12-9-25 Scott Sloan Show

Scott talks with Brian Moody from Kelley Blue Book about how the elimination of emission standards will help reduce costs for the auto industry. Also Commissioner Denise Driehaus explains how the Commission is trying to find ways to pay property owners their overdue tax rebates. Finally Andy Shafer from Allworth Financial looks at the current state of the market.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Do you want to be an American idio.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
We got pulled back on seven hundred wlw welcome to it.
We'll jump right in with stuff because there's stuff. You know,
we got stuff. Trump administration has decided to ease the
fuel economy standards known as a cafe standards for vehicles,
so roll back. Under Biden they required a two percent
annual efficiency and improvement, so two percent annually they'd have

(00:25):
to make better better fiel ecmomies, I guess the new
proposal cuts us back to a half a percent, and
they're also rolling back the telpipe emission standards. So the
question is what does this mean overall for the car
industry Because cars we've hit American and consumers said we're
not paying more for cars. We have had a breaking
point in the costing new automobiles. What does that do

(00:45):
for us? Brian Moody is the executive Adam Kelly Bluebook
and Auto Trader.

Speaker 3 (00:50):
Welcome Brian hy Ben.

Speaker 4 (00:52):
Yeah, thanks, you're right. That does change things a little bit,
but I think it could be for the good, even
though temporarily the headlines are going to be bad.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
Yeah, I think in the long term it seems good.
You know, we have this quest to try and lower
efficiency set you know, increase efficiency and how many more
miles you would drive per gallon tank. And we know
there's environmental impact there, and that's all well and good,
but it feels like the screws have really been put
to the auto industry itself and saying, Okay, there's a

(01:22):
reasonable bound here, but we'ren't in the point of absurdity,
aren't we?

Speaker 5 (01:26):
Right?

Speaker 4 (01:26):
I agree, it turns out the government is a terrible automaker,
and not just ours, but as across the world. If
you look in Europe, for example, it was government that
incentivized diesel to the point where that became the dominant
fuel type across Europle. It turns out that's not good
for you. So when government is in the position of

(01:46):
building consumer products, that's not great. And when it comes
to regulation, I don't think people understand that. They understand
that the better shoe economy is good on one sense,
so I think we all understand that. But what people
don't understand is the regulation which leads to needs compliance,
which costs money, which adds complexity, which adds weight, takes

(02:10):
away certain things from consumers such as reliability, low cost,
and the lightweight of the car, which could be a
safety feature. I guess, for lack of a.

Speaker 2 (02:23):
Better word, yeah, understand those masks. But the fact of
the matter is we, as American consumers, have an insatiable
demand for trucks and SUVs that's at odds with these
outdated standards or two aggressive standards I guess under the
by administration.

Speaker 4 (02:39):
Yes, And here's the thing about trucks and SUVs. You
could argue, well, are people buying those because they need
it or because it's what they want? I don't really know.
Consumer choice always benefits the consumer. But here's a great
example of how trucks can become more efficient while also
serving the consumer's need. For example, there's a Ford pickup

(03:02):
right now called the Ford Maverick. It's a small pickup truck.
Well that hasn't been around for very long. Of course,
the name goes way back to the seventies, but the
actual vehicle that we have now, the Ford Maverick small pickup,
has only been around for a few years. When they
first introduced that, they couldn't make enough of those to
keep up with demand. So that shows that consumers want

(03:24):
something that makes sense. It's up to automakers to meet
them where they are and give them the range, the price,
the value and reliability they expect.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
I thought I had rare or heard that they Maverick.
The Ford Maverick is just basically what it's replacing, the
Ford Escape.

Speaker 6 (03:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (03:41):
I mean, the Ford Escape is a small SUV and
we may end up seeing hybrid or plug in hybrid
versions of that in the near future. The thing with
the Maverick that was so I guess telling is that
it doesn't have a big V eight, It isn't oversized,
it doesn't cost sixty thousand dollars, it doesn't even cost
fifty thousand dollars. It's low price. It has some nice features,

(04:03):
but it arguably has much less capability than say a
Ford F two fifty, which is probably a special thing
that some people do need. But the Maverick is a
great example, and I bet you you'll see others when
it comes to hybrids and electric cars, more right sized
solutions for what Americans want today.

Speaker 2 (04:23):
Yeah, I mean, you've seen the small pig and I
guess I don't know what you categorize, but the small
pickup truck you geep has a model It's like every
manufacturer's rolling out a small pickup truck because they pick
up truck aesthetic.

Speaker 4 (04:35):
Right, Like there's a Hyundai Santa Cruz. You know what
these cars all remind me of. It's almost like everything
that's everything that's new, or everything that's old is new again.
These small pickups like the Hyundai Santa Cruz and the
Fort Maverick and some of the ones that you mentioned,
what they kind of remind me of a a Chevy
al Camino. It's small car based, right, not the Jeep,

(04:58):
but the other ones are car based, fuel economy, and
it occasionally helps you do some utility tasks that you
might need or might not need. But meanwhile, you can
drive it around every day comfortably.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
It can't be long before bring the station wagon back.
You think that's gonna happen.

Speaker 4 (05:17):
I'm hoping because here's what I have noticed, and I'm
this is only anecdotal. My own kids, who recently became
driving age, have said nobody wants those big SUVs because
it's too hard to judge where you are and when
you're learning how to drive. They both kids said they
prefer a small sedan or a hatchback. Well, SUVs replaced

(05:39):
all those cars. So what's going to happen when these
younger people move into the place where they're like, I
don't want SUVs. They don't want SUV's because why we
didn't want station wagons. That's what my mom drives.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, And eventually we'll come back like trucker
hats and fanny packs.

Speaker 3 (05:56):
He's Brian Moody.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
He's the executive editor of Auto Trader and Kelly Bluebook,
talking about Trump's and the Trump administrations cut on cafe standards,
which environmentals are mashing their teeth over. But I think
it's a good business simply because it's so hard for
Detroit or all automaticers of American automakers, for manner doesn't
have to be Detroit to try and keep up with
that kind of stuff, And it totally does not mesh

(06:18):
with what consumers demand, which are more trucks and SUVs
and even smaller pickup trucks and SUVs for that matter too.

Speaker 3 (06:24):
We also have to talk about evs.

Speaker 2 (06:27):
I was blown away when I traveled this summer to
Australia the number of Chinese evs that are on the
market as Uber's there, and I thought the fit and
finish looked pretty good in most cases. Sometimes maybe not
so much. But how much a threat is that to
our market here?

Speaker 4 (06:44):
It's a big threat. That's how economic weapons work. I mean,
they use their advantage to drive the price down, and
they have working conditions and things in other parts of
the world we wouldn't have here, But in other parts
of the world they don't go by those same rules.
Undercut the price of what's there and introduce it to

(07:04):
a market, and then you can drive the other people
out of business. That's called an economic weapon. The idea
that people would want these cars is not surprising because
they're good, but there has to be some kind of
protection all over the world, not just in the US,
to make sure that it's living up to the standards
that we all hold amongst ourselves in terms of where

(07:27):
are the materials come from, how is it built, and
who's building it well.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
As we relax cafe standards for internal combusting engines. It
looks like to me, and again it's a brief sample.
You tell me, Brian, the global market continues to prioritize
electrifications that kind of put us at a disadvantage in
the next I don't know, within the next ten.

Speaker 4 (07:45):
Years, maybe, But here's the thing. More realistic goals would
be helpful. No one's going No one's arguing that, you know, oh,
electric cars are going to go away. That's not true.
I think if most people, the average American, if they
were to drive an electric car, they would like it.

Speaker 3 (08:03):
Now.

Speaker 4 (08:04):
That means there's other things that have to be solved, though.
What about the price? What about this durability? What about
the resale value? What about where I charge it up?
It's perfect for people to have their own home, because
that's about eighty percent of people that have electric cars
charge them up at home. What about everybody else? It's
not the car that's necessarily the issue. It's a lot
of other things that go into it.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
Yeah, if I live in a metro city like Cincinnati
and I don't have a garage, I don't have access
to that. How do I charge my electric vehicle? I
need a traditional internal combustion engine at least, So we
solve that. But again, the market will decide.

Speaker 4 (08:38):
That, right, the market should always decide these things. One
thing that's a misnomer that I've heard often with electric
cars is there's an argument that presumes that people who
live in apartments or in mixed use housing. Let's say
they don't want electric cars because they're too expensive, and

(08:59):
the reason I think in an apartment is because that's
what they can afford. That's not true. There's many, many
people in many cities across the country that choose to
live in apartments, townhouses, or condos because that's what suits
their lifestyle best. Not everyone wants to mow yard on
a Saturday. Not everybody wants that. They just want come home.

(09:20):
I have a place to go. It's all taken care of.
And that's the thing that we need to solve next
for how do you charge those things up? Also, there's
just a mechanism of how long it takes to charge.
If you need ten gas pumps, you probably need thirty
charging stations based on the duration of time it takes
to quote fill up your tank with an electric car.

Speaker 3 (09:41):
Yeah, it makes sense.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
I mean, if you drive several hundred miles, for example,
you road trip it, you're going to have to plan
out how long and where you stop. It's going to
take more time to get from point A to point
B driving a electric you can do much more on
a hybrid, which seems to also have fallen off the savors,
And I mean my son has a hybrid, he's had
one for years.

Speaker 3 (09:59):
He loves it.

Speaker 2 (09:59):
He's gotting like ninety nine miles of the gallon and
when it's not charged, the internal combustion engine kicks in.
It seems like a fair trade. Why did that follow
a favor.

Speaker 4 (10:08):
Well, because I think a lot of it is marketing.
I think a lot of it is headline grabbing. But
I think twenty twenty six will be the year of
the hybrid. I really do think that people have kind
of come to terms with the taxpayer funded incentive for
EVS is gone. So the cars at current state are
relatively expensive, about fifty eight thousand dollars on average. Hybrids

(10:32):
are much more affordable, and you have brands like Toyota
that are moving to almost all hybrids. All of their
cars either can be had as hybrids or in some
cases like the Sienna and the Camera and the Crown,
that's the only way it comes. So we're moving to
a point when you look at Twita like as a
leader in this area, right, they're moving to a point

(10:54):
where it's not a choice about getting a hybrid, it's
just going to come that way. And the way they
operate is normal for the most part, they've changed. Listen,
anybody out there who's thought, oh, I was going to
get a hybrid fifteen years ago, but they're terrible to drive,
You've got to drive one. Today, they're much much better.

Speaker 2 (11:10):
Yeah, technology improves, I mean in mevs. I drove up
Tesla a few years ago and it was an incredible experience.
You know, you're driving a computer, self driving computer for
that matter. That technology is only going to get better.
But I still think we I think hybrid bridge is
a gap for a long time to comes. Brian Moody
over Kelly Bluebook and Auto Trader talking about Trump relaxing

(11:30):
the cafe standards, which is great for manufacturers. It's also
great for consumers as well. Are we going to see
prices level off, if not drop because of this?

Speaker 3 (11:40):
We may.

Speaker 4 (11:40):
But here's the thing about any kind of those predictions.
The cycle where automakers plan and develop and research vehicles
is much longer than a year or two. It's more
like six to eight years. So the few economy standards
that we have now, yeah, there's a few things they
can do in the short term, but planning long term planning,

(12:02):
and this is probably a point where what President Trump
has done might be a disadvantage because the back and
forth can be hard on the automaker being able to
plan out their product portfolio long term. So it would
be better to have a middle ground and just say, hey,
we all agree, let's just keep it this way for
the next twelve years. That would be better than up

(12:24):
and down in the short term.

Speaker 2 (12:26):
I guess get more granular here, Brian. What's the actual
production cost difference between meeting the old two percent standard
versus the half a percent standard per vehicle?

Speaker 3 (12:34):
How much does that shave off a car? Any idea.

Speaker 4 (12:37):
I don't know how much it shaves off a car
in terms of production, but I know that it does
reduce the cost of building cars in terms of compliance.
For example, I spoke to this is. This is some
time ago. I spoke to an executive at the company Renault,
which is a French company, and one of the reasons
they stopped making one of their cars with a certain

(12:58):
powertrain I think it was a D power you know, subcompact.
They said, we can't make money on this car because
thirty percent of the cost is compliant. So anytime you
hear an additional piece of equipment being added or standards
being changed. There's a cost for compliance, there's a cost
for testing in addition to the actual production of the

(13:21):
car let alone, whether or not you decrease driveability or reliability.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
Okay, that's what we'll set that aside. That's an interesting
perspective from them too. But the other element here too is, okay,
we don't have the EV incentives anymore, so, you know,
on no more ballouts for EV and relaxed standards. What
happens with market share relative to EV since not hybrids
but just electric vehicles over the next let's say, five
to eight years.

Speaker 4 (13:45):
I think they're going to level off at a certain
there's there's going to be a point where it's going
to feel comfortable as part of the market, maybe ten percent,
let's say. However, I think that the elimination of the rebates,
the taxpayer funded incentives for electric I think that's going
to be good for electric cars in the long run.

Speaker 2 (14:04):
What about the some costs that all automakers have gotten
into with evs, and now that we're backing off of that,
what happens with that?

Speaker 4 (14:11):
That's hard. They're going to have to make some adjustments
and we already see companies like Volvo, for example, maybe
walking it back a little bit, and rather than saying, hey,
we're going to force an ideological solution onto the consumers,
they have recently said we're going to let consumer demand
dictate what we do, so full electric by a certain time. Okay, maybe,

(14:34):
but they're not going to artificially set those times. They're
going to let, like you had said before, let the
markets aside. That's always going to work out best for
the company and for the consumer, because what do we pick.
We all picked the thing that we like best that
we can afford.

Speaker 2 (14:49):
Okay, But then, logically speaking, three years from now, let's
say a Democrat gets elected. Does this all get wiped
out and we start over again? And how do you
plan that far ahead, if at all. If you're an
autom manufacturer or a hell a car dealer.

Speaker 4 (15:03):
That's a risk. I mean, that's definitely a risk. And
some could argue that's a weak point in the system,
that it's too prone to partisan back and forth. It
would be better to have a middle ground that just says, hey,
here's a good number for a fuel economy. Let's all agree.
Let's have like a cross party committee that can just

(15:25):
agree that this is a number and not politicize it.
Because most cars today, like the average car, you can
get a car that's gackling only not a hybrid that
can get forty miles per gallon on the highway.

Speaker 7 (15:37):
That was unheard of twenty years ago, right because of well,
how much of that is innovation and how much of
that is government in that Hey, as soon as gas
prices go up, people start selling their evs and big
cars and get more fuel efficient things.

Speaker 2 (15:51):
We have another oil prices. Everyone wants an EV or
something that's going to get more miles to down. The
minute it starts to go back down, we go back,
whipsaw back to the other things. And that's again that's
a consumer demand in the thickleness that we have there.

Speaker 4 (16:04):
But I think it's valid, right, But consumers don't want
a twelve mile per gallant car and a generation of
go or less that was not an unusual thing. Today.
People expect their car to get reasonable fuel economy, add
hybrid to it, and like you said, I personally drove
a plug in hybrid for three months. This won't happen

(16:26):
to be a Volvo. I'm got seventy five to eighty
miles per gallon plugging it in every day. So I
know that's possible, and I think what happens is the
fuel economy adds convenience. You now have cars, especially hybrids,
with a driving range of five or six hundred miles.
That is a lifestyle changer. When I hear people with

(16:48):
electric cars or who are electric car proponents say, well,
on a long trip, it only takes an extra forty
five minutes to charge up. That's true, it does only
take an extra forty five minutes to charge up. But
that sounds like someone who doesn't have toddlers.

Speaker 2 (17:02):
Yeah, right, exactly, and we'll leave it at that again.
Brian Moody Kelly Bluebook and the Auto Trader, he's the
executive editor there. So I think this is a great thing,
quite honestly, is getting a little bit more common sense
back in. Manufacturers will thus still be incentive for them
to reduce an increase fuel efficiency in the future. It's
not like simply it's going to go well twelve miles

(17:23):
a gal, and we won't stand for that anymore. It's
all about consumer demand, not what the government wants. And
this one makes sense to me, Brian.

Speaker 3 (17:29):
All the best. Thanks for jumping on this morning. Thank
you appreciate. We've got some weather.

Speaker 2 (17:33):
Moving in y'all over the next well all the way
through the weekend almost to Friday as well. We'll full
update their traffic just ahead someday, guys. I love the
new cafe standards under President Trump. Something I do not
like what he's doing with farms. We'll get into that
just ahead here Sloaney seven hundred WLW Scott slowing back

(17:54):
on seven hundred WLWT. Enjoyable day off yesterday.

Speaker 3 (17:59):
Good.

Speaker 4 (18:02):
So.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
I was just talking to Brian Moody from Kelly Bluebook
about lower mission standards helping the auto industry, and I
think that's a smart move, quite honestly, because you know,
you get these environmentalist policies in place that simply ignore
consumer demand sentiment, and the fact of the matter is
we are going to be relying upon fossil fuels for
the rest of our lives and probably at least another

(18:23):
couple generations beyond. Doesn't mean we shouldn't take the environment seriously,
but it always struck me as silly as to hold
us to these high demanding standards when the rest of
the world, developing nations and in particular, our frenemies in China,
Indian elsewhere are allowed to pollute the environment with impunity.
It doesn't mean you know that we can't do better,

(18:45):
but it seems rather silly since you can't hold them
to the same high standards you're putting yourself under. And
new hamsterring American industry and progress and everything else. And
so one may also ask how real is that threat?
To some degree, you know, there's a lot of younger people,
especially environm mental types, I think the world is going
to end next Tuesday. We heard that same cry when

(19:05):
it came to the hole in the ozone layer. Hell
songs are written about it, right and now we're learning, hey,
it fixed itself. I'm not suggesting that that's entirely possible
with this climate emergency that we're in. At the same time,
I look at it reasonably and go, Okay, there's only
so much we can do right now. You're not going
to be able to overdo it overnight. The result is
is it really making all that much an impact to

(19:27):
begin with? When you look at the amount of energy
and environmental harm producing batteries at the rate we're doing
right now. So I think that's all going to be
factored in as well. So yeah, I agree with easing
up on a car manufacturers for sure. I think that's
a good idea. Something I'm not too happy with, though,
is what's happening when it comes to more bailouts. You know, Socialism,

(19:51):
I guess is in the eye of the beholding party,
because if you're a Republican and a Democrat does it,
it's socialism. When a Republican does it, it's something else.
It's kind of like that old adage of difference. But
what's the difference between a terrorist and a patriot depending
on who is doing the terrorizing. So for farm bills

(20:12):
in Terwmers, in case you haven't heard this, we're about
to give eleven billion dollars to our farmers and probably
a number of them listening at anyone stretched to my
show right now. And it's not a me against farmers thing. Obviously,
I like to eat. Look at me. I get what
farmers do. It's an incredibly hard life. I have family
members at are farmers. I totally understand that. But I

(20:32):
think you probably agree with me. Going eleven billion dollars
in ball up money to farmers, does that make a
lot of sense, simply because this is because of terrorifts. Now,
at the beginning of this thing, when Trump said I'm
going to do tariff's most beautiful world word in the dictionary,
I'm like, well, I got some questions about that, but
you know what, let's see how it plays out. Let's
give the brother a chance. Let's see how we do.

(20:55):
And so far, now almost a year into this, not quite.
It doesn't look really good. I'll be honest with you.
And at what point you go, yeah, it's not to
what we thought it would. The problem there is, though,
I don't know, for the President is never going to go, yeah,
you know what, I.

Speaker 3 (21:08):
Got this one wrong.

Speaker 2 (21:09):
It's just simply not in his vocabulary or any politician
for that matter. We'll just pivot to something else. And now,
as he focuses less than international diplomacy and more on
America First, he's going to kick off that campaign, the
year long campaign to make America first. This comes back
into play, I think, and simply put right now, the

(21:29):
tariffs have created the very problem they want to solve.
You raise costs for farmers, the input costs for farmers,
and you're talking equipment, we're talking fertilizer. Talking all that
and more at the same time, we close the export
markets because of the tariffs. Now the second time around.
They spent twenty eight billion last time around billing off
farmers during the first term. I know, the eleven billion

(21:51):
dollar barret of farmers.

Speaker 3 (21:53):
What is that?

Speaker 2 (21:53):
If the tariffs worked, will we be doing this? And
the answer, of course is well, yeah, exactly right, it's
not working. That's we gotta bill out farmers. Now, we
do have collected so far about two hundred billion dollars
in tariffs, and that is high cotton right there. We
have never collected that much money ever in tariff. So
that's eleven of the two hundred billion dollars. If you're

(22:15):
in manufacturing, if you're in construction, where's your check? Is
this not unlike when we talked about, you know, bailing
out while subsidizing college student loans and go, well, you
know it's COVID and the kid you can't afford to
pay these loans. Well, we're just going to pay your
loans for you. And all right, when someone goes, hey, listen,
I don't I'd never went to college, my kids, I

(22:35):
don't have kids. Why am I paying for a rich
kid to go to college. And it was Elizabeth Warren
that laughed at the guy. But that's a true statement,
Like I'm not part of that. I have a try.
I got to pay taxes in my truck. I got
all these costs I have to pay for as a
small business person or a contractor. In this case, where's
my money? And that was true with Elizabeth Warren. It's

(22:56):
true under Donald Trump right now. If you are at
another sector besides farming, where the hell's your check? If
you're building stuff, creating stuff, manufacturing stuff, there should be
money for you too, right. But isn't that the problem
why we're collecting this money in tariffs to give it
back to political favorites, in this case farmers who will
support President Trump in the future. And it's just like

(23:18):
I thought we were getting rid of this kind of behavior,
and it's that certainly it's not socialism, but in line
with the ten billion in taxpayer money we're buying companies,
that's certainly of socialism. You know, I'm buying up ownershares.
Whether it's critical to national security or not. I can
kind of give side out of that and going, Okay,
we spend ten billion dollars in taxpayer money to buy
parts of companies or certainly vested interests, if not majority

(23:43):
interest in companies, and we'll have a say in how
they run. Isn't that literally the definition of socialism that
government controls the means of production that would be us
In this case, we're back to baillouts again. So we
as consumers, then we pay higher prices because of tariffs
on imported goods. Then our tax bunny funds billions and

(24:04):
ballots to compensate those harmed by the same tariffs, and
so we're essentially being farmers to absorb the costs of
the tariffs that they voted for in the first place.
Does this make any sense? It doesn't make any sense
to me. The ideological hypocrisy here. If you go back
in time, and I remember in when was that we'd
been an oes nine ten when we had the auto

(24:28):
bailout because of yeah, it would have been two thousand
and eight, two thousand and nine because of the housing
market collapse. So we had to ballot auditustries saying hey, listen,
you know what, we got to do this because they're
too big to fail, and a lot of conservatives at
the time who love this guy are just our signment
on this kind of stuff called that government overreach. Okay, well,

(24:49):
if that was going to reach with the auto bailout,
then how are we why are we supporting agricultural bailouts?
And again, it's a government created crisis, like college debt
or anything else, or the healthcare system. It's it's absolutely
created by them, which I don't understand at all. And

(25:09):
so you mean, you look at manufacturing for example, they're suffering.
Manufacturer's contribution to the GDP went from nine point eight
percent last year to nine point four which zo point
four percent is a lot in that sector, and we
see manufacturing decline, declined, decline. Seventy percent of firms in
the manufacturing sector report negative tariff impacts. About two percent

(25:31):
see benefits because it raises costs for raw matials, media.
It's just like farmers, and it's going to stifle competitiveness too.
We saw this, you know, back to the farming. This
has been a problem for a long time. When it
comes to the farm bill. I think we did the
twenty eighteen farm bill and we just extended that one
because it goes every five years. But the idea here
is you know, the idea it's it seeks to remedy

(25:53):
is to support the little farmers. Well, it doesn't because
they widen the loopholes to make the mega farms exploit
the commodity and crop insurance subsidies through they can even
have like extended family members who never even worked on
the farm. Why not getting some of these credits, I guess.
And tried to eliminate a thirty year old rule preventing
big companies from receiving unlimited commodity payments.

Speaker 3 (26:10):
That didn't work out.

Speaker 2 (26:11):
And we talked about not funding SNAP during the shutdown,
and you know, there's two parts of the farm bill,
seventy six percent of the funding from that and when
the nutrition programs. But the one that people don't complain
about is a commodity and crop insurance that benefited the
largest operators out there consumed about seventy five about the
same amount of the farm program a portion about seventeen

(26:32):
billion dollars and twenty eighteen dollars, which is a hell
of a lot of money. And so when you do
this kind of stuff, it drives consolidation. It allows the
big fish to eat the literal little fish. We call
it capitalism, but it really isn't because the government is
picking winners and losers here, and so we see small
family farms get gobbled up. As that's where we're at
right now. If you're into such you know, John Mellencamp

(26:55):
kind of things, I suppose, But the idea here is
that you know, they also had the crop insurance program.
It doesn't really address the needs of starting you know,
there's other farmers out there, people are just farming for
the first time, or organic farms, small scale operations alike,
and it's just from what I understand, doesn't do anything
to address any of that stuff. So I you know,
you're going to have one side again if the difference

(27:17):
between a terrorist and a patriot or someone who sees,
you know, any government interaction of socialism, whether that's true
or not. But this looks like a lot like certainly
with the bigger companies out there that we're buying parts
of that's literally the definition of socialism. But this one
is like, it's more bailout. So you know, if the
if the administration is even admitting, hey, these these tariffs

(27:39):
aren't working like we thought, so now we've got to
bail out farmers. So they'll continue to support our administration
and our clause. That's all well and good, but one
just like the college bailout, may wonder, well, I'm not
a farmer, which is most of us. No disrespect to farmers,
because we all like to eat and drink, and everything
we get is from you know, basically, consumables come from
farms in some way, shape or form. From the corn

(28:01):
we eat to the pop we drink. It's all got
corn and it so he means and everything else, and
we close the markets off to the rest of the world.
So now we have to take money and give it
to them to bail them out. And so what industry's
dext if we got two hundred billion to hand out.
It seems like this is just another level of government
that I thought we're trying to get rid of. That
government doesn't solve all problems, it creates more problems. Well,

(28:22):
the twenty eighteen farm Bill in this latest ballout is
indicative of that being one hundred percent correct. I'm willing
to give tariffs a try, and certainly it sounded good
at the beginning. I had some doubts and skepticism, healthy
skepticism of that, but I want to see. You know
the plan either orks it doesn't work so far. You know,
eleven months in this almost a full year quarter of
the term, it really is not looking like what it's

(28:45):
supposed to do at this point. So yeah, we'll see
what happens. But I don't think that the administration is
going to change their tune anytime soon. I'll just continue
to do that now.

Speaker 5 (28:55):
You know.

Speaker 2 (28:55):
Again, the measuring stick here is I always look at
the other side, whether it's a when a Democrat does something,
I look at the reaction to Republicans and vice versa
in this case and go, Okay, when Democrats are doing
this kind of stuff, did Republicans call them out? And
it would be absolutely yes. And when you do, when
you could, when you do what the guy you're against
is doing in different ways but largely the same. And

(29:18):
these ballots, I think you got to call their bs
on it, which is what I'm doing today, calling out
that BS. We got weather in news, and I know
we've got some weather. I don't think it's going to
be that bad quite honestly. You know, we're gonna get
little wet snow and mixing. And we'll get the full
details here in just a second, but people already flipping
out because we just had that early winter storm not

(29:39):
too long ago, and it's nice to seeing it come
back from the weekend.

Speaker 3 (29:41):
The snow is all malted.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
That's what I love about our town, the fact that
the snow comes, it really doesn't stick around all that.
It's not really a persistent snow, not at all. So
we'll have that to factor in as we at the
end of weekend. Actually is looking all right cooler. I'm
cold obviously, but looks like we're going to dry out
over the weeks. Anyway, coming up on the show on
seven hundred WW she is the president of the Hamlin

(30:04):
County Commissioner and that would be Denise Treehouse. Back on
last week, I had Commissioner Alisha reeson and she lobbed
as she does. She brings the noise, all right, she's
on its fire. Well, Denise three House heard some of
Alicia Reese's comments and conversations. One of the big ones,
of course, was that we're swimming in cash, that the
county has all sorts of money. We are, we got

(30:26):
roller I think Realisia said we rolling in money, We
rolling in money. I think Commissioner dree House is going
to go I don't know where she's getting that from.
Here are the facts. So, as you know, Hamlin County
Commissioners just approved a four and a half percent property
tax rebate for twenty twenty six. That is the low
because we're promised what thirty percent back in the nineties
when we're building stadiums for a while, got thirty percent.

(30:49):
Now that thirty percent is long gone. She says, we
just simply don't have the money to be able to
do that. That's not it's not feasible. But four and
a half percent is the lawst number we've ever seen.
She's going to come on and talk about other ways
to get that money back to taxpayers and make you whole.
At the same time, today approving the buildout for pay

(31:12):
Course Stadium, and one may ask, okay, well, why didn't
we simply go back to the Bengals and go this
is what was promised on your behalf. How do we
make the taxpayers the proper owners whole?

Speaker 3 (31:22):
Good question. Denise's three House.

Speaker 2 (31:24):
Next on The Scott Sloan Show and the home of
the best Bengals coverage seven hundred WW Cincinnati Manican, My.

Speaker 3 (31:31):
Scott's Flown back on seven hundred W heals it.

Speaker 2 (31:33):
And so we heard the news that last week, how
many kind of commissioners four and a half percent property
tax rebate for next year. Of course, we all remember
the thirty percent promise when voters approved the half cent
sales tax increased back in the mid nineties to fund
the stadiums downtown. Was also finding out that that's the
lowest number we've had as far as a rebate goes. Now,
the vote two to one. Commissioner Alisia Reese was dissenting

(31:57):
supporting it. Of course we're count we're our commissioner's Denise Treehouse,
the Hamlet County Commissioned President, who joins us now on
the show to talk about it on seven hundred WW
Welcome back Denise Hau's life.

Speaker 6 (32:09):
Yeah, doing well, Scott, how are you?

Speaker 3 (32:11):
I'm good. I'm good.

Speaker 2 (32:12):
I know you've got sexy budget meetings to get to
and everything else because you're a numbers chick. So God
bless you, God speed. You're better than I'm at that stuff.
So let's look at and you know, your contemporary, Lisha
Reese was on the show last week, and I know
you had some things you wanted to get off your
chest relative to that conversation without playing all the highlights

(32:33):
of that. But you know, you've been in county government
and been around long enough to remember the ninety six
stadium campaign, and looking back, do you think voters were
given an honest picture of what that thirty percent property
taxtorybit it actually mean? Or was there some bait and
switch happening, Because I think if you surveyed, most taxpayers
who were around then feel that there was a bait
and switch and it was intentional.

Speaker 6 (32:53):
Was your thoughts, Well, I'll tell you what I did
want to come on just to correct some things. I mean,
we can all have differences of opinion about what happened
and why it happened, but the fact of the facts,
and so I didn't want to have your listeners come
away with the wrong impression on what has happened in
the past. And so, as you say, starting out, when
this thing was offered to the tax payers, there was

(33:16):
a sales tax and then the rebate, and for the
first fourteen years they did a thirty percent they I mean,
they promised it and they did it. But what happened
was the sales tax that was collected. It didn't keep
up the revenue did not keep up with making sure
that we meet the obligations of the fund, with the
debt service and the pilot and all the things, maintenance

(33:38):
of the stadiums, all the things, and the PPR, and
so back in twenty eleven you saw a significant dip
from thirty down to seven point eight. And so this
ebb and flow has been going on for a while,
depending on what can be afforded through this fund, right,
and so a number of years ago, probably three four
years ago, the administrator offered a formula that said we

(34:01):
need to keep about eighty five percent in the reserve. Okay,
that's responsible, that's what's been advised by our consultants. That's great.
So let's create a formula where we keep the eighty
five percent and then do the rebate according to that.
And so that's something that would have offered us the
ability to give a rebate. Wouldn't have been the thirty
but it would have been a starting point. And then

(34:22):
each year try to go up a little bit for
the property tax owners or the property tax payers. And
we haven't stuck to the formula, and so when you
do the thirty percent, it flows up the formula, and
you can't afford to do that year after year.

Speaker 1 (34:38):
I guess.

Speaker 2 (34:38):
And the other way of looking at this too then
would be, Okay, well, we have money for the homeless,
We're going to give deputies a five percent increase. There's
other things in the budget against not just the one thing,
but I guess the taxpa mask Okay, I understand all that.
Then why isn't this a bigger priority or based on
the Matthew just described, it's impossible.

Speaker 6 (34:57):
Well, no, I think the priority is providing relief for
property owners, and we are doing that. This isn't the
only game in town when it comes to how to
provide property tax relief, and so let's not forget about
what's going on in the legislature. I did sit on
Governor DeWine's pass force with bill sits trying to come
up with some ideas to provide relief. We had twenty

(35:18):
suggestions for the legislature and some for ourselves, and so
we are starting to implement some of that. Not the
lease of which it is House Bill three thirty five,
which says that our revenue, the county's revenue, will be
held our inside millage will be held to the rate
of inflation. That is a reduction in revenue for the
county and relief to the taxpayers, and so you will

(35:41):
not see the spikes that we have seen in the
past for property tax bills because we're going to be
held to the rate of inflation. We're taking a hit
on that. It's probably about fifteen million a year, but
we're willing to do that as part of the solution.
So it's not as if the county is not working
on property tax relief. We're giving some relief by the
way through the PTR. It's just is not as much

(36:03):
as the thirty percent. So there are other ways to
provide this release outside the PPR.

Speaker 2 (36:09):
So it would be a messaging kind of thing. Is
that what you're saying is you're going to get the
money back, it just won't be in the thirty percent
property tax rebate.

Speaker 6 (36:17):
Well, we're always trying to look at for the tax
players and do as little increase as possible. But as
I said, we've got partners in this fight here right
in the state. I wish the state were doing more candidly,
but we are doing our part. And we didn't have
to support House build three thirty five, but we did
that knowing that we were going to take a cut

(36:37):
because we thought it was an important thing to do
by way of the county to provide some relief to
people that are struggling. And let me say one other thing,
because I heard it said that the tax players got
written out of the Stadi Impact Seal, the opposite is true.
The financial plan actually ensured that the PTR remains in

(36:59):
the formula in the equation. It's a matter of degree,
and that's always what we fight about. But we literally
wrote it into the least negotiations with the bangles in
the financial stack, and so we didn't write it out.
We literally wrote it in to the financial stack.

Speaker 2 (37:15):
Could the thirty percent rebate have been part of the
new stadium deal the two hundred and eleven millions, which,
by the way, I think you're voting on today.

Speaker 6 (37:23):
Well, it is part of it. As I said, it's
just a matter of degree. The PTR is in there.
It's just the thirty percent abbs and flows given the
amount of revenue that's coming into that fun Okay.

Speaker 2 (37:34):
So what would then have find in subsequent years to
ease three house? What can people expect as far as.

Speaker 6 (37:39):
A rebakers, Well, what I would like to do is
again go back to this formula and say we are
going to do as much as we can and hopefully
increase it year after year, so people always see that
kind of increase. The other thing it does is structure
something where it's more predictable and so that you should
see the chart. I don't know if you've seen the
chart where it goes up and down and up and down,

(38:00):
and they're dramatic shifts, and so, I you know, I'm
a tax player. I would rather see something that is
something I can count on and that I can budget for.
And we're talking about maybe the delta between the four
point five that was voted this year in the thirty
is about seventy bucks. So we're not talking about hundreds
of dollars. I know, seventy dollars is just a significant

(38:21):
amount of money, but when it comes to your household budget,
that's what we're talking about.

Speaker 2 (38:26):
Well, but if you're a senior fixed income people on
the margins, we are plenty of those people that are
afraid they can't pay their property taxes because what the
state's doing, and of course the reassessments and like you
had this in there as well, and you know, eventually
it's going to be a breaking point. I know, it's
just seventy dollars. There's some people that seventy dollars there's
a lot of money though.

Speaker 6 (38:45):
Yeah, I agreed, and so we're trying to provide that
relief another way. As I said, the PTR is not
the only way to get this done, and so we're
providing the release through these other mechanisms. And by the way,
they're longer term, right untill three thirty five, is ongoing.
It's not something that's decided year after year. It's going

(39:05):
to be lost, and so we will be held to
the rate of inflation, and so that release will be
ongoing and so we won't have this debate every year.
That will stay in place.

Speaker 2 (39:16):
Commissioner Denise Treehouse, President the Commission, and talking about the
meeting today, the vote today two hundred and eleven for
pay Corps. We also had word that it's only a
four and a half percent property tax rebate for next
year instead of the thirty percent promise, and we approve
the ninety six stadium front buildout. So the truth is
then going to be somewhere between four and a half

(39:36):
and thirty percent. With all these ways of finance are
getting that money back to taxpayers? Denise, Are we ever
going to get close to thirty Because while the four
and a half percent right now, especially with the new deal,
is bad timing on the part Forer, I think for
a lot of homeowners and taxpayers, do you.

Speaker 6 (39:53):
Agree, Well, you know, Scott, I have voted for thirty
in the past, so when we could have I voted
for it, and when I thought it was necessary for
the tax players, I did it. The fact of the matter, though,
is that you can't sustain that. You can do it,
but you can't keep doing it because then you bankrupt
the fund. So if we were to do a thirty

(40:16):
percent this year the vote we just took, we would
have reduced the fund dramatically, and so that hurts the fund.
By the way we're supposed to keep eighty five percent,
we would have been way way down. The other piece
of that, though, is that it impacts next year, and
so if you do the thirty percent this year, then
you're in trouble next year. And that's what's happened. We
did thirty percent last year, and I didn't vote for

(40:37):
that because I didn't think it was responsible, and so
now we're in a position this year, well, we can't
do it again, so you know, year after year it
all plays upun This is why I'm in favor of
this formula. So we don't have this dynamic where we've
got thirty percent and then we got to go to
four point five. I mean, yeah, do I wish it
was higher? Yes, I do, but you know, we're looking
at the finances as fund and not bankrupting the fund.

(40:59):
So it is what it is. And I also was
listening and heard that this idea that the tack players
didn't get anything through the new lease with the Bengals,
and nothing could be further from the truth. Where we
got the Bengals to pay one hundred and twenty million
dollars into our asset, which is that stadium, we capped
our cost to three hundred and fifty million, which has

(41:21):
never happened, and we got a long term deal with
the Bengals, and we got used of that stadium like
in a way that we never do, right. And so
then we get to have high school football games between
Elder and ex played at the stadium. So let's not
forget about the community benefits that came through that lease.
In addition to the financial benefits that we got as accounting.

Speaker 3 (41:42):
Well we need to have.

Speaker 2 (41:43):
I mean, that's all nice for Saint exe and Elder,
but why aren't we using the stadium more? I thought
initially when this happened, that we'd see a lot more
activity outside the occasional Taylor Swift show, a lot more
of what we're talking about with football. Why does it
take well, twenty eight years in this thing and now
we're going, hey, we need to utilize the stadium more
for high school athletics. Why haven't we been doing that

(42:04):
all along?

Speaker 6 (42:05):
Because we didn't have control of the city, because the
county didn't have control. And so through this new lease,
we now have access to that stadium as we should.
It belongs to the tax players, and so we had
seen the first model of how that's going to play
out in the years to come, where we do have
more concerts, we have more events, we have more high
school football games. That was the whole point of the

(42:27):
community benefits agreement, and so the Bengals signed off on that,
and so this was our first foray into that. I
thought it was a good model. It was beautiful nights,
even though it was a little rainy, but yet and
look to that in the future. That's exactly what we're
trying to accomplish.

Speaker 2 (42:42):
Yeah, but one may look at that and go wow,
that is to not see the availability because that was
something else was promised people. It's like, hey, yeah, you
know the stadium that we're partners in this single bit
to use the stadium. We haven't been able to And
I think that's just another And I brought that up
to Denise because between that and the thirty percent, I
think there's a huge disconnect between elected officials like yourself,

(43:03):
certainly the Bengals in the front office, and what the
community wants and they you know, I think everyone's looking
at all of these deals and going Okay, I think
we're just going to get screwed again because the pattern
is there. How do you how do you change that
over the next ten, fifteen, twenty years.

Speaker 6 (43:18):
Well, I wasn't there when this promise was made, by
the way, for this thirty percent, that happened many years ago,
and it wasn't a responsible promise. I mean, they had
no idea. By the way, the reason where I'm having
this conversation is because the revenue is a flat right,
if the sales tax revenue was higher, we'd be doing
all we'd be doing the thirty percent. We could afford it,
we'd do it. I supported. That would be great. That's

(43:41):
just not the reality. And so to promise this so
many years ago, for twenty five years, it's not responsible.

Speaker 1 (43:48):
You shouldn't do that.

Speaker 6 (43:49):
You can't budget like that because you don't know what
the economic reality is going to be. You don't want
know what the economy is going to be. So I
try not to make unrealistic promises to people. I try
to honor what I had said I could do and
try to do as much as possible. Whether it's thirty
percent or something less than that, we're trying to do
as much as possible. And I know something else that

(44:10):
was raised in your conversation was MFD, which is another
challenge for us because we're under the federal on you know,
it's a mandate from the federal government, the Consent Decree,
but it's not funded. It's an unfunded mandate, and so
we're under that. We've got a very old system, over
one hundred years old, you know, with the pipes in
the ground, and so we're trying to hold those rates
as tight as possible, knowing that our counterparts in other

(44:33):
counties are raised and rates higher than what's been suggested
for us. So Franklin County is up eight percent next year,
Akron's going up five percent, Tyahoga is going up fourteen
or four point two percent. So it's not like we're
alone in this. But what we're trying to do is say,
how can we keep these rates as low as possible
and again make it predictable. And so next year you're

(44:55):
going to see because we got rid of the bulk
discount and I know it's kind of in the weeds,
but anyway, we got to the ball discount. So next
year people will not see residents will not see higher
MSc rate and so that's good news, and you don't
hear anybody talking about that, but they we're about to
pass that budget too. In years after that, we're hoping
to have a fairly low predictable rate so that people

(45:16):
don't see spikes in those bills either. So you know,
it's not only this one issue. We're trying to play
this out across the board and provide as much relief
as we can, knowing that we're under some of these
mandates and we have to respond to those.

Speaker 2 (45:31):
Commissioner Denise's Threehouse. Last week, Alicia Reese, Commissioner ree said
that the county's rolling in money. She told me, we're
rolling them out. We got money all over the place
with the banks and stadium revenues. You're saying we can't
fund a full rebate and thirty percent is it can't
be done, It's impossible.

Speaker 3 (45:47):
Are we really rolling in money?

Speaker 6 (45:50):
No, we are not rolling in money. I mean, we
have our budget here, and we have a budget here
in tonight as a matter of fact, and the revenues
are relatively flack. We're doing what we can. But no,
I mean it is it's very tight. Ask the sheriff,
ask the prosecutor, ask the judges. The budget is very
tight this year. I don't know what that refers to,

(46:12):
but it is certainly not reality.

Speaker 3 (46:15):
So not rolling in money. Maybe a little bit of money.

Speaker 1 (46:20):
I thought.

Speaker 6 (46:21):
I'm wondering what we're talking about now.

Speaker 2 (46:23):
I don't know, I don't know what that The reality
is this? What give me a reasonable number? What can
you expect you? What can you tell taxpayers now? In
handling count It's it can't be four and a half percent.
You're saying it can't be thirty percent. What's the target?

Speaker 6 (46:39):
The target is keeping eighty five percent in the fun
and making sure we meet our dead ol. We got
dead obligations. We have obligations through a pilot payment, we
have construction, we have all these obligations. So meet the obligations,
and then we have built into that formula this PCR.
So we will have a PPR every year and knowing

(47:00):
it depends on the sales tax revenue and what's coming in,
and that will define what we can do by way
of the relief. We can't spend money we don't have.

Speaker 3 (47:08):
Is it? Is it closer to thirty percent or closer
to four and a half.

Speaker 6 (47:13):
For one next next time?

Speaker 3 (47:14):
Yeah, next next.

Speaker 2 (47:15):
Cycle, and then it's going to be changed. But you
said you want to get to a steady number, and
the number would everyone will be happy with would be
what I guess the question or you just.

Speaker 6 (47:23):
Simply don't know, Well how would I know? I mean
I don't know what is going to come in by
way to sales tax.

Speaker 2 (47:28):
Well, I mean you have targets obviously otherwise we've been
doing this, so there's got to be a number in
your mind.

Speaker 6 (47:33):
Yeah, well sure, and what I'm hoping for is an
increase every year. So as we look at the four
point five, we go up next year, and then we
go up the year after that and go after the
year after that. So it's predictable and we're doing and
I and I anticipate, and boy, I hate the prediction
because you know, we just came out of a pandemic
not too long ago and not get an effect here

(47:55):
right you. It's very hard and we had a recession
and that's where you saw another dep so it's really
hard for me to predict. But the model is set
so that we start out low and we continue to
grow year up to year. So that is certainly my hope.
But to make a prediction gets a little dicey.

Speaker 2 (48:13):
Yeah, fair enough. We'll just say twenty five eight percent.

Speaker 3 (48:17):
How's that?

Speaker 6 (48:19):
Say what you'd like, and we'll try to hit.

Speaker 2 (48:21):
That mark because I got to have we record. Everything's recorded.
I want to bring this back later and then you know,
rub your nose in it today.

Speaker 3 (48:27):
That's like, please, Willie will do that? I would do it.
I would not.

Speaker 6 (48:34):
No, No, the EMBc. Let's get back to MSc because
that's another one that I hear quite a bit about
and so that rate we're trying to do a predictable
rate across the board for the next ten years. We're
trying to hit four point five, which is a pretty
modest increase. Before I got to the Commission, by the way,
those rates were quite a bit higher year after year.
And when I got there, we were able to hold

(48:54):
that flat for a number of years because we had
a reserve, and so we spent on some of that
reserved keep for us rate flat. But now we're back
to a reserve that's reasonable that we need to increase
the rate modestly year a few years. So that is
what I'm shooting for. Right If well, I can do
a four point five increase for MSc for the next

(49:17):
ten years, I think that's what people are asking me
to do. Give us something predictable, make it as low
as you possibly can, and that's what we're going to do.
And so that's what that's what I'm trying to do
with the MFT, not to be confused with the four
point five with the PCR. And now I'm just realizing
that those numbers are the same. So I and the

(49:38):
increase this year for ms.

Speaker 2 (49:40):
I guess I guess resident, I've got to get going.
We could probably talk about this for a long time,
but you got to go. You got votes, you got
work to do. To d Street Hoouse, Hamlet County Commission President,
setting the record straight from hers perspective, I always enjoy
having you back, and thanks for taking time out to explain.
Thanks that all the best to you, and we've got
a news update happening now here on seven hundred WLW

(50:02):
Tuesday morning, Scottslonde rolls on with you here seven hundred
wl It's a tough one to as a consumer. I
don't think I care at all about it. I'll be
honest with you, but I'm gonna talk about anyway because
it's just fascinating. Every time we have some sort of
change agent occur, we have the same predictable reaction and

(50:26):
I get it. You know you're trying to protect your
own territory. I'm gonna ask Andy Schaffer about this later.
Till down on eleven thirty five from all Worth Financial
to talk about the markets, investments, and just like a
weekly money tune up as always, so Warner Brothers comes
along and said, Hey, you know what, we're gonna sell
our studio and our streaming service, and we're going to
sell it to Netflix for almost eighty three billion dollars.

(50:48):
With the B and all the cable networks we own,
we're gonna spend that in a new publicly traded company.
Sound good? So Paramount who owns pretty much everything else, right,
CBS and just you go down the list. It's incredible. Uh,
And that consolidation has been going for a long time,
all of a sudden, now it's a problem because it
involves Hollywood. Okay, So Paramount skuy Dance says, you know what,

(51:11):
we're going to do better shareholders. They go to the
existing shareholders instead of the Netflix deal. They said, well,
if you go with us instead of Netflix, will give
you two dollars twenty five cents more per share, which
is like almost one hundred and ten billion dollar offer
for the entire company. And so now you've got Warner's

(51:32):
board saying it. You know that, some of the shareholders saying, well,
you're unfavoring you're favoring Netflix unfairly, And it's just this
back and forth. It's fascinating. Now, if you own you know,
a decent number of those shares, you're probably pretty happy
because you're going to get paid. And ultimately that's how
it works. You know, we own shares of companies, me
and you and your four one K, your roth Ira,
your investments, if you have a pension. It's all tied

(51:56):
up in that. We know how the markets work. And
on top of that, Aunt also they're also backed by
Jared Kushner, Trump's son in law. He's got an investment
firm that's backing the paramount deal. So gee, I wonder
which one's going to get done. But nonetheless, it's just
interesting to see the reaction from from Warner people, or
not even Warner people get that in a second. So
the reality is, like any any business, any sector, any company, certainly,

(52:23):
streaming is affecting the entertainment business in a big way.
It's affecting my business TV and in this case film
the film is your Warner Brothers. Theaters for a long
time had their exclusive window on new releases, and yeah,
and I obviously took a hit during the pandemic in
that and they still haven't fully rebounded though, because studios

(52:43):
are right now they're trying to figure out which films
justify a theatrical release versus going straight to streaming. We've
seen Netflix throw we Are one this week that Will
Gans was talking about that literally is going to be
in theaters for a week before it went on the Netflix.
Because while they want to get an AFORE nomination and
gets some more eyeballs, that's how it works. You're just
looking that as a loss leader, basically going yeah, we

(53:05):
just want we want the advertising from being an Oscar
nominated film. You can only do that if you're up
for about a week or so, and that obviously with
Netflix and Paramount and this, that's going to change. That's
going to change the whole awards thing, right, So if
you're an Oscar fan, I don't know too many of those,
but if you're an Oscar fan, that's probably going to
change how that works too. In addition to streaming, cutting in,

(53:28):
production costs keep going up and the revenue models are
it's a big question mark. You're talking about three hundred
million for a blockbuster to just make in market and
you need a huge global audience just to break even.
But if you're a mid budget film, which has been
the majority of the films out there, they've disappeared because

(53:48):
we're not quite sure should we do streaming. Should we
do theatrically you're not seeing that anymore. And now we
got the Writers Guild and like that are pushing back
because of AI, and it's a whole. It's kind of
a mess. By and large are audiences, whether it's eyes
or ears. Our habits have shifted. We're more selective about
what we'll see in theaters versus seeing streaming at home.

(54:09):
My wife and I wanted to see the Jeremy Ellen
White Springsteen movie that was up in theaters briefly because
it wasn't that mass appeal kind of thing, which I get,
and we'll like, ah, we should go, and then you know,
a week or two later, it's not there anymore because
we're like, Okay, no big loss. We'll just wait for
to come out and watch it on our big screen TV.

(54:30):
So technology, like anything in the world, whether it's automotive,
whether it's medical, there's opportunities, threats, and predictably, the old
Hollywood machine starts ratcheting it up the defense Jane Fonda,
of all people, she's still alive. Jane Fonda sent a
letter to the trade news publications saying that the end
of Warner Brothers is a standalone company is an alarming

(54:53):
escalation and a consolidation crisis that threatens the entire entertainment
interesty itself, the public deserves, and potentially the First Amendment itself.
I'm not quite sure if this is a one a
issue and how that would be, but that the public
somehow deserves an outdated business model. There's a trade organization
called Cinema United that represents about three thirty thousand movie

(55:14):
screens in the United States. Are a big one, and
they said the acquisition of Netflix is an unprecedented threat
and vowed to fight it because theaters will close, communities
will suffer, jobs will be lost, and you're only getting
Netflix only give token releases in theaters. And imagine the
paramounts can do the same thing, and what happens to us. Well,

(55:39):
you know, it's interesting that the cinemas, and you know,
history is always a great indicator of future behavior. That
if you go back to the turn of the previous century,
film was really coming to it. I mean, the golden
age of cinema, right, the Warner Brothers literally came on.
Silent movies became talkies and the big you know, nineteen twenties,

(56:00):
nineteen thirties, great depression. That was the one place you
could go for some relief.

Speaker 6 (56:05):
And they.

Speaker 2 (56:07):
Did that for wow, one hundred years. Okay, great, awesome,
they got that model. All on comes streaming lumps really
cheap TVs. I's facing you get a big screen TV
now for dirt cheap, like one hundred inch TV. You
can get one for I don't know, like over just
over thousand dollars. So yeah, the speakers of sounds is

(56:29):
we got the soundbars. Now, it sounds good, sounds immersive,
and it's like you're not for want for that whole
cinematic experience in your own home. But the idea is
somehow we're going to close these theaters. It's funny because
if you go back even to the early nineteen hundreds,
the same theater operators, maybe their ancestors had no problem

(56:49):
putting vaudevillians in local stages and screens.

Speaker 3 (56:53):
I mean that's how we consider.

Speaker 2 (56:54):
Before film, people would go to a theater to watch vaudeville,
which would be a basically a variety show. You'd have comics,
you'd have singers, you'd have impressions, you have all these things,
and once movies came along, it was more streamline it
was cheaper instead of having to hire all that talent
to simply put it on celluloid. And you're like, well,

(57:15):
I'm sorry, that's the way what happened in the same
movie industry that really that crushed stage is now being
crushed by streaming. And it's the same argument that we've
got to protect us. I'm sure there were Vaudevillians and
the Vaudeville Union and the Theater Union and the stage hands,
and they're all, you're not going to stop consumer demand.

(57:35):
It's just simply not going to happen. Same for the
Writers Guild. They're calling for the government to step and
then block any merger whatsoever because I represent about twelve
thousand screenwriters and saying that the streaming companies in one
of the streaming it was going to swallow one of
its biggest competitors. Is what anti trust lawsuits are designed
to prevent. Well, I think the concern is they're going

(57:57):
to come in and go you know what, twelve thousand
writings obs are going to maybe not all go away,
but we're going to lean into AI. And I would
think too that I've said this before, there's a real
that for actors and actresses. Isn't going to be just
much easier to create a plot, have AI write a
story or come up and kind of mesh out a
screenplay or something like that AI assisted, and have AI

(58:20):
do all the acting and production. And I mean, we're
there now where you look at some of the shorts
on social media, we're there now. It's not going to
be that much before we have animated movies, which you
still need hard writers for I suppose, but you know,
by and large, it's the industry itself is going to
shrink immeasurably because of artificial intelligence.

Speaker 3 (58:41):
It's almost going to have to happen.

Speaker 2 (58:42):
A lot of the future shows that you will see
will be entire AI created, I would think. I mean,
there's got to be some human guidance in there and concepts,
I suppose, but you know, by and large, that's what
we're looking at. They're not going to be real actors.
They're just going to be faxing on. How you patent
those and put copyright restrictions and stuff. Will be an
interesting battle for sure, But any had to say because

(59:03):
people are going to be displaced, But is it really
any different than what happened with vaudeville back in the day,
as I said, because a lot of vaudevillians were replaced,
a lot of those went to the voices, went to radio,
and then a lot of the radistars went to TV,
and TV went to streaming. And it's part of this
whole evolution because of consumer demand, that's all. And the
teamster is upset too because they should reject this deal,

(59:23):
because the Teamsters represent a bunch of folks as well. So, yeah,
you're about protectionism and you're about, you know, trying to
save your own industry in particular. I get that that's
nothing new, and it's not a shot at them saying
they're foolish. No, you probably do the same thing if
your industry where in jeopardy to collapse. But let's face it,
it is up the consumer. The consumer always decides in America.

(59:43):
The CEO CO chief executive at Netflix said, right now,
you should count on everything that is planned going on
in the theater through Warner Brothers. Continue to go to theaters.
You should continue to go to theaters. The keyword, and that,
by the way, is right now. So right now you
should count. It's like when companies merge, you know, we're
taking over Kroger takes over a company.

Speaker 3 (01:00:03):
Let's say we just had that happen here locally.

Speaker 2 (01:00:05):
We're going to take over this company and look at
it and go, all right, I do this particular job.
There's somebody in this company does a particular job. Which
one are they going to keep because they ain't going
to keep both of us, So you better be damn
sure you're great at what you do if you want
to stay on. And that's just the nature of consolidation.
See that happened many many times in my industry even
but you know the idea that right now, yeah, right now,

(01:00:27):
as of today. Now, by January first, maybe a different story.
And that typically how these things work out, as they
send assurances to people going, yeah, listen, your job's not
in jeopardy right now. Everything is fine right now, so
just you know, just keep on doing your best right now.
And everyone happens once they figure it all out and
the analysts come in and kick the tires and see

(01:00:48):
how we can shave Because when companies take over the country,
the company is the first thing they do is issue
a letter going everything's fine, like no one's loosening their job.
Don't worry about it, and then after a little period
of time, what happens is that's when the acts starts
to fall. Always does, because you've got enough pay for
all of the money you spent about the company in
the first place. And largely what happens is, you know,

(01:01:11):
we consolidated. We start looking around, going, all right, he
can go, these guys, this department can go. We've got
a lot of overlap here, and we've got a consolidation
means we're gonna save money. So no, never buy the Hey,
your job is fine right now because tomorrow is not
right now. And that's just how it works, that's true anything.
But we're seeing an unfold before our very eyes with Hollywood. Now,
I don't know, is a consumer like you you're gonna

(01:01:32):
lose sleep over what's going on? Probably not you look
at it going. I don't know Paramount, Netflix, Warner Brothers.
I watch these shows. I have no idea who the
helse produced. I have no idea that we don't. And
the thing is today we're dumb and ignorant of this,
and largely so because there's just so much content out
there to jews froom, you don't care where it's coming

(01:01:52):
from and who's producing it. All you know is that
there's more stuff to consume with your eyes and ears
than ever before in the history of all mankind. So
it's the new Golden Age for sure. But at the
same time, you look, I can't watch or listen anymore.
There's only so many hours in the day. There's only

(01:02:13):
so many hours in the day. But you know, fighting
for Jane Fonda. We need to save Warner Brothers. Why
because well, it's a it's an important company. It's the
odds of consumers. The consumers decide what is important and
what is not, and so it goes. Anyway, news on
the way in just minutes. You may know the name
Rosemary Oglesby Henry. She's a candidate Republican candidate for Congress.

(01:02:34):
That she's also happens to be the lady attached to
a horrific story, quaite, honestly, of someone who said she
produced a gun and all these all these accusations it
turned out to be not true. You wonder how that
may have hurt her campaign. I'm saying, yeah, she threatened
me with a gun, and then she was the one arrested.
And it turns out later on guess what the person

(01:02:55):
making the accusations also running for office, made the whole
thing up. It's an interesting story and we'll get into
it next with her on The Scott Sloane Show, Home
of the Best Bengals coverage seven hundred WW.

Speaker 8 (01:03:04):
Since you want to be an American, Hi, Scott's loan
here on seven hundred WLW.

Speaker 3 (01:03:10):
You may know the name already.

Speaker 2 (01:03:11):
Rosemary Oglesby Henry is the founder of nonprofit Rosemary's Babies.
She's also the Republican candidate for Congress in Ohio in
the first district, so she is going to be running
against Grange Lensman. And the reason you may know the
name is because she got jammed up in an abusive relationship.
And normally you don't hear the stuff with politics and
candidates in life, but I think it offers a really interesting,

(01:03:33):
unique perspective.

Speaker 3 (01:03:35):
And she joins the show. Now, Rosemary, welcome, how are you?

Speaker 1 (01:03:38):
I'm good?

Speaker 5 (01:03:39):
Thank you so much for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:03:40):
I'm excited to be on.

Speaker 3 (01:03:41):
Yeah, yeah, yeah. What made you decide to run?

Speaker 6 (01:03:45):
So?

Speaker 5 (01:03:45):
I just I just felt like we needed a change
and we needed to flip that seat to someone that
could bring some new opportunities to Southwest Ohio that just
aren't happening right now, especially this administration. Like what so Well,
my focus definitely is to ensure that we're bringing that

(01:04:09):
we're training people in manufacturing, We're focusing on the urban
core and making sure that small businesses are going and
sustaining in southwest Ohio. I think the current incumbent just
isn't doing a very good job of focusing and focusing
on our area, especially now that we've especially now that

(01:04:32):
they've added Clinton County. I just think the needs of
what of Warren and Clinton just won't be heard underneath
system comments.

Speaker 2 (01:04:41):
Relative to manufacturing, tariff's helping or hurting getting that message out.

Speaker 5 (01:04:46):
I think that it just depends on which side that
you're on. Of course, the administration is supporting the tariffs
are helping, but for some formers, they're they're starting to
fill as the burn of that, and so we definitely
need to make sure that some of those dollars are
going back, that the industries wren't being hurt, that we're

(01:05:07):
we're emphasizing for those small swarming communities in those communities,
for the state and people to support those individuals in
that area to buy the buy home take care of
Ohio first.

Speaker 2 (01:05:19):
Yeah, yeah, as somebody's listening to this going, oh yeah,
Rosemary Oglesby Henry, I know that name.

Speaker 4 (01:05:27):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:05:27):
Most candidates kind of kind of go through a life
with a little less stress. You, on the o otherland,
had a lot of stress recently. And it's an interesting
story that I think you can honestly pivot and use
to your advantage. And it all starts with a guy
named Kevin Farmer. So if you don't know the entire
story here, you were arrested in early November charge with

(01:05:47):
aggravated menacing, accused of pointing a gun at him. He's
running for a city councilor running for congress. Kevin Farmer.
Turns out he's making false charges against you, charged with burglary,
violating a protection order you had against him after trespassing
in your home and Halloween, you're out, the charges have
been dropped. He's I believe, still in jail on a
seventy thousand dollars bond. Voters here that and are like, wait, wait,

(01:06:10):
you got as you know how voters are they here?
You got arrested and that's the end of the story.

Speaker 3 (01:06:16):
I guess. Give us some background what's the deal with
Kevin Farmer? How did you meet?

Speaker 2 (01:06:19):
You say he's a friend or was a friend anyway,
and what was the nature of your friendship.

Speaker 5 (01:06:23):
Yeah, so mental health is real. Health is real, and
you never know what's going to be the stick that
broke that camel's back. And we all have people that
we might be around that might be struggling with these
issues and we don't know. It could be the person
working next to you, or it could be someone in
your family, your child is struggling with those issues. Of course,

(01:06:45):
I had a professional relationship with Kevin Farmer and known
him for several years and to have this turned on
me and the charges be faught that that was an assault,
But the the biggest was, oh my god, now I'm
stuck in the system that I've always trusted to help
me build the American dream and followed, so how do

(01:07:08):
I get out of it? And as you know, while
the charges were fast, the city dropped it said they
should have never filed them in the first place. The
apology is never as grand as assault. And so what
do you do from that is you emphasize the need
for you know, the boys in blue and the courts
and everybody to just review these actions before they take

(01:07:30):
these steps. But more than that, for a trauma informed media,
you know my kids, my families and everything. Before you
run with this propaganda and basically became a person's name,
you need to make sure that you're clarifying the facts
and that the facts are what they are. And so
it was a very traumatic incident, but you learn from it,
you move past it, and for somebody like me that

(01:07:53):
is resiliently driven, you get the word out there to
let your voters know I was Surean's parent, I said,
and my authority and why I was doing it. I
was still serving people and running my race, And those
are the type of people that you need fighting for
Southwest Ohio, not somebody who's going to book and fold.

Speaker 1 (01:08:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:08:11):
I get that too. You hear the charges, most people
already made their mind up. We go, oh, yeah, that's
that lady got arrested, and that's certainly not true because
you're the victim in this case as opposed to the perpetrator,
and the truth came out and the legal system worked. Unfortunately,
it's hard to get your reputation back in this day
and age because there's so much information out there and
you know, first impressions mean so much. How hard is
that going to be to overcome that? And on the

(01:08:32):
trail and with the election.

Speaker 5 (01:08:33):
Come out, you know, I think people love a good
comeback story. You know, this is America. We love a
wet we love a good rocky story. And as I'm
out on the on the trail, you know, I'm thinking
of that thing, you know, And there are a lot
of people that know me. I've been a long time
figure in Cincinnati, Ohio and around Ohio, and so it

(01:08:55):
was kind of unbelievable in the first place. And so
I just get back in front of people again. I
show people who I am. I spend firm and who
I am and definitely believe that if I do what
I say I'm going to do, which I always say,
that the voters will change their minds. You know, I'm
a regular person. You know, never expected this to.

Speaker 1 (01:09:15):
Happen to me.

Speaker 5 (01:09:16):
But I'm a regular person that life happens. And again,
when these challenges happen, you want to see how people
rise above it. In a very polarized environment where there
are so many lawsuits and frivolous attacks coming against people daily,
especially public figures.

Speaker 1 (01:09:32):
We're seeing more and more of this, and.

Speaker 5 (01:09:33):
Some of them buckle and vote Rosemary for US Congress,
and first District doesn't vote. She moves forward resiliently and
she challenges these these hits, you know, and she fights back.
And that's, like I said, the type of leaders we
need fighting for our communities, our urban core, our formers,
and you know, for affordability and just changes for southwest Ohio.

(01:09:56):
And I just think that we haven't seen enough of
that in the last few years.

Speaker 1 (01:10:01):
About fighting back.

Speaker 2 (01:10:02):
Rosemary oglesby Henry on the show, first District congressional candidate
and talking about her unique story in politics here. Uh,
you know, final point on this too. So why would
Kevin Farmer, a friend of yours business call associate, why
would he final these false charges against her? You know,
he said you had a gun, police let and search
and said, well, she doesn't have a gun here, She
couldn't have done that. And then they learned the truth

(01:10:23):
and it was Uh, he was the one making the
story of violating restraining order everything else.

Speaker 3 (01:10:27):
Why Why would he do that? Did it have to
do with this campaign?

Speaker 5 (01:10:31):
Yes, I unfortunately his campaign wasn't going I guess as
well as he wanted. I've heard everything from jealousy to
you know again, mental health to using the political machine.
This guy was a gorilla marketer and he used non
traditional ways to get people, you know, into elections and

(01:10:53):
office public offices. I just never thought that that would
be turned on me. Again, my children and my family,
my kids, we're here, you know, my family was here watching.

Speaker 1 (01:11:02):
The drug off.

Speaker 5 (01:11:05):
And you know that's very hurtful too, because again you
tell your kids, you know, to stand for justice, to
be honest, individuals trustworthy. Like you said, there was no gun,
there was no story, there was no argument, helping a
friend and the just in a professional partner. You know
that things just kind of turned left and again that morning.

(01:11:27):
Never would have thought that my face will be on
a mudshot. But we see what Trump deal with his
mud shot. He turned it and he thought the entire
time he was running his race. And that is a
huge example for me to use that he didn't he
didn't turn back, and he walked straight into it and
answered those questions directly for.

Speaker 2 (01:11:45):
Anyone that want no good deed goes on a posh
right exactly, that's a tough lesson learned right there.

Speaker 3 (01:11:52):
So well, I think it is behind you.

Speaker 2 (01:11:55):
Of course you're gonna have to answer that a lot
on the on the campaign trail for sure, because.

Speaker 3 (01:11:58):
People go, well, what what was the story with this
whole thing? Hopefully you can put that back.

Speaker 2 (01:12:02):
And I think it's a unique story too, Yours is
is you know you literally we're the victim of crime.

Speaker 3 (01:12:06):
That's unique for Cape.

Speaker 5 (01:12:08):
Yeah, yeah, it really is. And you know, while while
I'm sitting in the background, I have some very strong
leaders from the community and just higher level leaders in
the government that just kind of called me and reached
out and was like, hey, you know, this is how
you fight this.

Speaker 1 (01:12:26):
I'm sorry you're going.

Speaker 5 (01:12:27):
Through this again. I've run Rosemary's Babies for more than
a decade, but I've also been a community leader for
almost two decades in Ohio, you know, so I've had
positions where I sat on policy and things like that
for not only Ohio but across the nation in California,
et cetera. So a lot of these great people reached
out and it just so happens it happened twenty days

(01:12:48):
after my campaign announced, Right, But you know, barriers don't
break me. We turn those and the opportunities and you know.
On December nineteenth, I'm hosting an event with the Temptations.
I'm hoping po will come out and give me an
opportunity to be able to speak to what happened, but
more than that, celebrate with me, learn about me. And
I'm excited to have that. On December nineteenth, a Christmas

(01:13:11):
concert with the Sensations review at bat Tom Smiths Brewery,
host about Fernando and Jacqueline Cruz, who are small business
owners in Madisonville. They have this really unique beer brewery
and they stood behind me through all of these things
and as they know, that's not her and you need

(01:13:32):
people like that, you do, you know that know you,
that will speak for your integrity and I really appreciate that.

Speaker 2 (01:13:37):
Well, you know on that point, Rosemary is you know
you're not your candidate in early September, I believe, and
then twenty days later, two weeks later, I'm reading these
stories about you, going wow, that's gonna be the shortest
campaign ever. And it turns out not to be true.
You know, and I pay attention to stuff. Most voters
don't have time to do this. It's not on them,
it's not you know, people are stupid. It's just they
they hear one thing and they move on. There's so

(01:13:58):
much out there is. But the thing is this damaged
in any way, shape or form. So far you're fundraising,
maybe volunteer recruitment, things like.

