it would be if you
have to, if you have lived in a state where
you don't pay an income tax.

Speaker 1 (29:04):
It's really you remember Steve Forbes ninety six when he
ran for president, the flat tax.

Speaker 2 (29:08):
Yeah, and that's still discussed at times too.

Speaker 1 (29:10):
That would be flat, take the productions out, take everything out,
make it flat, all right.

Speaker 2 (29:14):
When we come back, A new survey out today on
who decides congressional maps, lawmakers or a judge Dirty Diana,
we'll talk about it coming out. The big battle shaping
up let's see, we're going to have a special session
of the legislature, what next Tuesday or Wednesday? Correct?

Speaker 1 (29:32):
Yes, yeah, next week, next.

Speaker 2 (29:34):
Week, and they're going to be talking about the redistrict
team plan. There was a story today was Channel four
here in town had this story that the Utah GOP
has a significant amount of cash on hand. Apparently when
someone stepped up and donated like four million dollars wow
to the Utah GOP to help them in this redistricting effort.

Speaker 1 (29:54):
Well, yeah, so that has caught national I know that
it seems odd other than CNN spike and balls put
in Utah in the Democrat column and loving it in
MSNBC doing the same. Even our listeners have called and said,
where's the where's the national media, where's the president on this?
Because this they have stolen this seat from the state. Meanwhile,
they're just clutching their pearls over any other state that

(30:15):
is looking at redistricting after California did what they did,
what they did to our state, you know, they're upset
of if Florida wants to do it, or Ohio or
Missouri or Indiana. So they just cry out of both.
They talk out of both sides of their mouth. Well,
not the money that you see coming to our party.
Is the president's concern. Is the Republicans concerned that this
has been wrought, this has been taken from the people,

(30:38):
and they are trying to fund a way to give
the people a chance to have a revisit. We'd like
to the motion is a motion to reconsider our actions.
That is what we are seeking.

Speaker 2 (30:47):
That's what we're saying.

Speaker 1 (30:48):
And I say that motion is in order and so.

Speaker 2 (30:51):
And you have the media in town other than maybe
you and I or me, you know out there, I
think they're supportive of what Better Bout is trying to do.
And I'll give you, Kate some point. I'll give you
Kate some point. A report the other day on Channel five, Okay,
reporter went out and talked to the petition gathers, the
signature gathers, right, and found out that there are some

(31:12):
of them who really don't know what they're talking about, right,
Not a surprise. But let me ask you this, on
any other petition signature gathering effort, have you seen any
members of the media go out and question people about
them gathering signatures.

Speaker 1 (31:26):
The same title, the same type of effort to get
the signatures were propped for. You could have asked those
same signature gathers the same questions and they would have
been as equally knowledgeable or not knowledgeable as the ones
they asked about this one.

Speaker 2 (31:38):
But they never do. They never do stories like this
about the signature gathers until this issue comes up, and
it's an effort I think of the part of the
media in this town undermine it, to undermine the effort
of what lawmakers are doing. That's just my opinion.

Speaker 1 (31:50):
There's a there's a leftist ballot measure. My goodness, you'll
never see the media get in their way. If anything,
they'll they'll throw out a red carpet for them. But
if it's it's to have a redo on this, they're
going to go and try to undermine that effort. And
those that are going to gathering the signatures, now, by law,
they can't misrepresent what they're asking people to sign, so
they have to have some accuracy there. But look, there's

(32:10):
that thing barely with no one with two million dollars
to promote it, zero dollars to fight it. The people
in Utah statewide back in twenty eighteen passed at fifty
point three six percent. It barely barely passed, and that's
with no information. Now that you see the receipts of
what neutral, the word neutral means Democrat and no partisan consideration,
all Democrat partisan consideration. Now that we see the receipts

(32:33):
of the effort, you know it was a scam and
I don't think it'll fly with the people. We just
gotta get on the ballot, and leftists know that. That's
why they'd like to see that effort fail.

Speaker 2 (32:43):
Well, then along comes this new survey released Blake this
afternoon by the people of the Sutherland Institute, and it
basically shows clearly greg the Utah voters think elected officials,
elected officials, not judges, should choose congressional maps here in
the state of Utah.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
Surprise, yeah right, it speaks the obvious. But we're in
this time where common sense just doesn't carry the day,
I guess, but it read our state Constitution in no way,
shape or form. Should a judge be drawing a map
or giving the job to a private group left of
centered group that under no scrutiny, public input, or anything else,
draws their own map just has a heyday, here's a

(33:21):
blank Chavist what would you like to draw? And they do,
and and that becomes has the effect of law. Some
private group gets to draw. Our congressional districts are for
not the duly elected legislature that our state constitution says
it's their power. It's their power to draw. They didn't
have a thing to do with this thing.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
Lit'st of some of these numbers. Eight by a sixty
three point margin. That's pretty good sized margin.

Speaker 7 (33:47):
Right.

Speaker 2 (33:47):
Yes, Utah voters believe that the policy makers they elect
should make redistricting decisions over judges a sixty three point margin,
a full seventy one percent of Utah vote. They're say
an elected body or elected official at the state or
county level, ought to have primary responsibility for designing congressional maps.

Speaker 1 (34:08):
That's right, I mean, And we're not alone, folks. It's
kind of how it works are around the country. Everywhere
you see a judge that gets in the way, the
best they will do, the most they will do is
usually remand it back to the legislature and say no,
I don't like it, which even that by itself is
a little bit over I think as an overstep on
the judiciary's part. But they've never been as bold as
to say, I'll just draw it. I'll just get this

(34:30):
group here. They seem like perfectly nice people. They're leftists
like me. I'm going to have you draw these maps
they went. They didn't follow city boundaries, They drew lines
through homes. The maps that they she let this private
group draw, they you can't even use them. And here
we have elections that are sign up for election cycle
starts first week of January. These county election clerks don't

(34:52):
have the congressional maps that are ready to be able
to even have people signed up for election when it
comes to Congress. So I think we saw it heard
from President Stuart Adams of the State Senate yesterday say
they may push off the filing deadline for Congress because
it's so confusing. This is such, this is such madness
going on right now.

Speaker 2 (35:12):
Well, the survey in the conclusion, the survey found and
I want to get your reaction to this as well, Greg,
Utah voters seem to favor a commission similar to the
one created by Prop four, but without the judicial intervention
created by pop Prop four. So I think what Utah's
are saying, and we like the idea of a commission
maybe you know, made up of different people making a

(35:32):
recommendation to the state legislature, but it is ultimately the
state legislature's decision. And I think what what happened with
better boundaries? They you know, they came up with the map,
they went to the legislature. Legislature they said no, They
threw a hissy vit and said, well, if you aren't
going to take our map, we're going to go to
a judge. And they found Dirty Diana to do their

(35:52):
work for them. And that's what we've got. That's what
we're dealing with today.

