1-3-25 - 7am - Congress Needs a Raise

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael the Stings from the Congressman for Maine says it all.
I think he referred to being congressman as a line
of work. President Washington never wanted it.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
To be that way.

Speaker 3 (00:13):
He wanted to be a service to people, not a
way to enriched yourself. And we turn it completely around
where that's all the people seem to want to enrich
themselves financially string a congressman.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
Maybe I'm being a little too subtle. The reason I'm
spending an ordinate amount of time on this particular Washington
Post editorial is what I and I don't. I really

(00:50):
never come in here. I shouldn't say never. I rarely
come in here with a specific purpose of bringing you
a story hoping to piss you off. Now, I know
that many of the stories that I do you talked
about do piss you off, But that's not my purpose.

(01:12):
It's just the nature of the story. The reason I
and we've already I know, we did some other things
at the beginning of the last hour, talking about the
minimum wage increase in Seattle and that dumbass woman, which,
by the way, you can you can see that video
that Michael says go here dot com. And I really
would encourage you to go watch that video. And the

(01:35):
reason I played that is here is a woman who
is a liberal running this you know, lgbt Q I
A plus whatever X y Z waffle shop, the Bebop
waffle shop in downtown Seattle, who indeed probably did vote
for the Seattle City Council, wanted to create a safe space,

(02:00):
you know, for the queer people to go have waffles,
and she's making a living at it. And I find
that such a contradiction that here she is, you know,
as far to the less as you could probably get
at the same time that she's a capitalist and wanting
to make money, but she's wanting to make money in

(02:21):
a Marxist fashion because she wants the government to do
to tell her what to do and how to do
it and everything else. Yet now when they're actually kind
of impinging on her ability to make money, remember she
said it was going to cost her an additional thirty
two thousand dollars a year just to meet the new
minimum wage requirement. And now she's shutting down because she

(02:43):
can't control her utilities, she can't control her cost, the
cost of goods that, you know, whatever it takes to
make her waffles and whipped cream and everything else, and
she has to have a certain number of people, and
probably based on her customer base, she probably can't afford
to increase her prices to make up for that thirty

(03:04):
two thousand. So now she's running into the reality of
her own belief that, oh, yeah, we ought to increase
minimum wage.

Speaker 4 (03:10):
Well, I want to piggyback on a goober number forty three,
forty four who said almost that the same thing that
she voted for that council. She most likely voted for
that council, and in her own words, she wants her
workers to get paid more. I would add, you could
have paid them more before the minimum wage hike.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
Absolutely, But this is the liberal mentality, This is how
Marxist Marxists believe. And so I wanted to play that
story first before I got into the Washington Post editorial,
because you cannot understand or comprehend just how stupid people

(03:55):
on the left are, and that woman personifies it now
as I I actually feel sorry for the woman because
her cognitive dissonance is so vast that, to Dragon's point,
she doesn't understand that that's what she voted for. But
now the economic reality is hitting her and she's and

(04:18):
if you watch the video, she starts to tear up
and cry. Now, I'm not such a cold hearted bastard
that I don't feel sorry for I actually do. But
I also at the same time when I say, well, sister,
you brought this on yourself. You voted for this, this
is what you wanted, and now you're bemoaning the idea
that you can't afford to do it. Now we swerve

(04:40):
over the Washington Post and they're trying to convince you
that what that congressmen need a pay raise. And it's
not only the wording of the editorial. Stop and thinking
about the timing of the editorial. They do it. This

(05:01):
was posted at what I say, either two fifteen or
three fifteen Eastern time yesterday. I got notice of it
somehow on doing show prep yesterday and I read it
and I thought, I can't pass this up because it's
not only about the pay raise. It's their propagandizing, it's

(05:24):
their language, it's their phraseology, it's everything. Because you're not
the trust me. You are not the intended audience, which
is why I wanted you to hear this. This is
for people inside the Beltway. This is for people in
northern Virginia. This is for people in the Washington d C.
New York corridor that make these decisions. These are the elitists.

