John Gerardi Guest Hosts - What’s So Wrong With Work Requirements for Medicaid?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Locally for David Valadeo for his vote in favor of
the OBBB. And the key central issue, the central issue
with the OBBB throughout, the thing that everyone says is
going to result in people dying and being killed and murder.
And that's why everyone's all the people on the left

(00:20):
saying it's the big, one, big beautiful murder bill, and
it's all these horrible things about it is the reductions
in Medicaid spending. Cuts to Medicaid. Medicaid the federal health
insurance program that in the Obama year is basically morphed
into health insurance for people under a certain income threshold.

(00:45):
The Republican Megabill includes provisions saying that there are going
to be some work requirements for able bodied persons who
aren't working in order to be eligible for Medicaid. You
got to find employment, get a job where you're working

(01:06):
eighty hours a month. We're not going to be giving
Medicaid out to people who aren't at least trying to work.
Have some kind of work requirement for the Medicaid program,
all right. There are also those some other kind of
cuts that could result in lesson funds being available, And

(01:27):
it's this problem with Medicaid that it's a huge, huge
line item expense for the federal government. It's a trillion dollars.
We're running a one point eight trillion dollar deficit every year.
Last year twenty twenty four, we had a one point
eight trillion dollar deficit. Unless we can cut Medicare, Medicaid

(01:55):
or Social Security or the military, we're never going to
do anything that's going to make an appreciable difference in spending.
And the fact is that the Trump tax cuts that
were sort of reinstated, it included certain new tax cuts
that I'm not so crazy about, particularly the salt deduction

(02:17):
being increased, which I'm going to roll my eyes at that.
We'll talk about the salt deduction later on. But basically,
David Valadeo is I think at risk of losing his
seat over his vote in favor of it, because a
huge percentage of his district relies on Medicaid and the
Fresno b has wasted no time. A furious, scathing editorial

(02:39):
Representative David Valadeo proves his empty vows to protect Medicaid
were all lies. This is their editorial since January. The
representative for the twenty second congressional district has publicly stated
he would not support any effort to reduce federal spending
on Medicaid, of which sixty eight percent of his district

(03:00):
residents rely for their healthcare. That was grammatically inept of
which sixty eight percent of district residents rely on They
rely on of it okay for their healthcare. His first
vow to protect his constituents on Medicaid came when the
House GUP announced it was considering an eight hundred and

(03:22):
eighty billion dollar cut to Medicaid over ten years. As
recently as last Saturday, Valadeo stated his intent. I've been
clear from the start that I will not support a
final reconciliation bill that makes harmful cuts to Medicaid, puts
critical funding at risk, or threatens the stability of healthcare
providers across CAA twenty two Valadeo, a dairy farmer whose
district includes portion of Kern, to Larry and King's Counties,

(03:44):
posted on his website. The CBA estimated that the Senate
version of the bill, which was eventually passed, reduces federal
Medicaid spending by a trillion dollars over ten years and
increases the number of uninsured people by eleven point eight million. Well,
it increases the I mean again, a lot of them

(04:04):
are They're not necessarily kicked off. This is able bodied
people who aren't looking for not having work. It is
putting in place certain kinds of work requirements. I don't
know that. That's the craziest idea. What happened to Valadeo

(04:25):
in five days.

Speaker 2 (04:26):
To change his mind? The president of the editorile goes on.

Speaker 1 (04:27):
For one thing, he visited the White House on Wednesday.
His office didn't provide details of that reunion. But Trump
has used such meetings to pressure reluctant lawmakers to do
his bidding over that of the people. Come on, It's
not like this is a particular Trump strategy. Ooh, a
president inviting members of Congress over to the White House

(04:48):
to convince them to vote for a thing that's only
been done by literally every single president in the history
of the presidency. This is not some particular horrible Trump scheme.
I've been assured by the administration that it will be
structured in a way that benefits our providers and keeps
our hospitals and communities running, Valadeo said Thursday in a

(05:09):
statement to be clear, I still have concerns with the
implementation of the provider tax and state directed payment provisions
of HR one, but I've worked with and will continue
to engage with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
to identify specific risks to valley hospitals and mitigate them.
Up to sixy nine hundred healthcare jobs would be lost

(05:30):
in Valadeo's district if Medicaid spending is trimmed by ten
to twenty billion per year, according to the UC Berkeley
Labor Center. Well, what version of the bill were they
looking at? Were they looking at the House bill? Were
they looking at the Senate bill? Did they account for
the fact that David Valadeo got like an extra twenty
five billion for rural hospitals.

Speaker 2 (05:51):
How do we know that.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
Valadeo math doesn't math up Trump Valdeo, Trump and fellow
Republicans are using some kind of math that doesn't match
up with the reality of cuts reported by the CBO
and health organizations. Ultimately, I voted for this bill because
it does preserve the Medicaid program for its intended recipients, children,
pregnant women, that disabled, in the elderly. Valadeo said this
is the same federal lawmaker who said earlier this year

(06:16):
that he believed Trump when the President told Fox News
host Sean Hannity Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is
going to be touched.

Speaker 2 (06:22):
We won't have to.

Speaker 1 (06:25):
But then the President b has to admit this, which
I was saying. The big beautiful Bill, to its credit,
allocates fifty billion dollars over five years to a rural
health relief fund called the Rural Health Transformation Program. But
that is mere peanuts when one trillion dollars is being eliminated. Okay,
But again, the trillion that's being eliminated is in the
form of work requirements certain classes of people that the

(06:49):
Medicaid program was never designed to help. And this is
the thing that I think the President bee is not
wanting to engage with. What was medicaid for Medicaid was
a federal health insurance program that was designed to help
designed to help provide health insurance coverage for people who
were otherwise in difficult situations where they couldn't work, disabled people, children,

(07:12):
pregnant moms, and other kinds of classes like that. That's
what Valadeo is referencing there. He's saying he doesn't want
those legacy groups touched. These cuts aren't touching those legacy groups.
He also didn't want federal funding, federal match funding to
be changed in such a way as to hurt rural hospitals.

(07:35):
He proposed changes to help insure that. So did Valadeo
vote to cut Medicaid? Yeah, but that's not the whole story.
That's the bear headline. There's no mention in this presdent

(07:57):
be editorial anywhere about who whose Medicaid coverage is being
threatened here? Whose Medicaid coverage is being touched here? So
that's the This is going to be basically the battle

(08:17):
lines for debate for this House.

Speaker 2 (08:22):
District, and it's it's you know, that's the.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
Thing with Valadeo. Let's think about this. Valadeo is I
think the only member of the House left, the only
Republican left in the House of Representatives who voted to
impeach Donald Trump. He voted to impeach Donald Trump after

(08:45):
January sixth. He's the only Republican who's still in the
House who did that. I think Trevor used to have
up in the studio list of all the people who
voted for that. Anything doesn't have that anymore. David Valadeo's
not some part is in hack. He's not some Trump lackey.
He literally voted to impeach the guy. So and I

(09:12):
will note that it gained him exactly like zero goodwill
from local media and local liberals.

Speaker 2 (09:21):
Zero goodwill.

Speaker 1 (09:25):
Finally, the only time the Fresno Be ever endorsed David Valdeto.
By the way, this is the absurd thing about the
presdo Be and a lot of newspapers nationally, there's this
sort of you know, it used to be back in
the old days, as I smacked the microphone here, as
I'm wildly gesticulating, it used to be in the old days,

(09:45):
newspapers just had names that let you know their political leanings.
The Pittsburgh Democrat, the Frankfurt Republican. And it was right
there on the tin. We are a Republican leaning newspaper.
We are a Democrat leaning newspaper. Our editorial board is

(10:07):
it consists of democrats, and that's what we are. We're
a liberal publication. We're a conservative publication. But it was
just right there. No one was fussing about it, no
one was obfuscating anything, No one was obscuring anything. It
was just right there. What modern mainstream newspapers do is
they pretend like they're not They pretend like, well, we're

(10:31):
not a conservative publication.

Speaker 2 (10:32):
Oh, we're not a liberal publication. And they try to
pretend that there's some.

Speaker 1 (10:37):
Via Terzia, some third way above the fray of our
quotidian day to day political squabbles and fights, and what
we really care about at the Fresno b is what
we care about is good governance and just smart solutions

(10:57):
and doing.

Speaker 2 (10:57):
The right thing.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
And they pretend as if they're above us, they're above
our little petty squabbles.

Speaker 2 (11:04):
And they're just about doing what's right.

Speaker 1 (11:07):
But of course, for any election of any kind of
consequence that's any kind of close, what do they do
when it comes to endorsement time? They endorse the Democrat
every time. They have hated Trump since day one. They've
never liked Trump. They've never had a kind good, decent
thing to say about Donald Trump anything he has ever done.

(11:33):
They're not like there is no sort of high ideal.
If they actually were just concerned with good governance, they
would probably have taken the David Valadeo example and just said, listen,
we're gonna endorse this guy for forever. This guy voted
to impeach Donald Trump. He's got to get some credit

(11:57):
for that. And they endorsed him one time in twenty
twenty when he ran against TJ. Cox for the second time,
only after it was manifestly apparent that TJ. Cox was
the shadiest politician in the entire San Juaquin Valley. That
was the and by the way, it was fairly apparent

(12:19):
he was a shady politician in twenty eighteen too when
they endorsed him. But then in twenty twenty, they they
didn't endorse him. They endorsed David Valadaloe, and again only
because TJ. Cox was clearly a slimeball. So I think

(12:39):
that's the thing. I guess what I would say for
David Valedeo is, you know who cares what they think?
They keep not endorsing you, and you keep winning. Just
keep voting, don't don't stop caring about what the Fresno
b thinks. Now, David Valadale might still lose his upcoming election. Okay,

(13:03):
it's happened once before. This exact scenario happened before he
voted for a reconciliation bill pushed by Donald Trump. That
would have cut a bunch of people off the Medicaid program,
and he lost the next election. That may well happen
this time around, but it's clear he did more to
try to preserve what the Medicaid program is for, and

(13:28):
he did a lot to ensure that the cuts to
Medicaid weren't gonna be to people who otherwise aren't really
able to help themselves. So I don't think he deserves
this kind of treatment from the Fresno b I mean,
at first, blush and maybe you can be more critical

(13:48):
of him if you want. Maybe I'm missing.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
Stuff with OBBB. Maybe it's much worse than I'm realizing here.

Speaker 1 (13:57):
But it's so it strikes me as sort of silly
that the Fresno Bee is gonna pretend like.

Speaker 2 (14:08):
Oh, or just neutral, we're just neutral.

Speaker 1 (14:10):
Well, just say what you are. You're a Democrat, you're
a Democrat newspaper. You might as well call yourself the
Fresno Democrat and that would at least just be honest.
At any rate, Again, this is gonna be the battle line.
This is the Trevor Carry Show on the Valley's Power Talk.

(14:30):
I'm gonna shift gears a little bit. Poor old Joe Biden.
The One Big, Beautiful Bill passes, and with it passes
a good chunk of the Biden presidency, particularly the Biden
legacy on immigration, which is possibly the reason Donald Trump
won was because of Joe Biden's disastrous record when it

(14:54):
comes to immigration.

Speaker 2 (14:56):
The OBBB.

Speaker 1 (14:59):
Includes funny for a border wall, so border wall will
actually probably get funded. It includes massively increased funding for ICE,
immigrations and custom enforcement. Includes more funding for federal immigration
judges to solve the backlog of asylum claims, which was
the main driver of exs immigration. And Biden is just

(15:26):
reduced to he comes out. There's this little piece from
National Review. Little piece in National Review, written by Jim Garrity,
Biden emerges to lament the reversing of his record. Scranton,
Joe is back with excuses. Yesterday, former President Joe Biden

(15:49):
walked out onto a stage at the San Diego Convention Center,
stood between two p teleprompters, and addressed the annual conference
of the Society for Humane Resource Management. That sounds like
the Human Fund that George Costanza, the fake nonprofit that
George Costanza made up in order to pretend like he

(16:09):
was making a donation to a nonprofit for people on
other people's behalf as a way of not having to
buy them a Christmas present. The Human Fund money for people. Well,
it must be nice to be able to make a
speech and get a you know, eighty thousand dollars honorarium,
one hundred thousand dollars honorarium for speaking to some nothing

(16:31):
burger organization. The speech was Biden's first public remarks since
the announcement that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer
back on May nineteenth. The announcement was on May nineteenth.
He probably got prostate cancer like May nineteenth of twenty twenty.
But anyway, the former president did not address his diagnosis.

