Dave Williams from the Taxpayer Protection Alliance

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:08):
It's seven six here at fifty five Kirter CD talk
Station Tuesday, and a very happy one to you. Always
enjoy my Tuesdays, especially when I see Dave Williams on
the rundown from the Taxpayer Protection Alliance, which you can
find online. I recommend you do protecting Taxpayers dot org,
always looking out for where our idiot elected officials are
spending money, wasting money, and packing a defense bill with

(00:30):
a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with defense.
Welcome back, Dave Williams and an early Merry Christmas to
you and yours, my friend. Good to have you back
on the show.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Good morning, and early Merry Christmas to you too. And
I was talking to Joe right before I came on
and talking about the new mayor potentially an expansion of
the street car in Cincinnati. Wow. Wow, you guys have
a lot of issues, that is.

Speaker 1 (00:57):
The delicate way of putting it. Yes, dysfunctional we are,
but you know we've been talking about a lot of
elections have consequences. When only one in four eligible voters
in the city of Cincinnatis turn out to vote, you
know it's the the hardcore left base that is so
well organized they are definitely going to show up. And then,
of course the Independence Republicans are more sane. People within

(01:17):
the Democrat Party don't bother because they think it's a
lost cause in a very blue city. And this is
what you get leg number two or whatever of the
streetcar most likely, although I haven't seen any formal proposals
for that, a lot of rumors going around in the
background that that's in fact coming.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
And why that would even be in the background discussion
just is beyond me, and I'm sure beyond you. I mean,
because if you look at you know, Cincinnati, but just
across the country, these things just lose money. They're shutting
down the DC streetcar next year. I mean, at least
you know, a modicum of common sense in DC. Right,
It's like this, and this thing has lost a ton

(01:53):
of money, so we're just shutting it down. I mean,
the cost two hundred million dollars to build. They shouldn't
have built it in the first place. But you know,
maybe Cincinnati should look to DC and think, hmm, maybe
we go the other way and shut this thing down.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
Well, that'd be a great idea. But come on, Dave,
it's free. You can ride your car for free. It
doesn't cost anything but the five million plus dollars annually
for debt service and maintenance. But no, it's free. By
the way, the City of Cincinnati struggling to fill a
massive budget hole on top of it. So, yeah, can
you try to make any sense out of that? Don't bother. No,
you can't pivoting over the National Defense Authorization Act are

(02:29):
military funding bill. It's one of the twelve appropriations bills
are supposed to have done by now, which they never do.
We end up with an omnimus bill. But like all
of these big bills, you got to have bipartisan support,
and the uses an opportunity to pack well, in this case,
the Defense Authorization Bill filled with stuff and things that
are not connected with the military and also are a

(02:50):
colossal waste of money. Hmm, how about that good figure?

Speaker 2 (02:55):
And yeah, this happens right so often is that they
wait till the last minute. Then they had, you know, stuff,
these bills full of things that have nothing to do
with the actual bill itself, and you know, they really
count on the last minute, and people aren't paying attention.
They're you know, Christmas shopping doing whatever, and well Christmas
shopping is what Congress is doing to these in these.

Speaker 1 (03:17):
Bills, no doubt. Well, I am so pleased me individually,
I am so pleased that the Defense bill includes money
money to stop the spread of the greater banded hornet
in Guam Gwam, which parenthetically is going to tip over
at least a coord to one of our elected officials.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
Yeah, a defense priority, absolutely. I mean, you can see
the huge defense implications of this, of this particular you know,
obviously it has no defense implications, and it's just a
convenient way to spend money and shove it in a
bill that you know, hopefully no one pays attention to.
But we do. You do, I do, and you know
some other people do, but not enough people.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
Actually, no doubt. And Dave, you're always paying attention to
what I saw you're writing about this over protecting taxpayers
dot org, removing limits on funding for the world's fairs.
I'm not even going to begin to question how that
relates to our national defense. Greenlighting the Young Balkan Leaders initiative,
I have no idea what that is, but it doesn't
involve anything here in the United States. And on top

(04:18):
of that, adding insult to injury, as you point out,
it doesn't even give a total dollar amount going to
those programs, and probably a lot more. So does that
mean unlimited funding or we just can't track it.