Speaker 1 (35:55):
Yeah, even if this, this map and what we're dealing
with now doesn't even follow the proposition past twenty eighteen,
because that was what you described, that was supposed to
be a group that that brings a map forward, a
map for it, and there's an up or down vote
by the legislature. The ultimate decision needs to be by
the legislature. I laugh though. If someone thinks that there
is something called a non partisan person or an independent

(36:18):
person that doesn't have one opinion about one thing, they're
just a blank slate and all they're going to do
is look at math and they're just going to without
regard to any personal preference or any worldview. They're going
to somehow just magically to just call things by, you know,
just with no emotion or opinion. It's not true. It's
just people have opinions, people have worldviews. You're never getting

(36:41):
away from it. What the best you can hope for
is to elect the person who's going to be ultimately
making those decisions. Collectively, seventy five members of the House,
twenty nine members of the state Senate. That is the
people's best chance to get someone who who's belief you know,
roll of government, what party platform they subscribe to, what

(37:01):
they believe in, what they campaigned on. It gives you
some idea of who they are when they're making those decisions.
Versus we're going to appoint a committee. You've never heard
the person before, you don't know who they are, somebody
recommended their name, and we're gonna go ahead and put
them in some power position of power to make a decision. Now,
it's it's there is no such thing as a nonpartisan

(37:21):
group that's going to come up with maps.

Speaker 2 (37:23):
But and you would expect that, wouldn't you. I mean,
you're you expect that. But Ultimately, we go back to
what the Utah Constitution says, and it clearly states it
is the Utah Legislature that makes the final determination. What
I You can't get around that. Even though dirty Diana
found a way.

Speaker 1 (37:40):
Dirty Diana Gibson found a way, she well, yeah, she's
made up, made up away.

Speaker 2 (37:44):
She made up away. Oh, by the way, I can't
figure out this map. Could you guys come in and
apparently I made a mistake, So can you come in
and pick it for me?

Speaker 1 (37:50):
The private left of center group? I picked that. He
actually didn't draw it right because they're splitting houses. So
does anyone here in the judiciary know how to draw maps?
Because we're drawing maps now? Yeah? Good?

Speaker 2 (38:00):
You know they should have called us drap Yeah.

Speaker 1 (38:04):
Actually, I tell you what. I it's not like this idea.
When I was in the legislature, we had three congressional
districts and we were going to get four. So it
was a brand new district and there was discussion, should
we just take every Democrat in this state put them
in one. We'll still have the three we always had,
and then we just forget about it. Never think about
all the other districts will be seventy five eighty percent Republican,

(38:24):
three districts that way and just put all the Demos
to quester them into one big district and say here
you go, here's your gift, be quiet and move along.
There was that idea. Republicans were thinking that, and we're like,
now that's not fair, Like we want to have districts
that have a little bit parity. We want to have
different constituencies. We did the pizza pie, not the donut hole.

(38:44):
And I think it was done under a principle of
you want to have different different constituencies of rural, suburban,
and urban. You only have four members, but it but
what she did is she did that thing. Well, I'm
going to get I'm going to make the most strident, ardent,
high percentage Republican districts, three of them, and then give
them a district that's so liberal Bernie Sanders is going
to pick the congress person in Utah. It is so skewed,

(39:08):
it's out of this world.

Speaker 2 (39:09):
Yeah. Well, I'm just waiting for AOC to jump in
on this one as well, because Bernie's already endorsed who
is it, State Center, Nate Blowing Blowing, what's his name?
I don't know what blwing is that it. I think, yeah, Okay,
endorsed him. But you've got everybody jumping into that race,
and every Democrat in the in the state wants to
be a congressman from that district.

Speaker 1 (39:29):
Yeah, it's a crowded field. I think. I think Ben
McAdams is the guy that's the most angry that that
thing is so far left. He's like, he's never been
that far left. Now he's trying so hard as he
loves more abortions. He just wants abortion by bulk now.

Speaker 2 (39:43):
He doesn't want police.

Speaker 4 (39:44):
No.

Speaker 2 (39:45):
I didn't realize Ben was that liberal, but apparently he's
willing to go there.

Speaker 1 (39:49):
He is this. He's changing his stripes fast. He's got
to all right, more coming up some of your calls
on this. We've got other issues we wanted to talk
to you about tonight as well. Eight eight eight five
seven O eight zero one zero on your cell phone
dial pound two fifteen and say hey, Rod or leave
us come in on our TUK back line, download the
iHeartRadio app. More coming up on The Rotten Gregg Show.

(40:09):
A super majority of Utah voters say it is lawmakers,
not judges who should design congressional maps. What a shocking revelation,
and the sun rises in the east, says Utons as
we see it in the morning.

Speaker 2 (40:24):
All right, let's go to the phones get some of
your thoughts on this tonight. We begin in Lee High
with Ed ed. How are you welcome to the Rod
and Gregg Show.

Speaker 7 (40:33):
I'm great. Hey. Just to set up a little scenario here,
Texas lawmakers they redraw districts which favor Republicans, and some
judge comes in and says, oh no, no, no, no,
you can't do that. And then Utah lawmakers they draw
up a congressional map that, you know, get more fair
divides that that big blue city we got up there

(40:55):
in the north. And a judge comes in and says,
oh no, no, no, you can't do that. Meanwhile, California
only had like nine Republican seats. They redistrict. They completely
wipe out five of those Republican seats by redistricting, and
no judge steps in and says no, no, no, no use.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
Isn't that crazy?

Speaker 7 (41:14):
That's just kind of a little weird.

Speaker 1 (41:16):
It is. What a wild coincidence, you know, And I
think you're exactly right. Yeah, yeah, it's it's how come judges.

Speaker 7 (41:24):
Or federal judges can step in a Californian say hey,
come on, guys, you can't do this.

Speaker 1 (41:30):
It's a good observation, and thank you for the thank
you for that. I'll tell you this too. I wish
we could get a federal nexus to these congressional maps.
Because when the federal judge stepped in in the Texas
a redistricting case, because it was a federal judge, the
US Supreme Court stepped in right away and said that
judge is wrong, Texas continue as you were. This ours doesn't,

(41:50):
and that was based on discriminating federal discrimination law. Our
redistricting doesn't have a federal law that it's tethered to.
So there isn't there isn't a federal judge, uh to
to to make these decisions where ours is a state
Diana Gibson, dirty Diana, she's dirty, Diana Gibson, she uh,

(42:10):
she's she's not, She's a state judge. So it doesn't
go to the US Supreme Court. It goes to this
state state Supreme Court, which has been as left of
center as it's just been frustrating.

Speaker 2 (42:21):
It's been very frustrated. Well, they you know, first of
all in California. There's not an impartial judge in California now.

Speaker 1 (42:27):
And I don't know what's in the water. How come
every judge is a leftist? I mean, do we get
do we have conservative judges anywhere?

Speaker 2 (42:34):
Have you looked at the law schools are coming out
of Yeah?

Speaker 1 (42:37):
No, and then the U State Bar.

Speaker 2 (42:40):
Yeah, you got the Utah State Bar.

Speaker 1 (42:42):
Yeah, it's yeah. I don't know why, but it's it
is a it's it's it's a problem. It's a real problem.

