WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:06.280 The way the budget works in California is basically, Gavin Newsom releases a proposed 2 00:00:06.320 --> 00:00:13.480 budget early in the year January February. Then the year goes along, we 3 00:00:13.560 --> 00:00:20.760 assess things based on how much tax revenue the state has collected, and then 4 00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:30.640 in May, the governor gives an updated budget projection. But you still need 5 00:00:30.679 --> 00:00:35.079 to you still kind of need to have an understanding of where you are. 6 00:00:37.240 --> 00:00:43.920 Seems like that wouldn't be that difficult to do. How much of a deficit 7 00:00:44.119 --> 00:00:49.640 do we have? How much of a deficit are we looking at? Now, 8 00:00:50.719 --> 00:00:59.679 here's the problem. We've got two different dueling numbers for how big California's 9 00:00:59.679 --> 00:01:06.719 budget deficit is. One that the governor keeps running with and another that the 10 00:01:06.840 --> 00:01:11.480 Legislative Analyst's Office, which is supposed to be a non partisan entity that assesses 11 00:01:11.560 --> 00:01:21.079 California legislation. They've got a different projected budget deficit. There's a big difference 12 00:01:21.120 --> 00:01:29.000 between the two. Let's dig into this. There's a piece by Lindsay Holden 13 00:01:29.359 --> 00:01:36.920 and Andrew Schieler. I'm assuming this is for McClatchy. Is it thirty eight 14 00:01:36.959 --> 00:01:42.400 billion or seventy three billion? Those are the numbers? Thirty eight or seventy 15 00:01:42.439 --> 00:01:47.959 three, we're thirty five blah blah blah blah blah blah billion dollars apart. 16 00:01:49.120 --> 00:01:55.519 Just how much of a budget gap does California actually have? This is a 17 00:01:55.640 --> 00:02:00.959 one year deficit, by the way, one year deficit were either seventy three 18 00:02:00.040 --> 00:02:05.359 billion over budget or thirty five billion or excuse me, thirty eight billion over 19 00:02:05.359 --> 00:02:13.120 budget. The Legislative Analyst's Office last week through yet another wrench into Governor Gavin 20 00:02:13.159 --> 00:02:17.080 Newsom's push for a rosier fiscal picture when it updated its projected budget deficit to 21 00:02:17.240 --> 00:02:25.879 seventy three billion based on weak revenue collections. This is the latest in a 22 00:02:27.039 --> 00:02:32.439 series of dueling budget estimates the Governor's administration and the LAO have put forward since 23 00:02:32.599 --> 00:02:39.719 December. The LAO the Legislative Analysts Office in late twenty twenty three projected the 24 00:02:39.759 --> 00:02:47.039 state would see a sixty eight billion dollars spending shortfall. Newsom and his Department 25 00:02:47.080 --> 00:02:53.000 of Finance in January suggested it was closer to thirty eight billion. An LAO 26 00:02:53.159 --> 00:02:59.199 analyst of the Governor's budget said the administration had actually filled a potential gap of 27 00:02:59.280 --> 00:03:04.080 fifty eight billion million, meaning the two estimates were about ten billion apart. 28 00:03:04.719 --> 00:03:10.560 Then on Tuesday, the LAO issued the seventy three billion dollar projection. Now 29 00:03:10.639 --> 00:03:19.319 this isn't entirely strange the Department of Finance. So the Department of Finance political 30 00:03:19.360 --> 00:03:23.400 branch, part of the executive branch of government. It's under the governor, 31 00:03:23.080 --> 00:03:30.560 so it's subject to some of his political biases. The Department of Finance and 32 00:03:30.639 --> 00:03:37.080 the LAO have previously had different takes on the budget. The LAO in late 33 00:03:37.120 --> 00:03:40.960 twenty twenty two also estimated a slightly larger spending gap than the governor's administration eventually 34 00:03:40.960 --> 00:03:47.000 projected in January twenty twenty three. What has been different is Newsom's insistence that 35 00:03:47.080 --> 00:03:53.280 it was wrong for journalists and observers to take the lao's bigger estimate as gospel, 36 00:03:54.000 --> 00:04:00.520 setting up a continuing comparison between the two. We have a difference of 37 00:04:00.520 --> 00:04:02.639 opinion in the short run versus the long run, Newsom said in January, 38 00:04:02.680 --> 00:04:06.039 adding, we're just a little less pessimistic than they are about the next year. 39 00:04:08.360 --> 00:04:13.759 So where does a budget gap that's fifteen billion dollars bigger leave California leaders? 40 00:04:13.759 --> 00:04:20.279 Okay, so we're again the numbers are Newsom is estimating thirty eight billion. 