Speaker 2 (04:30):
Yeah, that's the crazy part is when they don't even
put a dollar amount, because then it's open to the
discretion of the Department of Defense, I'm sorry, the Department
of War, or a member of Congress who will say, Okay,
this is what I decide, and this is how much
money should go to this initiative or this program. And
obviously that's no way to run a government.

Speaker 1 (04:48):
No way to run a government. You and I agree
all day on that one particular item that distressed you.
The government run health services for the Native Americans, apparently
a failed program. But this defense build builds upon the
healthcare system for Native Americans and the tribes and the
tribal lands they live upon. Again, how does that have

(05:09):
anything to do with defense?

Speaker 2 (05:11):
Yeah, this is the Indian Health Service and this thing
has been an absolute failure for Native Americans and really
concerned that. And listen, this is kind of the theme
of the past few months. Is healthcare right, whether it's
Obamacare now the Indian Health Services. We keep doubling down
on failed programs, and we're just kind of chipping at

(05:31):
the edges here, whether it's Obamacare and here we're just
adding more money to the Indian Health Service and not
looking at, Okay, what's working, what isn't working. What is
the best way to have people, you know, provide healthcare
for themselves? Right, Because I'm not going to say have
government provide healthcare for people. We have to switch the discussion.
We have to switch the model here as to how

(05:53):
can we put health care back in the decision of
the families of people. And you don't do that banning subsidies.
You don't do that by expanding the Indian Health Service.
You do it through free market reforms, health savings accounts,
ways that people can really invest in their healthcare. In Congress,
and you know, Speaker Mike Johnson, you know he held

(06:15):
the line when it came to expanding Obamacare subsidies. Some
in his party were saying, extend the subsidies. He held
the line on this. And I've been very critical Speaker
Johnson for a number of things that have happened this year,
but he really has done a good job with the
Obamacare subsidies. But Brian, we have to put these decisions
back in the hands of people, and right now, healthcare

(06:38):
decisions really aren't in our hands.

Speaker 1 (06:40):
Well. And as you point out a lot of facts
that go along with your conclusions with regard to the
Indian Health Services, that you just get very poor health care,
and the IHS directly pays for the hospitals and the physicians. Now,
I've heard many, many times and many many stories over
the years about the quality of physicians that work for

(07:00):
the Native Americans, that they are not exactly the top
tier medical doctors. Quite often the worst of the worst
doctors end up as a government employee working in one
of these reservations and providing lower quality healthcare for them.
It's just it's kind of like doctors of last resort.
Is that part of the problem here, Dave.

Speaker 2 (07:19):
It absolutely is. And look at Department Veteran Affairs, you know,
we've had the same problem that our veterans are getting
just really awful healthcare service, and it's because it's a
government run you have bureaucrats running this, and you know,
it's really again, these common threats right across the government,
whether it's the Indian Health Service, the VA, Obamacare, we

(07:42):
see the same things happening, and that's why we have
to just fundamentally change the way that we think about
healthcare in this country. And for them to add this
into a defense bill, and let's go back to the
beginning of this. This is part of a defense build.
This is not a standalone build. This is not part
of a healthcare This is part of a defense bill.
It should not be in here. And the reason is,

(08:04):
you have hundreds of billions of dollars in this authorization bill.
You stick a couple of billion here and there. Seemingly
people won't notice. Obviously some people do. But the problem
is that Congress is just going to gloss over that
and say, well, for the defense of the country, we
have to pass all these things, the thing and Blom,
the Indian Health Service and all these things get signed
into law.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
All right. Well, since I do have the Cincinnativa folks
on regularly, I think they've done a good job at
least here locally, providing at least a high level of
quality for our local veterans. That does not say that
all VA programs and hospitals do that, but I've talked
with them and interacted with them enough, and they have
such a high approval rating that I'm at least comfortable
with our local VA, although I will acknowledge that there's

(08:47):
probably a better way like the IHS to deal with
healthcare issues. Generally, it's a much broader solution that's out there.
And again, your free market points are very very well taken.
Dave Williams taxpaper Excellence. Pause. We'll bring it right back
and talk about prescription drug price fixing, higher education reform
and what is this the most act Don't go away seven,

(09:10):
nineteen fifty five KRCD Talk Station Protecting Taxpayers dot org
the website for the taxpayer protection lines. We get to
hear from Dave Williams from time to time, and I
thoroughly enjoy the work that he does all year long
and the time he spends with you and me. And
here he is on the phone moving over to something
I've never quite understood, Dave delivering most favored nation prescription

(09:31):
drug pricing to American patients. That's the headline or the
name of the executive ooder Donald Trumps signed earlier this year.
So if they sell it cheaper someplace else, then we
get the cheaper price for pharmaceuticals. I know where you're
going on this, and I don't disagree. How is it
that we became we're the full retail country for pharmaceuticals.