Speaker 5 (42:49):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (42:49):
And and I think that's why we have separation of powers.
I think that the judiciary has an important roles a
Britang executive branch does, and the legislative branch does, But
this judiciary is just nationally, they have stepped in the
way of this president and have tried to make a
legal argument against normal functions that a president and an administration
have done every all the time. This is common practice

(43:12):
what he does, although he's brave enough to do things
other presidents haven't done. But they hold it up constantly.
And now we have in the state of Utah a
judge who's literally drawn those maps. What I love what
President State Senate President Stewart Adams said yesterday on our show,
is that they are going to have a vote on
that map, on the maps that the judge created, and

(43:33):
in that in those Florida debates in the House and Senate,
and then their votes. I suspect you're going to have
a two thirds majority against So you're not just going
to have what this judge did to the legislative branch
and they're just not going to say anything and someone
could argue, well, by acquiescence or they didn't stop it.
They are going to make sure that and get I know,
it'll be a super majority that this legislature openly and

(43:57):
loudly opposed these congressional district So where the state constitution
says that they are to draw them, you're going to have.
You're going to have the existence of congressionally drawn maps
that this legislative body in Utah will have resoundingly rejected. Yes,
not just pushed on top of them and grumbled about it.
They are going to vote well, resoundingly against them. And

(44:19):
tell me how that holds up. I don't know how
that can hold up in law.

Speaker 2 (44:23):
Well, I think Greg, I know you have been talking
about this. We both have as a matter of fact,
we need to get lawmakers of supermajority like you were
saying on the record yes, and saying on the record,
we do not like this. We're opposed to this, this
is wrong. That sends a clear message to Utah voters
who today said, hey, we a large majority of them

(44:44):
said we think you guys should be deciding congressional maps. Well,
not dirty Diana Intuila County. Well, I had to tell
you water weird out there in Tila County. Maybe she
drank the water, who knows.

Speaker 1 (44:53):
I don't know, but I look. I was part of
the redistricting back in twenty ten, twenty eleven, and I
know that this was similar what they did in the
last redistricting and the legislature. You travel the whole state,
You hold hearings in communities all over this state. It
takes a long time. You listen to input. You hear
people talk about their frustrations or what their aspirations of
what they want out of representation in Congress. There are

(45:16):
so many public hearings. It is an exhaust It's a committee,
and it's exhaustive to think that this left of centered
group that no one knew, didn't know they were drawing maps.
They without any public knowledge, participation, no one elected them.
They got to draw the maps of the state of Utah.
The judge just picked them. When eeny meeny.

Speaker 2 (45:34):
Miny mo and people's take that one. Let's take that one.

Speaker 1 (45:37):
It doesn't pass a laugh test. I don't. So they're
going to appeal some portions of this to the state
State Supreme Court. But don't hold your breath. You know,
the state the bar was apparently just giving up every
nominee to the to the State Supreme Court, and they
were just picking three libs and you had to pick
one of the three. And they just stacked this court

(45:57):
with people that don't reflect the values of the state. Fact,
that's a fact.

Speaker 2 (46:01):
It is Wingman Wednesday, and we'll have more coming up
right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine knrs.
A super super super duper majority of Utah's want lawmakers
to make the final decisions when it comes to congressional
maps and not judges like Dirty Diana.

Speaker 1 (46:17):
Even the Democrats when they pulled out that when you
looked at the cross tabs of the of the survey
that the Sutherland Institute did, even Democrats, I mean only
seventeen percent of the Democrats. Seventeen percent of those that
identified as Democrats thought the judges should do it. Yeah,
so even the Demats and the sixty percent margin, we're right. Nah,
it's a legislative duty.

Speaker 2 (46:36):
Yeah. Well, we want to hear from you on this
issue tonight. Let's go to Brad who's in Providence tonight
on the Riding Gregg Show. Hey, Brad, what have you
got for us tonight?

Speaker 5 (46:45):
Thanks for taking my call.

Speaker 7 (46:47):
I have a quick comment.

Speaker 5 (46:48):
Should be pretty easy to understand. We should do exactly
what the Democrats have told us to do. If there's
an illegal order or it's an unconstitutional order, we should
ignore it. Ah. Yeahs back to where we where we
began and we just carry on.

Speaker 1 (47:08):
It is so talk about it. Thank you. I love
that observation. Because everything that Trump does, they want to say,
is illegal. I mean, you can only fire one missile
at a boat. Now you can't fire two because that's
somehow war crime. That's illegal. Everything is illegal. It's not
hard to show or point out that the state constitution
gives the sole authority to redistrict maps to the legislative branch,

(47:31):
not the not the not the the judge Diana Gibson
or who she subcontracted it to a left of center
or private organization. It's so, it's so, it's not legal.
It really isn't. And if if we can't get a
judge to say so, we should do what democrats say
and just disobey.

Speaker 2 (47:46):
Well, I think that's in my opinion, that's exactly what
Lieutenant Governor Deeter Henderson should have done. She just said no,
this does He should have said, no, this is not
approved by the legislature. I believe in the Constitution. I
raised my right hand, you know, and said I support
the Constitution. I think it could have stopped right there.

Speaker 1 (48:05):
In my opinion, Yeah, I think you're right. I think
I think the executive branch had a role, a much
stronger role to play in what happened there, and they haven't.
And I think there there's been some public statements of
support by the governor, but again there is there should
be no there is no daylight between the lieutenant governor
and governor the governor. Lieutenant governor is on the ticket

(48:25):
with the governor. It's didn't run themselves. Some states the
lieutenant governor runs on their own. Not in this state.
If if the if the public statements by Governor Cox
are consistent, then the lieutenant governor should be acting in
concert with what the Governor's saying. And I don't believe
it's happening.

Speaker 2 (48:42):
But they should have both stood up that night and said, no,
we are not accepting these because it was drawn by you,
it wasn't drawn by lawmakers. Therefore, sorry, judge, we aren't
going to follow your order. We're going to do what
the constitution takes.

Speaker 1 (48:56):
It's not and it's so obvious. And again go to
the look at the people, I mean, the people that
they have been pulled, have been have said, yeah, that's
what the legislature does.

Speaker 5 (49:06):
Huh.

Speaker 1 (49:07):
I'm surprised the polls the way it is. Actually I'm not.

Speaker 4 (49:10):
I'm not.

Speaker 2 (49:10):
Well, maybe I am a little bit, because you know,
we're led to believe greg that a lot of Utah
in supported this boundary commission idea, right, and I think
they did for the most part. I think they do.
Now that's what the polls sows. But the ultimate decision
does not rest with a boundary commission who throws a
hissy fit because they didn't get their way and take

(49:31):
it to a judge.

Speaker 1 (49:32):
And I think that when they voted, they didn't know
that the word neutral meant Democrat. They didn't know the
word no partisan considerations mean no Republican partisan considerations, only
Democrat partisan considerations. And that's not a baseless accusation. The
map is the receipt of what they meant. You look
at the map and you see what they meant. They meant,

(49:52):
we want a plus twenty three Kamala Harris blue district
in Utah, and that's what we're at. Yeah, and that's
not what I think people thought. That's certainly not how
it was described. We're framed as what people were voting on.

Speaker 2 (50:07):
Yeah, all right, let's go back to the phones. Joining
us on our Newsmaker line right now is Aaron Davidson.
Aaron is the county clerk there in Utah County. Wants
to weigh in on this. Aaron, how are you welcome
to the Rod and Greg show.

Speaker 6 (50:19):
Good?

Speaker 5 (50:19):
How are you doing?

Speaker 2 (50:20):
We're doing well? You want to weigh in on this?
Go ahead?