41 00:04:20.879 --> 00:04:26.519 The LAO is estimating seventy three billion, but that a big chunk of 42 00:04:26.519 --> 00:04:32.160 it is made up fifty eight billion, So more or less, the LAO, 43 00:04:33.040 --> 00:04:39.879 which is a non partisan entity that's tied to the state legislature, authorized 44 00:04:39.879 --> 00:04:43.040 by California statutes, tied by the state legislature, so it's not under the 45 00:04:43.079 --> 00:04:46.720 governor, it's not subject to the political pressures that the governor puts on it. 46 00:04:46.360 --> 00:04:51.600 The Legislative Analysts Office, the LAO says that the deficit is fifteen billion 47 00:04:51.720 --> 00:05:01.600 dollars, bigger than Governor Newsom says it is. Now where does that leave 48 00:05:01.680 --> 00:05:09.480 us? So? One of the biggest differences between Newsom's projections and the Legislative 49 00:05:09.480 --> 00:05:14.759 Analysts offices estimates is whether fifteen billion dollars in proposed cuts to school and community 50 00:05:14.759 --> 00:05:19.319 college funding is an automatic change or a policy choice that doesn't necessarily have to 51 00:05:19.360 --> 00:05:26.120 be made. Newsom's office considers that spending reduction to be baseline, while the 52 00:05:26.360 --> 00:05:30.839 LAO considers it a policy choice for lawmakers and the governor to make. While 53 00:05:30.839 --> 00:05:34.360 crafting the twenty twenty four to twenty twenty five budget. We take this approach 54 00:05:34.360 --> 00:05:40.839 in order to provide the legislature visibility into the full scope of the administration's choices. 55 00:05:40.879 --> 00:05:44.680 The LAO senten it's January thirteen overview of the governor's proposed budget. Palmer 56 00:05:44.800 --> 00:05:50.319 estimated the state still has some revenue runway left from now through April. More 57 00:05:50.360 --> 00:05:55.879 than fifty one billion dollars in income and corporate tax receipts are forecast to come 58 00:05:55.879 --> 00:05:59.399 in, Palmer said in a statement on Tuesday, No one can say today 59 00:05:59.439 --> 00:06:02.439 with certain see how those numbers may change the budget estimate of a thirty eight 60 00:06:02.439 --> 00:06:08.439 billion dollars shortfall. Okay, so all of this is projected. Okay. 61 00:06:11.000 --> 00:06:16.920 Tax Day is not until April, right, So as we roll along into 62 00:06:16.959 --> 00:06:21.279 April and May, we're going to get a clearer picture of just how far 63 00:06:21.360 --> 00:06:31.120 behind we are for twenty twenty four into twenty twenty five. Now, Chris 64 00:06:31.160 --> 00:06:34.279 Hayne, the executive director of the California Budget and Policy Center, said leaders 65 00:06:34.279 --> 00:06:40.000 will possibly need to plan for more belt tightening based on current conditions. I 66 00:06:40.000 --> 00:06:43.839 think the challenge for them from a governance perspective is that I think many people 67 00:06:43.839 --> 00:06:47.639 had hoped that January's projections would actually improve by May, because twenty twenty three 68 00:06:47.720 --> 00:06:51.120 was relatively speaking a good year for the stock market, he said. And 69 00:06:51.199 --> 00:06:55.160 right now, this early this year, the arrows are pointing in the other 70 00:06:55.240 --> 00:06:59.079 direction, which means they potentially have a bigger budget problem to solve than they 71 00:06:59.120 --> 00:07:06.040 thought even a month ago. Out now, this leads me to a couple 72 00:07:06.120 --> 00:07:15.079 of thoughts. Remember that story from I guess it was last year that the 73 00:07:15.120 --> 00:07:19.240 city of Fresno is gonna get all these hundreds of millions of dollars of state 74 00:07:19.800 --> 00:07:25.959 funding. I think it was like four hundred and fifty million dollars of state 75 00:07:26.040 --> 00:07:29.639 funding to help Fresno develop downtown. And we got the first fifty million, 76 00:07:29.879 --> 00:07:31.160 and then all of a sudden, just like a month or so ago, 77 00:07:31.519 --> 00:07:39.279 Governor Newsom said, whoops, sorry, Fresno, you're not getting this first 78 00:07:39.439 --> 00:07:48.680 hundred million. Well or just pushing it off next year Manyana, I don't 79 00:07:48.680 --> 00:07:55.600 think we're ever seeing that money. I don't. I really don't think we're 80 00:07:55.600 --> 00:07:58.959 gonna see it. I mean, Newsom can make all the right sounds that 81 00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:03.079 he wants right now, so well, I'm committed to this. So this 82 00:08:03.959 --> 00:08:07.720 is something I'm committed to. Oh Newsome and Jerry Dyer, can you know, 83 00:08:07.040 --> 00:08:09.279 go on? As many zoom calls together as they want. They can 84 00:08:09.560 --> 00:08:13.240 have as many press conferences together as they want. They can, you know, 85 00:08:13.319 --> 00:08:18.040 pat each other on the back as much as they want. I don't 86 00:08:18.399 --> 00:08:26.319 think that money's coming because our budget situation in California is dire and it is 87 00:08:26.399 --> 00:08:31.399 getting at d ir not Jerry Dyer d y e R. And the situation 88 00:08:31.519 --> 00:08:41.039 is getting worse. What what's the basic dynamic problem? California had one year 89 00:08:41.200 --> 00:08:43.879 with a budget surplus because we had tons of federal COVID money flooding it. 90 00:08:45.960 --> 00:08:50.120 Outside of that, the financial picture in this state is bad, and COVID 91 00:08:50.159 --> 00:08:54.320 made it worse. Outside of a bunch of federal money flooding the system, 92 00:08:58.639 --> 00:09:09.919 here's the reality. California has always been dependent on a relatively very small percentage 93 00:09:09.039 --> 00:09:18.519 of high income taxpayers, the wealthiest one percent, if you will, whose 94 00:09:18.559 --> 00:09:28.039 shoulder this enormous percentage of all California revenue. So for a state to spend, 95 00:09:28.399 --> 00:09:33.840 they need revenue to come in so that they can spend it. The 96 00:09:33.919 --> 00:09:39.159 revenue that comes in is from taxes, and California has state income tax. 97 00:09:39.240 --> 00:09:45.960 So California has always been dependent on this wealthiest one percent of high earners, 98 00:09:46.320 --> 00:09:52.559 super rich people from La Joya and you know Los Angeles area and Silicon Valley 99 00:09:52.759 --> 00:10:00.720 and San Francisco, this elite, upper crust of earners who would pay a 100 00:10:00.759 --> 00:10:05.399 lot of money and income tax. And it's a relatively really very small number 101 00:10:05.399 --> 00:10:09.399 of people, something like four or five hundred thousand people in a state of 102 00:10:09.399 --> 00:10:15.360 forty million. Okay, again, so we're talking about like one percent of 103 00:10:15.399 --> 00:10:22.720 the population. Well, a lot of them are moving, a lot of 104 00:10:22.720 --> 00:10:31.879 them are leaving, and COVID was this timeframe that probably really ticked a lot 105 00:10:31.919 --> 00:10:39.480 of them off. So if you're not getting the revenue from you, that's 106 00:10:39.519 --> 00:10:41.759 the thing. It's a very high variance thing. If those people don't pay 107 00:10:41.799 --> 00:10:46.879 a lot in taxes, If those people leave the state, if those people 108 00:10:48.559 --> 00:10:56.240 start retiring and their income is more from investments than from normal income, and 109 00:10:56.279 --> 00:11:01.519 then their tax situation is different. Guess what, the state's not going to 110 00:11:01.600 --> 00:11:07.320 get near as much money. The state's going to have these huge revenue shortfalls. 111 00:11:07.600 --> 00:11:15.000 Where we're arguing between is it how many tens of billions of dollars short 112 00:11:15.120 --> 00:11:20.679 are we? You know, where we've got a fifteen billion dollar difference of 113 00:11:20.720 --> 00:11:26.720 opinion between the governor and the Legislative Analyst's office which you know, if you're 114 00:11:26.799 --> 00:11:31.399 going to ask who do I trust here, the non partisan Legislative Analysts Office 115 00:11:31.440 --> 00:11:37.879 that works for the state legislature and whose goal, whose job is to give 116 00:11:37.919 --> 00:11:43.879 them analysis on the budget versus you know, semenity that's basically doing press releases 117 00:11:43.919 --> 00:11:48.080 on behalf of Governor Gavin Newsom. Yeah, I'm going to trust the non 118 00:11:48.120 --> 00:12:00.639 partisan Legislative Analyst's Office. So I that's the core problem here. Yeah, 119 00:12:01.639 --> 00:12:05.799 we're not going to get that money. Like, the financial picture is just 120 00:12:05.840 --> 00:12:13.200 getting worse and worse and worse. And as homelessness got over the last seven 121 00:12:13.320 --> 00:12:18.519 years, homelessness has gotten worse. Crime has gotten worse. You've seen the 122 00:12:18.559 --> 00:12:22.799 election of this rise in various forms of crime, both in Los Angeles and 123 00:12:24.320 --> 00:12:31.480 other parts of the state, Los Angeles electing a Soros backed district Attorney, 124 00:12:31.799 --> 00:12:39.279 George Gaston, who seems more concerned