(09:53):
We pay full retail and the other parts of the world, Canada,
most notably our northern neighbor gets a massive discount for
what we're paying, so much so that a lot of
people go to pharmaceutical of pharmacies in Canada to get
their medications because they save a lot of money over
what they would pay down to the Walgreens on the corner.
So how did that situation arise? And I know we

(10:14):
need research. Somebody's got to pay a lot for the
drugs because that's what funds of pharmaceutical companies, But how
did the rest of the world get to benefit from
us supplementing them. That doesn't seem fair as a practical
point at the outset.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
Yeah, it's a really interesting issue because we have pharmaceutical
companies that it takes them about twelve years and two
billion dollars to get a drug approved through the FDA,
and the rules are so stringent and we're not talking
about you know, safety has to obviously be you know,
concern number one, but it's the efficiency of these drugs.

(10:47):
If a drug is ninety five percent efficient, then it
will go to the market. But if it's ninety four
point nine or ninety four point five, they have to
go back to the drawing board, go back to clinical trials.
And we're getting to a point where it's really tough
to bring new medication, a new drug to market. And
this costs a lot of money. And now, listen, everybody

(11:08):
wants to low prices on drugs. Listen, I want to
low price on a car, but you don't institute price
controls because you make that product less available in that country.
Because if you said to you know a car dealer
or a car manufacturer, you know a very expensive car,
you know a car that's worth seventy five thousand dollars,
you can only sell it for forty thousand dollars. They

(11:30):
aren't going to sell that car and you're going to
have And it's the same thing with prescriptions and with drugs. Well,
that's why you can't randate to the private sector.

Speaker 1 (11:38):
That's why Ford just pulled the plug. No pun intended
on the evs. The tax credit is expiring. The only
reason anybody bought one of the first place, because the
seventy five hundred doll attachment. That is artificial manipulation. Well
kind of along the lines of what we're talking about here,
is it not?

Speaker 2 (11:52):
It absolutely is. And you know there's the Pharmacy Benefit Managers,
a three forty B program that have distorted this market
and have made hospitals rich. And something we've talked about obviously.
You know how the hospitals have benefited off the three
point forty B program and also the PBMs, the pharmacy benefit.

Speaker 1 (12:12):
How is that the PBM thing still a thing? Everyone
and his brothers, seems of all political stripes, will point
their fingers at that being an outrageous influencer over the
massive price increase we're paying the pharmacy. They're not even
a necessary component, are they.

Speaker 2 (12:27):
They absolutely are not. And what I find this crazy
is every doctor in Congress, every member of Congress who
has a medical background, has been trying to get rid
of PBMs, has offered legislation, and for some reason, it
never gets a vote on the floor of the House
or the Senate. And we've partnered with some of these
folks in Congress, these members, you know, we've co authored

(12:50):
op eds and we've done everything we can, and it's
just there's not enough interest beyond the related medical Caucus
to get this done.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
We need Thomas Massey to issue a discharge petition.

Speaker 2 (13:01):
Oh my gosh, I love discharge petitions. I love the
pressure that it puts on the speaker, and it just
it's a wonderful tool, isn't it.

Speaker 1 (13:10):
It is now, Dave Williams coming, you know, I just
want to know, since you've been dealing with this for
a long time, obviously the will isn't there in Congress
to advance something that sounds like is the best possible
way of providing some measure of almost immediate relief getting
rid of the PBMs. What articulated reason in defense of
PBMs has been given to you? Since you've been doing

(13:30):
this for a while, what do they say, No, no,
we can't do that because.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
Well, there hasn't been an articulated reasons. It's just that
they won't bring this to the floor. And listen, there's
very powerful interest behind this. There's insurance companies and there's
hospitals on both issues. And that's why, cause hospitals are
making a killing And listen, seriously, no pun intended on that,
but they are making a lot of money on the
three point forty B program because they get drugs at

(13:56):
dirt cheap prices and then they charge exorbitant prices either
for Medicare, Medicaid or just for private insurance insurance. So
that's why this is happening. It's private and you know,
the insurance companies and hospitals, they're the ones that are
lobbying behind the scenes.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
The hospital lobby, insurance companies.