Speaker 5 (50:23):
Erin No, it's been a very interesting past couple of weeks.

Speaker 2 (50:28):
Say the least I've had to analyze I've.

Speaker 5 (50:31):
Had to analyze the the map lines and the congressional
districts to an extreme detail to find all the problems
with the map one and we're finding in Utah County
that it just you know, they drew the best they could,
but they just didn't have the right capabilities. We have
places in Alpine and the Highland that were split, so

(50:55):
I have to create a new precinct with four and
a half houses. We have precinct Congressional line who went
through about nine homes cut them right in half. We
have to figure out what to do with those, and
we can't do anything because that is the legislative issue.
We have to take that to the legislature, but the
judges ruled against the legislature doing anything. So it's just

(51:17):
been a big problem and she didn't have the right
to do that in the first place.

Speaker 1 (51:21):
And it's so good. Thank you for I so appreciate
you as a Utah County Clerk elections clerk calling in
and sharing that perspective because you know we've heard this,
but you are living it. It's actually your day job.
It's what the people elected you to do, and you're
looking at these precincts trying to draw map when you
have some private organization that did it. It doesn't look
or feel like the work product that a legislative body

(51:42):
goes through when you receive those maps, does it?

Speaker 5 (51:46):
No, it doesn't. And you know they said that the
map only split Utah County once, but it actually broke
it into four different parts on the way in and
out of Utah County.

Speaker 2 (51:57):
Aron, Aaron, So is it fair to say that this
map is a mess? And now you've got to deal
with it at a very short timeline.

Speaker 5 (52:05):
Short timeline and I can deal with it because it's
if there's an issue like we're coming across, we have
to take it to the legislature, and the legislature has
to do it, but they don't have time. Now. Yeah,
it's just a big mess.

Speaker 2 (52:18):
Yeah, sounds like a thank you Aeron for your phone call. Aaron.
Of course, Utah County clerk, and he's tucking where the
rubber meets the road, Greg, he's a county clerk. There
are other county clerks who are trying to deal with
all of this. And you had him point out a
couple of areas where you you know, you've got four
houses in one district. That makes a lot of sense.

Speaker 1 (52:37):
A joke, and that's what happens when you keep pushing
the limit and going beyond what was what the constitutional
powers are, you're in no man's land. And that's and
that's how you get these ridiculous maps. These maps don't
they're not functional, they're not fair, they're not they were
drawn by people who have no business drawing them and
had zero public input or participation whatsoever, unlike districting process

(53:01):
does in the legislative branch. I I just think and
and to think that you can't have the State Supreme
Court immediately just smell us out and stop it and
restore some order. If they if we believe that would happen,
it would have already happened. So we have a we
have a hostile state Supreme Court as well. What was
the name of that judge, Diana Gibson, Dirty Diana Gibbsy Gibson.

(53:23):
I gotta I gotta new.

Speaker 2 (53:26):
There it is, dirty Diana.

Speaker 1 (53:28):
I got I got a new I got a new
clip for that. I gotta I gotta queue it up.

Speaker 2 (53:31):
Yeah, we're gonna get ready, all right, Mary coming up,
Rod and Greg with you on this Wednesday afternoon here
on Utah's Talk Radio one O five nine k n
r S The Super super duper majority of Utah's feel
that it is the lawmaker's responsibility to draw congressional maps
and not judges like dirty Diana.

Speaker 1 (53:50):
Yes she's not, it's not her job. No, but it
actually makes you wonder if the job she's supposed to do,
she's any good.

Speaker 2 (53:57):
If she's tell you, I wonder if she. I wonder
what what other court rulings are.

Speaker 1 (54:01):
Like, I can't wait for the judicial retention elections. This
is one judge whose name I know does not deserve
to be retained.

Speaker 2 (54:09):
So well, we'll have to see sixty three point margin.
Utah voters believe policymakers should decide on the congressional maps
creg instead of judges.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
Yeah, it's because that's kind of the law, that's kind
of the constitution, that's kind of the way it works
in every state. Again, I point this out. The most
I've ever seen a judge do that interferes and I
would argue even overstep, is when they say, no, I
think the legislature did it wrong. Go back to the
drawing board. That's it. They don't troth them themselves. They

(54:38):
might tell the legislature they have to reconsider, but they don't.
They don't do this and so and then, as one
of our callers pointed out, isn't it amazing how only
judges stop They either allow for Democrats to steal districts
with no pause, they help Democrats steal districts with no pause,
and any any Republican redistricting, they will stop. Yeah, they

(54:59):
will stop with with great pause.

Speaker 2 (55:00):
Well, I love the call we had before the break
from Aaron, who is the Utah County clerk. And this
thing is a mess. I know, you got homes being split,
you've got neighborhoods being split, and they can't do anything
about it until the legislature signs off on this.

Speaker 1 (55:15):
And they really sold that is that they thought that
it was unfair to see Salt Lake City split in
the four different districts. And he said, and then she said, well,
you know, Utah County, which is the second largest county
in Utah, was only split in two ways. No, it's four.
But I'll bet you anything that Democrats and everyone else thinks, oh,
well four splitting, splitting Utah County into four, that's no problem.

Speaker 2 (55:36):
Also, but don't split our district, don't county, don't you
dare you know? Now, men and women. Typically there is
a gender difference, is the way they vote for their
opinions on things.

Speaker 1 (55:46):
Yeah, not.

Speaker 2 (55:47):
In this survey, let's do this among men and women
net support for elected officials, it's all most identical. Sixty
three percent of men support the legislature doing it. Sixty
two percent of women are in face. You rarely see
that in today's uh, in today's election news.

Speaker 1 (56:08):
You know. I just think it goes to show the
common sense of it all, that what she's doing is
not is not common sense, it's it's actually jumping the shark,
as they say. Yeah, so we'll see. I think that
special session there'll be a lot. There's an appeal coming.
We've heard the legislature to the state Supreme Court on
certain issues. And then when they're gonna they're going to

(56:28):
also probably have to delay that they sign up the.

Speaker 5 (56:33):
What do you do?

Speaker 2 (56:34):
Well, don't have to file by the first of March
or somewhere on there.

Speaker 1 (56:37):
To run filing is the first week of no of January,
of January really.

Speaker 2 (56:42):
But if you well, how do you what are they are?
They will they push the date back during the special session.

Speaker 1 (56:48):
Yes, races, because of the races of these guys.

Speaker 2 (56:50):
You know what district they're even in right now.

Speaker 1 (56:52):
Yeah, they don't. They really don't know, and so they're
going to push back the filing deadline. The filing deadline
is the first week in January. We are in December,
so we're talking less than four weeks. Four weeks. There
is no there is no way you could have a
filing deadline for the for those congressional districts with as
much chaos has been created. There's appeals, there's all kinds

(57:13):
of things that are gonna happen. So they'll probably have
the filing deadlines for every other office without but not Congress,
and then they have to push that out until this
gets settled some way. Yeah, And I'll tell you this
if it sticks, If it sticks and they have to
use these district maps that some private group you you know, drew,
and that this judge got to pick and that the
legislature didn't have one thing to do with, if that's

(57:35):
somehow we're to stay. I hope that Democrat that wins
that twenty four percent plus district doesn't get too comfortable,
because that's going to be a one termer.