(16:54):
He did mention that he's still talking to foreign leaders.
They ask me, and I see them. I'm also laying
rubber with my sixty seven corvette and my driveway.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
What the hell is he talking about?

Speaker 1 (17:08):
Yeah, yeah, the sixty seven corvette where you had all
those classified documents stashed. The one joke I heard someone say,
with who are the foreign leaders you were talking to?
Francois Mitterrans What other dead foreign leaders? Can we pretend
Margaret thatchered were you talking with? Maggie Trudeau, not justin

(17:34):
his dad, Pierre Pierre Trudeau. Are you talking to him anyway?
Since leaving the presidency, the eighty two year old Biden
hasn't completely disappeared from the public eye, but his public
appearances have been few and far between. He's done one
major televised interview with The Ladies of the View. His
office has intermittently released brief statements, such as his insistence

(17:54):
that he quote made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders,
legislation and proclamations. Suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.
This is the whole the autopen controversy that like literally
everything he signed was done with an autopen, that he
seemingly never actually signed anything himself, and the Trump folks

(18:16):
trying to raise it's a It's an allegation that's not
going to go anywhere. Let me just tell you that
as a lawyer, like all Biden has to do is say, yes,
I directed that the autopen sign it for me, and
then that's the end of it. But so it's basically
an unprovable allegation. The allegation being Biden was not signing
these documents. Other people were signing these things for him.

(18:37):
Someone other than the President of the United States was
deciding all of these policies that were being made law. Therefore,
these are constitutionally invalid acts.

Speaker 2 (18:49):
That's the argument.

Speaker 1 (18:50):
The problem is that while it may well be true,
and frankly, frankly, I find it to be more likely
than not that that happened at least once, it's impossible
to prove because he's just gonna say, oh, yeah, I
directed them to put my autopen signature on there. As

(19:11):
with Biden's speech to the Conference of the National High
School Model the United Nations, there was not a lot
of media coverage of the remarks of the former president,
beyond a little local television coverage. As far as I
can tell, no transcript of Biden's remarks has been released.
This is again Jim Garretty writing in National Review. Perhaps
the most extensive coverage of Biden's remarks that we can
find are from The Wall Street Journal, in an article
under the headline Biden in rare remarks since Presidency warns

(19:33):
his accomplishments are coming undone. Biden is quoted as saying,
many of the things I worked so damn hard that
I thought I changed in the country or changing so
rapidly you can almost hear everyone who voted for Donald
Trump answering, yes, that's the point. The journal reports we

(19:54):
strength the NATO in a significant way. Biden said in
San Diego Wednesday. Now he said, I'm getting calls I'm
not going to go into it. I can't from a
number of European leaders asking me to get engaged. I'm not,
but I'm giving advice. So he says they're asking him
to get engaged. He's saying, I'm not, but I'm giving advice.

(20:18):
Sounds like getting engaged. And why are you doing foreign
policy when you're not actually the president of the United States.
That sounds a little little dicey. This is the Trebortary
show on the Valleys Pour talk this question that has
popped into my head, and it's this all right. Trump

(20:40):
did a lot of good things for the border for
immigration in his first term. Basically beefed up border security
such that we had very low rates of illegal border crossing.
Illegal border crossing attempts disincentivize people from trying to do
phony asylum claims. With the remain in Mexico policy, he

(21:00):
couldn't get any legislation passed to finally resolve the border,
but got a lot done, all of that completely undone.
In four years of Joe Biden. Four years of Joe Biden,
we let in just an enormous wave of people into

(21:21):
the country. It's sort of staggering. The tens of millions.

Speaker 2 (21:26):
I think it's hard. People don't even know.

Speaker 1 (21:28):
I think it's something like twenty million people or something
were let into the country. And that's sort of my
question after the OBBB because one of the great tools
that the Left has used is the sort of weaponization,
the really aggressive and weaponization of what's called prosecutorial discretion.

(21:54):
What is prosecutorial discretion or what is executive discretion? Right,
it's basically this. You're the police officer. Okay, you see
a kid stealing a candy bar. Now, maybe you could
arrest the kid and start a whole juvenile criminal process.

(22:17):
Or you grab the kid by the ear, you tell
them to apologize to the shop owner, you take the
candy bar and give it back. That's a little bit
of prosecutorial discretion.

Speaker 2 (22:29):
Right.

Speaker 1 (22:30):
You're a cop driving to the scene of a murder
and you see someone who shifted lanes without using their
turn signal. You're not gonna stop and pull over the
guy who shifted lanes without using a turn signal. You're
driving to the murder all right, prosecutorial discretion. You're the DA.

(22:52):
Are you gonna you know, you've got a bunch of
murder cases you've got to get through. Are you gonna
spend your time waste your time prosecuting again the twelve
year old boy who robbed the snicker bar. No, a
DA's office has a limited number of lawyers, limited number
of man hours. You have to focus on what's important.
Prosecutorial discretion. You don't have to enforce every law all
the time. And this principle doesn't just apply to criminal

(23:17):
law and the decision of whether or not to prosecute,
arrest whatever people. It also implies in other areas of
American law. Now, what has happened is Democrat presidents have
basically weaponized this not enforcing laws thing in such a

(23:38):
way as to affect massive policy changes, the most notorious
example of which was DHAKA Deferred action for childhood arrivals. Basically,
someone who comes into the country illegally as a child
is still here illegally and by the normal avenues of

(23:59):
law could be subject to.

Speaker 2 (24:01):
Now.

Speaker 1 (24:03):
I don't know that that's great policy. I would be
fine with some policy that afforded some kind of legal status.
I don't want a path to citizenship necessarily, but I'm
maybe affording some kind of legal citizenship or legal residency
rather to people who that maybe it can lead to

(24:23):
citizenship and are very stringent conditions or something to people
who came into the country illegally as children. All right,
we recognize that there's no there's a different level of
moral culpability at play there. I don't necessarily want them
to cut the line over people who are trying to
come to the country legally, but maybe they can be

(24:45):
in the same line as people who are normally applying.
All right, whatever, But the fact is, the law says this,
that these people could be subject to removal. And what
President Obama did was he could not get Congress to
pass what he called the Dream Act, basically legislation to

(25:05):
formally give legal status to people who were brought into
the country illegally as children. Instead, Obama couldn't get Congress
to pass legislation like that. So what Obama did instead,
he said famously after he lost I think it was
after the twenty fourteen midterms, he said, well, I've got

(25:27):
a pen and I've got a phone, and he just
did an executive order creating DAKA by saying, well, all
I'm really doing is I'm just not going to enforce
immigration law. I'm going to set up this program basically
of immigration non enforcement, so that if you come into
the country as a miner illegally, you're brought to the

(25:49):
country illegally as a minor, then you can qualify for
this Deferred Action for Childhood Rivals program and you get
that status that allows you to live in the country legally.
Now a lot of people criticized him for this and said, well, no,
this isn't just you not prosecuting people. This is you
creating a whole new legalization program. You needed Congress to

(26:11):
do this, But that's the theory. That's how aggressively the
left has pushed this idea of non enforcement. Now it
gets to this question of can the president basically block
spending of things doing the actual spending for line items

(26:36):
that Congress has approved. And this is where I get
to my question. All the things that the OBBB funds
that can help relieve the immigration mess we're in funding
more immigration judges. I don't know that Democrats would stop that.
I don't know that a president AOC would stop that,
funding more detention for people making asylum claims, funding ice.

(26:59):
What will AOC do? Can AOC stop that? I don't
know exactly all the ways she could, but I'm sure
she will try and succeed in a number of respects.
And this is the thing that still kind of makes.

Speaker 2 (27:15):
Me a little.

Speaker 1 (27:19):
I'm not saying that the OBBB isn't beneficial for establishing
more sanity to our immigration system. I'm not saying that.
I guess my question is my fear is, you know,
is this the mass of long term victory? Have we
now secured the border because of this? What if the

(27:41):
wall's not done by the time AOC comes in? Are
there ways she can stemy hinder stop the wall from
being finished if she becomes president of the United States
in January of twenty twenty nine, is able to stop things?
And by the way, I keep saying AOC just because
I think she's like one of the leading contenders. When
you do polling about who's the leading contender on the

(28:02):
Democrat side, it's her and maybe Kamala Harris. I think
Kamala Harris is only there I think because of residual
effects of her still having name recognition. But any Democrat president, president,
AOC president, Jos Shapiro, president, Kamala Harris, president, whoever. That's
my fear is that it's also this that the presidency's

(28:28):
ping pong back and forth. We had Trump, Biden Trump.
The best laid plans don't last that long. People pass
these sort of big spending bills about it. Over ten years.
It's gonna save US one hundred billion trillion dollars over
the next ten years. Do you really think that this
law will still be in effect ten years from now?