Speaker 2 (14:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (14:15):
Well, I think we've identified a big problem in the room,
and that's been a predominant problem for a lot of
issues when it comes to healthcare. It's the money. I mean,
that's just.

Speaker 2 (14:26):
It's always followed the money. And you know what's happening
behind the scenes is a lot of lobbying money is
being spent, and again consumers and taxpayers, they're the ones
that are suffering.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
Clearly, all right, going back, will the rest of the
world then start paying more for pharmaceuticals? I mean that
is that a product of the pharmaceutical companies negotiating with
foreign lands and giving them a much a substantially reduced
price for these drugs because we're paying the full freight.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
Yeah, the other countries will always pay the lowest price.
And listen, you know, Canada's healthcare system is obviously completely
I mean even more so than ours. You know, we
have people coming to our country for brain surgery because
in Canada they're saying, wait, it's a way to year.
Well that's not exactly something you it should be, you know,
way to hear for. But listen, I know someone I've
actually you know, a friend of mine had to come

(15:14):
to this country for for for surgery. So again their
system is more messed us in ours than they mandate.
You know, they have even more socialist price controls in
places like Canada and Australia.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
Well, something perhaps even more mismanaged and screwed up the
higher education situation in our country. We're going to address
that with Dave Volames from the Taxpayer Protection Alliance Higher
Education Reform. I think we definitely need it. What Approaches
Day fifty five KRC The Talk Station seven thirty fifty
five KRCD Talk Station, Happy Tuesday. Dave Williams, the Taxpayer

(15:48):
Protection Alliance, moving through the issues Higher Education Reform Act.
I think more and more people come to the realization
that the paying eighty one hundred thousand dollars or whatever
to any tuition is at a higher institution is not
worth the money. You come out with a worthless degree
in many cases, and massive debt. But even if you
come out with a good degree, it's a lot of

(16:09):
massive debt and you are engaged in a four year
propaganda exercise. Dave Williams, how do you fix this problem?

Speaker 2 (16:15):
Wow, we're hitting all the biggies today, aren't we. Education.
I mean, this really is. And you know, the evidence
is clear over the past number of years. The more
subsidies and more loans that go out for a higher education, uh,
the more expensive it becomes. I mean, this is just
common sense. But the studies, you know show that And
what the bind administration tried to do is say, really

(16:38):
create a divide between for profit and nonprofit education. Now,
for profit could be trade schools, right. The nonprofit are
the traditional Harvard Uh, you know, the university systems, that's
the traditional nonprofit. But he said, Okay, if you are
a for profit, you have to show that there's going
to be gainful employment after your education. And it's really

(17:03):
tough to determine what gainful employment really is. And I say,
and we're going to cut off these subsidies. If there's
not gainful employment, why not do that for nonprofits?

Speaker 1 (17:11):
Amen? I mean I was waiting for that shot to drop.
But what you mean it has to be opportunity for
gainful employment, not guaranteed you're going to get a job,
because if you go into a trade school and you
fail miserably and you can't perform the task are being taught,
you're not going to get a job, even though there
might be you know, thousands of hvac jobs out there
or plumbing jobs or whatever. So I get the point.

(17:32):
You can't make that argument or not for profit school
because no one wants anyone with a sociology degree or
a degree in some humanities program because philosophy, philosophy. How
about my degree political science? Again, if I hadn't gone
a day, if I didn't go to law school, I
have no idea what to be doing today. If I
had with my political science degree, it was my hobby,
it was a it was it was a stepping stone

(17:54):
to do what I knew I was going to do next,
which was to go to law school. Otherwise I probably
would have gotten a degree in something that's well some
that I could have been employed with well and.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
Let's look at for profit and nonprofit. You have a
school like Harvard that has tens of billions of dollars
in endowment that is a profit. I mean, are you
kidding me? You look at these for profit trade schools,
they don't have that. I mean, it's just it's crazy
how things are turned on its head. But again, this

(18:23):
is the Biden administration applying rules for one set and
rules and you know, not rules for the other. And
this should be across the board. And I got to
tell you, I think people coming out of a for
profit trade school have more of an opportunity at gain
full employment and people coming out of like you said,
it's philosophy degree, a political science degree. Yeah, it's it