Speaker 2 (57:42):
Yeah, afte all right, another full hour. Other Roddy, Greg
show coming your way right here on Utah's Talk Radio
one all five nimes k NRS. You know a lot
of talk courts last twenty four hours about the back
on the Evenzo Whalean drug boats, right, didn't you know? Greg?

(58:03):
There's no such thing as a narco terrorist.

Speaker 1 (58:06):
I just heard that from your democrat. These democrats find
the craziest people to defend, like the Maryland man who's
who was a human trafficker and associated with the Trende
Aragua gang and everything else. And he was just the
Maryland Man, someone that he had to go down and
have Margarita's with and go down there and see because
he was so concerned about Now you got these you
got these narco terrorists, which that's actually not a real term.

(58:29):
That's not they aren't. They're just really really bad. Not
an arco terrorist, he's just a he's just a narcotic trafficker.
That's really really bad.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
He's very very bad. Okay, not a narco terrorist, he's
just very very bad. Drugs.

Speaker 1 (58:42):
There's no risk to members of the military or of
this country. So the drugs don't Huh, they don't have
anything to do with it.

Speaker 2 (58:49):
Apparently, Huh.

Speaker 1 (58:52):
Again, the Democrats. They're the victims that they pick are
just victim. What was the term devo Our friend Owen's
used victim and version.

Speaker 2 (59:01):
Victim and version is what they've used yesterday when he
sent a text into the show. Victim in version.

Speaker 1 (59:07):
Yeah, no, it has no basis in reality. Again, this
one shot rule that somehow parachuted into our lives, that
you can shoot something once and that's it, no more
than once. I've never heard it. I've never seen it.
The drone tax in the Middle East without regard to
party affiliation of the president that was doing it. I've
never seen this before. It's a crazy explanation and interpretation.

(59:32):
But it just goes to show the seditious six who said,
if yours illegal orders you can't do, then what are
they Well, we haven't told you yet because we haven't
accused Pete Hegseth yet. But that's coming. That's what we're
just setting the table here. They are just trying to
create insubordination. They're trying to create chaos. The Democrats are
and they just every single thing that this president does
they frame is illegal. It doesn't matter what it is.

Speaker 2 (59:53):
It is purely a distraction on part of the legacy
media because they're totally ignoring what's going on in Minnesota.

Speaker 1 (01:00:00):
And even the Washington Post after Tim Walls with what's
happened with Minnesota, saying that this this governor refuses to
acknowledge that some too much welfare is not a good thing.
I look, they went from twenty six six it was
supposed to be a six million dollar program to one
hundred and ninety two million. They don't print money in Minnesota,
so there has to be federal funds tied to that.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
Sure there is. That's why Bessett said, we're going to
take a look at this's going to take a look
at this. And they really disgusting thing about that whole story.
State officials knew this was going on. Yeah, in the
moment they brought it up, here are those smallies going,
you're a racist, you're a racist. They pulled out the
races card and guess what state officials back down or sorry?

(01:00:44):
And then they continued to get even more money. It
it is, it is.

Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
And I'm going to tell you so that even the
autism programs, they everybody with a straight face knew they
didn't go up seven hundred. The funding went up seven
hundred percent for the Somali centers. There wasn't some crisis
where autism spiked seven hundred percent. And the people that
were administering these funds knew it, and they tried to
tell the governor about it. They tried to tell people,

(01:01:10):
and they themselves were silenced and they were even moved
out of their departments if they if they kept speaking
about it. But it was so blatantly obvious that this
fraud was going on.

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
Yeah, and they did nothing about it. Nothing I get so,
you know, and I wanted to do this today. May
we'll do it tomorrow. I think it's time to shut
down immigration into this country for a while. Just shut
it down.

Speaker 1 (01:01:29):
Just let's have a pause.

Speaker 2 (01:01:30):
Yeah, let's just for that. We did it for thirty
forty years, you know, in the early nineteen hundreds up
to about nineteen fifty, So why not do it again.
To think about it, it is all right, Let's talk
about another issue tonight. The President today terminated the Biden
era of fuel economy standards, a move that would cut
car prices by about one thousand dollars. Greg, we'll get

(01:01:52):
in more of that. But now we have remember the
International Energy Agency an agency that was trying to convince
the entire higher world greg that they needed to go green, yes, yeah,
or the oil, that ugly stuff called oil.

Speaker 1 (01:02:06):
They were trying to say that we don't have a
we don't have a dog in the fight. We're just
going to tell you where things are going so that
you can make good decisions based on just pure data,
is what they would say.

Speaker 2 (01:02:16):
Didn't quite work.

Speaker 5 (01:02:17):
Well.

Speaker 2 (01:02:17):
Guess what Apparently, under pressure from the US, the i
e A Is now forecasting no end to oil demand
and enjoining us on our newsmaker line. As Kevin Kilo,
energy reporter at Just the Dudes, Kevin, what happened to
the IE When did they start seeing the light again?

Speaker 7 (01:02:35):
Well, whether or not they seen the light is a
question of what they call was their dollars going out
the door? Potentially? So the the the IA. They produce
these forecasts and they can be quite influential on markets
and policy making, and they were established in the way
to the oil embargo in the nineteen seventies, the air

(01:02:57):
boil embargo, and their mission was to provide objective, policy
neutral forecast and report analysis. And starting about twenty ten
they started to kind of shift their focus towards the
energy transition, and they in the course of this, they

(01:03:18):
kind of started becoming more of an advocate, and they
used to do their forecast of when we would reach
a point where we would see no longer increases in
oil consumption. They based these analysis on current policies that
were implemented, and then they had these others that were aspirational,
you know, policies that nations said they were going to implement,

(01:03:42):
treaties and that kind of thing. And then starting in
twenty nineteen, they just abandoned the current policy scenarios and
started going only with the aspirational and so they were
predicting peak oil, as it's called about twenty thirty and
a lot of a lot of people started to kind
of criticize this process, saying that these forecasts are entirely incorrect.

(01:04:06):
And last summer Senator Barrasso out of Wyoming, he produced
a report that called them energy transition cheerleaders and started
really hammering on the criticism of the organization becoming more
of a climate advocacy organization than an objective source of
energy analysis. And this past summer, Energy Secretary Wright, according

(01:04:34):
to Bloomberg, he had had a conversation with the executive
director of the IA and said, you know, the US
is going to pull out, withdraw from this organization if
you don't return mission. Well, according to some estimates, the
US provides about a fourth of the IA's funding. So yeah,
in the middle of the cop they released their latest

(01:04:58):
World Energy Outlook and they've returned to this current policy scenario.
They include another one that also includes aspirational but they
have forecasts based on what policies have actually been implemented.
And now the forecasts for peak oil it goes out
to like twenty fifty. They see increases in oil consumption,

(01:05:19):
then that brings them more in line with others. Of course,
energy companies they do their own analyzes. A lot of
other groups do theirs, and now the IA is more
in line with those. So the hope is that they've
become a lot more reliable.