about about the criminals than he does about 125 00:12:39.320 --> 00:12:41.960 the victims and not prosecuting criminals for a whole suath of crimes. The chase 126 00:12:41.960 --> 00:12:50.519 of budin experience in San Francisco, he came and went. But this is 127 00:12:50.559 --> 00:12:56.159 not getting any better and it's not going to basically what it means is this 128 00:12:56.360 --> 00:13:01.279 upper crust of wealthiest one percent high income earner ties. A lot of them 129 00:13:01.279 --> 00:13:07.159 are leaving and they're not coming back. And if they're leaving, they're taking 130 00:13:07.159 --> 00:13:13.159 their tax revenue with them. I don't know if the I guess I just 131 00:13:13.279 --> 00:13:18.720 don't see outside of another kind of black swan event sort of like COVID was, 132 00:13:20.720 --> 00:13:24.919 what this sort of you can't really predict it, like crazy thing that 133 00:13:24.960 --> 00:13:31.279 results in this huge amount of federal bailout cash being spent. I just don't 134 00:13:31.360 --> 00:13:39.120 see how our state budget is ever going to be anything other than tens of 135 00:13:39.120 --> 00:13:45.000 billions in the red for the foreseeable future unless we recalibrate everything. And you 136 00:13:45.039 --> 00:13:52.200 know what I find pretty likely to be a victim of that recalibration, probably 137 00:13:52.240 --> 00:14:00.399 all that money that Gavin Newsom wanted to give to Fresno. And it's the 138 00:14:00.440 --> 00:14:03.559 thing, there's only so many years we can push it back and push it 139 00:14:03.600 --> 00:14:07.159 back and push it back. Governor Newsom got re elected in twenty twenty two. 140 00:14:07.720 --> 00:14:15.519 He's going to be out in January of twenty twenty seventh, assuming that 141 00:14:15.600 --> 00:14:20.639 the Democrats don't make him their presidential nominee, assuming he doesn't be common president 142 00:14:20.759 --> 00:14:26.759 or something God forbid. But that's I think that's a more than zero possibility. 143 00:14:28.879 --> 00:14:33.960 And then by the time Newsom's gone, what if we have they as 144 00:14:33.960 --> 00:14:37.480 they said in the Book of Exodus. What if a pharaoh who knows not 145 00:14:37.679 --> 00:14:41.159 Joseph comes to the throne. What if we get some governor who doesn't give 146 00:14:41.159 --> 00:14:45.639 a crap about Fresno the way that Gavin Newsom at least pretends to give a 147 00:14:45.639 --> 00:14:50.080 crap about Fresno when we return. How this could set the table for actual 148 00:14:50.240 --> 00:14:56.639 tex increases in California. That's next on the John Girardi Show. Are the 149 00:14:56.639 --> 00:15:05.159 budget deficits California keeps running going to lead finally to tax increases? That is 150 00:15:05.320 --> 00:15:13.080 the question. We've got this difference of opinion between the nonpartisan State Legislative Analysts 151 00:15:13.159 --> 00:15:20.120 Office, which is tied to the state legislature and helps produce fiscal assessments for 152 00:15:20.159 --> 00:15:22.639 the legislature, as it works with the governor on the budget. They've got 153 00:15:22.679 --> 00:15:28.360 one number. The governor has a different number for what the state budget deficit 154 00:15:28.840 --> 00:15:33.279 is going to be for this upcoming fiscal year twenty twenty four twenty twenty five. 155 00:15:35.440 --> 00:15:39.639 There's no way to slice it that looks good Okay, we're in the 156 00:15:39.720 --> 00:15:50.120 tens of billions of dollars in the red. Now this story from McClatchy Assessing 157 00:15:50.200 --> 00:15:54.519 this. Yeah, the sacrament of best story Assessing this, written by Lindsay 158 00:15:54.519 --> 00:16:03.919 Holden Andrew Schielder. One of the things it raises is the idea of increasing 159 00:16:04.039 --> 00:16:14.120 taxes. So here's what they write. The Legislative Analysts Office identified several one 160 00:16:14.240 --> 00:16:18.200 time or temporary spending cuts that could be made to address the budget shortfall from 161 00:16:18.200 --> 00:16:21.679 fiscal year twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four through twenty twenty five twenty twenty 162 00:16:21.679 --> 00:16:25.159 six. That includes five hundred and forty two million dollars in cuts from the 163 00:16:25.159 --> 00:16:29.200 Health and home Care Workforce Package from the Department of Healthcare, Access and Information, 164 00:16:29.960 --> 00:16:33.600 one point nine billion dollars in the state's share of school construction projects, 165 00:16:34.240 --> 00:16:40.480 one point three billion in