(18:45):
doesn't make sense apply the same rules across the board.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
I could agree with you more. And you know, it
seems to me it's almost like a fiduciary obligation or
an ethical obligation to sit down with an entering freshman
who has picked a made and go over with a
with a counselor or something about the career prospects for
that person. I'm not going to tell you not to
get an art degree, young man or young woman, but

(19:09):
here's the prospects an for a degree or for your
degree getting you into the field that you want to
study art. There are only three jobs available at Southabe's
and all of them are filled. You know, you know
what docents make, They nothing. They work for free at museums. Right,
you got elderly, wealthy women who are more than happy
to go around and talk about abstract art and not

(19:30):
charge a dime for it. So there's no career opportunity
in that. That's a candid conversation that everyone should be
forced to sit through, so they contemplate the prospects of
their careers in the future and how much in debt
they're going to be when they get out of college.

Speaker 2 (19:44):
Yeah, there's actually no linkage between college and what they
do afterwards and their employment and h and jobs. Because
you have art history majors and listen, if you want
to study that, fantastic, But understand what's going to happen
when you come home to college is that there aren't
a lot of opportunities for that. And listen, we also

(20:04):
live in a gig economy, Brian. People are doing things
outside of the education sphere, true, right, they are, you know,
foregoing any sort of formal you know, post secondary or
higher education, and they're doing great. You know, some of
our best entrepreneurs right now are not going to college
or going to you know, for profit or nonprofit. And
I think we are shoving so much money into these

(20:26):
institutions and we're not getting anything out of it.

Speaker 1 (20:29):
Not getting anything out of a bunch of angry people
who are in debt with a degree that isn't worth
the paper it's written on. If I may be so bold,
and you know, you talk about degrees like art, and
I've said a bunch of times because my son's an
illustration of this. He quit college. He went to Ohio
State University. He was in computer science, I mean, a
legitimate degree. There's a lot of jobs out there for
computer engineers. He quit. Why I can teach this self.

(20:51):
My I can teach myself. Dad, This is a colossal
waste of my time and your money. And he went
on and he taught himself coding because he knew some
of it anyway, got some certificate against for security. I mean,
he's still in the computer business, but he didn't have
a degree. Now, teach yourself. If you want to study
Italian art, and you want a degree in Italian art history,
then you know you can do that on your own, right, Dave.
I mean the books are all out there. You don't

(21:13):
need a teacher to prepare a curriculum. Compare your own right.

Speaker 2 (21:17):
And understand the consequences of that. Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (21:20):
Yeah, all right? Can you stick around for one more
to tell us about Sumosa? Are you about wonderful? One more?
We're going to find out what in the hell is
this Somosa Acting. I'm KARC the talk station seven. If
you about KARCD talk station. Happy Tuesday, Ryan Thomas. One
more segment here with Dave Williams from the Taxpayer Protection
Alliance again online at Protecting Taxpayers dot org. Real quick,

(21:40):
before we get to Simosa acting. What that is? Dave,
I've been on a real tear of late for obvious reasons,
with all the stories in the news about fraud, waste
and abuse, people builking the system. Whether you go up
to Minnesota and see what's going on there, we find
out more and more people took advantage of this parole program.
You got child molesters getting involved, and no one did
any oversight, No one was looking out for fraud, wasting
to be no one bothered cross referencing or checking people's

(22:02):
identities social security numbers use thousands of times dead people's
social security numbers. This is an easy fix with AI
these days, Dave, letting departments share information when, Dear God,
when will our elected officials put first and foremost avoiding
and preventing? As item number one, the ability to engage
in fraud wasted use in any government program, because oh,

(22:24):
come on, they're all there to serve someone who desperately
needs a government program. Aren't we harming those people the
most by allowing this to go on? Dave.

Speaker 2 (22:33):
We have the technological tools to do this, the government
chooses not to use them. And it's frustrating because if
you look at you know, child safety, any of these issues,
every dollar that is wasted is a dollar that is
not helping somebody, and it's it's frustrating as heck. And
it's just there's no excuses for this, and absolutely no excuses.