(05:51):
These are the people who, just like in Colorado, who
tell you that you can't even touch your phone at
the same time that tops are driving down the high
with a with an e fan laptop laptop in front
of them, but you can't touch your phone even at
a stoplight, or you're stuck in traffic and you can't
even move, don't touch your phone. Meanwhile, cops are typing

(06:13):
away on laptops and using their cell phones, and so
it's once again, it's elitism. And this is how far
off the the chosen path that the founding fathers had
for this country that you and I are just after thought.
They don't care, They do not I cannot instill in

(06:37):
your brains enough that they do not care. And that's
why I'm spending this inornate amount of time on this editorial,
because it's not just the idea of a pay raise,
it's their rationale, it's their wording, their language, everything, Because

(06:59):
what are they trying to do. The editorial board of
The Washington Post by the way, David Shipley, Charles Lane,
Stephen Stromberg, Mary Dunwald, James O. Hanmann, Eduardo Porto, and
Keith Richburg. Those are the members of the editorial board.
I know those name things nothing to you. In fact,

(07:20):
only a couple of them mean anything to me. I've
been in the Washington Post editorial board meetings before, and
I know what these people are like. They're trying to
buy influence, and this is a way of them buying
influence and saying, Hey, we, as part of the cabal,

(07:43):
are telling you it's okay, we give yourselves a pay raise.
Don't worry about what those little people out in den't
for Coloradeo think, or those people in Albuquerque. Are those
people you know in Des Moines, You don't care. We
don't care about them. We only care about you. We
get to one of the most astounding paragraphs in this editorial.

(08:10):
Let me just read it to you first. Thus begins
the reading of the bizarre portion of the editorial.

Speaker 5 (08:20):
Quote.

Speaker 2 (08:21):
Relatively low pay makes it harder for competent members who
don't come from money to devote their entire career to
public service. Congressman Patrick T. McHenry, a Republican. Republican from
North Carolina who just retired from the House after ten
terms that's twenty years at forty nine at age forty

(08:50):
nine shows why in an interview with The Dispatch, another
liberal publication. In an interview with The Dispatch after he
announced he would not seek re election, mister McHenry explained
that most members actually live on their house salary. Quoting him,

(09:10):
they write, the very wealthy few end up dominating the
news because of their personal stock trades when most of
us don't have wealth. You especially need staff. Keep that
in mind. You especially need staff to be able to

(09:31):
go toe to toe with the people they're regulating or
overseeing in the executive branch, which means you need to
get the highest quality folks. Close quote. Now, let's deconstruct
that paragraph. The low pay. They remember, the low pay

(09:55):
is higher than the median average annual income in this country.
Only eighteen percent of workers make six figures. So if
if you're listening to this program and you make a
six figure income, you're easily in the top twenty percent,

(10:19):
probably in the top ten percent. And here they are
making one hundred and seventy four thousand and the Washington
post is saying you need to make more, but I
think more salient to my point is Congressman McHenry, who
has served ten terms twenty years and is leaving because

(10:42):
he can make more money in the private sector. Let's
stopping now. I don't know Patrick McHenry at all. Maybe
I ran acrossing during my time in DC. Maybe well,
let's see twenty years ago. I probably did not. But
you think he can leave and now make more money

(11:05):
because he served twenty years in Congress. He served ten
terms representing North Carolina, which means he can now go
head up a trade association. He can go work for
a lobbying firm, he can be a rain maker at
a law firm, he could go do almost anything. He
can go run for governor and actually make less money.
You know how many people, how many of course, billionaires

(11:27):
like Jared Polis do that. They go make one hundred
and seventy four thousand, which is just you know, that's
spending money, and then they come back and they run
for governor because it's all about power, it's all about control,
it's all about exercising power and influence over your everyday lives.
But I want you to think about the last sentence
of what mister McHenry said. You especially need staff to

(11:51):
be able to go toe to toe with the people
they're regulating or overseeing in the executive branch, which means
you need to get the highest quality folk.

Speaker 4 (12:00):
That does curious, very curious to me. Does the staff
do they get paid by the congressman? No?

Speaker 5 (12:11):
Oh.

Speaker 2 (12:11):
In fact, Congress sets the salary and the salary scale
for their own staff, and they can pay on whatever
they want to pay.

Speaker 5 (12:20):
They don't.

Speaker 4 (12:20):
The staff does not get paid out of the congressman's
personal salary.

Speaker 5 (12:26):
Nor we won more.

Speaker 4 (12:27):
Time for the people to back that statement, You especially
need the staff to be able to go toe to
toe with the people that are regulating or overseeing the
executive branch, which means you need to get the highest
quality folks.

Speaker 5 (12:40):
Those folks, as quoted.

Speaker 4 (12:42):
There, are not paid by from the congressman.

Speaker 2 (12:49):
Welcome back from vacation. You're actually awake today, You're you're
actually paying attention today.

Speaker 4 (12:56):
The first time, the first time you read it, it
caught my ear and I'm like, wait, and I'm very
thankful that you went back.

Speaker 2 (13:03):
I thought yesterday when I read that paragraph for the
first time, why do you think I thought this is
the lead story for today show? Perhaps done? This is it?

Speaker 4 (13:12):
I would I would get it kind of if you
paid me directly, but no, I get paid from iHeart.

Speaker 5 (13:21):
So yes, I would love it if.

Speaker 4 (13:23):
You paid me directly and you got a raise, so
which means I could potentially get a raise.

Speaker 2 (13:28):
But no, no way in hellth I got a raise,
whend I give you part of it.

Speaker 5 (13:32):
But that's that's the same kind of thing. Here's like I, No,
you do not pay me, so I does not matter.

Speaker 2 (13:43):
That's what I make is absolutely immaterial to you.

Speaker 5 (13:47):
Correct.

Speaker 4 (13:47):
What the staff makes is completely immaterial to what the
congressman makes.

Speaker 2 (13:51):
Yeah, all I wish for is a computer that wouldn't
log out in the middle of a conversation where I
have to log back on. But that would be asking for,
you know, for an IT department that would actually be
paying attention to what's going on. But you know who
am I? You know you must be new here here.
I'm fresh off vacation. I'm just leave it living in
a naive world. Now let's go back to mister McHenry.

(14:17):
So he conflates congressional salaries with staff salaries. Now, why
would he do that. Why would the Washington Post put
that quote in there? Because I'm sure they interviewed him
at length and they got more than those two quotes.
Why would they choose that one? Because again, in the

(14:38):
off chance that somebody outside the Beltway who doesn't understand
this is reading this would think to themselves, Oh, yeah,
he's right. They need really high quality staff, so we
ought to get members of Congress of pay raise so
they can attract high quality staff. Huh No, that's utter

(15:00):
bull crap. But listen to the next paragraph. Because I
kind of know Patrick McHenry because he's oftentimes a talking
head on the cable channel, so I see him, but
I don't know really much about him. I just kind
of happen to know who he is, but I didn't
know was what's in the next paragraph. After chairing the

(15:23):
House Financial Services Committee, mister mckenry will probably be able
to pull in several million dollars a year in his
post congressional life as a lobbyist or a head of
a trade association. Yet, says The Washington Post, he is
the sort of thoughtful, seasoned lawmaker that both parties need

(15:48):
more of in the House. He was even interim speaker
after the GOP rebels took down Kevin McCarthy last year
until Mike Johnson won the election replace him. Oh so
we need more Patrick McHenry's Well, wait a minute. He

(16:10):
did twenty years, He did ten terms, so what's wrong
with him leaving? You know that I am personally against
term limits because we have term limits. It's just that
people keep voting for the same people over and over

(16:32):
and over. And if we impose term limits, we probably
make it even easier for people to win reelection. Because
if the incumbency rate right now is ninety percent, ninety
eight percent, ninety nine percent, whatever the actual number may be,
it is in the nineties, what's the in sending for

(16:55):
somebody to run against somebody? And why not go and
serve your terms, your twenty years and leave even make
millions of dollars, And you're making millions of dollars on
me right now, not all of them, but some are
them making millions of dollars doing insider trading, and then

(17:16):
they pull the same trick that unions pull. Comparatives, the
Washington Post rights other countries such as Singapore pay significantly
more to their civil servants than the US does both

(17:37):
to attract talent and to discourage corruption. Is that a
tased a mission? That members of Congress are corrupt? But
let's go back civil servants. You see, I'm now confused
because in the previous paragraph we were talking about staff
Now we're talking about civil servants. When I say, if

(18:01):
I'm talking about another story and I talk about the
civil servants, who do you think I'm talking about? If
you just hear the term civil servant? Do you think
about staffers the bureaucracy or do you think about the
members of Congress? I know that ninety nine point nine
ninet ninet niney nine nine percent of you think about
the bureaucracy, because who thinks about members of Congress earning

(18:24):
one hundred and seventy four thousand dollars a year, much
more than the median's yeah, annual salary of workers in
this country. How many of you really think of them
as civil servants. They're not. They're not civil servants, they're
not part time legislators. And why pick Singapore of all

(18:44):
the countries in the world. Why I pick Singapore? Probably
because like unions, teacher unions, well, you know, the average
teacher salary in Colorado is you know, eighteen thousand dollars
a year, and you know you go to Texas or
California and they're making thirty six thousand dollars a year,
So we got to increase us. It's the old comparative.

(19:08):
Well look what they're making. You know I could do
the same thing. Well, huh, look what playing a bucker making?
Why am I not making that much money?

Speaker 5 (19:19):
Huh?

Speaker 2 (19:19):
Why not?

Speaker 6 (19:26):
We can you hear the next thing, Michael, You're missing
the simple answer to the housing problem for our elected officials.
Once cash Betel empties out that FBI building, we already
own it, retro fit it into dorms, and a lot
of them all stay there reduced rate for a rent,
and then they can't complain about needing a race. Have

(19:49):
a great weekend.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
Holy crappled. That is a brilliant idea. I'm taking it back.
By that talkback, I am flabbergasted. I am embarrassed that
I didn't come up with that idea. Many members of

(20:15):
the House in the Senate already, like Chuck Schumer owns
a house on Capitol Hill East near Eastern Market, and
I think either five or six guys share that house
and he I don't whether he rents it out or

(20:36):
he just you know, as part of his you know,
trying to be mister cool, lets them live there or what.
But they they you know, they have these old Victorian
homes and he's got one and they all live there.
Why what, Well, my work is done here today. Yes,

(20:56):
we just solved the living problem. Dormitories. Just give them
Ethan dormitories. They all but act like a bunch of
fright kids anyway, So why not just give them dormitory dormitories?
All right? Back, I gotta finish this this hour. Uh So,

(21:16):
the Washington Post editorializing trying to convince people inside the
Beltway that hey, it's okay, wink wink, go ahead and
give yourselves a raise. But suddenly halfway through the editorial,
we quit talking about members of Congress and now we're
talking about the staffers. And they do that by swerving
over into Singapore, which, yes, by the way, whoever sent

(21:40):
me the text message Singapore does enforce its borders. Yeah,
go try to sneak into Singapore and off live off
the government teat in Singapore and tell me how that
works out for you. You know where you get cane for
throwing a piece of litter on the on the ground. Yeah,
tell me how that works out, baby. So anyway, they

(22:03):
get back to the they use Singapore and they use
the term civil servants that Singapore pays more to their
civil servants than we do. And they do that to
attract talent and to discourage corruption. You know, there was

(22:25):
a time in radio Plugola and Paila where disc jockeys
were you know, under the table, paid to pay to
play songs, to play records. And there was in the
nascent stage of talk radio, some talk radio hosts would

(22:48):
plug products and they would do it during content without
disclosing that they were being paid to plug that product
or that service. And so the FCC came up with
rules to stop. But it was it was a horrible practice.
It was it was very it was deceiving, it was deceitful,

(23:08):
it was it was just I think it was morally wrong.
I would I would never engage in that anytime that
I've ever talked about a product, product or a service
that I like, Uh, I never ever get paid for that.
Only during spot blocks. Now if I mentioned one of

(23:29):
my sponsors, you know, if I I just did Rocky
Mountain Men's Clinic. If I mentioned something about erections and
make a joke about Rocky Mountain's clinic, I'm not gonna say, oh,
by the way, that was sponsored by Rocky Mountain mens
Clean because you know that's one of my sponsors. But
if I talked, well, when I talk about my when

(23:50):
I talk about my iPhone or my iPad or whatever,
I never say, oh, by the way, I'm not I'm
not paid by Apple to mention that product. Because I'm not.
I would find it really bad to start pushing some

(24:11):
product with that or service and try to do it
in the context of oh, I'm just hey, I'm just
casually talking about an iPhone, and meanwhile, Apple's paying me
a million bucks a year talk about iPhones. No, just
does not happen. Why do we need to pay people
more in Congress so they won't be corrupt? Doesn't that

(24:35):
tell me we're electing the wrong people. But let's go
back to the staff. So they say that they do
it in Singapore to attract talent and discourage corruption. And
in the very next sentence, the Washington Post tells you
this tellingly, the top pay allowed for a house staffer

(24:58):
is two hundred twelve thousand, one hundred dollars per year
top staffer to twelve one hundred more than two hundred
twelve thousand dollars a year, a Senate staffer two hundred

(25:19):
and twenty one nine hundred and then, well, let me
just read you the sentence. Tellingly, the top pay allowed
for a house staffer is two hundred twelve thousand, one
hundred dollars and for a Senate staffer two hundred twenty
one thousand, nine hundred dollars, meaning that senior staff members
occasionally earn more than their bosses.

Speaker 3 (25:43):
So what.

Speaker 2 (25:45):
I don't know for a fact, but I would guess
that of the two or three bosses so called bosses,
that I have in this building, I bet I make
more more than at least one of them. I may not,
but I M that's just my guess, just based on

(26:07):
how long I've been here and my contract terms and
endorsements and sponsorships, and so I probably make more than
some of my bosses. Do you know what. I never
thought about that until I read this sentence. And the
reason I don't think about it is because I don't

(26:28):
care what my boss makes. I don't it makes no
difference to me. The only person that I work with
in this building that I care about how much money
they make is that guy sitting back there, And I
have to force myself to care about it. I'm gonna

(26:50):
be seriously woo. He's the only person I care about
how much money he makes, and that's only because I
like him, and I think he's underpaid for what he
does well, not for what he does on this program,
but for what he does otherwise.

Speaker 5 (27:08):
Oh yeah, I put in lots of hard work on
the other programs that work well.

Speaker 2 (27:10):
He's way overpaid for what he does on this program.
Let me tell you that. So why do we care
about this? Why is that an argument to pay Congress more?
Wait a minute, Members of Congress work for us. They
work for us. You're paying their salaries. Now, I know
you're paying for the salaries of the staffer too, but

(27:32):
you know what, the staffers are experts.

Speaker 4 (27:35):
It might I just jump in here and say, this
is not communism. Each position gets paid in each individual salary.

Speaker 5 (27:45):
It does not matter.

Speaker 4 (27:47):
But I do I should get paid differently than what
some of the other producers get paid because I do
a different job. Yeah, we had the same title World
executive producers for show. But I do a different job
than say a Rod does. I do a different job
than what Grant does. I do a different job than
what Shannon does. So we all should get paid a.

Speaker 2 (28:11):
Different jobs, have different job, and you have different skills,
you have different responsibilities for the different programs that you
work on, exactly. So if you have a tax lawyer
working on the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways
and Means Committee, and they've been there for and this
is not uncommon, they've been working on that committee for

(28:34):
twenty or thirty years, then it's just logical that over
time they're probably going to make more money than one
hundred and seventy four thousand dollars paid to a member
of Congress with the Senate BFD. Just BFD. But now, again,
I told you I wanted to bring you this because one,

(28:54):
I wanted to emphasize that they don't care. The Washington
Post is propagandizing and they're doing every human thing that
they can to rationalize that these members, these yahoos, need
to be paid more than the average American makes. Listen
to this. Now, I want you to think about yourself.
I want you to think about yourself as I read

(29:17):
you the next paragraph, inflation. I can't even get beyond
the first word inflation here.

Speaker 4 (29:28):
Let me just stop you real quicker and jump to
a quick test mixes here from forty four to sixty seven. Michael,
just remember that Fauci got paid more than the president.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
That's exactly yeah, he was. He was making what almost
a million bucks a year or something. Come on, But
now they want, now the Washington Post wants to talk
about inflation, and inflation is going to be one of
their rationalizations for paying members of Congress more who caused
the majority of the inflation in the country that we're

(29:57):
suffering through right now. The there any people that the
Washington Post is trying to give a raise to. Now,
let me read you the sentence, I hope you blow.
I'm I don't want you to have an aneurysm, but
I hope you blow a blood vessel. Inflation has eroded
members salaries in real terms by about thirty percent since

(30:20):
two thousand and nine. How you doing back to your dragon?

Speaker 4 (30:26):
Do you say that again? Just a little slower because
I hit my head on the desk.

Speaker 2 (30:31):
Inflation has eroded member salaries and real terms by about
thirty percent since two thousand and nine. I'm making more
money right now than I think I've made my entire life.
Well maybe not, but probably they'll probably pretty close to it.
And my purchasing power seems to have dwindled by I

(30:51):
don't know, fifty percent or more. I go out to
eat now and I just cringe. Is it's absolutely absurd,
And these yahoos want a pay increase. How has your
salary in real terms been reduced since two thousand and nine? Now,

(31:16):
the next sentence is a little technical, let me do
it real quickly. The twenty seventeen tax code overhauled. The
twenty seventeen tax code overhaul also eliminated a tax deduction
of up to three thousand dollars for living expenses incurred
by members of Congress. That is factually correct, But what

(31:39):
they don't tell you is that the election finance laws
have been changed so that as long as you are,
you know. It's like I used to have a staffer
that worked for me, and he never spent his per diem,
never spend his per diem. He would he he would

(32:01):
pucket that per diem, and we traveled all the time,
so he probably increased his salary by at least twenty
five percent because of the per diem that he got. Well,
members of Congress, as long as they are on official business,
they get their flights and living expenses and meals and stuff.

(32:22):
They can either charge that off to their office account,
or they can charge it off to their campaign and
they're in constant campaign mode, or they're always doing.

Speaker 7 (32:32):
Business as a healthcare provider who takes money for medicaiding
Medicare and private insurance and cash, but has to live
by all the regulations that that boies people put on
me and cost me money to live by. I have
zero pity for them.

Speaker 2 (32:57):
Mission accomplished, Dragon, My work is done here.

Speaker 5 (33:02):
We can go home.

Speaker 2 (33:03):
Yes, we'll just dragon. I aren't paid enough, particularly when
you hear the next paragraph or the end of the
last paragraph. We're not paid enough to stick around and
keep trying to entertain you people. Here's how they m

(33:24):
the editorial. If lawmakers pay had risen with the cost
of living, if your pay had risen with the cost
of living, just as a little fun experiment, if lawmakers
pay had risen with the cost of living, their current

(33:45):
salary would be two hundred and forty three thousand, three
hundred dollars. May I remind you, or I'm going to
remind you that the median household income in twenty twenty
three was around forty four thousand, two hundred and twenty

(34:06):
five dollars forty four thousand. If their pay had risen
with the cost of living, their current salary would be
not forty four thousand, but two hundred and forty three thousand,
three hundred dollars.

Speaker 4 (34:24):
Let me put this into a little bit of simpler terms.

Speaker 2 (34:26):
For the please do please do it.

Speaker 4 (34:28):
For the people like me in the audience. Do not
pay attention to any of this kind stuff that is almost
a quarter of a million dollars a year. Is that
like in the what was doctor Evil? Yeah, doctor evil?

Speaker 5 (34:44):
Quarter of a million dollars?

Speaker 2 (34:48):
And then here's the Koudi grass. The last sentence says this,
if Americans won a Congress that draws on the of
America in which anyone can afford to serve, they should
want their representatives to be more competitively compensated, constipated, compensated.

(35:16):
I think I enunciated the word correctly.

Speaker 5 (35:19):
I'm just having I think.

Speaker 2 (35:20):
You intentionally misheard, because now after this whole story. I'm constipated. No, actually,
I'm not. After this whole story. I've got the runs,
I've got the s words just flowing everywhere.

Speaker 4 (35:37):
Good thing, it's Friday, and in an hour we'll have
taxpayer releeve shut.

Speaker 2 (35:40):
Oh thank goodness. Uh, I have a horrible thought which
I cannot repeat. I will Oh my gosh, I'm I'm
an awful human being. I'm so sorry. So what do
you think? That's the Washington Post. That's the newspaper that

(36:01):
says democracy dies in darkness. That's their tagline. That's the
newspaper that you know. Reporters and editorial writers and others
are leaving in hordes because well, they wouldn't endorse Joe Biden,
they would endorse Kamala Harris, they didn't endorse anybody. And
now they're carrying water from members of Congress trying to

(36:26):
convince all of Now, why do you think I haven't
done it this morning? But I did it quickly last night.
I saw. I don't whether it's still true today or not,
whether any other newspaper had picked up this editorial, or
whether any other newspaper had written a similar editorial. None

(36:48):
had I checked the one place I did check again
this morning was the New York Times to see if
they had picked it up. They had not, or they
had not done anything similar in the same timeframe. Ah,
the New York Times is push for pay raises too.
But why do you think on the day that Congress
goes back into session that they would publish an editorial

(37:13):
like this at two or three o'clock in the afternoon.
Because they want the people that influence, They want the
people that really exercise the power to go to those puppets,
those members of Congress and say, you should give yourself
a pay raise. We'll have your back. Don't worry about

(37:35):
those little people. Don't worry about that stupid talk show
host in Denver, Colorade. Do'tn't worry about him. Remember he was,
he was that, He was that idiot that you know,
screwed things up. He was. He was. He's a horrible
human being. He he hates black people. He murdered He
and George Bush murdered black people. Don't pay any attention
to what he says. Do you do? You do what's right.
You give yourself a raise, you give that, you give

(37:58):
yourself a two hundred and forty three thousand dollar or
your salary, and you want to try to convince me
that they care about you, really, and you think that
the Washington Post, really, the editorial board, really cares what
people in Flyover. Do you think they care, regardless of

(38:18):
the liberal tendencies, the obvious liberal tendencies of the woman
that owns the waffle shop in Seattle, the Bebop waffle Shop,
Do you think they care about her? No, not in
the least. This is the world that we now live in. Politically,
it's no longer left versus right to some degree, it's

(38:42):
certainly no longer republican versus democrats. It's the elitist, it's
the versus us Please