(28:48):
There won't be something that happens over the next ten
years to make its financial spending projections be altered. Whether
it's new legislation from a new Republican administration or newlygislation
from a new Democrat administration, I don't know. I mean,

(29:09):
I'll agree it is accomplishing certain really important things, particularly
expanding the number of immigration judges and clearing out the
backlog of asylum claims. That is a massive thing. And
I don't want to shortchange that. I don't want to
undersell that, and that seems like the kind of thing

(29:30):
that even in AOC wouldn't do. I don't know what
leg AOC would have to stand on to deliberately get
rid of immigration judges so that there's a big clog
of asylum claims. Could she, though, get rid of remain
in Mexico policy, allow people to be parolled back into
being in the country. Maybe that's possible. Maybe that's still
going to happen. Is she going to keep people in

(29:52):
those you know, immigration holding cells? Again, maybe she could
do the same thing Biden did parole people. And it
doesn't seem like states were able to stop buy and
when he did it. So I guess that's my fear
is that I don't know if this is securing the
border for forever, and I'm wondering how much of this

(30:13):
could just be undone again.

Speaker 2 (30:15):
This is the Trevor Carrey Show on the Valley's Power Talk.

Speaker 1 (30:20):
Thank you so much for riding along with me. As
you know, I'm the executive director at Right to Life
of Central California. If you liked the show, why don't
you throw a few bucks my way, not not to
me personally, but to write to Life so you can
go to right to Lifeca dot org. Read about all
the stuff we do, see all of our productions or

(30:42):
social media stuff. You can subscribe to the podcast of
Right to Life Radio, which is on this fine radio
station every Saturday morning at nine am. And you can
go check out the Obria Medical Clinics of Central California
O b r I A three six five dot org
is where you can go to donate and support in
Obria fres No. Obriafresno dot organs where you can go
to see a little bit more about the clinic, what

(31:04):
kinds of services we offer. We're helping out patients with
lower income patients with their health care. And you know
that's why I've I think I've been able to assess
this whole the medicaid angle of the OBBB, which is
which is the big angle. This is going to be

(31:24):
the big issue in the twenty twenty sixth election. The
twenty twenty sixth election is going to be a referendum
on this law because it has some angle that Democrats
can play with. Democrats aren't going to have much else,
all right, They're not going to have much to go

(31:45):
on when it comes to the Iran conflict, which seems
to have been settled pretty well, kind of the exact
outcome that I think most Americans wanted, which was Iran
not having any more nuclear weapons capacity and America not
getting drawn into a longer war. So that seemed to
have been that needle seems to have been threaded perfectly well.

(32:08):
I think it's possible there could be more good Middle
East developments over the next year or so, more expansion
of the Abraham Accords. So Trump's going to be kind
of smelling like a rose when it comes to that stuff.
The economy's doing better, starting to pick up after some
of the chaos of the tariff era. I don't know

(32:33):
that the tariff's controversy is going to continue to be
a big thing once we get around all the way
to November of twenty twenty six. And there's also this
the last go around, when we had the twenty eighteen
midterm elections where Republicans got crushed. Trump had failed to

(32:56):
pass his big reconciliation bill. People had taken the damaging
votes and had not even been able to pass it.
So David Valdeo had on him the bad stink of
he voted to cut Medicaid, but he still couldn't actually
do it because they couldn't actually pass the darn thing.

(33:19):
Americans like a winner. They like people who win, and
obviously it would have been helpful to Trump. I think,
politically speaking, would have been helpful to Trump if he
had passed his reconciliation bill in twenty seventeen rather than
failed to pass it, because again, Americans like a winner.
He's also done it so quickly.

Speaker 2 (33:39):
He's the assistant tremor carry show on The Valley's Power
Dog