Speaker 1 (01:05:32):
You know, I had a science teacher, and I was
a senior in the eighties that said, oh, we're going
to be out of oil here at any moment. He
was absolutely convinced we'd be bone dry, no oil on
planet Earth within a decade or two. And then he
was scaring all the students for trying to how about
peak energy? How about peak electricity? This is the one
that I think the irony is they wanted to have

(01:05:52):
this aspirational or you'll see this peak of oil and
then it's going to start to run dry and we're
gonna have to move on to something else. But now,
with AI and with these data centers, and with that
one hundred employees and the power source of the size
of Denver, peak electricity seems to be a bit of
a concern. And so all those coal fired power plants
that they want to get rid of or did get
rid of. What's the peak electricity scenario look like? Do

(01:06:15):
they ever delve into that? Because I actually think there
is an energy challenge coming our way, but I don't
think it has any to do with gas and oil.
I think it has to do with actual electricity.

Speaker 7 (01:06:24):
Well, yeah, and first off, peak oil there was two
different scenarios. One is we transition away from it and
don't need it anymore, and the other was we're going
to run out and I remember the eighty yeah weird now.
Of course, neither of those turned out to be true.
Large as to the fracking opened up a lot of
oil and gas. But for years, the US electricity consumption

(01:06:46):
was essentially flat, and data centers have changed that. We're
now seeing an increase in energy electricity demand and the
IA did recognize this. It was and it's been in
the reports for several years look at how data centers
were going to kind of shape things and so, uh yeah,
we're we're definitely gonna That's kind of shaped the whole

(01:07:07):
picture because part of the reason why the energy transition
looked more feasible was the idea we're not going to
see any electricity increases and if electricity demanded growing, that
makes it a lot harder to meet that demand with
intermittent energy sources. Even though you can put them on
the grid pretty quick, Uh, they only work part of

(01:07:28):
the time, and there's a lot of infrastructure that has
to go into making them, you know, reliable, a lot
of transmission lines that take decades to build. So now
it's you know, looking like natural gas is going to
be the go to source for these data centers in
order to keep them running twenty four to seven. And
that's part of the reason why there's we're not seeing

(01:07:48):
peak fossil fuels keevan isn't.

Speaker 2 (01:07:50):
It isn't it interesting, and you mentioned this a moment
ago that about a quarter of the funding for the
i EA came from the United States. Isn't it funny
when people talk about pulling that funding that the i
E goes, well, we're going to change our tune. Funny
how money talks, isn't it?

Speaker 7 (01:08:06):
Yeah, Money does talk, and it can really shape things
one way or another. So there's still a lot of money,
you know, going into research in the climate that really
pushes the idea that it's going to be an apocalypse
and not just a problem to solve, And you know
that really shapes shapes the way research pans out. So
you know, if that funding dries up, you know we're

(01:08:30):
going to see a change in that as well. Money talk.

Speaker 1 (01:08:32):
So some of the issues like Paris Accord, there's this
aspirational idea of when you're going to see peak oil.
Had all these agreements that didn't include China, but it
would include other countries, have any of them made any
progress where I just don't know how any countries cap
and Trade or the Paris Accord is going to clean
the planet When you have a country's large as China

(01:08:52):
and all of its activity, that's not participating. Did any
of it work, Was any of it actually reducing anything?

Speaker 4 (01:08:59):
Yeah?

Speaker 7 (01:09:00):
I saw on analysis recently that showed the world average
is about a reduction in emissions of one point six percent.
That's decarbonization, you know, it's an economics so about one
point six percent per year. In order to meet the
Paris Accord, it's got to be greater than air eight percent.

(01:09:21):
So and that's the average. Some countries will higher, some
or lower, and of course others are actually going in
reverse like they're seeing increases. So uh so, Yeah, where
nobody's on track really to meet the commitments of the
Paris Accord unless you count countries undeveloped countries which don't
have any emissions.

Speaker 2 (01:09:40):
From just the news energy reporter Kevin Kilo talking too
us about i e A, the International Energy Agency, all
of a sudden seen that there's going to be no
end to the demand for oil.

Speaker 1 (01:09:51):
Yeah, surprise, surprise, it's neither shocking development.

Speaker 2 (01:09:55):
All right, Mary, coming up on the Roden greg Show
on This wing Man Wednesday in Utah's Talk Radio one
five nine can arrests with you. Well, the president has
a gun after another stupid idea from Joe Biden. Yeah, today. Yeah, yeah, boy,
It's taken a while, but he's getting their folks. The
President today trashed the federal standards from the Biden administration

(01:10:17):
that he and the automakers say have driven up the
price of new vehicles. Basically, he has terminated I love
that the Biden era fuel economy standards, good bye bye.

Speaker 1 (01:10:28):
Yeah. Yeah, it was hair brained, it was all. It
was all meant to compel behavior by getting rid of
everyone's electricity and this whole cap and trade thing. Thirteen
states in the United States do it, many nations do it.
It's such a scam. You want to build something, you
go to a place that doesn't have carbon, that they
don't have a carbon emission, and you buy their credit
from them, and then you pay them every month, week,
and month and year for their carbon credits. It's such

(01:10:51):
a scam.

Speaker 2 (01:10:51):
Well, and along with that, today some of the big
automakers Stilantis, which owns Jeep, Chrysler, and Ram are going
to invest one point three billion dollars in Midwest auto factories. Okay,
Ford says that will invest five billion dollars in Kentucky
and Michigan factories. Yeah, I hope you know, there's so

(01:11:11):
much money that people have said they're going to invest
in America. You know, if this, if this turns out
to be true, Greg, I don't know why it wouldn't be.
I don't know how America handles all of this because
I think it's great.

Speaker 1 (01:11:23):
It's it's good on paper. But this is a challenge.
As I listened to the different you know, different information
we get on this show, I still can't get over
the interview we had this week where sixty what was
what was it? Sixty nine percent of fourth graders in
America cannot read a grade level. So bring a lot
of manufacturing here. If we don't have an emerging workforce

(01:11:44):
who are literate, who can read, we're what do you
want to do? What we can do more? H one
B one visas. I'm telling you that is just such
a ominous, ominous sign that that many kids. Because I
guarantee you sixty nine percent of fourth graders do not
have individual education plans or are in special ED. That

(01:12:05):
means they are just being socially promoted through the grades.
And think out. If they graduate and they cannot read
at any grade level, they're just behind. They don't know
how to read or reading comprehensions, just not a skill
set they have. I think that. I think the manufacturing
is not there's not tech jobs and manufacturing jobs anymore.
I'm technology is embedded in everything that we have everything,

(01:12:28):
so there is no there is no I'm going to
be in tech over here. I'm going to be in
manufacturing over there. You have to have a basic skill
set or yeah, and reading. None of this is going
anywhere without reading. So those are those are things we're
going to have to enjoy all this future investment that's coming.
You've got to have a ready workforce, and you know
right now that we're going to are I guess the

(01:12:49):
question is are we going to have one? It's absolutely
if you look at the score as the answers no.
But there has to be a turnaround. That's what I
like about school choice too, because if these public schools
are failing your kids, you got to have some backpack funding,
some ways to deliver education that school the public schools.

Speaker 5 (01:13:04):
Have just.

Speaker 2 (01:13:05):
Are not able to deliver all Right, more coming up
final half hour, they're Roding Greg Show with you right
here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine k
n R S Buddy.

Speaker 1 (01:13:14):
The past half the week. I'm rod Arcatte, I'm citizen
Greg Hughes.

