Kristi Burton Brown on Colorado's Crazy New Gun Law

In the second hour of today's edition of The Dan Caplis Show, KBB looks at the latest gun control bill and Colorado and breaks down why it's an infringement on the rights of Coloradans.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Capless and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
You're on the Dan Taplas said tonight, I'm Christy Burton
Brown in for Dan, and tonight I would love to
hear your thoughts if you want to call in any
time eight five five four zero five eight two five
five or text me is five seven seven three nine
and start it with Dan. I did have someone text
as saying, oh, we'll talking about Social Security benefits and
would Trump actually be cutting those with doge Trump went

(00:36):
on a TV show and said, absolutely not. The only
way we'll cut them is if illegal immigrants are using them.
We'll cut the fraud, not the benefits for everyone else.
And so someone texted and said, evil Trump is cutting
benefits to our most vulnerable and needy citizens.

Speaker 3 (00:48):
And here's the catch, over one hundred and thirty years old.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
So in other words, he's actually doing nothing except for
cutting fraud, which we're paying people.

Speaker 3 (00:55):
Who are over one hundred and thirty years old. They
don't exist anymore. They are, So those are the kind
of things that doge.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
And the Trump administration is looking into to cut fraud waste.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
Which I talked about this a little bit in the
last hour.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
I think it's a whole new frontier that Republics have
talked about for so long but have failed to implement
in many cases. When we look at presidential administrations, many
of them have cut taxes, many of them have found
ways to save taxpayers money, but they haven't gone after
the fraud, waste and abuse in federal agencies. I wrote
an amachist brief for the U. S. Supreme Court last

(01:31):
year that overturned the Chevron doctrine, one of my favorite cases,
just because I am hugely against administrative power. When non
elected bureaucrats get to tell businesses and people all the
hoops they have to jump through, all the red tape
in order to have a free market and actually compete
and grow business and actually, you know, live in America

(01:52):
and do what Americans do. I think the administrative agencies,
the overcreation of them, both at the state and national levels,
has been one of the most damaging things to the
free market in America. So I was very happy when
the US Supreme Court overturned the Chevron Doctrine. There are
a whole lot of thoughts onto how this is going
to extend down into the states, Like states still have
a ton of administrative agencies who create a ton of

(02:14):
red tape and regulations, and the Chevron Doctrine was a
federal doctrine.

Speaker 3 (02:18):
So I think there's still a lot of work.

Speaker 2 (02:19):
That needs to happen in the States, but so much
interconnected work goes on. When you look at cutting fraud
wasted abuse in administrative agencies, the regulations and red tape
that the Chevron Doctrine dealt with is just one piece
of it.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
All.

Speaker 2 (02:34):
This fraud wasted abuse that Doge and Trump and his
administration are working to cut is another giant piece of
how administrative agencies have become really the fourth branch of
government and dictated to people what they can and can do.
Whenever you have giant sums of money and pots of
money that you can use for whatever you want and
cram it all into a big bill and get the
appropriations from Congress, that is where you see these agencies

(02:56):
continue and have staying power because they get money to
do it.

Speaker 3 (03:00):
Ever they want.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
So.

Speaker 3 (03:00):
I'm a huge fan of the cuts on fraud.

Speaker 2 (03:03):
Waste, and abuse, as I really think most people would
be if they thought about it. I liked what Trey
Goudi said on TV about this fourth branch of government,
so I'm gonna go ahead and play him.

Speaker 4 (03:15):
I do not understand, Dana, the argument against eliminating identifying
waste for all abused duplication. I mean, lawyers are trained
to try to understand the other side of the argument.
What is the argument for perpetuating fraud sending social Security
benefits to someone who's been dead for ten years. I
don't know the argument in favor of that. I do

(03:37):
know this. We have created a fourth branch of government,
the administrative branch, and right now that is all the
left controls. They don't have the House, they don't have
the Supreme Courts, they don't have Congress, so all they
have is this administrative branch, and that is what they
are clinging to. But I defy anyone to tell me
identifying waste for all abuse duplication, how is that about

(04:00):
bad thing?

Speaker 3 (04:02):
And when you phrase it like that, how is that
a bad thing?

Speaker 2 (04:03):
It's really tough for people to come up with an
answer to how identifying that waste of taxpayers money is
not a very very good thing.

Speaker 3 (04:10):
I think what we're really in the middle of is
a lot of unwinding that has to happen.

Speaker 2 (04:14):
You can have the US Supreme Court come out with
a great decision of returning a Chevron doctrine, and then
you actually have to see it work in practical ways,
so you can say that going forward, administrative agencies have
lost a lot of their power, and Congress actually has
to be the one to make the laws and legislate
and not delegate that so much nebulously to administrative agencies
who are unelected bureaucrats. That's great going forward, that will

(04:36):
make a ton of changes, make more predictability for small businesses,
for big businesses, for people who want to participate in
the free market. But it is still a long unwinding.
Often especially that doctrine was in place for many, many
years and helped to set up a lot of this fraud, waste,
and abuse we're seeing in the fourth ranch of government,
the administrative agencies.

Speaker 3 (04:55):
And so I think Trey Goudy is correct.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
I think what Doge and President Trump are doing is
part of this big unwinding that unfortunately is going to
take years to accomplish. But I think if they've been
able to do this much in the first almost thirty
days of his presidency, were well on our way to
seeing it get done. I think that's very, very important
for anyone who's particularly interested in the administrative agency argument

(05:17):
that it's a fourth branch of government. There's a number
of really good books on it, but one of them,
I think I've talked about it on the show before,
but it's Overruled by Neil Gorsich, my favorite justice on
the US Supreme Court. He does have Colorado roots, but
I think he's very intelligent in how he comes to
his decisions, and the ones he writes are very well
thought out.

Speaker 3 (05:34):
I'd say that's true of most of the Supreme Court justices, not.

Speaker 2 (05:36):
Every one of them, but just the way he thinks
I really like. And he was an author before he
was the US Supreme Court judge. He has a whole
host of books he's written, but Overruled is the newest one.
And we often think of overruled as one word, right,
a decision is overruled, and you think of that in
context of the judiciary, but the way he is saying
it is actually has two words over ruled.

Speaker 3 (05:57):
You are ruled too much by the government.

Speaker 2 (05:59):
And so a lot of stories across the nation where
people got caught up in administrative regulations and enforcement of
these very narrow laws that if people knew about them,
they'd be like, really, that puts someone in jail, that
shut down their business, And hey, if you're committing an
actual crime and hurting people and hurting their property and
doing wrong things, like I'm well, I am all for

(06:21):
cracking down on crime. But when we're talking about a
fish caught by a fisherman not measuring the exact link
that lengths that an administrative agency says it must be
it's like one inch over, and then your business can
be shut down.

Speaker 3 (06:34):
You can go to jail. Like that's not a good regulation.

Speaker 2 (06:37):
You can you can set the regulation if you want,
but often the punishment doesn't fit the supposed crime. So anyway,
Justice Corsitch goes through all these examples across the nation
of how the fourth branch of government has been empowered
in many cases to go after people, to shut down business,
to hurt families, and how the legal saga plays out
over years and years and years of the tiniest.

Speaker 3 (06:58):
Violation of a regulation.

Speaker 2 (07:00):
And so I think for anyone who wants to consider
how damaging the administrative state, this fourth branch of government
has been to people, there's some real kind of fun,
kind of sad, practical examples.

Speaker 3 (07:11):
In Justice Corss's book Overruled.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
Actually was able just to get it from an audiobook
from my library on my phone. If you use the
Libby or Hoopla apps, you can actually borrow these books
for free on your phone and listen to them while
you drive. That's what I like to do. It's how
I get a lot more reading in these days. So
that would be my recommendation if you want to read something.
When we have a couple more minutes still in this segment,
but when we come back, I want to play some

(07:35):
clips about federal workers. There's actually one particular federal worker
and she talks about what it actually looks like to
work as a federal employee. I find some of her
words particularly interesting because my dad is actually a federal
employee as well. Now, I would obviously say that he
is one of the very hard working federal employees, because
my dad will often be like, they should give me

(07:55):
more to do I want more work.

Speaker 3 (07:57):
And that's definitely the kind of person.

Speaker 2 (07:58):
I grew up with a dad who had a very
very strong work ethic. He doesn't have a college degree.
I was the first one in my family to get one,
and so he had to work his way through everything.
He would have two and three jobs sometimes to pay
for everything for my brothers and I and also like
it'll be my brother's hockey coach and also be at
all of our events. And it's just an amazing person
with a really strong work ethic. He would, you know,

(08:20):
didn't have an engineering degree, but would be paid to
design the plans for engineers. So just a really brilliant person,
hard work ethic. But when he works for the federal government,
he will ask for more work sometimes. Let me think,
you know, you can just sit there. We don't have anything.
We're going to spread it around across everyone, which kind
of drives my dad nuts because he's like, hey.

Speaker 3 (08:40):
You're paying me to work. I'd like actual work to do.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
And it just so I've heard firsthand, that's not how
the federal government operates. They just hire and hire and
hire and then don't fire and don't fire and don't fire.

Speaker 3 (08:52):
Even when people are not doing their jobs.

Speaker 2 (08:55):
According to some people I've heard who are federal employees,
what some of their fellow employees do is literally spend
their entire day going around from cubicle to cuba cole
just chatting it up with people. And that's certainly not
what you're paid to do, but it ends up being
what they're paid to do because in many cases, like
tenure at public colleges and universities, you can't fire them.
I think people would be surprised that they knew how

(09:16):
deep that tenure under a different word exists within the
federal government, where they are not hiring the best and brightest,
they're hiring whoever it is, and despite how they perform, uh,
they are going to stay there for their lives. So
after this, I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on the Dan
Kaplis Show, and you can call it eight five five
four zero five eight two five five doge that suggested

(09:47):
cuts and you know what Trump has been saying about him,
because he's always talking and saying something out there. If
you have thoughts, you can call in eight five five
four zero five eight two five five or texture thoughts
start with Dan to five seven seven nine I said,
I had play a clip from a federal worker for you.
When we got back. She is talking about how difficult

(10:08):
it is to ever get fired if you are a
federal employee.

Speaker 3 (10:11):
Let's listen in.

Speaker 5 (10:13):
I used to be a federal employee, and I'm going
to tell you why I don't feel bad for federal
employees being forced to come back.

Speaker 6 (10:20):
Into the workplace. I worked for the Army Corps of
Engineers for almost a year, and the abuses that I
saw by government employees was astounding and shocking. I worked
as a realty specialist, and that is someone who manages
government own lands, so when farmers in ranchersleys land to

(10:41):
Gray's cattle, we would manage that.

Speaker 5 (10:43):
When I was hired, my boss brat that it was
basically impossible to get fired from the federal government, and
that in her entire time working for the government, she'd
only seen one person fired, and that person assaulted a
fellow employee. And she wasn't even fired for assaulting the
employe at work, who was fired for learning about it
because they caught it on camera.

Speaker 2 (11:04):
And when you caught it on when you catch it
on camera, you don't really have any options other than
taking care of it. But had it not been caught
on camera, I wonder what have actually happened to that
federal employee.

Speaker 3 (11:12):
They'd probably still have a job today.

Speaker 2 (11:15):
So this is one of the reasons that President Trump
is in fact cutting the federal workforce, because it has
been for decades nearly impossible to fire federal workers. That's true,
and I related a little bit to the tenure in
universities and colleges that professors often get. But the same
thing happens if you work for the government at the
federal level. They don't call it the name tenure, but

(11:37):
it becomes extremely hard to fire people. And in part
the reason they don't fire people is because they're always,
you know, afraid that their own laws are going to
come back to bite them, and people are going to
claim they're fired for discriminatory reasons, even if they were
underperforming and doing all these things that you get fired
for in the corporate world, that they're always going to say, oh, discrimination.
They just basically don't want lawsuits, they don't want to

(11:58):
deal with it, and so instead they continue to have
incompetent people they can stay working at the government even
though they get fired somewhere else. About an hour ago,
news came out that starting tomorrow, the IRS is going
to fire six seven hundred employees. One of the headlines
on this said IRS to lose progress it has made

(12:19):
in recent years. I'm not sure how many taxpayers or
average voters would say the IRS having more agents is progress, but.

Speaker 3 (12:28):
I would definitely say that it is not.

Speaker 2 (12:29):
In the IRS should cut some employees so they can
cut some of the insane amount of pages they have
and regulations they have on how you have to file
your taxes and all the ways they can go after
you if you make even the smallest unintentional mistakes.

Speaker 3 (12:43):
So good news for.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
Most Americans that the IRS is now going to get
smaller with about six thousand, seven hundred people getting fired.
I'd rather make it clear that I don't ever think
it's great to be like, yes, someone else is getting fired.
It's a real family, that's a real job that someone has.
I'm never excited about a specific person. I shouldn't say never,
because there's some awful people out there, But for the
most part, I'm not excited about people getting fired because

(13:06):
it affects their family. But what I do think is
often if you have IRS experience there actually are a
whole lot of corporations and nonprofits who will line up
to hire you because they need someone to give them
IRS advice to know how to navigate taxes.

Speaker 3 (13:19):
So it's typically not hard to.

Speaker 2 (13:21):
Get a job when you've worked at a federal agency
that a lot of corporations and nonprofits worry about.

Speaker 3 (13:25):
So I don't think.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
This is going to be something that's devastating to most
of the families. Also, because the federal government tends to
have programs in place where you get a severance and
you get the ability to have a runway and go
find another job. So what I think is great about
this is that the IRS is going to get smaller
and have fewer people cracking down on unintentional mistakes on
taxes instead of going after the real fraud, wasted abuse

(13:47):
in the system, which we've been talking about all day
long on the show. Or you know, Ryan, I think
it's felt like a whole day, but it's really only
been an hour. So the other interesting piece of news
a couple other things that so the Trump administration is doing,
and this may also come out tomorrow. I don't think
the timeline has been officially decided on yet. But the
Trump administration is considering in the very near future making

(14:10):
a public health order on the border to stop the
flow of immigration across the border, saying that illegal immigrants
are bringing in flu, tuberculosis, measles, and respiratory illnesses. You
may remember that in the first term of Trump's administration,
he made an order like this and stopped some immigration
flow across the border because of diseases that were being

(14:31):
brought into the United States. And I think the purpose
of an order like that is to say that the
flow across the border can't just be indefinite, all these
people pouring across. It has to be limited so we
can actually evaluate who is sick, who isn't, who can
be vaccinated, who can't be And so I think, you know,
a public health order like that would be in order.
We do see some of the border states, in particular

(14:51):
Texas right now struggling with some outbreaks, not all caused
by illegal immigrants, but some of these diseases certainly are
that's just a fact they don't have vaccines in their countries,
or they don't have the same level of medical care
we do in the United States. And so many times
when you do have in abundance of illegal immigrants coming
across the border, you do, in fact get more diseases
in the United States. So that is a legitimate concern

(15:13):
and something that may come down as early as tomorrow
from the Trump administration. Another order that has come down
from the Trump administration is that any school receiving federal
funding anywhere down from preschool all the way up to
colleges and universities, if you are receiving federal funding, then
this order applies to you, and you now have two
weeks and this came out today two weeks to ban

(15:35):
DEI and they talk about in the order what DEI is,
but specifically they're focusing on treating students differently based on race.
So there's a whole lot of ways that applies, a
whole lot of ways that different schools do this and
segment students based on their race and either give some
specific abilities or privileges, and others they box them out

(15:57):
from certain things. I mean, this definitely happens not in
every single school that gets federal funding, but in a
number of them people are treated differently based on their race.
It's actually a lawsuit currently against the Cherry Creek School
districts here in Colorado, alleging that they've done exactly that
and segmented students by race and treated them differently in classrooms,
had different classroom policies based on the color of your

(16:20):
skin in Cherry Creek schools, very very nearby here. So
those are the kind of things that the Trump administration
is basically saying, if you receive any amount of federal funding,
you have two weeks to figure this out. They already
previewed this earlier when they first got into office and
said you can't have DEI if you accept federal funding.
But now they're actually putting in under a timeline and

(16:41):
saying you have two weeks to get rid of it.
And if schools don't, and I'm sure there's going to
be a number of them that don't and that refuse to,
I think then it's going to be up to the
federal government if they pull back federal funding or exactly
what kind of consequences they put on schools that refuse
to do this. I think you will most likely see
colleges and universities jump on this first.

Speaker 3 (17:01):
There's going to be a.

Speaker 2 (17:01):
Few holdouts, a few ones that probably want to be
the example and resist, but I think a lot of
them is very very easy to trace. The exact federal
funding that comes and flows to the college and universities.
They're going to have to make a concrete decision. You're
either getting rid of your DEI programs or you're not,
and you're going to lose federal funding. That's a very
easy stream to cut off. I think when you look
at elementary schools, high schools, junior highs, kindergartens, preschools that

(17:23):
are run publicly at least, which are the ones that
receive federal funding for the most part that's integrated within
the state funding system. That's going to be a lot
harder puzzle I think for the federal government to figure
out how do you actually block federal funding for one
particular high school whose federal funding comes through the state
that is granted a certain amount of federal funding.

Speaker 3 (17:41):
It's not entirely true, there are.

Speaker 2 (17:43):
Some direct federal funds that go to states, but in general,
I think that's going to be a more difficult piece
for the Trump administration to figure out. Colleges and universities,
though probably a better listen or they're going to get
their funding pulled.

Speaker 3 (17:53):
I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're here on the Dan Kapla Show.

Speaker 7 (17:55):
Call in anytime eight five five four zero five eight
two five five next to Dan at five seven seven
three nine.

Speaker 8 (18:19):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
Welcome back to the Dan Kaplis Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
A lot of people have been paying attention to the
Colorado legislature this session, and they really only just got started.

Speaker 3 (18:31):
I'll have so much time left.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
People have been paying attention to the gun bills and
the labor bills that have been going through.

Speaker 3 (18:38):
Both have passed at.

Speaker 2 (18:39):
Least one House or Senate and were making their way through.
The labor bill would extend the rights of unions in
the state, basically flying in the face of a deal
that was made that actually gave more to the unions
than to the businesses involved at the time. Decades ago,
this agreement was reached and now the unions are pushing
to kind of go back on that deal and get

(19:00):
unions more power. So naturally, of course that would be
currently passing through the legislature.

Speaker 3 (19:05):
Unsure what will happen at the end.

Speaker 2 (19:07):
I think a lot can happen in these kind of
bills when it goes from one House to the next,
and when the governor takes a look at it, I
guess we'll see. I was there when Polus gave his
State of the State address, and he indicated in that
speech that, at least in its current form, he was
not in favor of the labor bill, and less businesses
actually ended up agreeing with it, and I don't think
they're going to So we'll see what happens with that

(19:29):
gun bill that a lot of people have been focused on,
has already been changed in a number of ways.

Speaker 3 (19:33):
Originally would have banned most.

Speaker 2 (19:36):
Weapons that people use in self defense or home defense
these days, and they tried to add on training requirements
to it, where okay, fine, you can have some of
these guns if you take a hunting and firearms course,
So basically conditioning your right to bear arms on going
through a training program authorized by the government. So big
problems with both of these bills. But what I would

(19:57):
like to tell you about is a supposed voting right
bill that's going through the legislature right now as well.
Representative Bacon is one of the sponsors, and there are
a number of other suspect sponsors. If you look at
the list of sponsors, often you can tell what angle
a particular bill is going to take. But this one
is actually really bad. It starts out in a way

(20:17):
that you would think, oh, this isn't really all that suspicious.
I'm not really sure how much this changes in voting.
I mean, of course, as per usual, it adds some
regulations and some red tape, puts more work on county
and city clerks. But how egregious is it really?

Speaker 7 (20:31):
Like?

Speaker 2 (20:31):
Yess what you'd think when you first read through some
of the pages, and the description of the bill itself
actually doesn't get into a lot of the core details.
But I like to read actual bills and comb through
the thirty forty pages of them, and when I did this,
what I found I think was quite would be quite
shocking to anyone who actually took the time to read
through it. At first, they set it up where, hey,

(20:51):
we want to give more opportunities to vote for people
who are disabled in Colorado. If you're a nonprofit who
works with people at disabilities, you need to post notice
is about voting voting locations for them, which I mean,
I'm just against requiring nonprofits to do the government's job.
So I don't think it's like the world's worst idea,
but I don't think that's a nonprofit's job. Like, if

(21:12):
they want to educate people about how to vote, like
more power to them, go for it. But the government
again shouldn't tell a nonprofit to do the government's job.
So I don't like that, But it's not the end
of the world. Here's what was actually really bad. This
goes after cities when they conduct their elections and how
they conduct their elections. So the sponsors of this bill

(21:32):
don't like two things. They don't like that cities in
Colorado often hold their elections either in April or in
November in an off year election. So basically it doesn't
match up with like a main election, a governor's election,
a presidential election, and so often you will actually have
if you look at the statistics, you have more Republicans
and Conservatives churning out in these local elections because by

(21:54):
and large, Republicans and Conservatives do vote.

Speaker 3 (21:57):
More in off your elections.

Speaker 2 (21:58):
It's just a fact, not that everyone doesn't have an
equal opportunity to vote and is INCENTI ballot is just
what happens.

Speaker 3 (22:04):
And so they don't like that.

Speaker 2 (22:06):
They think the results would be different if city elections
matched up with general elections when there's a bigger turnout
and people are already voting for a host of other reasons, Basically,
they don't necessarily believe in personal responsibility, like why are
these people not voting? Why are the people on your
side not engaging in the election? Maybe you should do
some culture change instead. They want to force an election
to fit into the box of when these people are

(22:27):
already voting. So it's one thing it's clear they don't
like from the bill. The second thing that it's clear
they don't like from the bill is normal voting, Like
they actually want to get ranked choice voting and other
methods that they think increase the ability of their preferred
candidates to win. This bill is literally all driven because
they don't like that some cities they wouldn't expect to

(22:48):
be controlled by conservatives are controlled by conservatives, like Aurora.
They don't like that when that partisan R or D
isn't behind a candidate's name, many times voters look at
the issues and actually elect Republicans. They don't necessarily they
know they're Republicans, but they like their issues, and so
the sponsors of this bill don't like that. They want
to find a way to change local city elections. So
here's their idea of how they do it. It would

(23:09):
allow people or organizations to sue cities if people in
what they're calling protected classes have what they're calling a
material disparity in voting compared to other populations. So even
if the reason is that not enough people of a
particular minority race in Aurora, for example, are registered to vote,

(23:29):
like their voter registration is down, the fact that less
of them are voting in the city election than in
the general election would be enough to be a violation
of this new Voting Rights Act. So literally, just the
fact that one particular minority has a lower voter registration
and so therefore they vote in less numbers in the
local election than they do in the general election, that

(23:51):
is enough for a violation of the Voting Rights Act,
and it's considered a material disparity. It also says that
the method of voting, so basically cities don't have ranked
choice voting in Colorado can be challenged if it results
in a material disparity and if they can prove through
whatever research they want to create that. Oh, by the way,
they're going to force the city to pay for the
research if people of a certain race would vote in

(24:14):
higher numbers if another method were used. They can also
use one election as the basis for any of these claims. So,
as you can imagine, it would be incredibly easy to
find that a city both has to change the dates
of its election and its method of voting, and that
the city has to pay for all the research showing
that in even one single local election, people of any

(24:37):
particular minority race or minority group, including LGBTQ people didn't
vote at similar levels compared to a general election. So literally,
if they can say, hey, a Hispanics in Aurora, thirty
percent of them voted in the local election, but eighty
percent of them voted in the general election, there's a
material disparity. They can turn that into it is now

(25:00):
the city's fault. The city is violating voting rights. My
question is do they really think the government has the
job of forcing people to vote? Like, what more is
the government supposed to do? They mail a ballot to
your house in Colorado. If you choose a not to
register to vote, you're not gonna get a ballot.

Speaker 3 (25:16):
If you choose not.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
To actually cast to vote. How is that government discrimination.
I don't care what color you are, what group you're
a member of. There's plenty of people of all groups
who choose not to vote in local elections.

Speaker 3 (25:27):
I don't think it's a good choice.

Speaker 2 (25:29):
But what I want government to do knock down your
door and demand that you cast a ballot, or blame
the city that they're not.

Speaker 3 (25:35):
Forcing you to do it.

Speaker 2 (25:36):
It's one of the worst thought out election bills I've
ever seen, and I'm super curious how far it makes
it through the process. But they are running it as
a voting rights bill and pitching it like, oh, we're
trying to help people with disabilities, we're trying to help
minority groups that don't vote in big enough numbers. In
my view, go fix it. You should go get more
people to vote. We want more people to vote. But

(25:58):
it is not a city's If they're mailing people a
ballot and those people choose not to engage in an election,
that is not.

Speaker 3 (26:06):
Discrimination by any form of the word.

Speaker 2 (26:09):
And under this bill, though it would be classified as
a material disparity that goes after people in any sort
of minority group or class.

Speaker 3 (26:18):
Race is not the only measurement for this. So anyway,
I think it's one of the most terrible bills making
its way through the legislature.

Speaker 2 (26:23):
Not currently getting a lot of attention as the gun
and labor bills are getting the attention right now. But
I'm very curious to see how far this goes through
the process. I'm Christy Burton Brown here on the Dan
KAPLA show. You can call in with any thoughts eight
five five four zero five eight two five five, or
you can text your thoughts to Dan at five seven
seven three nine. While we often talk about the federal

(26:44):
government and the good things that are happening there with
all the cuts to fraud, waste, and abuse, if we
look here at home at the Colorado Capital, you often
are going to see many examples of power grabs and
more abuse. I think of voters intents in ballot measures
that they passed. I mean, the fees are wild right now,
and in fiscal you're twenty twenty three. This state collected

(27:05):
over twenty three point three billion dollars in fees from
Colorado citizens trying to get around tabor and not ask
you if they want to charge you more money. So
a lot of things like that going on. You should
watch for them. We'll be back after the break. I'm
Christy Burton Brown here on the Dan Capla Show.

Speaker 8 (27:26):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
Here on the Dan Caplas Show. I'm Kristy Burton Brown.

Speaker 3 (27:32):
Thanks for joining us for the last segments. Today.

Speaker 2 (27:34):
We talked a lot about DOGE and all the fraud,
waste and abuse that's being cut are.

Speaker 3 (27:38):
Hopefully going to be cut at the federal government.

Speaker 2 (27:39):
Dough doesn't actually have the authority to cut it themselves,
but in hand to agencies all the information of what
they can and should cut. What I find kind of
interesting at all the discussions about DOGE is Kevin O'Leary
from the Shark Tank talking about why all these cuts
are necessary, and he's actually pushing for more, which I

(28:00):
think makes a lot.

Speaker 3 (28:00):
Of sense from someone who actually knows business.

Speaker 2 (28:03):
I mean, kind of amazing when you get someone like
Elon Musk looking into the depths of governments, when you
get Kevin O'Leary looking at what's going on. People have
been successful in business. They see what politicians often seem
to miss, which is that we are miss spending and
wasting people's money. I'm going to play you a clip
with Kevin O'Leary's advice.

Speaker 9 (28:22):
I think the issue is they're not whacking enough. There's
this concept in private equity when you get a bankrupt
company and you go in there, you cut twenty percent
more than your initial read, and then you find like
a pool of mercury. The organization jails back together again.
Always cut deeper, harder when there's fat and waste.

Speaker 2 (28:43):
Always deeper and harder, is his advice. He specifically also
addressed to FAA, who has been into news a lot
of Federal Aviation Administration with the plane crashes that have
also been in the news. So his comments there are
also fairly interesting, and you can definitely imagine part of
what he's.

Speaker 3 (28:56):
Saying the FAA. It's not the people.

Speaker 9 (29:00):
The code is cobalt, it's from the sixties. It needs
cap X put into it for the technology we upgraded
to make it safer.

Speaker 3 (29:09):
Fat like a chicken.

Speaker 9 (29:11):
All of these agencies are like big fat chickens, dripping
over barbecues of fat. This is the best barbecue I've
ever seen. But I don't think it's happening fast enough.

Speaker 3 (29:20):
They're not cutting enough.

Speaker 9 (29:22):
Keep slashing, keep packing while you have a twenty four
month mandate before the midterms, A.

Speaker 3 (29:28):
Fat take it over barbecue.

Speaker 2 (29:29):
I think it's an interesting picture, and you know, I
think it's a lot of sentiment, a shared sentiment by
a lot of people who are looking into it, of hey,
it's not happening fast enough.

Speaker 3 (29:37):
But the reason for that is.

Speaker 2 (29:39):
Not that Trump hasn't been going after it extremely quickly,
since he's been in office for less than a month
at this point, but it's that this should have been.

Speaker 3 (29:47):
Done years ago.

Speaker 2 (29:49):
And so I think that's why once people start seeing
everything exposed and see the waste and fraud behind the scenes, like,
oh my goodness, why haven't we done this sooner? Well,
I mean other presidents could have and they didn't. And
so now Trump is under a timeline like when you
have the House, the Senate, and the presidency, you do
have almost always only two years to see how much

(30:10):
you can get done, because most of the time a
president does end up losing either Congress or the Senate
or both in a midterm kind of no matter who
the president is. There's been a number of exceptions during wartime,
which hopefully will not to be the case in two years.
But for the most part. That's what happens to a president.
Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen to Trump. But Kevin
Larry's right that his administration needs to operate as if

(30:31):
that is what's going to happen. I think that's one
thing that Trump administration probably learned from their first time
in that four year gap in between the two terms,
was that you have to act fast. If you wait
too long, it's never going to happen.

Speaker 10 (30:42):
Man, I'd like to hear the leftist explanation or justification.

Speaker 8 (30:46):
For this per bill illusion. Just breaking Fox News.

Speaker 10 (30:50):
President Trump's scheduled to sign an executive order tonight terminating
any and all federal taxpayer benefits going to illegals. The
fact that this has been going on as long as
it has, Christie is infuriating, but it's coming to an
end tonight.

Speaker 3 (31:05):
Let's get so.

Speaker 2 (31:05):
Let's let's see the lists justin No, they haven't justified yet.

Speaker 10 (31:10):
Federal benefits that American citizen taxpayers provide.

Speaker 2 (31:14):
Well, I mean, you know, I think for them, they
always advocate for the children of illegal immigrants to go
to school, have education, And I'm like, I can get
on board of that. Okay, because I actually think children,
it's not children's fault where your parents bring you, and
you shouldn't, you know, have to skip school because your
parents brought you somewhere they weren't supposed to bring you.
But the problem is nothing is ever good enough for
the liberals, So like, well, let's care.

Speaker 3 (31:35):
About the kids.

Speaker 2 (31:35):
Okay, if we got to move on from that, let's
care about this, let's care about that. They're just reaching
and pulling for straws because in their view, they would
give illegal immigrants every single right and ability that American
citizens have, which then makes being an American citizen meaningless.

Speaker 3 (31:48):
So that's just not what you can do.

Speaker 2 (31:51):
So yes, I think it's a whole nother level of
fraud to not only be in the country illegally, but
sign up for benefits that are supposed to be dead
catered to American citizens.

Speaker 3 (32:01):
That means you're having to lie on paperwork.

Speaker 10 (32:03):
And well, it was walking this in that interview sit
down he did with Hannity along with Elon Musk, was
you know, we're wondering this ponzi scheme that is Social Security,
and let's call it what it is. I'm against it
from the premise all the way back to FDR. However,
it is what it is. We've been there for hour
many years. How is this going bankrupt? Why is it
going bankrupt? You know, we're paying into Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Speaker 3 (32:24):
That's that's for.

Speaker 8 (32:25):
Us, the people that paid into this system.

Speaker 10 (32:28):
And the fact that somebody that comes to this country
illegally has not contributed to that system is drawing from
it again should be infuriating no matter your political strikes.

Speaker 2 (32:36):
Well, especially because they're saying that the people who are
currently paying into it will never see the money, like
people in our generation will pay into it our entire
lives and then never get anything out of it.

Speaker 3 (32:45):
That's what they're saying exactly what it's like.

Speaker 2 (32:47):
I mean, there's a whole so many solutions that the
federal government should have implemented with Social Security instead of
using it as like their you know, free for all
bank account to go fund whatever they want, you could
invest it in ways or Social Security well would grow
and cut down the federal dead and do a whole
lot of other things.

Speaker 10 (33:01):
You're very astute at a young age, and you might
recall twenty years ago or so, President George W. Bush
wanted to do exactly that it wanted to. And those
of us who are you know, fiscal conservatives like you
and me, we know that this is going. Banker Marco
Rubio's talked about this and it needs to be revamped,
but nobody wants.

Speaker 8 (33:19):
To touch it.

Speaker 3 (33:20):
No, exactly.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
It's almost like the thing that you just have to
leave alone and let it die a slow death on
its own. But you're you're hastening the death when you
say anyone can draw from it.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
And here's a huge problem. Kevin Millarry actually mentioned this
and one.

Speaker 2 (33:34):
Of the clips we played how outdated some of the
federal government systems are Colbal Yeah, No, like an insanely
old system in almost every department.

Speaker 3 (33:42):
They don't stay up to date. Their cybersecurity is terrible.

Speaker 2 (33:45):
I mean like they're leaving the country extremely vulnerable, not
only for a fraud like this and waste and misspending
of taxpayer dollars, but on an international scale, like it's
shocking that other foreign governments haven't been able to do
more than they have.

Speaker 3 (33:58):
And we already see China.

Speaker 2 (33:59):
In some of our government systems and in our corporate
systems because we lack so much modern technology that corporations
use but the government won't use when it comes to
cybersecurity and so many other systems like there's no excuse
for the federal government of the freestation most proplmation in
the world to have outdated systems in your giant, bloated
federal agencies that are overpaid and overspend. But so much

(34:21):
we could say on this. Thank you Ryan, thank you Kelly.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. You've been on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Thank you for listening. I hope you have an excellent
rest of your week. It is not the weekend yet,
there's more work to be done. I hope you enjoy
doing it and tune in tomorrow