the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program, one point 166 00:16:40.480 --> 00:16:47.000 two billion in broadband infrastructure, one billion dollars in the Clean Energy Reliability Investment 167 00:16:47.080 --> 00:16:55.960 Plan. Jesulaise, how the clean energy reliability So you mean state rebates for 168 00:16:56.399 --> 00:16:59.919 already rich people to buy electric cars. Yeah, I think we could make 169 00:17:00.080 --> 00:17:06.160 be cut that and one point seven billion in transit and rail funding. Oh, 170 00:17:06.240 --> 00:17:10.599 like high speed rail funding? Are we still paying for that? If 171 00:17:10.640 --> 00:17:14.279 you're in a budget. By the way, that high speed rail train is 172 00:17:14.480 --> 00:17:21.400 never ever ever getting done because when belts are actually tight, people are gonna 173 00:17:21.400 --> 00:17:23.039 look at that stupid thing and think, all right, well, maybe let's 174 00:17:23.039 --> 00:17:27.279 spend on something else here. The high speed rail is the biggest example of 175 00:17:27.319 --> 00:17:30.799 the sunk cost fallacy, where you're like, well, we've already spent so 176 00:17:30.960 --> 00:17:33.440 much on it. We can't just let it die. Yes, you can 177 00:17:33.559 --> 00:17:41.079 just let it die anyway, now, the story right, the story continues. 178 00:17:41.240 --> 00:17:48.680 Although Newsome has been staunchly opposed to raising taxes, there's a suggestion that 179 00:17:48.759 --> 00:17:56.519 it may be time to consider some revenue solutions to prevent cutting services to the 180 00:17:56.559 --> 00:18:04.000 bone. That's from Chris Hayne, the executive director of the California Budget and 181 00:18:04.079 --> 00:18:11.240 Policy centur Now, it's not unprecedented to do so, he said. In 182 00:18:11.279 --> 00:18:15.920 prior recession, state leaders have temporarily suspended tax breaks, kind of imposed tax 183 00:18:17.079 --> 00:18:19.799 changes that produce revenues on a temporary basis to help get through these periods. 184 00:18:22.039 --> 00:18:27.119 Okay, let's talk about this. Let me talk about why this is not 185 00:18:27.160 --> 00:18:33.279 a good idea. Right now. There are some that, frankly, a 186 00:18:33.319 --> 00:18:44.200 lot of conservatives who basically view their entire political worldview through the lens of taxes, 187 00:18:44.799 --> 00:18:48.960 tax cuts, tax rates, taxes being too high. There's a lot 188 00:18:48.960 --> 00:18:53.839 of conservatives who their whole universe is defined by that. Basically, they think 189 00:18:55.039 --> 00:19:03.720 there was they view the whole world the universe. Instead of BC and A 190 00:19:03.880 --> 00:19:10.000 D, they have B, R and AD. Instead of before Christ, 191 00:19:10.240 --> 00:19:14.759 they have before Reagan and then the year of our Lord, the year of 192 00:19:14.759 --> 00:19:22.799 our Gipper on O gipperies AG so b R and AG before Reagan and on 193 00:19:22.960 --> 00:19:26.720 O Gipper in the Year of our Gipper, you know whatever. There are 194 00:19:26.720 --> 00:19:36.079 a lot of conservatives who think like that and basically think that all all of 195 00:19:36.119 --> 00:19:41.920 conservative is Conservatism is defined by taxes. Having lower taxes is good, Having 196 00:19:41.000 --> 00:19:48.039 higher taxes is bad in any circumstance. Increasing taxes bad idea, Cutting taxes 197 00:19:48.240 --> 00:19:53.039 good idea. The Laugher curve concept that actually, sometimes when you cut taxes, 198 00:19:53.720 --> 00:20:00.680 it results in people having more money to invest and spend and engage in 199 00:20:00.759 --> 00:20:06.559 various kinds of economic activity, and that can actually increase revenues that government receives. 200 00:20:06.599 --> 00:20:11.279 There's some truth to that. Nonetheless, a lot of conservatives view things 201 00:20:11.279 --> 00:20:15.880 through that lens. I don't. I don't think tax policy is the most 202 00:20:15.680 --> 00:20:22.480 important thing in the world. I'm more of a social conservative. I don't 203 00:20:22.519 --> 00:20:30.000 know that these Reagan air doctrines about fiscal policy tax cuts, tax cuts are 204 00:20:30.039 --> 00:20:33.400 always good, tax increases are always bad. I don't know that that is 205 00:20:34.079 --> 00:20:41.880 necessarily true. But I'm gonna say here, in California, to increase taxes 206 00:20:41.960 --> 00:20:48.400 would be insane. Let me explain why, as I explain LA segment, 207 00:20:48.440 --> 00:20:52.240 what's the dynamic, what's the problem here in California? Why are we having 208 