Speaker 2 (01:13:18):
All right, you were You're too young to remember this, but.

Speaker 1 (01:13:23):
I'm landing Neil Armstrong on the moon.

Speaker 2 (01:13:26):
Now, I go back even farther than that.

Speaker 1 (01:13:28):
I was gonna say, I wasn't were you away?

Speaker 2 (01:13:30):
Were you born then?

Speaker 1 (01:13:31):
I was, I was still baking. I was three months shy.
That was in July of sixty nine. I was born
in October.

Speaker 2 (01:13:39):
I even remember spot Nick, that's what.

Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
Do they put the monkey in that?

Speaker 2 (01:13:44):
No, there was a guy in that.

Speaker 1 (01:13:45):
There was a dude, well Russian, but I remember just
a monkey up in the space.

Speaker 2 (01:13:50):
I remember, Yeah they did. I remember John Glenn Yeah,
and you know and the Gemini program, then the Apollo program,
then the Challenger program, and there used to be excite
been about the space race. Thanks, I've kind of changed.

Speaker 5 (01:14:03):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:14:03):
I went and saw Cape Canaveral as a kid, around
fourth grade. I stayed in Neil Armstrong's motel room. It
was like a special you know, you stayed there or
you really we stayed in it. Wow, it was It
was a room that Neil Armstrong stayed in before he.

Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
Went to the moon. Ye went to the moon. Are
they all alive. I don't know the guy Michael Collins
is dead. Neil Armstrong. Who's the other guy? Buzz Aldred?
I think Buzz is still alive.

Speaker 1 (01:14:27):
You're quizzing me. I don't know. I yeah, they yeah,
I'm not sure.

Speaker 2 (01:14:32):
I don't want to say you don't want to say.
I'm not think he is, but maybe not well. Today
there was a hearing before the Senate, a Senate committee
for Jared Isaacman, he is the presumptive next leader of NASA,
answered questions about his plans for the future of the
US base exploration program. Joining us on our newsmaker line
to find out what he had to say and his

(01:14:53):
thoughts on it is our next guest. His name is
Sean Mahoney, Executive director as Space Frontier Foundation. John, thanks
for joining us hearing today for Jared Isaacson. What do
you think?

Speaker 7 (01:15:03):
Well? Jared Eisigman is so nice. They managed to point
him twice. So this is round two for his nomination
to serve as the administrator for NASA. I'm very hopeful
and I'm looking forward to what he'll be able to
bring in the perspective that someone who has not only

(01:15:27):
been a captain of industry, which is a little bit
different than some of the previous NASA administrators. But he
is also someone that Quent literally has put his money
where his mouth is, and that is that counts for
an awful lot. You know, he's someone who who put
his own dollars to going to space. And so if

(01:15:48):
you ever question how committed is he to seeing space
developed and to bring the value to others, there's no
clearer sign than that there's a lot of things that
NASA can do, and we're very hopeful that we're going
to see NASA fulfilling its potential in his administration.

Speaker 1 (01:16:10):
You know, NASA used to be the only game in town,
and then you saw the private sector come in. You
saw space X, you see the Blue Origin, and you've
seen that private sector investment. As you just mentioned, What
is the role of NASA now? Do you let the
free market kind of and these these independent enterprises take
over or does NASA want to be in front of them?

Speaker 8 (01:16:31):
What?

Speaker 1 (01:16:32):
What what is the future of NASA do you think?

Speaker 7 (01:16:35):
Well, you know it's been there had been entrepreneurs trying
to create value in space, you know, for decades and decades.
A lot of times they haven't been successful. And so
there's a lot of companies that are earlier versions of
a SpaceX and a Blue Origin that didn't quite manage

(01:16:57):
to put it all together. So by one yes, we
have now success that we can point to and say, yes,
these companies have managed to break through. But much like
NASA doesn't build its own planes when they go to conferences,
there are things that we society has figured out how

(01:17:19):
to do and can then be handed over to organizations
that can run an efficient delivery of service. There are
things that don't have an immediate economic value, and those
are the things where it is right and just that
our tax payer dollars go to fund pushing those that envelope.

Speaker 2 (01:17:42):
So it's not an either org, it's a both and
Sean during the hearing today, the chairman of the committee.
During this hearing for Jared Isaacman Center, Ted Cruz from
Texas said that NASA is at an inflection point and
apparently a lot of discussion about beating China to the moon.
Your thoughts on what are your thoughts on that?

Speaker 7 (01:18:02):
John, So, I have a unique perspective. I was several
years ago with one of the teams that was developing
robotic landers to go to the moon. Uh, and so
I've been keyed into the very strange realities that are

(01:18:22):
that are the moon and the area around the moon.
The thunder Cruise's comments about a competition with China are accurate,
and I would highlight it's not just about touching the moon.
It's not the next one to go tag. The moon
is where the race is. To a certain degree, you know,

(01:18:45):
there's a there's a value in saying, oh, we did
it first, but we already did it first, like we've
been there. The real race, the real challenge, the real opportunity,
and the real threat is the development of that frontier.
It is the use of territory on the moon and

(01:19:07):
around the moon that is such a critical inflection point.
There's all sorts of different agreements about how different societies
will interact when in space, but the general idea is
if you're using an area, then you should have the

(01:19:28):
ability to use that area. If we wait and we
show up ten years after China has been there, China
will have found.

Speaker 9 (01:19:38):
The most valuable places.

Speaker 7 (01:19:39):
While they may not own the territory, they would be
able to exclude the United States or any companies that
believe in a Western style approach of freedom and democracy
would would seed that territory to a country that may

(01:20:00):
not share those values. So that's that's and it's it's
a little bit more complicated than just saying, oh, just
go touch the moon. But yeah, this isn't. This isn't
We're not at a Lewis and Clark moment where I
need to go explore. We're at a saddle up to
the wagon train and go use this territory. And and

(01:20:21):
that's that's where this inflection point is. And I would
hate for us to be thinking we're out there doing
exploration for its spiritual value when there is real economic value.
And you know, we risked being behind.

Speaker 1 (01:20:40):
So here's a question I haven't and it's there was
the astronauts that were trapped up in the space station
or they just trapped up there for quite some time
and and and it just it just it just wreaked
a failure to me. I mean, so you know, Elon
Muskin and SpaceX, they have to find a time and
get them up there. They were up there a year
or more. So in the future, is that is, are

(01:21:03):
astronauts going to the space station doing their experiments, having
whatever missions that they have. Is that something that a SpaceX,
a private sector would do, NASA would oversee it, or
we just have a better NASA they can do it
where they don't get stuck and have to ask a
private sector company to come get their astronauts because they
don't trust their own, you know, their own aircraft or spaceships.

Speaker 7 (01:21:24):
I love this question because the perception if you look
at the brand of NASA is one of the best
known brands out there. Since I got into the industry,
I obviously am now more tuned to see that brand
and it's everywhere. One of the reasons that's everywhere is
because it's public domain, so you can print something with

(01:21:45):
NASA logo and it don't take that as legal advice,
but the idea is that you can go you can
put the logo on things and promote it. The underneath
the NASA umbrella, it has always been companies that are

(01:22:05):
providing services to the government, and so it is not
necessarily the case that it is a massive rocket just
because there is a massive program that is funding it
and the right it's so what really what that issue

(01:22:28):
was was one a vendor felt trying to do, like
it was a development flight that was the entire reason.

