Michael Monks opens the hour with a deep dive into a scathing audit revealing LA’s failure to track billions in homelessness funding—while LA County residents brace for a sales tax hike to fund these programs. Then, UCLA economist Jerry Nickelsburg joins to discuss economic uncertainty fueled by shifting tariffs, inflation concerns, and the impact of potential mass deportations on California’s workforce. Finally, Michael shifts gears to wildlife, sharing his thoughts on Jackie & Shadow’s newest eaglet.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to KFI AM six forty on demand.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
KFI AM six forty live everywhere in the iHeartRadio app.
This is Michael Monks Reports at Michael Monks from KFI
News with you till nine o'clock tonight. Thanks for sticking
with us on this beautiful Saturday night in Southern California.
A fresh final from the NBA in Boston. The Celtics
beat the Lakers one eleven to one oh one, and
(00:24):
there's your sports update. We're gonna talk about those Eagles
and Big Bear, but I'm gonna share some feelings, you know,
glued to it, just like a lot of you. We're
gonna talk about it coming out at the bottom of
this hour, about the fears I have about what I'm
seeing some of the grotesque images. It's it's a great
piece of nature and the symbol of America there, but
(00:46):
I'm worried and we'll talk a bit about why coming
up at the close of this show. But first I
need to tell you something more important than that, frankly,
and that is the fact that you're gonna be spending
a little bit more when you buy things in Los
Angeles County, and we can think one another for that
we voted for this. There is a sales tax increase
(01:07):
going into effects starting on the first of April. This
goes back to last November when voters across the county
approved Measure A, which adds a quarter of a percent
to the sales tax. So in La County, to sales
tax is ten point twenty five percent. It's going up
to ten and a half percent. That starts on April
the first, and this is in support of homeless programs.
(01:32):
Again approved by voters. The county came out and said, look,
we need to have more funding to address this crisis
in this county. Please vote for this. It will repeal
a previous measure that was known as Measure H that
was set to die out in a couple of years.
This one, this has no sunset clause in it. This
(01:53):
goes on in perpetuity. I suppose until we return to
the ballot boxing and we've had enough of this, We're
not going to pay anymore for it. So April first,
another quarter percent is going on the sales tax on
goods sold across Los Angeles County. Now what does that mean?
(02:13):
What do you expect to get for this money? Do
you expect anything. We know there have been a lot
of problems with keeping track of how our homeless dollars
are spent in the City of Los Angeles and in
the County of Los Angeles through the Los Angeles Homeless
Services Authority, an agency that was created and governed by
(02:35):
the city and the county jointly. So here's what we're
supposed to expect from this. We expect to see more
people leaving homeless camps and put into permanent housing. That's
what they told us. What happened, we would have fewer
people suffering mental health crises or substance abuse and drug
(02:58):
addictions on the street. We will have more people permanently
leaving homelessness, we will have fewer people falling into homelessness
in the first place, and we will see more affordable
housing units across Los Angeles County. That's what we were
(03:18):
told would happen. That's what you are to expect to
happen because of this new sales tax. This funds about
six hundred million dollars a year, is what they are
expecting to generate off of this to put towards these efforts.
(03:39):
So voters in La County wanted this it is now coming.
But here's the question, and it is a very important one.
Will we get what we're paying for? So far, with
initiatives like this, it hasn't looked to be the case.
(04:00):
And yet another audit has come out this week of
homeless spending in the City of Los Angeles, and it's
not good. An auditing firm called Alvarez and Marsau identified
two point three billion dollars of funding from the City
of LA that includes appropriation, so money that's already gone out, commitments,
(04:21):
money that is to be paid, or spending related to
city programs like inside Safe. Two point three billion dollars.
Now we knew it was going to be a lot.
But the worst finding is that the City of Los
Angeles and the LA Homeless Services Authority did not initially
provide all of the requested financial data. It forced the
(04:46):
auditors to make multiple attempts to identify, trace, and reconcile
all of the data that they say was relevant to this.
The auditors at A and M said they relied on
the financial data produced by the city and LASA because
A and M did not have direct access to the
(05:07):
financial information systems used by the city, so as a result,
since the city and LASA were unable to identify and
calculate relevant expenses for all city programs, auditors were unable
to quantify the total amount of money spent to establish
beds for homeless people and provide associated homeless supportive services.
(05:30):
This was an audit that was ordered by a federal judge.
There is an ongoing lawsuit. It's usually referred to as
the La Alliance lawsuit against the city. This is a
group of downtown business owners who sued the city several
years ago saying you have got to do something about
what's going on down here, and so it has mandated
a certain number of homeless beds need to be created.
But this audit was part of that case court ordered
(05:54):
and the auditors still could not get all of the
information that they needed. They're supposed to be a on
March twenty seventh, so we've got a couple of weeks
here in federal court to discuss this audit, so there
will be more to come. The audit found the invoicing
process between the city and LASSA, or the cash request process,
(06:15):
was time consuming. It was a manual process at risk
of human error, and it exposes the city and LASSA
to potential accounting in accuracies and complicating precise reconciliation of
contract expenditures. They also found contracts between the city, LASA
and the service providers. Keep in mind, we talk about
LASA a lot, but there are so many smaller organizations
(06:37):
out there that are part of this Lossa's tentacles are long,
and there are a lot of different groups that get
this money to provide these beds. The auditors found that
contracts between the City, LASA and those service providers frequently
contain broad terms without clear definitions, and that created ambiguity
about the scope and the type of service delivered. So
(07:01):
we don't know exactly how much was spent or even
why it was spent. So this audit follows a pretty
scathing review of the finances at LASA already that prompted
the county to say, I don't think we want to
be part of LASA anymore, and that's going to be
(07:22):
discussed on Tuesday at the Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor
Lindsay Horvath came out with a statement blasting this audit.
And we already see movement at the City of Los
Angeles where some council members have said, I don't think
I don't think we should be part of LASA anymore.
We should have our own homeless department. The county wants
its own homeless department. Now the City of La wants
(07:43):
its homeless department. So what becomes of this joint effort
between the city and the county called LASA. All of
these complications around the regional attempt to address homelessness, just
as the sales tax is about to go up a
quarter of a percent to fund more homeless programs, more
money going towards the attempts to stop homelessness, to address homelessness,
(08:07):
to prevent homelessness, and more evidence that the money, the
billions that have already been spent, have not been well
taken care of. You can bet we'll continue to follow that. Now,
what about the money you're spending. What do we expect
from the economy locally and nationally based on what President
Trump has in store for us and what could tariffs
(08:30):
and deportations specifically due to LA in California. We'll have
that conversation coming up next when Michael Monks Reports continues.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Here, you're listening to KFI AM six forty on demand.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
This is Michael Monks Reports on Michael Monks from KFI
News with until nine o'clock tonight. It hasn't been two
months yet that President Trump has been back in the
White House, but it has been an eventful time. We've
been through a Trump administration before, so we know he
changes his mind a lot, and that there's occasional chaos
(09:06):
in the White House. But the UCLA Anderson Forecast released
this week shows a high level of uncertainty around the economy,
created by those very things. Trump's waffling on some of
his policy demands and the chaos surrounding the White House's
plans for the country. We're joined now by the director
of the UCLA Anderson Forecast at the Anderson School of Management,
(09:26):
doctor Jerry Nicholsberg. Your report indicates there is uncertainty in
the economy and that seems to play out almost daily
in this country, especially around tariffs. The President says, We've
got tariffs on Mexico and Canada, for example, and then
we don't, and then we do, and then we don't.
What uncertainty is specifically created by that waffling.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
So I think it's no surprise to anyone that there's
greater uncertainty about the economic future of the United States
than before because the policies coming out of Washington are
coming fast and furious. There is some questionable legality about
some of them, so they're ending up in the courts
(10:07):
to adjudicate that. And we have on again, off again tariffs.
The tariff issue is kind of interesting in the sense
that the markets are saying, you know, as soon as
the tariffs are off or postponed, the markets are happier
about that. But you know, the fact is, for main street,
(10:32):
whether or not they're going to be tariffs matters. That
creates uncertainty, and uncertainty always leads businesses to act in
a more conservative way, to ramp down their plans to
produce more, to ramp down their plans to order more inventory,
and so it has a contractionary effect even if the
tariffs never go on.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
You mentioned the markets. The stock market has seemed pretty
shifty about the economy as well, but other financial market
indicators haven't been as dramatic. So what are we to
make of this.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Volatility on Wall Street and what you call the quote
surprisingly sanguine financial markets and the relationship of those to
President Trump.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
When we think about what's happening with financial markets, I
think we have to consider the fact that the players,
the actors in the financial markets don't really know much
more than any of the rest of us. And so,
you know, there's a real question, is government going to
be so disruptive, that disrupted that it does not function
(11:39):
well and does not support the economic activity in the
US with you some more certainty about what the rules are,
what the support or lack thereof might be. And so
the markets are trying to figure this out. And that's
where you get this volatility because as there really isn't
(12:01):
a clear message coming from Washington about how, let's say,
in the latter part of twenty twenty five, the economic
policy is going to finally shape up.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty that does seem to be the magic
word in conversations around the American economy right now, we're
basically just a month and a half into this new presidency.
Is it unusual to see such a jump in uncertainty
in such a new administration.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
You know, I think there's two points that are important here.
The President isn't doing anything that he did not say
as a candidate, So we shouldn't be surprised that there's
an abrupt shift in economic policy, and that shift in
economic policy is going to have at least or at
a minimum, transitional costs. You know, the President acknowledged those
(12:55):
said there would be a little bit of pain. There
might be a lot of pain, you know, that's something
that we don't know yet. And so this is quite
a different economic policy in terms of have we seen
anything like this before? Well, of course we've seen shifts
in policies, but we haven't seen such a flurry of
(13:19):
new activity activity on the part of the executive branch
of government that creates this kind of uncertainty. It tends
to be a bit more measured when we get changed
in policy.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
I think it's fair to say, yes, everything that the
president has done we should have expected, because he did
say he was going to do these things. But there
were also other issues raised on the campaign trail, and
I'm curious about the effect of actions or lack thereof,
on those issues, especially around the economy, consumer prices, inflation,
the price of eggs, interest rates, gas. Are there any
(13:55):
indications that the Trump administration has moved in a direction
to ease consumer worries about those issues.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
No, there really isn't, you know. On the campaign trail,
the President said that prices, consumer prices, particularly at the
grocery store, would be coming down, and deportations and tariffs
raised prices, not lower them. Indicated that gasoline prices were
(14:25):
going to come down because we were going to have
a lot more drilling. But at the same time, the
oil drillers said they're not going to drill more, but
they welcomed less regulation. So you know, kind of there
are things that we don't see are going to happen
in the economy that were promised in terms of prices. Indeed,
(14:49):
you know, we have said for a long time, and
I think most economists are saying that you can expect
prices to go up, inflation to stay higher, and take
much longer to come down. So you know, we're looking
at higher inflation over the next few years.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Well, what about a true economic crisis, like a recession.
Has your forecast spotted any indicators related to that as
a possibility. We have not.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
We enter twenty twenty five with a very strong economy,
and we still see signs that the economy is in
pretty good shape. You know, for example, the latest numbers
on the initial claims for unemployment insurance, we're down rather
than not now. We expect that to change when we
get into April and May, but that's an expectation. So
(15:41):
the signs today are actually reasonably good. We're going to
get consumer price index numbers a little later, you know,
those are coming up. The employment situation for February will
be released, I believe at the end of this week,
so this weekend next week we'll get some more indication,
(16:02):
but as of now, we don't see any indication in
the numbers that the economy is going south.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
The uncertainty is also specific to California, especially when it
comes to tariffs and deportations. We'll continue with doctor Nicholsberg
and hone in on the California impact. Next.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
You're listening to KFI AM six forty on demand AFIAM.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. This is
Michael Monks Reports on Michael Monks from KFI News with
you untill nine o'clock tonight. What impact could there be
on California through President Trump's tariff and deportation policies. The
UCLA Anderson Forecast has details on where the state could
lose and win. The director of the forecast, doctor Jerry Nicholsberg,
(16:50):
is with us. Let's talk California. Let's talk deportation. Immigrant workers,
including illegal immigrant workers, they play a significant role in
this state economy. What happens here. I've seen some ice activity,
but what happens here if mass deportations start.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
When we're talking about the economy, what is really important
is not whether or not individuals are detained, but whether
or not individuals lead the labor force, because that's really
what the economic impact is. And so in sectors, in
jobs where there's a high proportion of immigrants, maybe they
(17:29):
have legal papers, maybe they don't, you can expect people
to not go to work or to go to work
less frequently, you know, and that has real implications, particularly
in agriculture, in construction, in leisure and hospitality you don't
(17:53):
think restaurants and hotels, and in healthcare. So those sectors
are going to find that they have labor shortages, and
at least initially, that means less production, less output, less
income until an adjustment, you know, in their workforce. In
(18:14):
their labor saving capital can impact be made.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
I wanted to ask you about those sectors agriculture and construction.
We've already heard some concerns about the wine industry here
in California and folks who are not showing up to
work anymore out of concerns that they could be detained
by federal immigration officials. There are other fruits that are
picked in the state, vegetables that are picked, a lot
of farming jobs. If those industries are not able to
(18:40):
replace those immigrant workers, regardless of their immigration status, what
could happen to them?
Speaker 3 (18:47):
You know, what you would expect is if there are
not enough people to pick the produce, it doesn't get picked.
And then of course food processing and you know, including
slutterhouses and other processing plans will also lay off workers.
(19:09):
People who have appropriate documents in legal status might find
themselves unemployed. So we're going to get a contraction in
those sectors now from the part of the firm, so
the farms or the factories and so on, they'll be
looking for how they can continue business with a smaller workforce.
(19:29):
So they're going to be investing in labor saving capital,
and they're going to be shrinking somewhat, and.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Then there's construction, and building things in California is a
challenge anyway. We know that we don't have enough housing
units in the state. That's pretty well documented. It's also
difficult to go through the permitting process. That's well documented.
But immigrants, again, regardless of immigration status, do make up
a chunk of that workforce. And right now La County
(19:56):
is moving towards rebuilding after these devastating while fires. You
would imagine that there's going to be a lot of
building that takes place. What concerns might there be about
that sector of the economy, especially when demand is about
to go up.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
There is a lot of concern about residential construction, you know,
for a number of reasons. We just moments ago talked
about agriculture, and that's seasonal and there is in place
a system to bring in seasonal workers. For example, do
you know to pick the strawberries and so on. Construction
is not seasonal, and there's nothing in place to bring
(20:34):
in additional construction workers. Not that there couldn't be, but
there isn't. Right now. California was in a position going
into twenty twenty five where there really was a shortage
of construction workers, and this is just going to make
(20:54):
it worse, and so we all have a shortage of
construction workers in that in and of itself is going
to be a constraint on the number of new homes
that can be built in the state. That is going
to be kind of further amplified or made problematic because
interest rates are up and they're not going down anytime soon.
(21:19):
And the tariffs really are going to be applied to
countries that send US building materials lumber from Canada, drywall
from Mexico and China, electrical appliances and fixtures from China.
These all raised the cost of housing. So California's housing
(21:40):
situation relative to kind of the demand for that housing
is only going to get worse over the next year.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
On the other hand, this Trump administration has expressed support
for H one B visas to help the tech industry.
It allows companies to hire foreign workers temporarily in specialty roles.
This looks like it could potentially be a benefit for
a tech heavy state like California. Is that right?
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Is that is correct? That, you know, the tech industry
seems to have, you know, a certain closeness to the
new administration and for the tech industry to grow, particularly
with innovation, it needs a lot of H one B visas.
Now there are tech workers who were recently laid off
(22:28):
from the large tech firms. They're going to get soaked
up pretty quickly, and so if the H one B
visas come, they will be disproportioned to California and that
will certainly boost the California economy. And of course, you know,
the spending by those newly employed people will support other
sectors of the economy.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
So we might have some challenges with building, we might
have some challenges with agriculture. We might see some improvements
even with the tech industry. So when we take all
of this into consideration in general, well, what does the future,
the immediate future seem to have in store for California's
economic growth and its rate of employment.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
Our expectation is that Californias can exhibit slow growth through
twenty twenty five and into twenty twenty six. We don't
have a recession forecast, but we do have slow growth.
And when you have slow growth, things can tip in
either direction relatively easily. And the sectors that we're driving
(23:29):
California growth in twenty twenty four are not going to
be driving its growth in the future, so tech, durable goods, manufacturing, aerospace,
these are sectors that really need to grow and support
the rest of the California economy. Now. Having said that,
(23:50):
they are sectors that have given California faster than the
US growth in the past, so that remains to be seen,
but our forecast is for twenty twenty five to be
a fairly lean hear for the state.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Doctor Jerry Nicholsberg is the director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast.
He's also an adjunct professor of economics at the Anderson
School of Management at UCLA. Jerry, I'm so appreciative of
the time you gave us. I hope we can talk
again soon.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
It's a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Up next.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
President Trump has also vowed to end something we're about
to experience in a few hours daylight saving time, but
this week he's taken a more lukewarm approach.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
You're listening to KFI AM six forty on demand.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
This is Michael Monk's reports on Michael Monks from KFI News.
We're finishing up this last few minutes of our program tonight.
Thanks for spending Saturday evening with us. One less hour
for you this weekend. It is daylight saving time time.
(24:51):
So don't forget to spring forward. Put those clocks ahead.
I think most of our clocks these days that we
rely on our digital But get ready to wake up
in the morning and reset those ovens in the microwaves,
maybe your vehicle, so that you stay on time. I
know that daylight saving time or standard time, all of
that has been a hot debate for a long time.
(25:13):
Should we keep it? Do we need to keep doing
this ancient practice? President Trump, after he was elected back
in December, before he actually took office, sent out a
social media post that said, quote, daylight saving time is
inconvenient and very costly to our nation. He says that
Republicans would use their best effort to eliminate the century
(25:36):
old practice of moving the clocks forward one hour every
spring and then one hour back in the fall. But
this week it didn't seem so eager to change the
clock so quickly, he told reporters in the Oval Office
on a Thursday, quote, I assume people would like to
have more light later, but some people want to have
(25:58):
more light earlier because they don't want to take their
kids to school in the dark. And it's very much
it's a little bit one way, but it's very much
a fifty fifty issue now. According to the Washington Post,
political leaders also say they are grappling with whether the
nation should permanently move the clocks forward one hour. This
(26:20):
is an idea that has been championed by lawmakers on
the coast, who say it would allow for more sunshine
during the winter, or remain on year round standard time,
which is favored by neurologists who say it aligns with
our circadian rhythms. That decision, of course, would rest with
Congress and not the president. Either way, we are still
(26:44):
on that schedule for now, so do in fact spring forward.
I have to say I don't have a serious feeling
about this, but I am already to have a little
more darkness in the morning. I don't like the sunshining
so early. I like to feel like I'm a way
earlier than everyone else, and when the sun is up,
I feel like I need to be working, and I
(27:06):
prefer to have like a cup of coffee. I like
to scroll a little bit, see what horrors await us
in the world by looking at X and figuring out
what I'll be covering in the news for the day.
But man, when the sun is up so early, like,
you got to get moving. And I'm looking forward to
the changes next week. I think we're gonna, we're gonna,
We're gonna find that that's probably the way to go
(27:28):
if we choose just one way. But then I don't
want to go against the neurologists. You tell me, I'll
tell you what people are paying attention to, and it's
these eagles in Big Bear. Let's think about what time
it is right now here in Los Angeles. It's about
ten minutes to nine on Saturday night, Okay, in LA
(27:49):
a city known all over the world for being a
destination for dreamers living the Hollywood life. Right well, just
outside the city in Big Bear, there is a camera
on these eagles, as we all know by now, and
at this moment, according to the YouTube stats, there's nearly
twenty three thousand people watching this live. And let me
(28:11):
tell you, it is dark. This eagle has not moved
this entire show. I've had it up the whole time.
We're looking at an eagle's But twenty three thousand of
us maybe hoping to get a glimpse of the eaglets
that are underneath either the mom or the dad. I
don't even know which eagle I'm looking at. There's one
eagle in the nest at this moment. You can't see
(28:33):
the eaglets. And yet twenty three thousand of us are
logged onto this YouTube feed. And I said at the
top of the seven o'clock hour when we began this program,
I found this whole thing pretty charming because La is
such a major city. We're known throughout the universe. We're
big place. But this type of event kind of brings
(28:57):
out our small townness that even here in La, the
Land of Dreams, we can all stop and experience something
as natural as birds being born. And you know, we
in the media, we're all.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Ate up with it.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
And that's because our stats are telling us you're ate
up with it. We're giving you updates every time a
little claw peeks out of an egg, and that's cute.
But some of the images that I saw, now that
there are three eglits in there, the parents are busy.
(29:37):
Some of the images that I saw this week, we're
pretty horrifying, you know, These eagles are big time predators.
They got to feed these babies. And so we're watching
these cute little eaglets and we're watching them be fed
and it's great. But in the background, there's like a
(29:59):
bloody fish that's been gutted. There was another bird that
had been hunted and killed.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
And you know that.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
Fish, that crow they might have had babies, were the
cameras on them. These images were horrifying. Nature is so disgusting.
We're all rooting for these eaglets, but nobody's rooting for
the crows. Nobody's rooting for the fish, and I thought
(30:34):
it was gross. We are so ight up with it
here at KFI. I came in for my regular work
yesterday in the morning, and our traffic reporter in the morning,
will Cole Schreiber, was on the air doing the traffic reports,
and during one of his live hits, you could hear
the eagle live cam in the background. It was a
technical accident that he left it up, but we're so
(30:57):
ate up with it here. As we heard the traffic
report going on with the eagles squawking in the background,
we didn't know who was responsible, Amy King, who was
angering the news at the time she had the camera up,
she thought maybe she had broadcast it. Our board operator
at the time was Robin. She had it up, she
thought she might have been playing it. We're all watching
(31:17):
these constantly, twenty three thousand people watching right now, five
minutes to nine o'clock on a Saturday night. So yeah,
it's a little horrifying to watch, you know, as the babies,
we're seeing where the food comes from, We're seeing all
of nature here, right. Some animals have to die so
that these animals live. But now that there are three babies,
(31:42):
I hate to be pessimistic, but it could get ugly.
In that nest. Both parents, the male and the female
Jackie and Shadow, will work to feed these. It is
usually the mom who does most of the brooding. But
after that first week that the first baby's hatch, the
(32:08):
parents will let the nestling eagles be exposed a little bit.
And that's what we've been seeing. That's what we're all
tuned in for. Now we want to see the babies.
So this website called Avian Report has explained the whole
process when the eggs are supposed to hatch, what happens
after they hatch, And we know that the first baby
that hatches is fed almost right away on the first day,
(32:31):
and that eglet develops a size advantage over the second one,
and then naturally both develop a size advantage over the third.
You see where I'm going with this. In fact, there
have been scientists field observers who watch adult bald eagles
(32:52):
feeding three four week old eaglets, and they recorded what
they called dismal differences in the amount of food each
eaglet got. For example, an adult eagle brought a large
fish to the nest and fed the largest eaglet sixty
seven percent of the fish two thirds of it. The
(33:12):
second eaglet got eighteen point nine percent of the fish,
and the third just got a bite thirteen point seven
percent of the fish. And then in another nest with
three baby eglets, the difference were even more dramatic. The
largest eaglet received ninety six percent of the fish, the
second eaglet got two and a half percent, the third
chick got one point two percent of the fish, and
(33:34):
in that nest, the smallest eaglet eventually died from starvation.
I'm not trying to put a buzzkill on all this
excitement we're having around these these eglets. But nature is challenging,
and I'm wondering if the producers of this live feed
are ready to cut away when things take a turn,
(33:55):
because not only is there only so much crow apparently
to go around for these hungry little babies, these little
babies will turn on each other. Baby bald eagles can
kill each other, Avian report says newly hatched nestlings can
be very aggressive to each other. They appear to be
(34:15):
aggressive by nature. They may engage in fierce fights that
hurt each other, or they terminate the fight and they
grow together. But food availability is the driving force and
determining how aggressive eaglets are to each other. When the
food is scarce, the difference in size between the first, second,
(34:36):
and third baby eagle becomes more pronounced, and the little
food brought to the nest is capitalized by the larger
eglet that continues to grow while the others lag. The
smallest eglet is either killed by its larger siblings or
dies of starvation. So that is what we have to
(34:59):
look forward. Two here, twenty three thousand of us. Well
look at this angel number right now, twenty two hundred
and twenty two people viewing this video right now two
two two. What happens when it gets ugly in there?
I'm nervous. I'm smoking a lot of cigarettes watching this video.
I'm telling you I'm rooting for them all. Nature may
(35:24):
have other plans. We'll continue to monitor and bring you
breaking Eagle news all week long. We're so grateful that
you joined us for Michael Monks reports here on this
Saturday night in southern California. I'm also grateful to our
board operator Rollo Cortes, our producer Matthew Toffler, and our
news anchor Brigitta Gagostino. We'll be back here again next
(35:48):
Saturday night with more news and analysis on the issues
that matter to you. And I'll be with you all
week long covering the news right here at KFI AM
six point forty.
Speaker 1 (35:59):
We'll catch you against KFI A M six forty on
demand
You're listening to KFI AM six forty on demand.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
KFI AM six forty live everywhere in the iHeartRadio app.
This is Michael Monks Reports at Michael Monks from KFI
News with you till nine o'clock tonight. Thanks for sticking
with us on this beautiful Saturday night in Southern California.
A fresh final from the NBA in Boston. The Celtics
beat the Lakers one eleven to one oh one, and
(00:24):
there's your sports update. We're gonna talk about those Eagles
and Big Bear, but I'm gonna share some feelings, you know,
glued to it, just like a lot of you. We're
gonna talk about it coming out at the bottom of
this hour, about the fears I have about what I'm
seeing some of the grotesque images. It's it's a great
piece of nature and the symbol of America there, but
(00:46):
I'm worried and we'll talk a bit about why coming
up at the close of this show. But first I
need to tell you something more important than that, frankly,
and that is the fact that you're gonna be spending
a little bit more when you buy things in Los
Angeles County, and we can think one another for that
we voted for this. There is a sales tax increase
(01:07):
going into effects starting on the first of April. This
goes back to last November when voters across the county
approved Measure A, which adds a quarter of a percent
to the sales tax. So in La County, to sales
tax is ten point twenty five percent. It's going up
to ten and a half percent. That starts on April
the first, and this is in support of homeless programs.
(01:32):
Again approved by voters. The county came out and said, look,
we need to have more funding to address this crisis
in this county. Please vote for this. It will repeal
a previous measure that was known as Measure H that
was set to die out in a couple of years.
This one, this has no sunset clause in it. This
(01:53):
goes on in perpetuity. I suppose until we return to
the ballot boxing and we've had enough of this, We're
not going to pay anymore for it. So April first,
another quarter percent is going on the sales tax on
goods sold across Los Angeles County. Now what does that mean?
(02:13):
What do you expect to get for this money? Do
you expect anything. We know there have been a lot
of problems with keeping track of how our homeless dollars
are spent in the City of Los Angeles and in
the County of Los Angeles through the Los Angeles Homeless
Services Authority, an agency that was created and governed by
(02:35):
the city and the county jointly. So here's what we're
supposed to expect from this. We expect to see more
people leaving homeless camps and put into permanent housing. That's
what they told us. What happened, we would have fewer
people suffering mental health crises or substance abuse and drug
(02:58):
addictions on the street. We will have more people permanently
leaving homelessness, we will have fewer people falling into homelessness
in the first place, and we will see more affordable
housing units across Los Angeles County. That's what we were
(03:18):
told would happen. That's what you are to expect to
happen because of this new sales tax. This funds about
six hundred million dollars a year, is what they are
expecting to generate off of this to put towards these efforts.
(03:39):
So voters in La County wanted this it is now coming.
But here's the question, and it is a very important one.
Will we get what we're paying for? So far, with
initiatives like this, it hasn't looked to be the case.
(04:00):
And yet another audit has come out this week of
homeless spending in the City of Los Angeles, and it's
not good. An auditing firm called Alvarez and Marsau identified
two point three billion dollars of funding from the City
of LA that includes appropriation, so money that's already gone out, commitments,
(04:21):
money that is to be paid, or spending related to
city programs like inside Safe. Two point three billion dollars.
Now we knew it was going to be a lot.
But the worst finding is that the City of Los
Angeles and the LA Homeless Services Authority did not initially
provide all of the requested financial data. It forced the
(04:46):
auditors to make multiple attempts to identify, trace, and reconcile
all of the data that they say was relevant to this.
The auditors at A and M said they relied on
the financial data produced by the city and LASA because
A and M did not have direct access to the
(05:07):
financial information systems used by the city, so as a result,
since the city and LASA were unable to identify and
calculate relevant expenses for all city programs, auditors were unable
to quantify the total amount of money spent to establish
beds for homeless people and provide associated homeless supportive services.
(05:30):
This was an audit that was ordered by a federal judge.
There is an ongoing lawsuit. It's usually referred to as
the La Alliance lawsuit against the city. This is a
group of downtown business owners who sued the city several
years ago saying you have got to do something about
what's going on down here, and so it has mandated
a certain number of homeless beds need to be created.
But this audit was part of that case court ordered
(05:54):
and the auditors still could not get all of the
information that they needed. They're supposed to be a on
March twenty seventh, so we've got a couple of weeks
here in federal court to discuss this audit, so there
will be more to come. The audit found the invoicing
process between the city and LASSA, or the cash request process,
(06:15):
was time consuming. It was a manual process at risk
of human error, and it exposes the city and LASSA
to potential accounting in accuracies and complicating precise reconciliation of
contract expenditures. They also found contracts between the city, LASA
and the service providers. Keep in mind, we talk about
LASA a lot, but there are so many smaller organizations
(06:37):
out there that are part of this Lossa's tentacles are long,
and there are a lot of different groups that get
this money to provide these beds. The auditors found that
contracts between the City, LASA and those service providers frequently
contain broad terms without clear definitions, and that created ambiguity
about the scope and the type of service delivered. So
(07:01):
we don't know exactly how much was spent or even
why it was spent. So this audit follows a pretty
scathing review of the finances at LASA already that prompted
the county to say, I don't think we want to
be part of LASA anymore, and that's going to be
(07:22):
discussed on Tuesday at the Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor
Lindsay Horvath came out with a statement blasting this audit.
And we already see movement at the City of Los
Angeles where some council members have said, I don't think
I don't think we should be part of LASA anymore.
We should have our own homeless department. The county wants
its own homeless department. Now the City of La wants
(07:43):
its homeless department. So what becomes of this joint effort
between the city and the county called LASA. All of
these complications around the regional attempt to address homelessness, just
as the sales tax is about to go up a
quarter of a percent to fund more homeless programs, more
money going towards the attempts to stop homelessness, to address homelessness,
(08:07):
to prevent homelessness, and more evidence that the money, the
billions that have already been spent, have not been well
taken care of. You can bet we'll continue to follow that. Now,
what about the money you're spending. What do we expect
from the economy locally and nationally based on what President
Trump has in store for us and what could tariffs
(08:30):
and deportations specifically due to LA in California. We'll have
that conversation coming up next when Michael Monks Reports continues.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Here, you're listening to KFI AM six forty on demand.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
This is Michael Monks Reports on Michael Monks from KFI
News with until nine o'clock tonight. It hasn't been two
months yet that President Trump has been back in the
White House, but it has been an eventful time. We've
been through a Trump administration before, so we know he
changes his mind a lot, and that there's occasional chaos
(09:06):
in the White House. But the UCLA Anderson Forecast released
this week shows a high level of uncertainty around the economy,
created by those very things. Trump's waffling on some of
his policy demands and the chaos surrounding the White House's
plans for the country. We're joined now by the director
of the UCLA Anderson Forecast at the Anderson School of Management,
(09:26):
doctor Jerry Nicholsberg. Your report indicates there is uncertainty in
the economy and that seems to play out almost daily
in this country, especially around tariffs. The President says, We've
got tariffs on Mexico and Canada, for example, and then
we don't, and then we do, and then we don't.
What uncertainty is specifically created by that waffling.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
So I think it's no surprise to anyone that there's
greater uncertainty about the economic future of the United States
than before because the policies coming out of Washington are
coming fast and furious. There is some questionable legality about
some of them, so they're ending up in the courts
(10:07):
to adjudicate that. And we have on again, off again tariffs.
The tariff issue is kind of interesting in the sense
that the markets are saying, you know, as soon as
the tariffs are off or postponed, the markets are happier
about that. But you know, the fact is, for main street,
(10:32):
whether or not they're going to be tariffs matters. That
creates uncertainty, and uncertainty always leads businesses to act in
a more conservative way, to ramp down their plans to
produce more, to ramp down their plans to order more inventory,
and so it has a contractionary effect even if the
tariffs never go on.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
You mentioned the markets. The stock market has seemed pretty
shifty about the economy as well, but other financial market
indicators haven't been as dramatic. So what are we to
make of this.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Volatility on Wall Street and what you call the quote
surprisingly sanguine financial markets and the relationship of those to
President Trump.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
When we think about what's happening with financial markets, I
think we have to consider the fact that the players,
the actors in the financial markets don't really know much
more than any of the rest of us. And so,
you know, there's a real question, is government going to
be so disruptive, that disrupted that it does not function
(11:39):
well and does not support the economic activity in the
US with you some more certainty about what the rules are,
what the support or lack thereof might be. And so
the markets are trying to figure this out. And that's
where you get this volatility because as there really isn't
(12:01):
a clear message coming from Washington about how, let's say,
in the latter part of twenty twenty five, the economic
policy is going to finally shape up.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty that does seem to be the magic
word in conversations around the American economy right now, we're
basically just a month and a half into this new presidency.
Is it unusual to see such a jump in uncertainty
in such a new administration.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
You know, I think there's two points that are important here.
The President isn't doing anything that he did not say
as a candidate, So we shouldn't be surprised that there's
an abrupt shift in economic policy, and that shift in
economic policy is going to have at least or at
a minimum, transitional costs. You know, the President acknowledged those
(12:55):
said there would be a little bit of pain. There
might be a lot of pain, you know, that's something
that we don't know yet. And so this is quite
a different economic policy in terms of have we seen
anything like this before? Well, of course we've seen shifts
in policies, but we haven't seen such a flurry of
(13:19):
new activity activity on the part of the executive branch
of government that creates this kind of uncertainty. It tends
to be a bit more measured when we get changed
in policy.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
I think it's fair to say, yes, everything that the
president has done we should have expected, because he did
say he was going to do these things. But there
were also other issues raised on the campaign trail, and
I'm curious about the effect of actions or lack thereof,
on those issues, especially around the economy, consumer prices, inflation,
the price of eggs, interest rates, gas. Are there any
(13:55):
indications that the Trump administration has moved in a direction
to ease consumer worries about those issues.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
No, there really isn't, you know. On the campaign trail,
the President said that prices, consumer prices, particularly at the
grocery store, would be coming down, and deportations and tariffs
raised prices, not lower them. Indicated that gasoline prices were
(14:25):
going to come down because we were going to have
a lot more drilling. But at the same time, the
oil drillers said they're not going to drill more, but
they welcomed less regulation. So you know, kind of there
are things that we don't see are going to happen
in the economy that were promised in terms of prices. Indeed,
(14:49):
you know, we have said for a long time, and
I think most economists are saying that you can expect
prices to go up, inflation to stay higher, and take
much longer to come down. So you know, we're looking
at higher inflation over the next few years.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Well, what about a true economic crisis, like a recession.
Has your forecast spotted any indicators related to that as
a possibility. We have not.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
We enter twenty twenty five with a very strong economy,
and we still see signs that the economy is in
pretty good shape. You know, for example, the latest numbers
on the initial claims for unemployment insurance, we're down rather
than not now. We expect that to change when we
get into April and May, but that's an expectation. So
(15:41):
the signs today are actually reasonably good. We're going to
get consumer price index numbers a little later, you know,
those are coming up. The employment situation for February will
be released, I believe at the end of this week,
so this weekend next week we'll get some more indication,
(16:02):
but as of now, we don't see any indication in
the numbers that the economy is going south.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
The uncertainty is also specific to California, especially when it
comes to tariffs and deportations. We'll continue with doctor Nicholsberg
and hone in on the California impact. Next.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
You're listening to KFI AM six forty on demand AFIAM.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. This is
Michael Monks Reports on Michael Monks from KFI News with
you untill nine o'clock tonight. What impact could there be
on California through President Trump's tariff and deportation policies. The
UCLA Anderson Forecast has details on where the state could
lose and win. The director of the forecast, doctor Jerry Nicholsberg,
(16:50):
is with us. Let's talk California. Let's talk deportation. Immigrant workers,
including illegal immigrant workers, they play a significant role in
this state economy. What happens here. I've seen some ice activity,
but what happens here if mass deportations start.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
When we're talking about the economy, what is really important
is not whether or not individuals are detained, but whether
or not individuals lead the labor force, because that's really
what the economic impact is. And so in sectors, in
jobs where there's a high proportion of immigrants, maybe they
(17:29):
have legal papers, maybe they don't, you can expect people
to not go to work or to go to work
less frequently, you know, and that has real implications, particularly
in agriculture, in construction, in leisure and hospitality you don't
(17:53):
think restaurants and hotels, and in healthcare. So those sectors
are going to find that they have labor shortages, and
at least initially, that means less production, less output, less
income until an adjustment, you know, in their workforce. In
(18:14):
their labor saving capital can impact be made.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
I wanted to ask you about those sectors agriculture and construction.
We've already heard some concerns about the wine industry here
in California and folks who are not showing up to
work anymore out of concerns that they could be detained
by federal immigration officials. There are other fruits that are
picked in the state, vegetables that are picked, a lot
of farming jobs. If those industries are not able to
(18:40):
replace those immigrant workers, regardless of their immigration status, what
could happen to them?
Speaker 3 (18:47):
You know, what you would expect is if there are
not enough people to pick the produce, it doesn't get picked.
And then of course food processing and you know, including
slutterhouses and other processing plans will also lay off workers.
(19:09):
People who have appropriate documents in legal status might find
themselves unemployed. So we're going to get a contraction in
those sectors now from the part of the firm, so
the farms or the factories and so on, they'll be
looking for how they can continue business with a smaller workforce.
(19:29):
So they're going to be investing in labor saving capital,
and they're going to be shrinking somewhat, and.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Then there's construction, and building things in California is a
challenge anyway. We know that we don't have enough housing
units in the state. That's pretty well documented. It's also
difficult to go through the permitting process. That's well documented.
But immigrants, again, regardless of immigration status, do make up
a chunk of that workforce. And right now La County
(19:56):
is moving towards rebuilding after these devastating while fires. You
would imagine that there's going to be a lot of
building that takes place. What concerns might there be about
that sector of the economy, especially when demand is about
to go up.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
There is a lot of concern about residential construction, you know,
for a number of reasons. We just moments ago talked
about agriculture, and that's seasonal and there is in place
a system to bring in seasonal workers. For example, do
you know to pick the strawberries and so on. Construction
is not seasonal, and there's nothing in place to bring
(20:34):
in additional construction workers. Not that there couldn't be, but
there isn't. Right now. California was in a position going
into twenty twenty five where there really was a shortage
of construction workers, and this is just going to make
(20:54):
it worse, and so we all have a shortage of
construction workers in that in and of itself is going
to be a constraint on the number of new homes
that can be built in the state. That is going
to be kind of further amplified or made problematic because
interest rates are up and they're not going down anytime soon.
(21:19):
And the tariffs really are going to be applied to
countries that send US building materials lumber from Canada, drywall
from Mexico and China, electrical appliances and fixtures from China.
These all raised the cost of housing. So California's housing
(21:40):
situation relative to kind of the demand for that housing
is only going to get worse over the next year.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
On the other hand, this Trump administration has expressed support
for H one B visas to help the tech industry.
It allows companies to hire foreign workers temporarily in specialty roles.
This looks like it could potentially be a benefit for
a tech heavy state like California. Is that right?
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Is that is correct? That, you know, the tech industry
seems to have, you know, a certain closeness to the
new administration and for the tech industry to grow, particularly
with innovation, it needs a lot of H one B visas.
Now there are tech workers who were recently laid off
(22:28):
from the large tech firms. They're going to get soaked
up pretty quickly, and so if the H one B
visas come, they will be disproportioned to California and that
will certainly boost the California economy. And of course, you know,
the spending by those newly employed people will support other
sectors of the economy.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
So we might have some challenges with building, we might
have some challenges with agriculture. We might see some improvements
even with the tech industry. So when we take all
of this into consideration in general, well, what does the future,
the immediate future seem to have in store for California's
economic growth and its rate of employment.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
Our expectation is that Californias can exhibit slow growth through
twenty twenty five and into twenty twenty six. We don't
have a recession forecast, but we do have slow growth.
And when you have slow growth, things can tip in
either direction relatively easily. And the sectors that we're driving
(23:29):
California growth in twenty twenty four are not going to
be driving its growth in the future, so tech, durable goods, manufacturing, aerospace,
these are sectors that really need to grow and support
the rest of the California economy. Now. Having said that,
(23:50):
they are sectors that have given California faster than the
US growth in the past, so that remains to be seen,
but our forecast is for twenty twenty five to be
a fairly lean hear for the state.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Doctor Jerry Nicholsberg is the director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast.
He's also an adjunct professor of economics at the Anderson
School of Management at UCLA. Jerry, I'm so appreciative of
the time you gave us. I hope we can talk
again soon.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
It's a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Up next.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
President Trump has also vowed to end something we're about
to experience in a few hours daylight saving time, but
this week he's taken a more lukewarm approach.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
You're listening to KFI AM six forty on demand.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
This is Michael Monk's reports on Michael Monks from KFI News.
We're finishing up this last few minutes of our program tonight.
Thanks for spending Saturday evening with us. One less hour
for you this weekend. It is daylight saving time time.
(24:51):
So don't forget to spring forward. Put those clocks ahead.
I think most of our clocks these days that we
rely on our digital But get ready to wake up
in the morning and reset those ovens in the microwaves,
maybe your vehicle, so that you stay on time. I
know that daylight saving time or standard time, all of
that has been a hot debate for a long time.
(25:13):
Should we keep it? Do we need to keep doing
this ancient practice? President Trump, after he was elected back
in December, before he actually took office, sent out a
social media post that said, quote, daylight saving time is
inconvenient and very costly to our nation. He says that
Republicans would use their best effort to eliminate the century
(25:36):
old practice of moving the clocks forward one hour every
spring and then one hour back in the fall. But
this week it didn't seem so eager to change the
clock so quickly, he told reporters in the Oval Office
on a Thursday, quote, I assume people would like to
have more light later, but some people want to have
(25:58):
more light earlier because they don't want to take their
kids to school in the dark. And it's very much
it's a little bit one way, but it's very much
a fifty fifty issue now. According to the Washington Post,
political leaders also say they are grappling with whether the
nation should permanently move the clocks forward one hour. This
(26:20):
is an idea that has been championed by lawmakers on
the coast, who say it would allow for more sunshine
during the winter, or remain on year round standard time,
which is favored by neurologists who say it aligns with
our circadian rhythms. That decision, of course, would rest with
Congress and not the president. Either way, we are still
(26:44):
on that schedule for now, so do in fact spring forward.
I have to say I don't have a serious feeling
about this, but I am already to have a little
more darkness in the morning. I don't like the sunshining
so early. I like to feel like I'm a way
earlier than everyone else, and when the sun is up,
I feel like I need to be working, and I
(27:06):
prefer to have like a cup of coffee. I like
to scroll a little bit, see what horrors await us
in the world by looking at X and figuring out
what I'll be covering in the news for the day.
But man, when the sun is up so early, like,
you got to get moving. And I'm looking forward to
the changes next week. I think we're gonna, we're gonna,
We're gonna find that that's probably the way to go
(27:28):
if we choose just one way. But then I don't
want to go against the neurologists. You tell me, I'll
tell you what people are paying attention to, and it's
these eagles in Big Bear. Let's think about what time
it is right now here in Los Angeles. It's about
ten minutes to nine on Saturday night, Okay, in LA
(27:49):
a city known all over the world for being a
destination for dreamers living the Hollywood life. Right well, just
outside the city in Big Bear, there is a camera
on these eagles, as we all know by now, and
at this moment, according to the YouTube stats, there's nearly
twenty three thousand people watching this live. And let me
(28:11):
tell you, it is dark. This eagle has not moved
this entire show. I've had it up the whole time.
We're looking at an eagle's But twenty three thousand of
us maybe hoping to get a glimpse of the eaglets
that are underneath either the mom or the dad. I
don't even know which eagle I'm looking at. There's one
eagle in the nest at this moment. You can't see
(28:33):
the eaglets. And yet twenty three thousand of us are
logged onto this YouTube feed. And I said at the
top of the seven o'clock hour when we began this program,
I found this whole thing pretty charming because La is
such a major city. We're known throughout the universe. We're
big place. But this type of event kind of brings
(28:57):
out our small townness that even here in La, the
Land of Dreams, we can all stop and experience something
as natural as birds being born. And you know, we
in the media, we're all.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Ate up with it.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
And that's because our stats are telling us you're ate
up with it. We're giving you updates every time a
little claw peeks out of an egg, and that's cute.
But some of the images that I saw, now that
there are three eglits in there, the parents are busy.
(29:37):
Some of the images that I saw this week, we're
pretty horrifying, you know, These eagles are big time predators.
They got to feed these babies. And so we're watching
these cute little eaglets and we're watching them be fed
and it's great. But in the background, there's like a
(29:59):
bloody fish that's been gutted. There was another bird that
had been hunted and killed.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
And you know that.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
Fish, that crow they might have had babies, were the
cameras on them. These images were horrifying. Nature is so disgusting.
We're all rooting for these eaglets, but nobody's rooting for
the crows. Nobody's rooting for the fish, and I thought
(30:34):
it was gross. We are so ight up with it
here at KFI. I came in for my regular work
yesterday in the morning, and our traffic reporter in the morning,
will Cole Schreiber, was on the air doing the traffic reports,
and during one of his live hits, you could hear
the eagle live cam in the background. It was a
technical accident that he left it up, but we're so
(30:57):
ate up with it here. As we heard the traffic
report going on with the eagles squawking in the background,
we didn't know who was responsible, Amy King, who was
angering the news at the time she had the camera up,
she thought maybe she had broadcast it. Our board operator
at the time was Robin. She had it up, she
thought she might have been playing it. We're all watching
(31:17):
these constantly, twenty three thousand people watching right now, five
minutes to nine o'clock on a Saturday night. So yeah,
it's a little horrifying to watch, you know, as the babies,
we're seeing where the food comes from, We're seeing all
of nature here, right. Some animals have to die so
that these animals live. But now that there are three babies,
(31:42):
I hate to be pessimistic, but it could get ugly.
In that nest. Both parents, the male and the female
Jackie and Shadow, will work to feed these. It is
usually the mom who does most of the brooding. But
after that first week that the first baby's hatch, the
(32:08):
parents will let the nestling eagles be exposed a little bit.
And that's what we've been seeing. That's what we're all
tuned in for. Now we want to see the babies.
So this website called Avian Report has explained the whole
process when the eggs are supposed to hatch, what happens
after they hatch, And we know that the first baby
that hatches is fed almost right away on the first day,
(32:31):
and that eglet develops a size advantage over the second one,
and then naturally both develop a size advantage over the third.
You see where I'm going with this. In fact, there
have been scientists field observers who watch adult bald eagles
(32:52):
feeding three four week old eaglets, and they recorded what
they called dismal differences in the amount of food each
eaglet got. For example, an adult eagle brought a large
fish to the nest and fed the largest eaglet sixty
seven percent of the fish two thirds of it. The
(33:12):
second eaglet got eighteen point nine percent of the fish,
and the third just got a bite thirteen point seven
percent of the fish. And then in another nest with
three baby eglets, the difference were even more dramatic. The
largest eaglet received ninety six percent of the fish, the
second eaglet got two and a half percent, the third
chick got one point two percent of the fish, and
(33:34):
in that nest, the smallest eaglet eventually died from starvation.
I'm not trying to put a buzzkill on all this
excitement we're having around these these eglets. But nature is challenging,
and I'm wondering if the producers of this live feed
are ready to cut away when things take a turn,
(33:55):
because not only is there only so much crow apparently
to go around for these hungry little babies, these little
babies will turn on each other. Baby bald eagles can
kill each other, Avian report says newly hatched nestlings can
be very aggressive to each other. They appear to be
(34:15):
aggressive by nature. They may engage in fierce fights that
hurt each other, or they terminate the fight and they
grow together. But food availability is the driving force and
determining how aggressive eaglets are to each other. When the
food is scarce, the difference in size between the first, second,
(34:36):
and third baby eagle becomes more pronounced, and the little
food brought to the nest is capitalized by the larger
eglet that continues to grow while the others lag. The
smallest eglet is either killed by its larger siblings or
dies of starvation. So that is what we have to
(34:59):
look forward. Two here, twenty three thousand of us. Well
look at this angel number right now, twenty two hundred
and twenty two people viewing this video right now two
two two. What happens when it gets ugly in there?
I'm nervous. I'm smoking a lot of cigarettes watching this video.
I'm telling you I'm rooting for them all. Nature may
(35:24):
have other plans. We'll continue to monitor and bring you
breaking Eagle news all week long. We're so grateful that
you joined us for Michael Monks reports here on this
Saturday night in southern California. I'm also grateful to our
board operator Rollo Cortes, our producer Matthew Toffler, and our
news anchor Brigitta Gagostino. We'll be back here again next
(35:48):
Saturday night with more news and analysis on the issues
that matter to you. And I'll be with you all
week long covering the news right here at KFI AM
six point forty.
Speaker 1 (35:59):
We'll catch you against KFI A M six forty on
demand
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com