00:20:52.240 --> 00:20:56.480 these budget shortfalls? The reason why is because we have this very small percentage 209 00:20:56.519 --> 00:21:04.440 of people, relatively speaking, shouldering the lion's share of taxes and revenue generation 210 00:21:04.599 --> 00:21:12.240 for the whole state. California has state income tax. Really high income earners 211 00:21:12.640 --> 00:21:17.920 are paying a relatively small number of these people, couple hundred thousand people are 212 00:21:17.960 --> 00:21:22.359 shouldering most of the burden for the state. Those people have started to leave 213 00:21:22.640 --> 00:21:26.720 the state if you keep ticking them off, if you keep telling them, 214 00:21:26.119 --> 00:21:30.200 yes, you're going to be in this top income bracket. And right now 215 00:21:30.240 --> 00:21:34.599 it's about fifty percent of their money gets taken in federal and state taxes and 216 00:21:34.640 --> 00:21:40.920 you're going to say we're going to do more. Or Oh, I could 217 00:21:40.920 --> 00:21:45.480 just have my primary place of residence be in Nevada and I can just you 218 00:21:45.519 --> 00:21:51.079 know, zoom work to my job that's based in Silicon Valley. Oh. 219 00:21:51.160 --> 00:21:56.119 I could have my primary place of residence or have my company be headquartered in 220 00:21:56.200 --> 00:22:02.079 Texas or Florida or Tennessee or state or Nevada or a state that doesn't have 221 00:22:02.119 --> 00:22:04.880 state income tax and I can keep I don't know. I'm not sure what 222 00:22:04.880 --> 00:22:07.799 the top marginal California state income tax rate is. I think it's around ten 223 00:22:07.839 --> 00:22:14.240 percent. A little more than that, might be fifteen something right there. 224 00:22:14.319 --> 00:22:17.720 You mean I can keep that much more of my money if I leave this 225 00:22:17.839 --> 00:22:22.559 state. Yes, please sign me up. I'm already the top one wealthiest 226 00:22:22.599 --> 00:22:26.799 one percent. I have the means to move. I'll make it work. 227 00:22:30.000 --> 00:22:34.359 If you increase taxes in California with a short term goal of well, if 228 00:22:34.400 --> 00:22:37.480 you increase taxes, you take more of people's money, you get more revenue 229 00:22:37.480 --> 00:22:42.119 for the state. That seems pretty short sighted to me. Seems like all 230 00:22:42.119 --> 00:22:48.039 you're going to do is drive these people that you're long term so reliant upon 231 00:22:48.680 --> 00:22:55.720 for tax revenue away from the state. When we return, I want to 232 00:22:55.759 --> 00:23:00.200 explain the brew haha from the Alabama State Supreme Court over I AVF. This 233 00:23:00.279 --> 00:23:03.400 is a big topic we've been talking about on Right to Life Radio. I 234 00:23:03.440 --> 00:23:06.599 feel like I got to address it on the JG Show. That's next on 235 00:23:06.640 --> 00:23:11.960 the John Groardy Show. A lot of talk show hosts I've heard over time 236 00:23:12.720 --> 00:23:17.319 say things like, I just give it to people straight, I don't care 237 00:23:17.359 --> 00:23:19.359 what people think about me. I just speak the truth, and I don't 238 00:23:19.359 --> 00:23:29.079 care about the consequences, And then they proceed to give the most predictably blase 239 00:23:29.559 --> 00:23:36.519 conservative opinions possible that are obviously very very comfortable to their listeners, where there's 240 00:23:36.599 --> 00:23:41.519 actually not much of a risk of their listenership or anyone meaningfully important to them 241 00:23:41.559 --> 00:23:45.160 disagreeing with them. And I don't want to become that kind of a guy, 242 00:23:45.799 --> 00:23:48.640 I must say doing the radio show. For those of you listening, 243 00:23:49.279 --> 00:23:56.759 there are often times where I am tempted to be quiet about things for the 244 00:23:56.880 --> 00:24:03.720 sake of some kind of consideration, not wanting to offend the audience, or 245 00:24:03.759 --> 00:24:07.200 not wanting to do you know, not wanting to do this or do that. 246 00:24:08.839 --> 00:24:14.559 Don't I hate being in those situations because I hate the feeling of I'm 247 00:24:14.599 --> 00:24:18.279 just being a sellout or I'm just being a fraud, or I'm being quiet, 248 00:24:18.359 --> 00:24:23.480 or I'm expressing opinion that maybe I don't believe in. And I can 249 00:24:23.519 --> 00:24:27.359 feel that temptation to express an opinion I don't believe in, and I try 250 00:24:27.400 --> 00:24:30.119 to fight against it. I don't want to do that because I think that's 251 00:24:30.160 --> 00:24:34.119 a real temptation of being a talk show hot I'll tell you I'm not even 252 00:24:34.200 --> 00:24:37.400 like a very big talk show host. Okay, I've you know, I'm 253 00:24:37.920 --> 00:24:41.359 I'm not a three hour a day guy or anything. Okay, and my 254 00:24:41.680 --> 00:24:48.119 main day job is not radio. But I find that there can still be 255 00:24:48.240 --> 00:24:52.039 that sort of temptation, and I don't want to be that guy. I 256 00:24:52.079 --> 00:24:56.440 don't want to be someone who's intellectually dishonest, who comes on the radio and 257 00:24:56.480 --> 00:25:02.119 says things he doesn't believe or you know, kind of half you know, 258 00:25:02.160 --> 00:25:07.759 what's the truth. So one of these stories, some of you are actually 259 00:25:07.839 --> 00:25:11.240 going to disagree with me here, all right, some of the power, 260 00:25:11.559 --> 00:25:18.240 you know, typical power talk listening talk radio audience, some of you might 261 00:25:18.279 --> 00:25:21.880 actually disagree with me, But I just ask you to give me some space 262 00:25:21.960 --> 00:25:26.039 and consideration to make the argument. And it's over the topic of IVF in 263 00:25:26.160 --> 00:25:33.680 vitro fertilization. Last week, the Alabama Supreme Court had a ruling about the 264 00:25:33.720 --> 00:25:40.160 topic of IVF. Now, the Alabama State Supreme Court, their decisions are 265 00:25:40.279 --> 00:25:48.839 dispositive. They control Alabama law, doesn't impact Mississippi law, even doesn't impact 266 00:25:49.319 --> 00:25:56.960 Florida law, doesn't impact anyone else as far as being a controlling authority. 267 00:25:56.480 --> 00:26:00.799 Some other state might who has similar laws on the books, might look at 268 00:26:00.799 --> 00:26:03.680 what the Alabama State Supreme Court decides and say, huh, that's interesting that 269 00:26:03.720 --> 00:26:06.319 they did it that way. It does that reasoning make sense, and maybe 270 00:26:06.319 --> 00:26:10.119 they might find it persuasive. But the Alabama State Supreme Court really only controls 271 00:26:10.119 --> 00:26:15.519 in Alabama. The Alabama State Supreme Court was looking at a case of something 272 00:26:15.519 --> 00:26:27.640 that happened in an IVF clinic and whether people could sue for wrongful death over 273 00:26:29.000 --> 00:26:38.319 the destruction of embryos created through the IVF process, and that hinges on the 274 00:26:38.359 --> 00:26:48.119 question of our IVF embryos human beings for the purposes of Alabama's wrongful death statute. 275 00:26:48.160 --> 00:26:53.559 Okay, so wrongful death. I think we all remember the OJ situation. 276 00:26:53.680 --> 00:27:00.839 Oj got acquitted for murder, but he was found civilly liable for the 277 00:27:00.920 --> 00:27:08.279 killing of Nicole Brown Simpson. So a criminal trial is when the state is 278 00:27:08.400 --> 00:27:14.559 prosecuting you. The state is trying to lock you up for a crime. 279 00:27:15.160 --> 00:27:21.039 A civil trial is when a private party is suing you for some ill you 280 00:27:21.079 --> 00:27:25.480 have done, some wrong you have done them trying to get usually money, 281 00:27:25.559 --> 00:27:29.279 damages, or some injunction to prevent you from doing stuff in the future. 282 00:27:30.319 --> 00:27:34.559 So Oj was found not guilty criminally, but he was found liable civilly. 283 00:27:38.640 --> 00:27:45.720 In Alabama, this was a case where someone broke into an IVF clinic and 284 00:27:45.920 --> 00:27:52.400 destroyed several, as they call them, test two babies. What happens in 285 00:27:52.440 --> 00:27:59.920 the IVF process is basically, a woman's egg cells are mixed with a man's 286 00:28:00.119 --> 00:28:06.960 sperm cells in a petri dish in glass the Latin phrase for in glass on 287 00:28:07.079 --> 00:28:15.599 glasses in vitro okay. So what invariably winds up happening that the woman takes 288 00:28:15.759 --> 00:28:22.799 drugs to hyperovulate produce several eggs. That man has gazillions of sperms. These 289 00:28:22.839 --> 00:28:32.240 are mixed in glass and way more embryos typically are produced via the IVF process 290 00:28:33.200 --> 00:28:41.920 than can possibly be implanted or survive. So what we have today in IVF 291 00:28:41.960 --> 00:28:48.720 clinics all over the United States of America are millions of living human organisms who 292 00:28:48.759 --> 00:28:56.359 can be held in stasis in a freezer, alive but cannot grow, cannot 293 00:28:56.400 --> 00:29:07.319 develop, human organisms embryos in test tubes, in freezers held in stasis. 