Speaker 5 (01:14:05):
That, the well, not necessarily it's done. It's done some damage.
You know. Of course your team starts and they're like,
what's going on? And so it does have some turnaround.
But you know, again, I'm a person that's resilient. You know,
I came from the urban corep I built my nonprofit

(01:14:26):
from nothing. You know, you want to talk about building
yourself up from the bootstrap. I mean I didn't even
have boots at one point in my life. I started
my life as a teen mom who built this, you know,
million dollar non profit organization to be able to support
teen parents. We're still the only organization doing that work.
And you know, there were a lot of people when

(01:14:47):
I first started saying, hey, you don't want to name
your organization Rosemary's Babies. Hey, they're never going to support
teenage pregnancy. You know, just all of these things, there's
never been a barrier that hasn't been put in my way.
This is a new obstacle, but an opportunity for me
to turn it around. Look at systems where we are

(01:15:07):
toddling criminals at the frundians and pretending consequences don't matter
on the back end. And again, I didn't hide, I
didn't quit, I didn't pourt singers. I faced the head on,
I told the truth and I kept serving. And that's
serving my nonprofit. That's serving a community and going out
here at getting in front of this saying I'm going

(01:15:28):
to serve Southwest Ohio, just the.

Speaker 2 (01:15:30):
Same Holloway House I belive right off Writing Road. And
how many young people teenagers you.

Speaker 5 (01:15:36):
Serve so yearlyague So it's a resource center as well
as a transitional housing. It's the only one Ohio, Kentucky,
and Indiana that is serving young parents under the age
at eighteen. We can serve up to seven moms and
a baby that are fourteen people total on site. But
yearly Rosemary's Babies Organization serves over two hundred plus teen

(01:15:58):
moms and dads between the ages and nine and nineteen.
And since we still open our doors in twenty sixteen,
we've served over three thousand young parents. And again that's
why I wanted to run too, you know, I.

Speaker 1 (01:16:12):
Tell teen parents, you can change your trajectory.

Speaker 5 (01:16:15):
We just have to from the point that they choose
to parents, remind them that this is an obstacle, but
it's an opportunity for you not to be dependent on
the government system, for you to get an education, for
you to ensure that your kids have educational success along
with you. Because I'm all for educational options, I'm all
for trades, I'm all for ensuring that these kids understand investments.

(01:16:40):
So we're doing all of the things that this administration
has now put out here, and I was like, wow,
I'm doing that. I've been doing that for the last decade,
you know, teaching kids about stock and teaching kids, you know,
especially these young people when they get jobs, to get
the health insurance through their employer, and what it means
to get life insurance.

Speaker 1 (01:17:01):
You know.

Speaker 5 (01:17:01):
I was a postal worker when I at nineteen, I
started working at the post office. I was there for
seventeen years, so understand that whole life. And when I
went in at nineteen, I was like thrift savings five
oh one. See, you know, yeah, like you weren't thinking

(01:17:22):
about that stuff at nineteen, but here I am.

Speaker 1 (01:17:25):
Much older, much more.

Speaker 5 (01:17:26):
But sure, and I'm like, wow, what if I would
have done that at nineteen. So that's why Trump accounts
are so vital and educating those kids while they've given them,
while they'll set them up for the parents to watch.
We definitely need our school systems to understand help our
kids understand understand what money means and how those can

(01:17:48):
secure over time and grow. So we need to implement
those types of things in school systems too, along with
you know the constitution and you know the Charlie Kirk
feel and legislation that just recently is going through the
state to be approved and everything like that. So along
with that, we need to do more money education as

(01:18:09):
well as education in our school system about set in
order to feed the jobs in our economy and through
manufacturing it and all of those.

Speaker 1 (01:18:21):
Things we need.

Speaker 5 (01:18:22):
We need these pipelines, you know, we need to do
them earlier.

Speaker 2 (01:18:25):
Rusmy real quick as a small business person, myself a
small business person, and you hit on a bunch of
touchdowns area, mental health, team health, the small business element
of this thing too. Healthcare is such a big component.
There's so many small businesses don't can't afford health care
for their employees. You know, the bulk of Americans get
their healthcare from where they work. But you know, I've

(01:18:46):
said for a long time, especially with the gig economy
the way it is, if you could free healthcare from
your workplace, my god, the economy would go gangbusters. Bringing
a unique perspective to d C. What would you differently
with healthcare plan the Republicans are offering.

Speaker 5 (01:19:00):
Yeah, I mean, ultimately we do need to be able
to have that open market. Of course, I looked at them.
I'm a nonprofit that started from the bootstraps at a
small distance on her two and actually worked a part
time job while I was starting my nonprofit so I
could keep my health insurance, you know, because I had
kids in a family, and so my perspective is very

(01:19:23):
different and it needs to be affordable, while at the
same time government can't hold up that weight, like what's
happening with the Affordable Care Act for what people call Obamacare.

Speaker 1 (01:19:34):
We can't continue to fuel that.

Speaker 5 (01:19:36):
And you know, I do like the idea of giving
a rebate that's the citizens for them to be able
to go into the marketplace to get affordable health care
or to buy into their health care or gets tax
rebates if you get it through your employer. So I
think that it has to be a mixed model. It
can't just be one model because it's such a huge problem.

(01:19:57):
While it's the same time, you know, our health is
vitally important as well, especially for those areas that can't
get to hospitals or they don't have hospitals in those areas.
You know, our clinics are vitally important because I'm all
about safety net organizations. Are our clinics able to help
and can people do people understands that they can utilize
those clinics and urgent cares instead of going to hospitals

(01:20:20):
in order to reduce costs. One of the things that
we always did it within our organization, we educated young moms,
don't take your baby to emergency every time there's an issue.
Their sellhealth. There's your primary care doctor for educating people
at the lowest level, helping them read through their policies
and understand what's all entailed with that. Because a lot

(01:20:44):
of these policies are offering and sent us for workforce development,
I just felt like an HMO policy that they're offering
workforce help and things such as that, and transportation to
hospital and medical visits and gift cards if you go
to your preventative care appointments and things such as that,

(01:21:04):
and so there's so many things that are build seeing,
but a lot of people don't understand and know that.
And as a safety that person that navigating the nonprofit
and social service sector, we need to educate people. And
it's not necessarily my job to do it, but as
a government official, to listen to our constituents and ensure

(01:21:26):
that they have the resources and tools necessary to be
able to navigate their own lives.

Speaker 3 (01:21:32):
That's what's now. Government is gotcha.

Speaker 2 (01:21:34):
She is Rosemary Oglesby Henry, founder CEO Rosemary's Babies, Republican
candidate for Congress, the first district running against at Greg's Lanceman.
You know, Rosemary, thanks for taking time out. I appreciate it.
I love your story, I love your your wealth of experience.
Most of all, love your resilience, resiliency. Good luck in
this campaign. I'm sure we'll talk again in the future.

Speaker 5 (01:21:52):
Yes, thank you so much. Let's turn a Rosemary d
And don't forget December nineteenth, the Sensations Review. You can
find it on the website.

Speaker 1 (01:21:58):
Appreciate it's a dot com.

Speaker 3 (01:22:00):
Yes, ma'am, good luck, Thank you all right, see you later.

Speaker 2 (01:22:03):
We got to get a time out ever like her
a lot. We'll get a news update in and more
to follow. Scott's Loland Show seven hundred W Time to talk.

Speaker 3 (01:22:11):
About money, how to make it, how.

Speaker 4 (01:22:13):
To keep it, and how to keep others off your stack.

Speaker 3 (01:22:20):
This is all Worth Advice with Andy Shaeffer. Tuesday morning,
we check on your money.

Speaker 2 (01:22:25):
Money never sleeps, and our buddy Andy Shaeffer from All
War Financial jumps on the show to discuss all this
and more.

Speaker 3 (01:22:31):
On seven hundred w W. Drew, how are you, good morning, Scott?
How are you today? I'm doing well. I'm doing well.

Speaker 2 (01:22:36):
Can you make sense of this whole paramount thing? I
think you know, it's you know, typically we talk about
numbers and we'll talk. We'll get into of course, you
know what the Fed's going to do, and that's kind
of back room for a lot of people. But interesting,
what's happening here in the in the shift, that's happening
in Hollywood h so many it's intro I was pointing
us out earlier, is how many you know the unions

(01:22:57):
we at the team stairs, be it the screen writer Guild,
everyone fighting against it, saying it's going to destroy theaters.
But what drives American business is consumer demand, whether it's
cars or movies. It's all about us deciding what we want.

Speaker 8 (01:23:12):
Yeah, this is very fascinating to me, and I think
I'd like to lead with the money that's involved first,
and then we can get into the political landscape and
what that means and as far as Washington is concerned.
But essentially Netflix was approved to buy Warner Brothers. It
was a seventy or seventy two billion dollar purchase and essentially,

(01:23:34):
you know, Warner Brothers agreed to that, the managers did there.
And you know, when you look at Netflix, that's the
company behind HBO, CNN, the Fame Movie O Studio, and
so Warner Brothers is very attractive. You know, they have
the Harry Potter franchise along with some other things. And
so we call that kind of a friendly takeover. And

(01:23:56):
what that means is that the border directors for both
Netflix and World Brothers kind of agreed to the deal
and everything seemed honckey dory, and then all of a sudden,
paramount comes in and they say, okay, well we're going
to offer seventy four point four billion over top of them,
and a bigger portion of that is going to be
a cash buy out. And this is what's considered a

(01:24:16):
hostile takeover. Netflix did not agree to this, and people say, well,
what does the hospital takeover mean? Well, essentially, hostile takeover
is where corporation, the acquiring corporation it takes, attempts to
take over the other corporation with the agreement of the
target corporation's board of directors. Essentially, what they do is

(01:24:36):
they offer the shareholders for their shares what's known as
a tender offer, and if you have enough shares that
are purchased, basically that acquiring company, you know, replaces the
current board directors with their own. And you know, it's
it's not looked upon favorably from the acquiring firm's point
of view. There's usually a lot of static intention, but

(01:24:57):
it is a way to acquire a company. And you know,
I think it's very interesting what's going on right now
as far as those two corporations.

Speaker 3 (01:25:03):
Won't after war Warner Brothers, Yeah, it is. It's theater
in and of itself too, is that?

Speaker 2 (01:25:08):
Uh, Michel like, well, we're not going to do this, fine,
We'll just go right to your shareholders and we'll cut
your throats.

Speaker 8 (01:25:12):
That's okay, Yeah, yeah, I mean I kind of enjoy
a hostele taker.

Speaker 2 (01:25:16):
But but and that is important parcel do to They
just want old Hollywood. You know, we can't get rid
of Warner I think Jane Fonda wrote a letter right
about how this is just devastating and Warner Brothers. It's like, yeah,
that doesn't mean anything to people anymore. It's not this
isn't the nineteen thirties and forties.

Speaker 8 (01:25:32):
No, And I think there's some nostalgia that's wrapped up
into that. You know, we grew up with Warner Brothers,
su and so you know, there's even a little old
studio that's down there by Central Parkway that I passed
by and I look at it.

Speaker 3 (01:25:45):
I was like, oh, that's kind of neat. Yeah.

Speaker 8 (01:25:47):
But at the end of the day, it's about commerce.
It's about the shareholders. When you have a large public traded,
publicly traded company, their main focus is on.

Speaker 3 (01:25:57):
Rewarding the shareholders.

Speaker 8 (01:25:58):
And if you are a shareholder of Warner Brothers, both
of these deals could potentially be attractive, and the one
that Paramount is offering right now is a little bit
more attractive now. You know that the board of directors
for Netflix aren't happy about it, and the board of
directors for Warner Brothers thought it was all wrapped up.
But this is legal, and it's something that happens every
once in a while. You just don't see it with

(01:26:19):
big name type of companies that are in the mainstream
very often.

Speaker 2 (01:26:22):
And we're not going to theaters like we once used to,
and that is because of the advent of affordable, cheap,
big screen TVs and surround sound systems, and it's just
you look at it going there's a few things I
might go to the theater for, but you know, another
I don't know what, another tire George Clooney movie. I'm
I'm not going to do that, and people just like, okay,
wait till it comes on streaming. And that's how we're

(01:26:42):
consuming content these days. I mean, our industry here and
radio is going through that. Everyone TV, everyone's going through
that right now. I find a quaint though, when they
talk about the historic with the Warner Brothers company and
what it means to America and all the theaters that
are going to go out of business because of this
takeover and it's just it's going to just decimate small time.
I don't know how many small towns have theaters anymore,

(01:27:03):
probably because people aren't going to them. And the other
thing is, it's kind of funny because if you go back,
I don't know, one hundred plus years, when you had
the Tycoons and the Warner Brothers and the MGMs of
the world essentially running entertainment in America, they didn't.

Speaker 3 (01:27:17):
Seem to go, hey, you know what, what.

Speaker 2 (01:27:18):
About all these poor vaudeville theaters and vaude billions that
keep acting? What about their jobs? And it's kind of
funny how you complain. You know, you take them and go, oh,
that's technology, man, film, it's technology.

Speaker 3 (01:27:30):
It's Charlie Chaplin. He's not going away.

Speaker 2 (01:27:33):
And you fast forward to today and it's like, guess what,
Charlie Chaplin's going away. But I got on my phone,
I got out of my home theater. And we just
simply don't care that small theaters and theater chains are
going to go under because it's not how we are
consuming content anymore.

Speaker 8 (01:27:46):
No, you make a lot of good points, and theaters
have been going by the wayside for years. Warner Brothers
doesn't have anything to do with it. And a lot
of times in small towns, you know, look at the
theater and Oakley, that's more of an event center than
anything else. Right, You have weddings there, you have parties
and things like that. You know, there's a theater out
here on the east side of town that and Amelia
were close to where I live, and you know, that
shut down a handful of months ago, and finally it

(01:28:09):
was reopened and you might see two cars in there,
you know, in an evening. So you know, when you
have the ability to buy a nice, big, cheap TV
and sit in the comfort of your home and have
the refrigerator nearby and make your own popcorn, not only
is it a better experience, but it's more affordable for
most people. And so, you know, Warner Brothers, you know
they're not going to be able to stop the transition

(01:28:31):
from people enjoying movies from their home more than going
to the theater.

Speaker 2 (01:28:35):
At this point, Okay, well, let's pivot to what's going on.
I saw this and this is the odds in America.
Two things. A lot of households are nearing the end
of the year saying well, I'm a little nervous about
the economy, but we keep spending. We mentioned credit card
debt being at an all time high, but people are
throwing caution the winter, going hell, I got to live
for today. I'm going to have a good Christmas. At
the same time as people look at their finances, there

(01:28:57):
are one thousand new millionaires made a minute in the
United States of America, and that's largely because of the
stock market rating, as it has been about a thousand
new millionaires a minute in the United States versus going
I I'm just gonna max up my credit cards in
order to afford Christmas. Explain the disconnect there to.

Speaker 8 (01:29:16):
Me, Well, a lot of times these millionaires have money
that's wrapped up in four to one k's four or
three bs other types of retirement plans. And you know,
I managed three hundred and fifty households approximately, And I
see new millionaires with the clients that I work with
almost every week, and it's always a fun meeting, and
and you know, I tell them it's like, Hey, you.

Speaker 3 (01:29:34):
Met a milestone here.

Speaker 8 (01:29:36):
And you know, because the market's been so good over
the last three years, if you've been patient and had
poise and invested smartly, and stayed the course. Then certainly
your accounts have benefited from that. I think as far
as the consumer goes, the consumer is still spending. We
are seeing credit card levels continue to increase. We are
also seeing savings rates start to decrease. However, it hasn't

(01:29:57):
gotten to the place where it's super alarming. The enemy
still is in decent, a decent place right now. You know,
we are slowing from a growth standpoint. It's likely that
we will see growth this year somewhere between one percent
and one and a half percent. But I do suspect
that when we start to get into rate cuts next
year will likely be a little bit more positive. We

(01:30:18):
don't have the threat of a government shut down immediately. Now,
we'll we'll see what happens, you know, early you know,
late winter, early spring. But it does look like it
things seem fairly positive moving forward.

Speaker 2 (01:30:30):
Okay, let's talk about the Fed. They got the meeting
this week, We got the interest rate cut that's locked
in right now.

Speaker 8 (01:30:35):
Quarter point yeah, yeah, I think at this point the
market's already kind of baked that in. We expect a
quarter point tomorrow is actually the meeting. We'll get the
results at two o'clock. It's always fascinating to me to
listen to FED Chairman Palett two thirty when he has
his press conference. You know, usually I try to set
a little bit of time out of my schedule to

(01:30:55):
watch it and listen to the questions that are that
are being presented to And it's fascinating because every time
FED Chairman Powell has an answer, you know, investors are
looking for guidance. What does he mean by the answer
that he's giving. What does that say moving forward as
far as the pace of interest rate cuts next year?
And you can watch the market in real time respond

(01:31:16):
to his comments at during that press conference, and you know,
there's a lot of uncertainty there, but I think it'll
probably be a pretty tame press conference tomorrow. We do
expect a quarter percent cut, and I think at this
point it's likely we see two more quarter percent cuts
next year. But things are pretty calm, they don't have
to move too quickly, and I think the FED feels
like they're in a pretty good place right now.

Speaker 2 (01:31:36):
All right, defense target for inflation is about two percent.
We're well above that right now, and therefore, this is
why we're going to see this cascade of rate cuts.

Speaker 3 (01:31:44):
Yeah, well, you know, we are a.

Speaker 8 (01:31:46):
Little bit above that, but we are seeing the signs
of the inflation cooling. We also haven't seen the impact
of the inflation heating up due to the tariffs like
we expected. Furthermore, we're starting to see some cracks in
the labor market. You know, it's likely that we see
an increase in unemployment next year to tick up a
little bit. And I think that the FED wants to

(01:32:08):
make sure that they get out in front of the
labor market and unemployment more than they're worried about interest
rates at this point. And so when they start to
cut rates, that encouragees spending. It also gives businesses more
flexibility to be able to hire, and so I think
that's what the Fed is focused on.

Speaker 1 (01:32:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:32:23):
Andy Schaeffer from Alworth on the show this morning Weekly
tune up here with the money. This one jumped at me.
The manufacturing index. So you look at the line that
separates expansion from contraction, So you want to be above
the line, obviously, and so for the ninth consecutive month
and hitting, by the way, a new four month low.
It went from forty eight points having a forty eight

(01:32:45):
point two it doesn't sound like a lot, but it is.

Speaker 3 (01:32:47):
Yeah, it is significant.

Speaker 8 (01:32:49):
And so this is a data that's acquired by the
Institute for Supply Management, and what they basically do is
survey supply managers of major industries.

Speaker 3 (01:32:59):
And it's very so simple how this works.

Speaker 8 (01:33:01):
Essentially, the supply manager either scores one hundred if they
feel that they're an expansionary phase, they scored a fifty
if they think there's been no change, or they scored
a zero. And so, if we get a number that's
above fifty, that suggests expansion. If we get a number
that's below fifty, that suggests contraction. And so the manufacturing
index was below the fifty line. It's from forty eight

(01:33:24):
point seven to forty eight point two. Well, you know
that's not ideal. However, manufacturing is not the major component
of our economy anymore. Back in the early nineteen hundreds,
manufacturing amounted to about seventy percent of our economy, and
at that time services only amounted to about thirty percent
of our economy. Well, that has been reversed at this point.

(01:33:44):
Services now is now about seventy percent of our economy
and manufacturing is only thirty. And we saw the ISM
Services Index improved to fifty two point four from fifty
two point four to fifty two point six, and so
that's the more important measure, and I think that really
affirms that that, you know, most of the supply managers
in the services industry feel pretty good about where things

(01:34:05):
are moving forward.

Speaker 2 (01:34:06):
Okay, so what do we see about payroll numbers? And
that's actual jobs.

Speaker 8 (01:34:09):
Yeah, payroll numbers unexpectedly fell by thirty two thousand and November.
That's a sign that hiring is getting even more selective.
You know, job has claims dropped to twenty seven thousand
from twenty seven thousand to one hundred and ninety one
thousand in the holiday shortened week of over Thanksgiving, but
it was kind of distorted by Thanksgiving. So I think

(01:34:30):
what this tells us is is not only our employers
kind of freezing their hiring. If you have a job,
you probably will keep your job. If you don't, it's
getting more difficult to find a job.

Speaker 3 (01:34:41):
Okay, that makes sense.

Speaker 2 (01:34:43):
So, you know, we have a slow growth economy, we
have soft manufacturing, labor's starting to cool off.

Speaker 3 (01:34:48):
What are we looking here for quarter four which we're on.

Speaker 8 (01:34:52):
Yeah, I think you know, quarter four, we're probably looking
at a modest one to one point five percent growth.
I do think we'll see a rebound in quarter one
next year. The shutdown effects have faded, and I think that,
you know, we might see a little bit of you know,
a little bit more activity from higher than normal tax
refunds due to a lot of the new refunds that

(01:35:12):
have been implemented, you know. Moving forward this week, there's
a number of things obviously, you know, I'm looking forward
to hearing what FED Chairman Powell has to say tomorrow.
We have the monthly US federal budget that's coming out
tomorrow as well initial jobless claims on Thursday.

Speaker 3 (01:35:28):
We get inventories on Friday, and.

Speaker 8 (01:35:30):
We always, you know, as always, we'll get a number
of FED speakers that like to tell us what they think, which.

Speaker 2 (01:35:35):
Is which is pretty much a steady drumbeat right there too.
He's from mixing earnings in there, and we got a
week ahead here. He is Andy Schaeffer at all Worth
Financial this morning on the Scott's Loan Show on seven
hundred w WELW check it in every Tuesday morning. Their
show Simply Money, airs weeknights at six on fifty five
k our scene of course available always on the podcast,

(01:35:55):
always informative.

Speaker 3 (01:35:56):
Thanks again, brother, appreciate you. We'll talk next week, all right,
SONI talking about you. Be well.

Speaker 2 (01:36:00):
We've got news on the way in just minutes here
on the Big one, seven hundred WW Bill Cunningham taking
over at twelve oh six. Today we've got a little
Bengals talk to get to. I'm sure there'll be a
lot of that today as well. Enjoyed a three day
weekend up in Buffalo. Saw a lot of folks. Cincinnati
represented pretty well out there in Western New York. Nice
snowy game.

Speaker 3 (01:36:18):
I love that.

Speaker 2 (01:36:18):
Had my car hearts on and screwing for my bills.
So it was one of my tim two teams won,
which is typically they both lose at the same time.
I'm not quite sure, but hopefully had a good time.
If you drove up at least the weather driving there
and back, If you did the Friday Monday like I did,
it was pleasant. So the snow hit just at the
right time. It's pretty and people say you freezing to death. Now,

(01:36:39):
it was actually as close as the seats are together.
It's an I think you got a pay corps. You've
spread out a little bit more there. It's like they
build a new stadium next to it, and it looks
like a high school stadium next to.

Speaker 3 (01:36:49):
The new one they're building. That's how small it is.

Speaker 2 (01:36:51):
And so you're kind of cramped in there anyway, and
snow is really not affecting you.

Speaker 3 (01:36:54):
All that much.

Speaker 2 (01:36:55):
Nonetheless, but moving forward here with news in just minutes.
It's a Scotts Loan show back tomorrow nine oh six
on the home of the best Bengals coverage, seven hundred WLW,
Cincinnati