(22:54):
We have phones, you know, the phone that I'm using
right now has amazing technical capabilities, yet the government is
still stuck in almost the nineteenth century at this point.
So I look at the irs. The IRS has software
that is fifty or sixty years old? How does that happen?
How does the government allow that to happen? Fifty or
sixty year old software at one of the most important agencies,

(23:16):
the irs.

Speaker 1 (23:17):
And they want to take over doing our tax returns
for us? Dave, Yeah, we'll get right on that, all right.
Thank you for letting me get that out of my system.
I have been on a bit of a tear lately
on that. So strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software
assets SOMOSA Act. What's this?

Speaker 2 (23:35):
You know, Brian, We've talked a lot about difficult issues healthcare, education,
This is not This is about looking at the software
that the government owns and just making it more efficient
and saying, listen, we spend ten to fifteen billion dollars
on software software licenses. What is and just doing an
inventory talking about five hundred seven hundred and fifty million

(24:01):
dollars a year could be saved on licenses, on software licenses.
This is easy, man, This is super easy.

Speaker 1 (24:09):
It really is, all right. So it always points when
you have something that seems so crystal clear and seems
so objectively bipartisan to be a good idea, what kind
of trouble you're running into? Getting some traction on this
one or is it a bipartisan supported piece of legislation.

Speaker 2 (24:26):
It is bipartisan. And and what I think what happens
is that they run out of time. I look at
this year, right what there's a month and a half
of a government shutdown and nothing happened. This would have
been a great time for the Speaker to have hearings,
to hold hearings on the Simosa Act, and to be
ready for this to be introduced right after the government shutdown,
you know, finished. So there's been opportunities to do this,

(24:47):
and again it's just to malaise the slowness. You know,
the Congress moves like the continents. It's just so slow.
But you know, hopefully and you know it was its
being introduced this week again and hopefully we'll get a
vote by the end of the year.

Speaker 1 (25:01):
Well, and you know, to people's point about the Imperial presidency,
it's that slow pace and that inability to get anything
logical and reasonable done. Ignore the politically charged issues out
there in the world where you have massive division. If
you've got something so simple, easy and important and beneficial
to everyone, like this, the most act, you'd expect them
to act on it right away. But since they don't,
this invites well executive action. I mean, I know people

(25:25):
say Trump exceeds his authority and his boundaries, and even
I say that from time to time as well. But
that's what people want political expedients, and you're that's going
to not necessarily near to our collective benefit down the
road if it has to continue.

Speaker 2 (25:38):
And they want leadership. They want leadership out of the House,
the Senate, and the White House. And again, a lot
of things we don't like the President's dealing with tariffs,
but you know, Mike Johnson and John Thune, we need
leadership from those bodies to really put these things through.
And again, this is not a discussion we should be
having because Democrats support this, Republicans support this. This should

(26:01):
have been done a long time ago. And you know,
hopefully listen, I don't want to be too much on
Pollyanna here, but it's the end of the year. They
are bringing this back for a vote on the floor,
so maybe maybe we'll see some movement.

Speaker 1 (26:16):
Well, I was getting ready to point a finger at
Speaker Johnson because he has the power and authority to
either bring something for a vote or not. That's why
we talked about the discharge petition before because it takes
that authority out of his hands. But at least he
is bringing this for a vote, is what I'm understanding.

Speaker 2 (26:31):
Yep, absolutely all right, and listen, I've been critical of
Speaker Johnson too, but hopefully, you know, this is one
thing he can get right.

Speaker 1 (26:37):
I would hope so we could use some bipartisanship, especially
along these lines. How's this looking in the Senate? Comparable
perspective in the Senate that it's bipartisan support?

Speaker 2 (26:47):
It is? It is. We do have bipartisan support it
in the Senate also, and I think really now it's
a matter of timing because times, you know, the clock
is ticking on the end of the year. So fingers
crossed on this one.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
Yeah, Like that's not a strategy. Dave, keep up the
great work. I certainly appreciate what you're doing at the
Taxpayer protect Alliance, and again I'll encourage my listeners to
bookmark your web page Protecting Taxpayers dot org. Until we
talk again, I doubt it's before the end of the
year because I'm off after the twenty third, but looking
forward to another series of discussions in the next county

(27:19):
your Dave.

Speaker 2 (27:20):
Have a wonderful Christmas, you and your family.

Speaker 1 (27:22):
Right back at you, my friend. Merry Christmas to you
and everybody at the organization seven forty six, right now
at thirty five KRC