Speaker 1 (01:22:37):
It went.

Speaker 7 (01:22:37):
Now whether or not they made the right decision to
delay and not immania has some sort of you know
way for that not to come back.

Speaker 9 (01:22:49):
You know that that's a it was a complicated thing
because it's not just about the safety as the individual.
It's also about perception. But one of the ways to
deal with that issue is there going to be a
perception problem is fly more regularly a rocket launch.

Speaker 7 (01:23:08):
But it's gotten to the point now fortunately that rocket
launching and rocket landing it's like, oh yeah, cool, and
it has gotten to that point.

Speaker 2 (01:23:17):
I mean, you know what I love about this, Greg
is that the private investors like Jeff Bezos and have
gotten into this.

Speaker 1 (01:23:24):
Yeah, I think it is And I think I like
what he said is that, you know, NASA can be
the one that that's going into this without any profit motive,
but they're there to keep things running, observe, be problem solvers.
But let the private sector run in the space. But
it's an interesting concept that it's not You're not the
Lewis and Clark anymore. You're not there to just discover.
You're there to land and and to see what you

(01:23:47):
can can be done, can be done Yeah, you don't
want China. You will get there and it will be
Chinatown up there. No, they'll have houses, they'll have a
whole community. They'll have restaurants everywhere, the laundryes, you name it.
It's all going to be up there.

Speaker 2 (01:24:00):
We're gonna be there.

Speaker 1 (01:24:00):
We're not there.

Speaker 2 (01:24:01):
Charges to come see it. Yeah, but I found I
did not realize there was a race to the moon
now with China. I didn't realize that there's Yeah, I'm
telling you, they get on there.

Speaker 1 (01:24:10):
Forget it. We're right, We're not gonna be allowed.

Speaker 2 (01:24:13):
All right, tough. Some final thoughts coming your way. On
the Swingman Wednesday. It is the Rod and Greg Show
and Talk Radio one oh five nine Can the Restless
Can drove through Saint George And every time I drive
through Saint George, I am blown away by their growth
down there.

Speaker 5 (01:24:27):
It is it is.

Speaker 1 (01:24:29):
It is a healthy economy, I would say.

Speaker 2 (01:24:31):
And then you have this story out today. Job growth
in Saint George outpaces major US metros.

Speaker 1 (01:24:37):
You know what I'm telling you, And they do it
right down there. They have a conservative government in terms
of their county and their cities, and and most of
the people that move there if they're from out of state,
they're kind of like the political refugees. They're conservatives getting
out of the leftist California or Oregon or Washington or Nevada.
So it's it has remained conservative and Republican, which I

(01:24:58):
love well.

Speaker 2 (01:24:59):
It is among the story today. It is among the
nation's top metros for job growth. This according to a
new data from a job site. Indeed, formerly a retirement town,
the southern Utah city I didn't know this has doubled
in size since two thousand, wow, and is attracting small
business owners, tourists, and remote workers.

Speaker 1 (01:25:20):
Yeah. I'm telling you I love going down there.

Speaker 5 (01:25:22):
I do.

Speaker 1 (01:25:22):
I was just down there a couple of weeks ago
and enjoy my time every time I go.

Speaker 2 (01:25:26):
Yeah, the number of job listing since Saint George has
risen fifty five percent since February of twenty twenty to
October twenty twenty five. Meanwhile, job listings in San Francisco
have dropped and Seattle have dropped more than thirty percent.

Speaker 1 (01:25:41):
And that's that's kind of a red and blue thing. Obviously,
Democrats show versus Republicans, and you'll find you'll find more
economic freedom, economic opportunity where where conservatives are the leaders
of those jurisdictions versus the Democrats.

Speaker 2 (01:25:56):
So yeah, shouldn't well. And it's a great place to be,
a beautiful country on there. You aren't far from what
two or three national parks. Yeah, a lot of golf
there become it has become a mecca for pickleball by
the way. Yeah, a big pickleball tournament.

Speaker 1 (01:26:11):
Here's my only I have one slight complaint. For as
hot as it gets, and when that summertime hits, man,
it's one hundred August, hear me out. For as hot
as it gets, it should be warmer in the winter time.

Speaker 2 (01:26:25):
Yeah, it isn't that warmer it is.

Speaker 1 (01:26:26):
It's like in the fifties. It's but man, if you're
going to be one ten, one fifteen the summer, you
should at least be sixty something degrees in the winter,
or seventy seventy. I'd like I'd love seven, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:26:36):
But when I was in Vegas, it was cool in Vegas.
It wasn't redt well.

Speaker 1 (01:26:40):
I I just think for the heat, you should the
trade off should be a little bit warmer there in
the winter.

Speaker 2 (01:26:46):
Just talk to the people down there, see what they
can do about connections.

Speaker 1 (01:26:49):
I've mentioned it, then no one's doning.

Speaker 7 (01:26:50):
Hey.

Speaker 1 (01:26:50):
By the way, yeah, I think I mentioned on the show.
Aready guy named Jimmy Hughes is the new mayor of
Saint George down there. He's got that huge name. He's
running with that name, Hughes. He related to you know,
but should be. Why do you think a huge name
makes a difference. Well, he supported me in my unsuccessful
run for governor, but which makes him a patriot and
I appreciate his support. But you got a Hughes running

(01:27:11):
the show down in St. George.

Speaker 5 (01:27:13):
I like that.

Speaker 1 (01:27:13):
Well, there you go, Jimmy Hughes, Jimmy Hughes, maryor Jimmy Hughes.

Speaker 2 (01:27:17):
Real quick. American Eagle remember the ads from Sydney Sweeney. Yeah,
apparently their stock continues to jump. Big holiday sales this weekend.

Speaker 1 (01:27:25):
See yep.

Speaker 2 (01:27:27):
And apparently every Westate thing, every young teenage girl in
America is not wearing American.

Speaker 1 (01:27:32):
Eagle jeans as they should. I think that's that is
just a free market just raging right along.

Speaker 2 (01:27:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:27:37):
The Democrats, you know, they all hate all this. They
hate they hate Republicans, They hate things that are nice.
They want you to be ugly. They want you to
wear purple hair and rings in your nose and ears
and eyelids, and they just want to just they want
to complain and scream and screech about everything.

Speaker 2 (01:27:52):
They're expecting. Operating income this year between three hundred and
three and three hundred eight million dollars.

Speaker 1 (01:27:58):
Not a bad year, not a bad year. And Tommy,
you know, and that's the stuff that the left would
have told him. Don't you dare do that.

Speaker 2 (01:28:04):
Don't do that.

Speaker 1 (01:28:05):
That's supremacy. What you're doing there politically correct. It makes money,
it makes sense, and they did it, all right.

Speaker 2 (01:28:13):
That does it for us? Tonight, Head up, shoulders back,
May God bless you in your family and this great
country of ours. We'll be back tomorrow starting them for
Have a good eating

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Are You A Charlotte?

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: Trump's New Healthcare Plan; Middle Class Can't Keep Up/Inflation; No End to Oil Demand

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;}Dateline NBC

Are You A Charlotte?

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes