10-02-25 - *FULL SHOW* Jimmy Sengenberger Fills in For Ross with Gen. Doug Odie Slocum & Phil Magness

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
What is it going to be all of like eighty
something degrees today in the beginning of October. Ugh, it's crazy,
it's crazy. Good to be with you today. We've got
lots to dive into and discuss, and glad to have
you here with us on the program. And look, we
had a fascinating speech. I just got to catch up

(00:22):
and watch the whole thing last night from Pete Hegseth,
the now Secretary of War, which I'm still not convinced
on the name change from Department of Defense to Department
of War. And the big reason for that is I
feel like, much as heg Seth was talking all about

(00:44):
war and how we need to be ready to end
wars quickly, to win wars, to be successful, I still
think of war as what should be the last resort,
and that most Americans would look and say, no, we
want to have the typical conservative phrase is strong national defense.

(01:04):
You want to have that strong defense. That's what Reagan
talked about. And yes, we want to decisively win wars.
We haven't done really since World War Two, with the
exception notably, as Hegseeth pointed out in his speech of
the First Gulf War, but that was very limited, that
was quick, that was very intentional, and he went through

(01:27):
actually some of the reasons why that was such a
success and was so limited and quick. But I don't
think that explanations enough. I mean, here's a little bit
of what he had to say in terms of the
era of the department.

Speaker 2 (01:43):
Defense is over.

Speaker 3 (01:45):
Good morning, and welcome to the War Department, because the
era of the Department of Defense is over.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
And he explicitly explained some of the war versus defense
mindset he's bringing to the table every day.

Speaker 3 (02:01):
We have to be prepared for war, not for defense.
We're training warriors, not defenders. We fight wors to win,
not to defend. Defense is something you do all the time.
It's inherently reactionary and to lead to overuse, overreach, admission, creep.
War is something you do sparingly on our own terms
and with clear aims.

Speaker 2 (02:22):
We fight to win.

Speaker 3 (02:24):
We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy.

Speaker 1 (02:30):
That all makes sense, so abundance sense to me. But
when I hear and I know this is what we
had until after World War Two in terms of the
War Department, when I hear that notion of the Department
of War, the Secretary of War. I think it raises
a lot of red flags for those who are wary

(02:50):
of war, who are tired of it, who say are
millennials who've grown up with nothing but that, or at
least that's the mindset myself. For example, I was a
eleven when nine to eleven happened. We went into Afghanistan
very quickly after that, and before we knew it, we
were in Iraq as well, and we've really had a
presence in both of those countries ever since, although it's

(03:13):
significantly less today, very small today. But when we look
at this messaging aspect to the enemy, sure it should
send a signal that America is ready, willing and prepared
fully to engage in a decisive military victory. But we

(03:40):
have much more need day to day for defense. Right
That's the day to day need is not to fight wars.
We want to stay out of wars. But when we
hear Department of War and then we hear about the
strikes happening off the coast of Venezuela and other military engagement,
and it gives the sense that, oh, are we going

(04:03):
into warner, I don't think that's what's happening. They're clearly
targeting off the coast of Venezuela, the drug cartels. That's
what they say, and I believe that's the objective and
that's who they're intending to target. Whether or not they
should be maybe a different question. Whether or not they
have the authority and all those circumstances may be a

(04:24):
different question. But it does give the sense that, Okay,
are we headed in the direction of war. And I
don't know that that's the message that President Trump, who's
all about ending endless wars than not engaging in new
ones unless necessary, that this is the president who should

(04:46):
be talking like that, and that it sort of undermines
the messaging of his administration or one of the points
of his administration. I mean, even the strike on Iran,
which I thought was brilliant. That was a show of
decisive leadership that reminded me of some of the things
like the strike on customs Sulimani, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard

(05:09):
leader who was taken out during Trump's first term. It
definitely heralded the memories of some of the successes of
Trump's term without engaging in a brand new war.

Speaker 2 (05:20):
This wasn't a war.

Speaker 1 (05:22):
This was a strike that was intended for America's defense. Now,
defense is intended to prevent war, fair enough, but is
that the Is that enough then to say, well, since
we're trying to prevent war, we should be the Department
of War. And if we are in war, we're going

(05:42):
to decisively win the war. Therefore we should be the
Defense or rather the war department. Text message coming in
on the koa common spirit health text line five sixty
six nine zero. Department of War symbolizes a short, decisive conflict. Well,
Department of Defense symbolizes a long drawn out conflict aka

(06:06):
nation building. Perhaps you're right, and I'm just not picking
up on that distinction, or it's not resonating with me.
But at a certain point, if this name sticks, although
Congress still has to get involved, this is just a
secondary name that they've chosen to use in the administration.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
If it gets approved.

Speaker 1 (06:27):
By Congress, if it sticks in place, and certainly will
throughout the duration of Trump's administration, at some point it'll
probably click with me.

Speaker 2 (06:36):
I get what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (06:37):
And that's the point that heg Seth was trying to
drive home in that part of his speech discussing the distinction.

Speaker 2 (06:47):
But I don't look at it that way.

Speaker 1 (06:50):
I think a lot of folks will look at it
and say, Okay, the US military has been engaged in
long drawn out conflicts, so they don't necessarily register Department
of Defense in that context. But now they start hearing
Department of War, and there are some build ups happening,
there's some.

Speaker 2 (07:06):
New actions it.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
I'm not sure that it actually accomplishes the significance that
you're expressing there that heg Seth is sharing five six
six nine zero is the KOA Common Spirit Health text line.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. I'm just saying
it's not resonating with me. I'm curious later on in
the program, when we talk with retired Brigadier General Doug
Odie Slocum the US Air Force, what his take is

(07:32):
on the department name chain. It is a fascinating one.
That's for darn shore. But we are just getting started.
I'm Jimmy Sangenberger filling in for Roskaminski. We'll pick up
the conversation on the other side as we continue right
here on KOA. I would be remiss when you'd never
know what comes up during the break A. Rod and

(07:53):
I are chatting and well, sang in Berger, it's all ease.

Speaker 2 (08:00):
All the time.

Speaker 1 (08:01):
There's no AI or you and sang in Berger. Once
you know that it's ease, thank you brother. Well, that
doesn't mean that you necessarily pronounce it right correct. Tell
us what you had when you were in your car.
So I have a really nice Apple car Play.

Speaker 4 (08:19):
So it's got Twain the sweet texting in the Google
maps and all of the sorts. Well, yesterday, on my
way home, our program director Dave Tepper linking us up
all via text chat, making.

Speaker 2 (08:32):
Sure we're all on board for today's show.

Speaker 4 (08:35):
And my text, my text from car Play goes Dave
Tepper in a group text with Jimmy Senjen.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
Verger and it reads the text.

Speaker 4 (08:45):
So the car Play hasn't jumped on board yet in
terms of in terms of the last name, my friend.

Speaker 1 (08:51):
Now you had the thought for whether it's Jimmy Sangenberger
filling in for Ross Kamanskier, Mandy Connell.

Speaker 2 (08:56):
If you get a text anything with my name, if.

Speaker 1 (08:58):
You spelled it with the I and do you maybe
it would pronounce it correct.

Speaker 2 (09:04):
I venture to guess if you do.

Speaker 4 (09:06):
Indeed, put the eyes in there, mister Jimmy, I think
it would say it right, and that is disappointing.

Speaker 2 (09:12):
But there is no AI or you and Segenburger. It's
all ease all the time.

Speaker 1 (09:16):
Come on, technology, catch up with the pronunciation. Hey, at
least you spell it right in your phone. I'm proud
of you.

Speaker 2 (09:24):
I do. It's hard. It's hard to get it wrong.

Speaker 4 (09:26):
If anyone ever gets it wrong after you letting the
people know, then they're bad listeners.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
And we don't want bad listeners. Good thing is our
KOA listeners are the best listeners.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
Yes they are. And they're singing is always burgering.

Speaker 1 (09:39):
They're saying is always burgering. I just hope my saying
is burgering. And I'm glad to be here. Jimmy Sangenberger
in for Ross Kaminski five six six nine zero KOA
Common Spirit health text line. The government shutdown is underway.
It is happening, and guess what, I don't really care
very much.

Speaker 2 (10:01):
I'm sorry. It's just that they're going to sort this out.

Speaker 1 (10:05):
Neither party is gonna want it to drone on, even
though Trump and the Republicans are doing their best to
blame the Democrats, who are probably more at fault on
this one, absolutely, the Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and
so forth.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
But the standoff will end.

Speaker 1 (10:28):
Regardless of who you blame, the standoff will eventually end.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
And you know what, I'm okay with the Trump.

Speaker 1 (10:36):
Administration looking at the shutdown crisis and going the ram
and manual route of let's never let a good crisis
go to waste and using this opportunity to say goodbye,
thank you for your service to the American people. Is
no longer required to employees all across the country. And

(10:59):
in fact, this is something that Vice President JD. Vance
was asked by Real Clear Politics Phil Wegman about GOP
and the opportunity that they see. This clip starts with
a little bit from President Trump, then Wegman's question, and
then Vance's response.

Speaker 5 (11:14):
We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible,
that are bad for them and irreversible by them.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
Trim the budget to a level that you couldn't do
any other way.

Speaker 3 (11:25):
Swear that circle is which is a democratic caused crisis
or a Republican opportunity for reform.

Speaker 6 (11:31):
I think all the President is saying, Phil, is that
he wants to make sure the American people's government functions
as well as it can despite the fact that we're
going to shutdown. We're going to have to make things work,
and that means that we're gonna have to trias some
certain things. That means certain people are going to have
to get laid off, and we're going to try to
make sure that the American people suffer as little as
possible from the shutdown. That's what the President is saying,

(11:52):
is that, yes, this is a bad thing. Obviously, the
President is trying to reopen the government, but we're going
to make things work as well as we possibly can
given the constraints that we have.

Speaker 1 (12:01):
That was a good answer, and I think he's on
point there. Just skim slim down government. The problem is
that when they come back and finally vote in a
shutdown bill, it's going to be massive spending and it's
not going to be conservative. It's not going to be
streamlining or shrinking government or reducing spending. So on the

(12:24):
one hand, they're gonna do some things for slim and
the government, like Vance just talked about. On the other hand,
longer term or even in the short term, really with
the spending that they're going to move forward with when
a deal is eventually reached. Unfortunately, it's going to undercut
that a little bit. Oh, but that's the way things
go in Washington, DC. I'm j B saying in Burger

(12:48):
filling in for Ross Kaminski.

Speaker 2 (12:50):
On the other.

Speaker 1 (12:50):
Side, China, Trump and Taiwan some important developments over the
course of the last couple of weeks, and I'm going
to break it down on the other side as.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
We continue on KOA, I got a.

Speaker 1 (13:00):
Text I want to answer because this gets to the
crux of the shutdown arguments going on in DC five
sixty six nine zero KOA Common Spirit health text line.

Speaker 2 (13:17):
Democrats say.

Speaker 1 (13:20):
They want to restore dollars for Obamacare. Republicans say it's
for undocumented aliens.

Speaker 2 (13:27):
Who's telling the truth.

Speaker 1 (13:29):
Well, let's go on the illegal immigrants side, because it's
a simple search.

Speaker 2 (13:36):
Col Matters non partisan.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
In nonprofit, nonprofit and non partisan news got to get
the order right.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
And this came out in May.

Speaker 1 (13:48):
Of this year, a year after granting medical access to
low income immigrants without legal status. Medical is the medicaid
system in California, that's what they call it. Governor Gavin
Newsom is proposing to freeze enrollment of new recipients and

(14:09):
charge premiums in a move expected to save the state
more than five million.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
A billion dollars.

Speaker 1 (14:20):
Under Newsom's proposal announced today, Medical the state's health insurance
program for low income.

Speaker 2 (14:25):
People those are disabilities.

Speaker 1 (14:27):
And my understanding has been that Medical is part parcel
of Medicaid.

Speaker 2 (14:37):
Yes it is.

Speaker 1 (14:38):
It's just double verifying that. For a second, I was like,
wait a second, what's going on here?

Speaker 2 (14:42):
It is.

Speaker 1 (14:43):
Beginning in twenty twenty six, would no longer accept new
enrollies nineteen and older who lack permanent legal status. The
one point six million immigrants already signed up would not
lose their medical coverage, and children could still enroll. All
undocumented Californians would still be covered for emergency medical and

(15:05):
pregnancy care, so called limited scope coverage that is paid
for with federal dollars, but those who don't enroll before
January twenty twenty six would be uncovered for other medical expenses,
such as prescription drugs and doctor's visits.

Speaker 2 (15:24):
This is from May of this year.

Speaker 1 (15:28):
Medical Governor Newsom proposing freezing enrollment.

Speaker 2 (15:34):
Of people who.

Speaker 1 (15:35):
Do not have permanent legal status ergo. Yes, illegal immigrants
are receiving Medicaid, particularly in California.

Speaker 2 (15:46):
That is a fact, and.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
That is from the governor of California himself wanted to
pull the plug on something he.

Speaker 2 (15:53):
Did a year before.

Speaker 1 (15:56):
As for the claims about healthcare funding and the Obamacare subsidies,
there's an editorial from a day or two ago in
the Wall Street Journal that deconstructs this and how Democrats
are saying they're going to be higher premiums if the
Republican Party doesn't extend Obamacare subsidies that are set to

(16:19):
expire at the end of this year.

Speaker 2 (16:22):
They write the.

Speaker 1 (16:23):
Editorial, Democrats set a twenty twenty five expiration date to
make the Inflation Reduction Act look less expensive over a
ten year budget window, but fully expecting that Congress would
extend the subsidies. Again, no Republican voted for that bill,

(16:46):
but now some are too frightened to let the super
subsidies expire. Despite what you may read. Letting them expire
woodn't cut the Affordable Care Act, someone at one hundred
percent of the poverty line would still, on average pay
merely three dollars and forty five cents a week in

(17:07):
premiums for the cheapest middle tier plan. According to Brian
Blaze of Paragon Health Institute Trevor Carlson of the Foundation
for Government Accountability, taxpayers would still pay ninety eight percent
of the premium and the cost would run roughly fifty
two dollars a week for a person at wait for it,

(17:30):
two hundred and fifty percent of the poverty line, with
taxpayers picking up more than two.

Speaker 2 (17:36):
Thirds of the premium. So two things are going on here.

Speaker 1 (17:39):
One, Democrats ten years ago did this extension and expanded
the subsidies, and they set it for a time year
ten year time window. Not a single Republican voted for
that bill. And now ten years later, Republicans are supposed
to just accept with the Democrats did ten years ago,

(18:01):
without any changes, without any concerns, just extend it because
the Dems. One, I don't think. So that's number one
that's going on. Number two is that actually the reality
is if they didn't do this particular thing, you'd still
have access to these plans and affordable coverage if you

(18:24):
qualify under Obamacare for Obamacare. So the answer is the
Republicans are right, they are not gutting the Affordable Care Act.

Speaker 2 (18:37):
Here Number one and number Two.

Speaker 1 (18:40):
The fact is that illegal immigrants, particularly in California, are
receiving Medicaid.

Speaker 2 (18:51):
Again, that is a fact.

Speaker 1 (18:54):
So yeah, the Republicans are actually right on this one,
and maybe they'll get at a little bit of mileage
in terms of slimming some of the bureaucracy in DC.

Speaker 2 (19:05):
But at the.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
Same time, again, as they said before, the spending won't
go down. They're going to continue to increase that They're
going to keep it a minimum at Biden levels.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
When they should be scaling it back.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
They are Republicans who at least pay lip service to
fiscal responsibility, and we don't really get that from Congress,
and the President isn't pushing for it using his leverage. Unfortunately,
I'll take the reduction in the bureaucracy, but man, if
only they.

Speaker 2 (19:37):
Would actually do that. Texts saying the government shut down.

Speaker 1 (19:43):
We need to figure out how to run Washington without Congress.

Speaker 2 (19:46):
Or the Senate.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
Don't tell me that whoever is in power will ever
go against the party the president in power. Maybe a
fifty to fifty Senate in Congress will make things run better. Possibly, possibly,
but I tend to think non. I think you'd end
up with more gridlock. But you know, some of us

(20:08):
do kind of like gridlock. So I don't know, an
open question. Let's turn to something else I think is
so important but not discussed nearly enough. And it was
my Tuesday column in the Denver Gazette entitled Colorado needs
Trump to bet on Taiwan. I mean, the reality is, folks,

(20:28):
that the Chinese Communist Party is and has been playing
the long game. In nineteen forty nine, Taiwan the People's
are the Republic of China, became its own entity. Then
the People's Republic of China became China, representing the mainland

(20:52):
China and China. The Chinese Communist Party has claimed Taiwan
as part of it, even though it is not.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
There's a long story there as to.

Speaker 1 (21:04):
The actual history in Shang Kai Shek and what happened
with the Chinese Communist Revolution Mao's Revolution and then the
establishment of Taiwan is the Republic of China, so on
and so forth. But China has since nineteen forty nine
falsely claimed that Taiwan must return to Chinese control. Again,

(21:28):
Taiwan isn't and never has been, part of China. Now
for decades, the US has stood as a bulwark against China,
particularly visa VI Taiwan. There's a bipartisan consensus around trade
and security with Taiwan, and that balance is now at risk.
For a little bit of context, back in twenty twenty two,

(21:52):
this time in twenty twenty two, almost this time, it
was October of twenty twenty two, I had the privilege
of going to Taiwan, first and only country. Believe it
or not, I've been to outside of the United States,
only one up to this day. And I was there
as part of an international press tour, one of three
American journalists. There were twenty five from around the world.

(22:15):
It was really a fascinating experience. Taught me a lot
about the sort of the perspective that they're coming from
in Taiwan, so on and so forth, and it gave
me a bit of a more of a passion because
you can see when you have the Chinese Communist Party

(22:36):
mere miles off your coast, across the Taiwan Strait, and
they have eyes on invading you, and you are a
democratic society that prides itself on freedom and opportunity, of

(22:57):
course you are going to doggedly want to maintain that
freedom and opportunity and never want the Chinese Communist Party
or any other authoritarian dictatorship to take control.

Speaker 2 (23:09):
And rule you. When Taiwan.

Speaker 1 (23:13):
Twenty twenty five years ago left the dictatorship that they
had for several decades and became a democracy, they don't.

Speaker 2 (23:22):
Want to go back. That says a lot.

Speaker 1 (23:25):
Give some context too to where I'm coming from on
some of this. Now. I saw over the weekend, The
Wall Street Journal reported that Chinese President Shijinping believes that
he could convince President Trump to explicitly oppose Taiwanese independence
in exchange for a trade deal. Now, the way that

(23:47):
the United States has viewed Taiwan since nineteen the nineteen
seventies is that we have unofficial relations with Taiwan. So
they don't have a consulate in the United States, for example,
they don't have consulates. They have the Taipei Economic and
Cultural Office. We have one in Denver, and there's another

(24:09):
name for their equivalent to an embassy. We don't recognize
them as an independent country, but we have been affirming
the status quo, the idea that Taiwan can govern its
own affairs, Mainland China can govern its own affairs, and
it's sort of the one China policy in a sense
of recognition on the world stage, that we recognize China

(24:32):
as a country, we don't recognize Taiwan as a country.
And I don't like that status quo, but that's the
way that it is. And Shijinping wants to pull back.
So the United States explicitly says they oppose, We oppose
Taiwanese independence, and in exchange the United States we get
a trade deal.

Speaker 2 (24:52):
Meanwhile, President Trump.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
Is weighing a one to one domestic to import ratio
for compute chips. That is to say, manufacturers would be
required to produce one chip here for everyone made overseas,
or they'd face tariffs of up to one hundred percent. Now,
clearly both of these proposals directly tie to Trump's trade agenda,

(25:20):
and in this case, both would decisively undercut US interests
and Colorado's directly. If Trump really wants to maintain his
status as a China Hawk to keep that global street cred,
he would be wise to push back on Shijinping here
and also rethink his own chip plan.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
By the way, the United States.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
Is Taiwan's seventh largest trading partner three point six to
seven billion dollars in twenty twenty four. America is Taiwan's
top source of agricultural imports, Colorado among the key states.
In fact, this month, they had a delegation with their
agriculture minister to the US pledging ten billion dollars in

(26:13):
American beef, soybeans, corn wheat purchases over four years, and
Colorado lawmakers did notice this. I didn't realize this until
I was researching for my denver Zet column, but earlier
this year, the General Assembly actually passed a bipartisan resolution
highlighting Taiwan as one of Colorado's top ten trading partners

(26:35):
quote both as an export destination and as an import source.
In fact, Lieutenant Governor Diane Primavera last year late last
year Senate delegation was part of it led the delegation
to Taiwan over high tech industries from aerospace to semiconductors.

(26:56):
Taiwanese delegation visited high tech Colorado. Taiwan produces more than
sixty percent of the world semiconductors, ninety percent of the
world's most advanced chips, and there's a company TSMC Taiwan
Semiconductor manufacturing company that's the primary one responsible for these chips,

(27:21):
manufacturing them the semiconductors that are the key component of
the chips, and therein lies the rub With this possible
one to one mandative trumps, it won't just rattle global markets,
it'll jam supply, spark shortages, probably send prices soaring from
laptops and phones to cars and even Colorado's farm tractors.

Speaker 2 (27:44):
This would be a bad idea.

Speaker 1 (27:47):
It's also really important to just keep in mind the
United States does.

Speaker 2 (27:52):
Not have the capacity. We don't have the capacity to
just double.

Speaker 1 (27:56):
Domestic production overnight. We don't have the workforce or the
infrastructure to do it either, particularly in terms of skilled workforce,
building new fabrication plants. It's gonna take years and billions
of dollars, and even then ramping up production takes time.

(28:16):
It's also going to kneecap Taiwan and Taiwan we have
a mutually beneficial relationship Taiwan towns on Chipex sports to
America like Colorado and the United States has a reliance
as well in terms of the resources that are brought

(28:37):
over here through those trade sales. But the independence it's
not just about trade it's also strategic deterring Chinese Communist
Party aggression, helping to stabilize the Pacific.

Speaker 2 (28:54):
It's not that Taiwan is just a trading partner.

Speaker 1 (28:57):
Really is a free, democratic counterbalance to authoritarian China, and
it would be disastrous if Beijing absorbed Taiwan.

Speaker 2 (29:05):
They'd control the world's.

Speaker 1 (29:07):
Chips supply, and the consequences for Asia, for America, for
the globe would be devastating. Taiwan is the start of
as Debbie Wang, the Director General of the Taipei Economic
and Cultural Office in Denver, told me, it is at

(29:28):
the heart of Asia's first island chain. We play a
vile role in resisting authoritarian expansion.

Speaker 2 (29:37):
She told me. It's not just about the distant future.

Speaker 1 (29:39):
It's happening now and points to She points to Chinese
ships and planes constantly circling the Taiwan straight that is happening.
It's military pressure, it's economic coercion, NonStop disinformation campaigns and
cyber attacks, just as she has been saying. Debbie Huang
again representing the Taiwanese government here in Denver now as

(30:02):
a China Hawk, the last thing that President Trump should
do is retreat on US support for Taiwan handing to
Jijing ping exactly what he wants under the guise of
a trade deal.

Speaker 2 (30:14):
Isn't just going to embolden Beijing.

Speaker 1 (30:16):
It's it would undercut Trump's own push to boost the
American production of TSMC again, that semiconductor manufacturer from Taiwan.

Speaker 2 (30:27):
They're planning to expand production here.

Speaker 1 (30:29):
He'd undercut that and leave she on a stronger global footing.

Speaker 2 (30:35):
That'll be terrible.

Speaker 1 (30:37):
Pete Hegseeth, the Secretary of War, said that he's going
to be speaking soon about the China threat.

Speaker 2 (30:45):
While this is pivotal to it.

Speaker 1 (30:47):
Again, Taiwan isn't just a bargaining chip for short term
economic gains. It is, as I write in my column
Tuesday in the Denver Gazette, a lynch pin of the
global economy in a check on Chinese aggression. Trump's first
term show to understood that, and hopefully it's a sign
that she won't get what he wants. Trump also needs

(31:13):
to champion Taiwan's place in the international system.

Speaker 2 (31:17):
There are limitations on this going.

Speaker 1 (31:19):
Back to nineteen seventy one, when the seat representing China
went from Taiwan to mainland China and the Communist Party
in a UN resolution twenty seven to fifty eight. Now,
the CCP has used this to isolate Taiwan, even though
that resolution never actually addressed Taiwan's political status or Bartet's participation.

(31:43):
Taiwan is now looking for what's called they call meaningful participation,
not membership in the UN or UN bodies. The WHO
or the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is the international
group that handles air traffic.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
Is not part of that. They have one point eight million.

Speaker 1 (32:03):
Flights a year that go through Taiwan through Taipei, the capital,
and they're not part of the international organization that deals
with civil air traffic.

Speaker 2 (32:18):
They should be.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
Trump passed the champion Taiwan's place in the international system
and scrap.

Speaker 2 (32:26):
That chips mandate.

Speaker 1 (32:28):
Xijingping is betting that he'll trade away Taiwan for a deal.

Speaker 2 (32:33):
Don't take that bet.

Speaker 1 (32:37):
America's priority, as I close in my column in the Denver,
because that must be clear, stand with the democratic ally
that czechs Beijing and fuels our innovation. Colorado's economy depends
on it, so does the free world. My piece, by
the way, entitled Colorado needs Trump to bet on Taiwan

(32:58):
expands on some of these points a little bit more,
but it really is critical, especially if we're going to
confront China effectively, and unfortunately some of the trade policies
are undercutting that too. I'm to be saying in Burger
filling in for Ross Kaminski, the first hour is under wraps.
We've got two more up ahead as we continue right

(33:20):
here on KOA. We have this government shut down. Talked
about it a little bit on the program, But one
thing that I find interesting is the language, the way
in which people are talking about this shutdown, or about
Trump or what have you. And it's especially interesting when

(33:43):
the Speaker of the House puts it in a way
that makes you scratch your head, going, why'd you use
that word to describe the president in being asked about
the crisis of the shutdown? Because of course it has
to be a crisis, is the GP In essence? The
question was taking advantage of this crisis so you can

(34:05):
downsize government, reducing the number of employees.

Speaker 2 (34:09):
Here's what Speaker Johnson said.

Speaker 7 (34:10):
Well, I can tell you right now the president has
been a benevolent president. He's he is mitigating.

Speaker 2 (34:16):
The harm right now.

Speaker 7 (34:17):
Omb has not come out of the blocks and fired
a bunch of people.

Speaker 2 (34:19):
That's time they.

Speaker 7 (34:20):
Should well, it provides an opportunity. Chuck Schumer has provided
the Trump White House with an opportunity to downsize the
government on priorities and policies and personnel that they deemed
to be non essential.

Speaker 2 (34:32):
Now Chuck Schumer has a.

Speaker 7 (34:33):
Very different priorities about federal disture priority.

Speaker 2 (34:35):
You're the Speaker of the House.

Speaker 7 (34:37):
I certainly want to downsize the size and scope.

Speaker 2 (34:39):
So do you think that.

Speaker 8 (34:40):
The people who are maybe furloughed right now, or even
you know, working without pay, should be on the chopping block?

Speaker 2 (34:48):
For no, I wouldn't.

Speaker 7 (34:49):
I wouldn't say that because the people that are furlowed
right now are hard work in Americans, federal workers.

Speaker 1 (34:53):
Who should be fired during the shutdown.

Speaker 7 (34:54):
I don't know. You'd have to show me a proposal
of what is being proposal. I don't have it either, but.

Speaker 9 (34:59):
I have.

Speaker 1 (35:01):
Downsizing the size and scope of government one phrase he uses.
Although let's be clear, Speaker Johnson, you are talking about potentially.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
Cutting the number of federal workers, which.

Speaker 1 (35:14):
I'm all for reduced to bureaucracy, But are you really
talking about reducing or downsizing the size and scope of
government in Congress. Are you going to eliminate programs, are
you going to cut departments, or are you going to
reduce federal spending? I don't think so, And in part

(35:37):
I don't think so because frankly, President Trump doesn't want.

Speaker 2 (35:39):
To do that. I also was struck by this language.

Speaker 7 (35:43):
Well, I can tell you right now, the president has
been a benevolent president.

Speaker 1 (35:48):
A benevolent president. I've never heard of that phrase before. Usually,
I don't know, I feel like he's giving some of
that left wing fodder or fodder or to the left.
When you hear benevolent, usually hear the term benevolent dictator,
which Trump is not a dictator. He is an elected

(36:09):
president of the United States who's doing some overreaching. But
every president going back decades and decades has consistently expanded
the power and role of the president.

Speaker 2 (36:22):
Trump is just the latest to do it.

Speaker 1 (36:25):
But benevolent president, I just I found that to be
a really strange choice of words. But then Johnson was
asked about Schumer and the left wing challenges that Schumer
is facing from people like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocassio Cortes.

Speaker 7 (36:47):
He's afraid he's going to get a challenge from his
left flank, and AOC or someone else will run against
him for his tendency. So Chuck Schumer has to put
up a fight, yeah, and pretend that he's fighting the president,
fighting Republicans now.

Speaker 1 (36:59):
AOC, in fact, on MSNBC asked about whether or not
she might be challenging Chuck Schumer. She completely dodged that question.

Speaker 2 (37:09):
But did frame it.

Speaker 1 (37:10):
In a way that I thought, going back to the
language of the thing, was rather clever to be honest,
to listen, this.

Speaker 8 (37:19):
Is so not about me in this moment. This is
about people being able to ensure their children. And I
will say because I saw some senators speculating about this,
and I saw some Republican members of Congress saying, oh, well,
if we have this shutdown, it's because of AOC. Well,

(37:40):
if that's the case, my office is open and you
are free to walk in and negotiate with me directly.

Speaker 2 (37:47):
That's the clever part. I don't like AOC.

Speaker 1 (37:52):
She's radical left and has designs on the country that
I think would be absolutely terrifying and tear a ball.

Speaker 2 (38:01):
But it's clever to say, well, if you're.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
Talking about me as being the powerbroker, the person behind
the Democrats, because now she is that person. Everybody's talking
about her as being representative of why the Democrats are
not willing to play ball with Republicans on this, and
so she says, well, then negotiate with me directly. I

(38:24):
think that's a clever way to put this. Meanwhile, there's
a tremendous amount of growing speculation about what is going
to happen with AOC. Is she going to challenge Chuck Schumer?
And I think that's twenty twenty six that Schumer will
be back on the ballut maybe it's twenty twenty Okay,

(38:45):
it looks like it's twenty twenty eight, yeah, Fox News reporting.
Rumors have swirled about squad Democratic Rep. Alexandria Casio Cortez's
political future since she joined Senator Bernie Sanders high profile.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
Fight the Oligaucky Tour earlier this year.

Speaker 1 (39:06):
The youngest woman ever elected to Congress has become a
leading progressive voice in the Democratic Party of massing millions
of social media followers and sparking speculation about a potential
US CENT run or White House bid in twenty twenty eight.
Her rise to the national stage comes as Democrats look
for fresh leadership after losing up and down the ballot

(39:29):
last year. I guess then this indicates that Schumer's not
up until twenty twenty eight.

Speaker 2 (39:35):
For some reason, I thought it was twenty twenty six.

Speaker 1 (39:37):
Either way, her chief of staff and campaign manager are
both alumni of Bernie Sanders campaign. Mike Kaska, her chief
of staff, was formerly sanders deputy chief of staff and
a fixture of Sanders political operation, both on the presidential
campaign trail and back on Capitol Hill. Her campaign mager,

(40:00):
Oliver Hidalgo walin Ben, has been has worked in politics
for over a decade.

Speaker 2 (40:07):
Prior to joining AOC's.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
Team in twenty twenty three, he was the political director
of Sanders super Pac Friends of Bernie Sanders, according to
his LinkedIn.

Speaker 2 (40:15):
Okay, so the speculation is swirling.

Speaker 1 (40:18):
Could AOC run for US Senate against Chucky Schumer or
will she run for president in twenty twenty eight. Either way,
Republicans seem to be helping to make the grease the
skids a little bit by attacking her because that boost profile.
It's like Trump getting attacked boosts his profile when he says, Oh,

(40:40):
look at how the left's attacking me boost this profile
similarly for AOC, It'll be fascinating to watch. But I
do think it's clever language to say, hey, you're making
me out to be the person behind the democrats negotiating
position on the shutdown, and come and negotiate with me directly.

(41:01):
My office door is open. I think it might be
interesting to do that, to have Speaker Johnson go to
her office and say, hey, let's have a conversation. AOCI
doesn't mean they're going to get anywhere, but it could
have some interesting prospects.

Speaker 2 (41:17):
What do you think?

Speaker 1 (41:18):
Koa comments Spirit Health text line five sixty six nine zero.

Speaker 2 (41:22):
Got to take a break.

Speaker 1 (41:23):
I'm Jimmy Sangenberger filling in for Ross Kaminski right here
and kaoa good.

Speaker 2 (41:27):
To be with you as I see.

Speaker 1 (41:30):
I don't know why we have ABC on with the
views still, but it is on the TV right in
front of me, and they are talking about comments made
by Pope Francis, presumably the comments I was going to
play to discuss right now now, excuse me, Pope Leo,
not Pope France as may he rest in peace. This

(41:50):
is what Pope Leo said just yesterday when asked about
a Lifetime Achievement award being given to a Catholic US
Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, who is of course extraordinarily
pro abortion.

Speaker 10 (42:07):
Says I'm against abortion, but says I'm in favor of
the death penalty is.

Speaker 2 (42:11):
Not really pro life.

Speaker 10 (42:12):
So someone who says that I'm against abortion, but I'm
in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants or in
the United States, I don't know if that's pro life.
So they're very complex issues. I don't know if anyone
has all the truth on them. But I would ask
first and foremost that there'd be greater respect for one

(42:33):
another and that we search together both as human beings
in that case, as American citizens or citizens of the
state of Illinois, as well as Catholics, to say we
need to, you know, really look closely at all of
these ethical issues and to find the way forward as church.
The church teaching on each one of those issues is very.

Speaker 2 (42:54):
Clear, So that is being used.

Speaker 1 (42:57):
Those comments from the father, the leader of the Roman
Catholic Church and I am Catholic myself.

Speaker 2 (43:05):
Have been used to really.

Speaker 1 (43:09):
Criticize President Trump. But you have to notice something about
his wording. First, he's very clear he's saying, you can't
be for the death penalty and be pro life. But
when he gets to the part about immigration, he says,
I don't know if that's pro life. Now you can

(43:30):
interpret that as him explicitly saying, oh, I'm denouncing Trump's policy,
but I don't. I think he's calling on Americans to
be introspective and to consider how we do treat it
legal immigrants, because look, we need to crack down on
legal immigration. Deportations need to happen, especially when it comes

(43:52):
to criminals, and particularly violent criminals and drug dealers like
Trendy Aragua and so forth. But does that mean that
you can't enforce the law. Well, no, you need to
do those things. At the same time, treating people with
dignity is very important, and so the way he framed that,

(44:13):
I think was a valid reminder and not the left
wing take that we keep getting when Pope Leo's comments
are made about this. Now here's Caroline Levitt, the White
House Press Secretary, ask specifically about this, and she herself
is Catholics.

Speaker 11 (44:30):
Well, I would reject there is in humane treatment of
illegal immigrants in the United States under this administration. There was, however,
significant in humane treatment of illegal immigrants in the previous administration,
as they were being trafficked and raped and beaten, in
many cases killed over our United States southern border. You
also look at the inhumane treatment at the hands of

(44:50):
some of these illegal immigrants that took place under the
previous administration as well. Lake and Riley comes to mind
a beautiful American citizen who was killed at the hands
have been illegal immigrants. So this administration is trying to
enforce our nation's laws in the most humane way possible,
and we're upholding the law, and we're doing that on

(45:10):
the on behalf of the people of our country who
live here.

Speaker 1 (45:15):
I think that was very effective turning it around and saying, look,
by enforcing immigration laws like this, we are going to
help people who are being killed by some illegal immigrants,
or drugs, or kids that are being trafficked into this country, etc.
By discouraging the flow of illegal immigration. There is a

(45:38):
humanitarian aspect to enforcing immigration laws, and Caroline Levitt laid
that out.

Speaker 2 (45:44):
So I think there is more nuance to what.

Speaker 1 (45:47):
The Pope said there as is often the case, and
to just run in the direction of well, I mean
these people are not pro life because of their immigration
views support what Trump's doing. I don't think you can
just categorically say that's what he's saying. On the other hand,
is very clear about abortion and that it isn't pro life,

(46:09):
like if you're a Democrat criticizing that.

Speaker 2 (46:12):
Now, that does raise the question about Dick Durbin and.

Speaker 1 (46:16):
Anyway, it is really interesting to see how this all
plays out.

Speaker 2 (46:20):
We are overdue for a break though. When we come back.

Speaker 1 (46:23):
Retired Brigadier General Doug's local will join us his perspectives
on Pete Hegsath's speech the other night, to change a
name from Department of Defense to Department of War, and
so much more as we continue right here on KOA.
Is the military tough enough? Heck, are our generals tough enough?
Have they been working out like they should? Here is

(46:45):
Secretary of War Pete Hegsath speaking two nights ago.

Speaker 3 (46:50):
Frankly, it's tiring to look out at combat formations or
really any formation and see fat troops. Likewise, it's completely
unaccepted to see fat generals and admirals in the halls
of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country in
the world.

Speaker 2 (47:05):
It's a bad look. It is bad and it's not
who we are.

Speaker 3 (47:09):
So whether you're an airborne ranger or a chairborne ranger,
a brand new private or a four star general, you
need to meet the height and weight standards.

Speaker 2 (47:17):
And pass the PT test.

Speaker 3 (47:20):
And as the Chairman said, yes there is no PT test,
but today, at my direction, every member of the Joint
Force at every rank is required to take.

Speaker 2 (47:28):
A PT test twice a year, as well as.

Speaker 3 (47:32):
Meet height and weight requirements twice a year every year
of service.

Speaker 2 (47:38):
No fat fruits, no fat generals.

Speaker 1 (47:41):
That's an interesting aspect to the speech the other night,
which was in many respects a very powerful speech. But
how are we to interpret that what's going on with
some of the latest military moves visa the Russia.

Speaker 2 (47:53):
And there war in Ukraine and more.

Speaker 1 (47:56):
Let's see what we can fit in with our next actually,
our first guest today on the program, very pleased to
be joined by retired Brigadier General Doug Slocomb. His call
signed in the Air Force ODIE. He's spent thirty five
years in the Air Force, in the Air National Guard
and is a command instructor pilot with more than four

(48:18):
thousand hours in the F four F sixteen and a
ten aircraft. He's the author of the book Violent Positivity,
a fighter pilot's journey, leadership, lessons on caring for people,
and just so happened to have had as a student.
The now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan

(48:41):
Raisin Cain. General Slocum joins me. Now, sir, welcome back
to KOA.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
Always good to talk with you, Jammy.

Speaker 12 (48:49):
It's great to talk with you today. I hope everything's
going great with you and the team there at KOA.

Speaker 1 (48:54):
So much going on, doing well and all the better
when we have so much to talk about with you, sir.

Speaker 2 (49:01):
So let's go right to the clip. I just played.

Speaker 1 (49:04):
Height and weight standards for the military need to be met.
He wants generals and admirals included twice a year to
pass a physical fitness test and so forth. What do
you a thirty five year veteran of the military and
thank you for your service, what do you make of that?

Speaker 12 (49:24):
Well, one, I'm going to start off by looking down
and saying, Okay, I'm not a fat general, so please
don't let's drive a life. But at the same time,
you know my entire tenure and everything we were doing
once a year.

Speaker 9 (49:38):
Pt.

Speaker 12 (49:39):
Tests with Santra physical training tests, and there was never
an exception as far as I know, we would go
out there or what doesn't matter, your age, doesn't matter,
your rank or whatever you did the test, you met
the standards. Period. Now I've been retired for about six years.
I don't know if that has changed. So maybe that's
just a hey, don't try and cut corners or anything

(50:00):
else kind of a messaging. Certainly, what we heard from
secondary a headsetet was that, you know, it was more
of I think at setting expectations of what he expects
from the troops, from leadership and all there, and we
can talk whatever aspects of it, but basically it's we're

(50:22):
going to stick with the standards. We're going to make
sure you know, the standards start at the top. And
I think there's probably been some gray areas on that
he's just trying to clarify.

Speaker 1 (50:31):
Yeah, that sounds about right to me, and it really
does make perfect sense, except we are in an age
where we have such advanced technologies. There's a lot of
things in warfare now that are behind a desk and
will necessarily be behind a desk, and I don't know
if we should necessarily be denying somebody who's more fat

(50:55):
or heavy set to sit behind a computer when we
want the best computor nerds in the world working for
the US military.

Speaker 12 (51:04):
Well, you know, you bring up a valid argument, but
I think that's a discussion that needs to be had
in decisions that have to be made. And I say
that because you know, I think nowadays there's probably somebody
sitting behind a keyboard in a basement that can probably
do way more damage than you know, any of the
top larriors you know, physically could, kinetically could in a

(51:26):
lot of ways. So there's an argument to be made.
But the fact is the standards have been and are
of the standards sort of compromising them just because of
you know, a thought or an interpretation. I think that's
a valid deliberative discussion to have. But then we need
to have the standards so reflect if that's the way
we want to go in the future. There's a lot

(51:47):
to be said for being in shape and being healthy also,
I mean anywhere from veterans benefits to you know, even
if you're sitting behind a keyboard, if you're fit and
that sort of thing, you're going to be more alert,
you're going to be able to do have higher endurance,
et cetera, et cetera. So I don't know. There's certainly
an argument that could be made both sides right there,
But I think it's a healthy discussion to have.

Speaker 1 (52:09):
Yeah, no, absolutely, and reinforcing this, I think is a
welcome takeaway from the speech and very critical when we
want to have the top notch fighting for us. He
addressed this in another fashion as well, which happens to
do with the idea of the Woke Department and politically

(52:30):
correct leadership.

Speaker 3 (52:31):
For too long, we've promoted too many uniform leaders for
the wrong reasons, based on their race, based on gender quotas,
based on historics, so called firsts. We've pretended that combat
arms and non combat arms.

Speaker 2 (52:46):
Are the same thing.

Speaker 3 (52:47):
We've weeded out so called toxic leaders under the guise
of double blind psychology assessments, promoting risk averse go along
to get along conformists instead.

Speaker 2 (52:58):
You name it. The Department did it. Foolish and reckless political.

Speaker 3 (53:03):
Leaders set the wrong compass heading and we lost our way.

Speaker 2 (53:09):
We became the Woke Department, but not anymore.

Speaker 1 (53:14):
Any said that the era of politically correct leadership ends
right now? What is your take General slocomb Ben on
the US military and the implementation of concepts like DEI
and other things that he describes as making the Department
of Defense now war the woke department and emphasizing overly
so politically correct leadership.

Speaker 12 (53:37):
Well, I mean, we could wallow into the politics of
some of this, but the reality is, you know, we
want the most capable individuals in those positions that give
us the maximum capability. And in this case, we're talking
about war fighting capability our term the defense of our nation,
and you know, to me, it always should be the
most capable person that we can possibly produce that end

(54:01):
up filling those roles. Now, if there's something that gets
in the way of that, I think that's something that
seriously should be looked at. And I think that's what
his interpretation is there. I mean, obviously he's a political appointee.
He can talk politics and everything else, but basically just saying,
you know, we want to make sure that we're promoting
and putting people in positions based on ability going forward.

(54:26):
You know, that would be my way of kind of
trying to get through the mud to get some clarity.

Speaker 1 (54:32):
One thing that has been really interesting to me again
we're talking with retired General Doug Slocum of the Air Force.
Is the change in name from Department of Defense to
Department of War. Here's a little bit of Secretary of
except on.

Speaker 3 (54:47):
That good morning, and welcome to the War Department because
the era of the Department of Defense is over. You
see the motto, So my first platoon was those who
longed for peace.

Speaker 2 (55:03):
Must prepare for war. This is, of course, not a
new idea. This crowd knows that the origin dates to the.

Speaker 3 (55:09):
Fourth century Rome and has been repeated ever since, including
by our first Commander in Chief, George Washington, the first
leader of the War Department. It captures a simple yet
profound truth. To ensure peace, we must prepare for war.

Speaker 1 (55:28):
Why do you make General Slocum of that DoD name
change Department of War? Of course, it's not official or
formal because Congress hasn't done it, but it is a
secondary name and they have fully adopted it in the
Trump administration.

Speaker 12 (55:43):
Well, I was just going to say that same caveat
you just said there at the end, which, of course
is that's not official, and that's kind of a foot stomper.
So the way he said it right there, when he
says the era the Department of Defense is over, I'm
not sure that that would be the most accurate statement.
So what I think they're trying to do is affect
a cultural change to get the focus of our military,

(56:08):
our different services back to the core emission of war fighting.
There's lots of other things we do, but we're there
for that purpose to be ready, and we have to
be ready. We have to have the capability, we have
to have the resolve in order to have effective deterrence.
And I think a lot of times, you know, with
things that have been going on, that ability to deter

(56:30):
might come into question. And we could talk, if you want,
about Russia and things going on over there. It might
be a great segue of what does it take to
deter potential adversary. And I think that war fighting focus
is part of what he's trying to affect as a
cultural change to the positive back into the military services.

Speaker 1 (56:51):
At the same time, I'm curious. I've been sort of
scratching my head on this one though, because to me,
when you say Department of War, for a lot of
people who've been especially grown up with war being a
constant thing in America, I was eleven, for example, when
nine to eleven happened, and so at middle school when
we invaded both Afghanistan and then Iraq, and we can

(57:12):
think about this there you go, the trajectory from then
to now and how involved we've been in overseas conflicts.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
And at the same time.

Speaker 1 (57:23):
As I get that message, it also like the intent
that they're trying to go for.

Speaker 2 (57:27):
It also seems to signal.

Speaker 1 (57:29):
That this is an administration that for people who just
sort of hear it, maybe heading more in the direction
of war with what we're seeing vis A v. Russia,
or the violence or the strikes happening off the coast
of Venezuela and so forth. At the same time as
we have this name change, and so sort of wonder if,

(57:52):
especially because you talk about conservative strong national defense has
been one of the planks for many decades. Ronald Reagan
was all about that strong national defense and peace, true
strength and the defensive capacity standpoint, and I'm not sure
if Department of War going back to that captures that
quite as much. Then again, Department of Defense is the
one that's kept us in conflicts and wars that most

(58:15):
of which we have not been very successful with At
least on the whole since World War Two.

Speaker 12 (58:21):
Well, and of course, you know we were originally the
Department of War. Yes, it you know, changed after World
War Two and everything going on there. So it let's
call it a legacy callback. And I think it's wanting
to harken back to our roots of being ready to
cite our nation's wars. You know, I think the word

(58:43):
war has a little political connotation to it with a
lot of people. Now it's just kind of like, you know,
being in the National Guard and I would use the
term militia and a lot of people just kind of
freak out because of what the connotation to that word means.
So I think it's just an interpretation. I think we're
really just dealing with a messaging issue with all of

(59:03):
this war versus Department of Defense whatever. Yeah, I think
it's just you know, trying to affect the focus of
our military forces back to what their core missions are.

Speaker 2 (59:15):
French soldiers you mentioned Russia.

Speaker 1 (59:18):
I have two French soldiers this week a boarded an
oil tanker believed to be part of Russia's shadow fleet,
used to as the BBC reports, evade sanctions imposed because
of the war in Ukraine. The French President said at
an EU leader's summon in Copenhagen yesterday that the crew

(59:39):
had committed serious offenses, although he did not elaborate. The
French Army chief of staff saying France may soon be
at war with Russia.

Speaker 2 (59:50):
You now have NATO.

Speaker 1 (59:53):
Making a variety of different moves, and in fact a
warning about what's happened with Russia, even warning this is war,
and that NATO from the Prime Minister of Poland warning
that NATO must abandon illusions and confront what he called
a new type of war. There's a lot going on here.

(01:00:15):
What do you think is going on at this point?

Speaker 12 (01:00:18):
General slogan, Well, Russia is definitely pushing the limits and
all they've they've always been very good about, you know,
pushing to see how far they can go. And I mean,
let's go from the airspace violations over Estonia to the
drones that have happened over GenMark. You know, there's so
many different examples right now, as well as the shadow

(01:00:39):
fleets and everything else, the cable cuttings that have been
going on. I think they're looking to see where NATO's
going to draw the line, and we're about to find
out what kind of resolved NATO has at what point.
There's Article five in Bulk where it's considered an attack
on a NATO country, And I think Russia is just
trying to stay in that gray zone that they've done,

(01:01:00):
you know, remarkably well I hate to say it that way,
but they are good at making it not so clear
that the military action constitutes an attack, and I think
we're just seeing them push the button and it's going
to lead to an issue when NATO, if NATO draws
the line, and I think we're getting close to seeing
something like that happen. You know, you have to kind

(01:01:24):
of keep in mind Russia from an economic standpoint is
not a powerhouse anymore whatsoever. They do still have a
large military that's kind of left over, as well as
nuclear weapons. Of course that kind of make them a
world player for now. But it's interesting to see Russia
try and reflex those muscles, especially with the consideration of

(01:01:48):
what's going on in Ukraine. So I think we're just
seeing them pushing the boundaries of what they could possibly
do and get away with.

Speaker 1 (01:01:54):
On the diplomatic front, Russia's Foreign ministry also saying that
the Cold War is over, a fiery conflict with the
West has now begun. The US has also made some
movements of assets over in Europe, and the list goes on.
As we were alluding to about what Europe is doing

(01:02:16):
as far as their steps, we have seen Trump, the
President of the United States, sort of I don't know,
I feel like vacillate on the issue of Russia. At
some points he's trying to play Kate Putin, it seems,
and be more friendly and is more positive in his
rhetoric about the leader of Russia and critical of Ukraine.

(01:02:37):
Sometimes has even made it as though Russia didn't start
the war and that it was Ukraine. But he's gotten
a little bit tougher in his rhetoric of late. I
think he's frustrated with Putin. How do you interpret the
president's stances of late? And also what do you think
if you were called in from the president or from

(01:02:58):
your old student, your formers student, the chief of staff
at the Joint Chiefs.

Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
Of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. There you go
Dan raising Kine for some advice.

Speaker 1 (01:03:09):
What would you suggest that they do visa the Russia
and deterrence.

Speaker 12 (01:03:14):
Well, like I said, I think the credibility of NATO
and everything at this point is really on the line. Uh,
and we need to figure out what that line is,
you know, what is the red line that if Russia
crosses there has to be a consequence, because if we
don't do anything, it's just going to continue to get pushed.
You know. The public statements and President Trump when it

(01:03:34):
comes to Russia, I'm not sure that necessarily accurately reflects,
you know, the diplomatic approach to what we're trying to
do with Russia, because you would see that the public
statements certainly have seemed to take a little bit of
a change of sentiments recently. I would hope that we've
been pretty tough with Russia all along. It's just really
hard to tell without having insider baseball knowledge of what's

(01:03:55):
going on behind closed doors.

Speaker 1 (01:03:56):
With that one, can you just underscore though, for a
moment general slope the importance and necessity of deterrence, especially
in a climate like this, with what we have seen
with Russia and Ukraine and the ongoing war lasting now
several years.

Speaker 12 (01:04:11):
Well, I mean, it's just the whole concept of you
want to be able to be not just strong enough,
you can have the greatest military. But you know, a
potential adversary has to know that you are willing and
capable of exercising that leadership, of employing that when necessary
in order for it to be a effective deterrence. Basically,
you want people to understand, you poke the bear, you

(01:04:33):
get a bloody nose. And if we're not you know,
not just capable of it, but if we don't have
the resolve to actually carry that out, then there's no
deterrence to be had. And you know, that's where we
can get into some very dangerous turf that we've seen
in history. If you know, studying some of the things
that the history especially that led us into our world
wars over in Europe, I think we see that, you know,

(01:04:56):
there is you know, complacency and letting people get away
with stuff, countries get away with things isn't necessarily a
good outcome. Yeah, ever in that way in history.

Speaker 1 (01:05:07):
Real quick final thing, General Doug Slocombe about thirty seconds
after Israel struck Cutter and we had a phone call
Freeway with the Prime Minister beaving Nan Yahoo with the
leadership of Cutter and President Trump. You now see a
news reports this week of President Trump providing security guarantees

(01:05:29):
to Cutter that are sort of natal like, but doing
it through an executive order.

Speaker 2 (01:05:33):
Real quickly, what do you make.

Speaker 12 (01:05:34):
Of this, Well, I'm not sure why the executive order
other than you know, or a public statement to be
able to, you know, just tell the world what's going on.
He is the commander in chief of the military, and
you know, we do have the ability to protect Cutter.
So I think it was a messaging thing to our
ally of Israel as you cross the line with us,

(01:05:55):
with this country that we want to get along with
at this point. So a little bit of a mess
I think to.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
Nat Yanhu, Yeah, really interesting times that we live in,
and hopefully the War Department discussion shows that strength and
fortitude and resolve that the United States needs to display
at this perilous moment. Retired Brigadier General Doug Odie Slocum, thanks.

Speaker 2 (01:06:18):
So much for your time, my friend. Always great to
have you on KOA.

Speaker 12 (01:06:21):
Jimmy, great to have you talk with you, and you know,
it's been good. Just continue supporting our wonderful troops in
our military. They're they're fantastic and I'm I hope piece prevails.

Speaker 2 (01:06:32):
My friend, Amen to that. We'll be back with another
hour up ahead.

Speaker 1 (01:06:35):
Jimmy and faross A ka koa common spirit health text
line five six six nine zero if you want to
participate in the festivities. Something I hadn't mentioned, but Chad
Bauer during the break before his newscast reminded me of

(01:06:58):
something I had posted that Lindsey Halligan, the new US
attorney for what is it the Eastern District of Virginia,
the US attorney who indicted James Comey, the former FBI director,
was a classmate of mine at Regis University. In fact,

(01:07:21):
we had at least a couple classes together that were
in politics. Were both politics majors. I think she had
a joint broadcast major something as well. But one of
the classes was literally just the two of us. It
happened to be, funnily enough, on the US Supreme Court.

(01:07:45):
We read a book on the court that was our
study material that, interestingly enough, was written by Jeffrey Tubin,
you know, CNN commentator and so.

Speaker 2 (01:07:56):
Forth, but really interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:07:58):
It was a good book in terms of breaking down
the Supreme Court. But I definitely remember Lindsay Halligan to
being very bright, and I think that she is being underestimated. Now,
on the one hand, I don't know how strong this
case is against Komi, and we will have to see
how effective she is at advancing this case, because I

(01:08:23):
don't know how strong it is.

Speaker 2 (01:08:25):
And that's the thing. Do you have the goods.

Speaker 1 (01:08:29):
You can be the best lawyer in the world, but
do you have what's needed to make the case is
a separate question. But she had clearly been as a
former beauty pageant contest, it and so forth. And we
see a lot of folks in the media talking about this,
Oh my gosh, look at this. She's a pretty Republican.
Therefore we need to attack her.

Speaker 2 (01:08:49):
Well. I think they are.

Speaker 1 (01:08:51):
Deeply underestimating her, but that she has always been underestimated
because she's pretty, because she's been a beauty pageant contest
and so on and so forth.

Speaker 2 (01:09:07):
But she is very bright.

Speaker 1 (01:09:10):
We had fascinating discussions in that class where it was
just the two of us and a professor for an
entire semester, and I think that they would be wise
not to underestimate Lindsay Halligan. And funnily enough, at the
same time, as we were both at Regis for a
couple of the years, Erica Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk.

(01:09:34):
May he rest in peace? Was it Regis now? I
don't recall her. Maybe we had classes or something together.
I don't think so. But she played basketball there for
a couple of years before she went to the University
of Arizona. So, funnily enough, Jimmy Sangenberger, Erica Kirk, and
Lindsay Halligan all were at Regis University.

Speaker 2 (01:09:53):
At the same time. Go figure go figure.

Speaker 1 (01:10:01):
Five six sixty nine zero is the text line koa
common spirit health. Jimmy No, the Department of War hearkens
back to just after World War Two, because or I
think you mean before World War two or until after
World War two wouldn't have changed the Department of Defense
because Trump is stuck in the nineteen fifties. As with

(01:10:22):
his tariffs, I suspect that Trump will not have to
meet the physical requirements as commander in chief that he
expects the elderly admirals and generals to have to meet.

Speaker 2 (01:10:31):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:10:33):
Rand Paul having some criticisms as well of President Trump's
announcement of his Peiser deal. It's something that honestly concerns
me quite a bit.

Speaker 13 (01:10:46):
Today Pfizer's committee, as will o the drug companies as
we go through the weeks. But Pfizer's truly one of
the biggest.

Speaker 1 (01:10:55):
In the world and one of.

Speaker 2 (01:10:56):
The greatest in the Today.

Speaker 13 (01:10:58):
Pfizer's committee to offer all all of the prescription medications
to Medicaid, that it will be at the most favored
nations prices is going to have a huge impact on
bringing Medicaid ghost town like nothing else. I told you
that in my first term. I'm so proud of the
fact that the first time in twenty eight years drug
crisis came down, and I had a news conference that

(01:11:19):
I explained is one tenth of one percent, but it
was down, and here we're talking about in one case,
over one thousand percent. This is a critical step forward
to work and to approve healthcare and hardware.

Speaker 1 (01:11:34):
So President Trump struck this deal with Pfizer. Four discounts
on is Medicare in Medicaid either way, discounts on Pfeiser.

Speaker 2 (01:11:48):
Drugs.

Speaker 1 (01:11:49):
Now, the Wall Street Journal calls him America's pharmacist in chief.
And I have to be honest, and we're going to
talk a little bit more about this and the shutdowns
and the ariffs with economic historian Phil Magnus at the
bottom of the hour. But this really concerns me. They're
gonna have a website, of course, of course they're.

Speaker 2 (01:12:10):
Gonna have a website.

Speaker 1 (01:12:11):
Called trump Ourex, trumpurx dot com or something like that,
so they can sell medicines directly to consumers at discount prices.

Speaker 2 (01:12:21):
We don't have many of the details, but look, I
just when.

Speaker 1 (01:12:24):
I see these kinds of arrangements, it makes me very
concerned about the free market and about government's involvement. We
shouldn't see this kind of a scheme, and yet we
are seeing government ownership of even on a percentage basis,

(01:12:44):
a percentage of Intel or other companies, and I am
very concerned by that.

Speaker 2 (01:12:51):
Here's Ran Paul. I haven't seen all.

Speaker 5 (01:12:53):
The details so far, but what I will tell you
is part of the news report said that it's driven
Visor to a negotiated price, a lower negotiated price on Medicaid.
I do think the government should negotiate with the full
leverage that they have in size for both Medicaid and Medicare,
and I have voted that way as well. As far

(01:13:14):
as bullying companies are taking a percentage.

Speaker 2 (01:13:16):
Of companies I'm opposed to that.

Speaker 5 (01:13:19):
As far as bullying them to offer a certain price
on a new website doesn't sound like something I would
be for.

Speaker 2 (01:13:24):
But I haven't seen the details.

Speaker 5 (01:13:26):
But if it's just trying to get a better price
from Medicaid to pay for drugs, you know, that is
taxpayer money, and I think we should get the best
deal we.

Speaker 2 (01:13:34):
Can get fair.

Speaker 1 (01:13:35):
That's where you want to go under the hood and
find out. Okay, what are the terms of this arrangement?
What's going on in Trump r X. I just I
don't like the idea of the president, whoever he or
she is, having that kind of of a site from
a private company.

Speaker 2 (01:13:51):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:13:51):
Maybe it's just me. I'm Jimmy's sting in bergran for
Russ Kaminski. Keep you here, okaa. I was talking about
Lindsay Halligan, the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia,
who is the attorney US lawyer now for Trump who
indicted James Comey, the former FBI director, and how we
both were in classes at Regis. We were classmates, and

(01:14:16):
one of the classes was just me and her with
a professor in a class on the US Supreme Court question,
come in, did your a professor grade you two on
a curve? Great show, thanks for phil Like, Yeah, I
don't think so. I don't think there was a curve
for that one. And hopefully you wiped off and sanitized
anything Tubman might have given you because the textbook on

(01:14:37):
the Supreme Court was by Jeffrey Tube. Great joke, great joke.
It was actually a pretty good textbook, to be sure.
So tomorrow night from seven thirty to eleven thirty pm,
Shameless Plug the Jimmy Junior Blues Band will be performing
at Takota Tavern in Parker, and I'm really looking forward

(01:15:01):
to this gig. It's going to be an absolute blast.
It's off Pine Bluff's Way Hess. I think it's near
Hess and Parker and that intersection seven thirty.

Speaker 2 (01:15:11):
Darren Ron, who we just heard, will.

Speaker 1 (01:15:13):
Be sitting in on the saxophone for a few tunes
yours truly as Jimmy Junior playing harmonica, and it's just
gonna be a great time Tomorrow night from seven thirty
to eleven thirty. And then we're at Tea Birds and
wheat Ridge on Saturday the eleventh, next Saturday from five

(01:15:33):
to eight pm.

Speaker 2 (01:15:35):
And you know what.

Speaker 1 (01:15:36):
Let's go out for a little over a minute here
of a Jimmy Junior blues band original yours truly doing
vocals in harmonica. This is about all the shaded business
going on. Jimmy Sangenberger in for Russ Kiminski on KOA,
keep it here. Jimmy Sangenberger in for us Kiminski. I'm
a three time Trump voter, but this isn't a lot

(01:15:56):
of the stuff that Trump has been doing of late.
It is not what I expect or anticipated from his administration,
and some of it is very much concerning. We heard
this comparison made yesterday by US Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Speaker 5 (01:16:12):
If you're going to criticize Mundami for wanting to own
the grocery stores, you have to be equal parts critic
to any Republican who wants a share of Navidia, share
of Intel, or share of US steel.

Speaker 2 (01:16:23):
Say bad idea.

Speaker 5 (01:16:25):
It's a slippery slope, and really it is heading in
the direction of what socialism is, which would be owning
all of the means of production. If you only own
a percentage of the means of production, it still is
a step in.

Speaker 2 (01:16:37):
The wrong direction.

Speaker 1 (01:16:39):
Let's dive into several of these related topics with phil Magnus.
He is an economic historian at the Independent Institute. He
is the author of a number of books, including Cracks
in the Ivory Tower, The Moral Mess of Higher Education,
which you co authored with Jason Brennan, and The sixteen Project,

(01:17:00):
a critique. Philip W. Magnus joins me. Now, sir, good
morning and welcome to KOA. Happy to be here, good
to talk with you. So since I mentioned Pheiser, where
now we have this drug pricing scheme reducing dramatically prices
on Pheiser drugs for Medicaid, and particularly on a website

(01:17:24):
called trump our X presumably trumporex dot com, named after
the President of the United States. I think I got
to start there because this is something, well, to say
the least, I would have never expected from a Republican
but even in general, from any administration in the United States.

Speaker 2 (01:17:44):
What do you make of this, Well.

Speaker 9 (01:17:46):
It's absolutely wild, and they are destroying any private sector
price mechanism from playing out in pharmaceuticals. It's a price
fixing scheme that's done in I think direct collusion with Pfeiser.
You know, the blurring of the law between the public
and private sector is always dangerous because it allows political
decision making to enter into what should be a marketplace.

Speaker 1 (01:18:08):
Expand on the potential distortions of the market. When it
comes to one company, what could the impact be on others?
Or the message sent writ.

Speaker 9 (01:18:18):
Large Well, the message being sent is either you play
along with whatever the Trump administration wants, or you're going
to be targeted, You're going to be penalized. You know,
some of the claims that are being made by the
Trump administration, like this is a cost reducing measure or
an attempt to lower prescription drug prices. I really don't
buy that. What it is is it's an attempt to

(01:18:40):
work with a giant of the field, a very large
pharmaceutical company, to fix prices between the government and this
ostensibly private company in ways that are likely going to
make it harder to compete against them, make other count
other companies that are much smaller don't have market share,

(01:19:01):
either are now in a non competitive position, or they
too have to go to the government for access to
the Medicare medicaid market.

Speaker 1 (01:19:09):
I'm old enough to remember Phil Magnus when in two
thousand and nine to ten, when you had the debates
over Obamacare and about the notion of a public option
being a part of this, and there.

Speaker 2 (01:19:24):
Were so many Republicans.

Speaker 1 (01:19:26):
Rightly saying, this will distort the market. You can't have
a public option because it will have all kinds of
government advantages, this and that, and I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:19:35):
This just calls back to that moment.

Speaker 9 (01:19:37):
For me well to weally, And this is a major
problem that's existed in our healthcare system for decades. The
pricing mechanism for basic services for medical products such as
pharmaceuticals has been distorted by the presence of government for decades,
and it's only getting worse because what this means is

(01:19:57):
that every price is actually cited in a bureaucratic political
negotiation rather than letting it test stand the test of
the market.

Speaker 1 (01:20:09):
Absolutely, and that distortion also plays out in a different
form when it comes to the tariffs, and the Trump
administration has been doing all these ad hoc terraffs. We have,
of course, the worldwide teriffs, which are currently before the
US Supreme Court. In fact, and those earlier this year
were put in place by President Trump on virtually every

(01:20:32):
country across the globe. But now we're seeing discussions over. Well,
we've got a one to one mandate we're considering for
chips semi conductors for everyone made overseas, you have to
make one here in the United States or you'll face
tariffs of up to one hundred percent. We've seen tariffs
go into place regarding a soybeans as an example, and

(01:20:53):
you can see I saw a chart the other day
the dramatic drop over the last year in soybean XP
boards from the United States, and the Trump administration is saying, well,
let's pay farmers with subsidies in lieu of the sales
that they would have overseas, which to me is a
callback to FDR's policies during the Great Depression when he

(01:21:15):
wanted farmers to produce less. So he was saying, we're
going to pay you instead of that. I mean, how
are we to look at the tariff situation at this moment, Phil.

Speaker 9 (01:21:25):
Well, tariffs are at their core and exercise and economic
central planning. They're a determination made by the government that's saying, well,
this is the price that goods must sell for. This
is the price that if we want steal, We're going
to fix the price to exclude any competitors from the
market abroad and push it upward domestically. And you know

(01:21:48):
this type of price fixing, it's politically dangerous because it
allows special interest to step in and coalesce behind their
favored tariffs, which we're already seeing is something like the
soybean market. We cut off our soybean trade with tariffs,
and now a farmer's interest group has emerged to get
a handout from the government, being returned ostensibly by tariff revenue,

(01:22:10):
which is the irony of it, so taxing ourselves to
pay ourselves a lesser amount of it back. I don't
know how that's economically productive. But you see this more
broadly in all of the tariffs. They're all political negotiations.
They're susceptible to a lobbying group coming to Washington, d c.
And say, hey, we want a more favorable rate on X,
Y and Z, but we want to penalize our customer

(01:22:32):
our competitors as well. And the Trump administration is sitting here, Yes,
we'll make that deal. It's the essence of cronyism and
government all under the rubric of economic central planning.

Speaker 1 (01:22:44):
SOI Magnus PhD our guest economic historian, and look, you're
an economic historian, I just said it. And if we
look at history tariffs, going back to the Smooth Holly
tariffs during the time of the Great Depression or other
instances prior to that, they've been used as this tool,
supposedly for helping domestic production and so forth, and yet

(01:23:08):
economic history clearly shows us quite the opposite, does it not.

Speaker 9 (01:23:14):
That's absolutely the case. Tariffs backfire, especially tariffs that are
done as these ostensible stimulus packages. So the notorious example
is the Smooth Holly tariffic passed in nineteen thirty and
it was like this emergency stimulus measure after the stock
market crash, so the outset of the Great Depression. But
what it turned into was like this law being free

(01:23:34):
for all, where every industry had their representatives descend on Washington,
d C. They cut deals. Then it was situated in Congress,
but role similar to what they're doing with the White
House today. But they cut deals for favorable rates, and
it resulted in an overall massive tax hike on all
imported goods that in turn also destroyed the US export

(01:23:55):
sector because you know, the prices passed through from import
eventually onto exporters. Plus it also triggers global retaliation, which
is exactly what we're seeing right now in the soybean market.
China's retaliating against our Swabean theraffs and that's cut off
farmers that exported that, so now they're coming to the
government again for a handout. So it just triggers this

(01:24:17):
vicious cycle of diminishing trade, diminishing exchange, and it ends
up basically making everything more expensive at the exact worst moment.

Speaker 1 (01:24:29):
You hear a lot of chatter though, Phil about how
we're not really seeing all the price increases that were
promised by critics of President Trump, and therefore this is
an indication that actually the terrors aren't really having the
negative effect that you just claimed there. How do you
respond to that defense of the Trump terraces, Well, well, the.

Speaker 9 (01:24:50):
Trump administration is lying to you. There is clear data
in retail sales of prices going up across the board
on any good that is either care tariffs directly or
it's in a competitive market. It's tariff responsive because the
tariffs give cover to domestic companies to also raise their
prices to meet whatever that new tax level is. And

(01:25:11):
we've seen clear, unambiguous evidence at nationwide retailers of prices
going up, and anyone in the Trump administration that says
that's not occurring, they're lying to you.

Speaker 1 (01:25:21):
We do have the case before the US Supreme Court
about the earlier terriffs this year, which could have an
impact on some of the new ones.

Speaker 2 (01:25:29):
That he's talking about.

Speaker 1 (01:25:30):
Hence heck, President Trump is even talking about one hundred
percent tariffs on movies produced overseas, which I don't even
know how you calculate that one just start let alone,
why that's somehow some sort of national security threat that
would justify unilateral terrifts. But let's talk about the potential
impact of this Supreme Court decision, because I don't think that.

Speaker 2 (01:25:54):
Can really be overstated one way or.

Speaker 9 (01:25:56):
The other exactly. And you know, we've had this issu
you lingering since about May, and that's when the first
lower court struck down Trump's tariffs. So Trump used acclaimed
emergency powers the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose
tariffs from the beginning. The problem here is this Act

(01:26:16):
doesn't even mention the word tariffs, so the legislative sanction
simply is not there. And we've now been through two
rounds of court rulings that said, no, mister President, you
do not actually have this power. Congress has to pass
these tariffs if they want to enact them. So now
it's before the Supreme Court, I think every company in
America is lingering in a state of uncertainty on how

(01:26:38):
this case is going to be handed down. So we're
going to hear it in November, probably looking for a
ruling within a month or so after that if they
stay on the expedited schedule. But what it's done is
it's put a pause on the entire US economy. Companies
don't know what to order from abroad because they don't
even know what the tax rate's going to be. They
don't know how to structure their own production for the

(01:27:01):
next year because they don't know what their imports are
going to cost. So it's thrown everything in the chaos.
But you know, if this case goes the same way
the lower courts have ruled Trump's entire tier of for agenda,
or at least the heart of it, gets tossed out
and they actually have to refund all the money that
they've collected over the last eight to nine months.

Speaker 2 (01:27:23):
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:27:24):
And I think the fundamental point that even if Congress
did not delegate this power to the president.

Speaker 2 (01:27:30):
I think that's abundantly clear.

Speaker 1 (01:27:32):
But even if Congress did, that would be a violation
of the Constitution under the idea of the non delegation doctrine,
because Congress can't delegate a power specifically enumerated to it.
As the Constitution says, the Congress has the power regarding tariffs,
they can't delegate that to the president.

Speaker 9 (01:27:51):
Absolutely, And even like past cases that have looked at
emergency uses of tariffs have been clear that emergencies are
not a license. They're not a magical incantation. The president
can say to rewrite the entire tiariff schedule of the
United States, which is exactly what Trump's doing. This is
why you get absurd declarations that movies are a national

(01:28:11):
security threat, or I guess the latest one is upholstered
furniture as a national security threat, which are just absurd
on their face, and yet that's what the Trump administration
is doing because they think they can get away with it.

Speaker 1 (01:28:24):
Real quick, I'm going to add on one last thing
on the terriffs thing for you. Phil Magnus, economic historian,
our guest listener text coming in in the koa common
spirit health text line. Why do terifts not backfire on
other countries like Canada who imposed crazy tariffs on our goods?
The same goes for China. They put incredible tariffs on

(01:28:44):
our goods going to their country. Why is this not
backfiring on them? Also, the tariffs are to accomplish several things,
such as opening American exports to countries that have closed
their markets to Us. And this is a rather interesting
critique of your argument, Phil, because I think he's talking

(01:29:05):
about Boscat and this is strange. Your guest doesn't understand
boats is that I think they're meaning to spell Bosciacht.
And of course listeners to russ are familiar with the
great Frederick Bastiat, the French philosopher, economist, his law for
what countries have done to us on terrafs.

Speaker 2 (01:29:24):
Just go for this what you will With some of
those critiques, Well.

Speaker 9 (01:29:28):
The Trump administration has perpetuated this great myth that United
States goods are targeted by countries abroad, and they like
to use annex THEO Civil point to a very obscure,
seldom used Canadian dairy tariff of several hundred percent.

Speaker 12 (01:29:42):
For example.

Speaker 9 (01:29:44):
But if you look at the overall tariff level of
most other developed countries, the United States is actually a
worse offender than Canada, Great Britain, the European Union, Australia,
all of our major trading partners had a lower average
tariff rates on the United States than we did on
them before the Trump administration started. So so Trump's come

(01:30:04):
into office and he's really just kind of spread falsehoods
about other countries, menalizing us. All rooted in anecdote, but
the overall evidence and you can look at the Heritage
Index of Free Trade from the Heritage Foundation, the Fraser
Index of Economic Freedom of the World, the World Bank,
they all track these and they measure the severity of

(01:30:24):
tariffs imposed by countries. The United States is actually a
worse offender than most of our trading partners.

Speaker 1 (01:30:29):
It is fascinating when you actually look at the specific
numbers in that regard that is true. I would also
say I would not use bastiat of all people to
defend their rs, So that's sure. Finally, Phil Magnus, before
we let you go, I would be remissibly didn't ask
you about the potential impact of the government shut down
in your take on these debates. To me, whenever people

(01:30:53):
hype up the shutdown, I think it's it's much overrated
in that respect.

Speaker 9 (01:30:59):
What do you make of all, Well, absolutely, it's almost
always a game of chicken between two sides that are
trying to figure out how to spend more money that
they don't have. And I think we're in that negotiation
right now between the Republicans and the Democrats. Don't know
how long this one's going to go. I know the
Trump administration is threatening the layoff federal workers. Whether they

(01:31:20):
actually pull that trigger, though, is a different question, And
if past experience tells us anything, the government generally doesn't
do that. And what they end up doing is they
give them back pay for the vacation that they essentially
had at home during the course of the shutdown. So
in the end, the shutdown ends up being more expensive
than it would have been had they just stayed the

(01:31:41):
course and continued that direction. But again, I guess it
all comes down to the fact that Washington has a
spending problem that it doesn't want to bring under control,
doesn't want to do any meaningful effort to reduce the
national debt and cut into the deficits, And I.

Speaker 1 (01:31:57):
Think It's all well and good to cut jobs, that
is to say, to fire federal employees if the opportunity
presents itself during a government shutdown. But that isn't the
same as downsizing the size and scope of government per
se as Actually doing that through Congress would.

Speaker 9 (01:32:15):
Be exactly there's no permanence to it. And you know,
the money is still there, the money is still appropriated,
and if Trump has given us any sign, he'll just
try to use that money to do something else. So
it's more public spending of the same and just superficial
rearranging of the deck chairs on the type.

Speaker 1 (01:32:32):
Socially, he's written for The National Review and other prominent publications.

Speaker 2 (01:32:36):
Philip W. Magnus joining us on the program.

Speaker 1 (01:32:39):
Phil thanks so much for joining us on KOA and
I'm definitely going to look forward to speaking with you again.

Speaker 9 (01:32:45):
Absolutely thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:32:46):
Thank you once again. Phil Magnus joining us right here
on KOA. And it is important to listen to some
of the points that he was raising in terms of
the impact of terrorists from economic history. Listener texting in
Kwait comments beardout text line, historical tariff history doesn't apply
to today because one hundred years ago, the information between

(01:33:08):
the interested in parties was extremely limited and markets were
therefore limited. In today's marketplace and all parties involved have
almost unlimited access to information and adapt to the tariffs
in real time, as well as access to almost unlimited marketplaces.
I have not heard this argument before. It is an

(01:33:31):
interesting one that you have more information, because that certainly
provides a great deal of difference in terms of general economics. Okay,
but that doesn't undermine the basic principle. There's still substantial
information broadly speaking in trade back then, and not only that,

(01:33:52):
we're talking about impediments to economic activity, barriers and taxation.
Are you going to suggest to me that the federal
government going ahead and raising taxes the income tax on
Americans isn't going to have a better impact somehow than
one hundred years ago, when the income.

Speaker 2 (01:34:12):
Tax was much higher.

Speaker 1 (01:34:16):
Certainly when we got into the nineteen fifties, it was
dramatically higher, and you could say, oh, well, we have
more information now, some things have changed and it's okay
to raise income taxes substantially today. I don't think you
would make that argument, and I think the similar principle
does apply in terms of tariffs. The same thing matters.
It's not about more information or less information. It's about

(01:34:38):
what tariffs do economically and how they have that impact
by raising the cost of importing into a country.

Speaker 2 (01:34:46):
American importers are paying this tax, and the same thing.

Speaker 1 (01:34:51):
Applies whether it's one hundred years ago or now, regardless
of how much information is available.

Speaker 2 (01:34:56):
But it's an interesting argument there. Well, that is it
for me today.

Speaker 1 (01:35:00):
Be sure to check out my website Jimmysangenburger dot com.
You're one stop shop for podcasts. When I fill in
for Ross or Mandy my columns for the Denver Gazette.
My next one will be out on Sunday, and when
I have gigs like tomorrow night it's a Coda Tavern
seven point thirty in Parker for the Jimmy Junior Blues Band.
That'll be a blast. Keep in mind there's no AI

(01:35:22):
or you in Sangenburger. It's all ease all the time.
Once you know that Sangenburger is easy. And I will
be back in for Ross and for Mandy both all
week the week of the thirteenth of October, so tune
in then Mandy Connell is up next. I'm Jimmy Sangenberger,
have a great rest of your week, and may God

(01:35:44):
bless America.