294 00:29:07.720 --> 00:29:19.400 Okay, someone broke into an IVF clinic in Alabama and destroyed several embryos held 295 00:29:19.440 --> 00:29:30.480 in test tubes. The biological parents of those test tube babies sued for wrongful 296 00:29:30.559 --> 00:29:36.240 death. Okay, kind of like how the family of Nicole Brown Simpson would 297 00:29:36.279 --> 00:29:41.160 sue OJ for like a wrongful death or now obviously the kind of wrongful death 298 00:29:41.200 --> 00:29:44.960 here it was murder in OJ's case, maybe well, maybe it was murder. 299 00:29:45.720 --> 00:29:51.960 Because the question that was presented to the Alabama Supreme Court is are embryos 300 00:29:52.240 --> 00:30:02.599 in an IVF clinic human beings? Are they human beings who therefore trigger the 301 00:30:02.640 --> 00:30:10.440 state's wrongful death tort? Does can you sue with Alabama's law governing wrongful death 302 00:30:11.359 --> 00:30:15.440 over the destruction of an embryo and an IVF clinic. That was the question 303 00:30:15.559 --> 00:30:22.839 presented to the Alabama State Supreme Court. They said, yes, those embryos 304 00:30:22.920 --> 00:30:29.599 are human beings by any stretch, by any stretch of the imagination, these 305 00:30:29.599 --> 00:30:33.640 are human organisms. These are human organisms just as much as I am, 306 00:30:33.920 --> 00:30:37.000 just as much as you are, dear listener. They're just at a very 307 00:30:37.000 --> 00:30:47.640 early stage of human development. Now that can have some pretty broad implications for 308 00:30:47.680 --> 00:30:57.960 the IVF industry. Republicans are so scared of the abortion issue right now that 309 00:30:59.359 --> 00:31:04.440 every republic Publican has just committed well, I shouldn't say every Republican. A 310 00:31:04.559 --> 00:31:10.279 ton of Republicans are rushing out to say, no, no, no, 311 00:31:10.319 --> 00:31:12.279 we protect the right of IVF to be legal, absolutely, positively, one 312 00:31:12.319 --> 00:31:15.880 hundred percent. We're absolutely going to do nothing. The Alabama State Supreme Court 313 00:31:15.880 --> 00:31:21.599 got it wrong. We're gonna do absolutely everything possible to ensure the legality of 314 00:31:21.640 --> 00:31:29.119 IVF. And Republicans that I used to respect just rushed to make these claims, 315 00:31:29.200 --> 00:31:33.720 rush to make these statements. I think the most egregious of whom that 316 00:31:33.799 --> 00:31:38.799 I used to respect, at least I thought was at least an intellectually coherent 317 00:31:40.880 --> 00:31:42.920 person, was the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson. That 318 00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:45.680 was the most disappointing. But Donald Trump has rushed to say, no, 319 00:31:45.680 --> 00:31:48.920 no, no, we got to protect the right to IVF. Carrie Lake 320 00:31:48.960 --> 00:31:52.079 has run percentate again in Arizona. No, no, we got to protect 321 00:31:52.079 --> 00:31:55.200 the right to IVF. Nancy Mace, Oh, we gotta protect IVF IVF. 322 00:31:55.200 --> 00:32:01.319 We gotta protect IVF. And I'm not heartless. I understand why people 323 00:32:01.359 --> 00:32:07.279 turn to IVF. People turn to IVF because they have deep, difficult struggles 324 00:32:07.279 --> 00:32:14.000 with infertility, and ivf's the only way, they think, the only way 325 00:32:14.000 --> 00:32:17.039 that's presented to them, although frankly, I think there are other modes of 326 00:32:17.079 --> 00:32:23.000 fertility treatment that have fallen by the wayside because fertility docs are so focused on 327 00:32:23.200 --> 00:32:28.079 IVF and the fact that it's chan chi ching chichin, cash money, money, 328 00:32:28.079 --> 00:32:32.759 money in their pockets. And I know some of this through our family 329 00:32:32.880 --> 00:32:43.720 and personal experience of this. I understand the deep longing that people have to 330 00:32:43.759 --> 00:32:50.839 have children, and that's why they turn to IVF. Nonetheless, I cannot 331 00:32:51.039 --> 00:33:01.640 escape this reality. IVF results in the wastage of thousands and thousands and thousands 332 00:33:02.359 --> 00:33:10.680 of human organisms. It just does. There are some people who estimate that 333 00:33:10.880 --> 00:33:22.519 every year in America, two million IVF embryos are either destroyed or put in 334 00:33:22.599 --> 00:33:32.759 a freezer indefinitely. There are only only ridiculous to call this only there are 335 00:33:32.799 --> 00:33:43.519 only nine hundred thousand abortions per year in America. These are staggering figures we 336 00:33:43.599 --> 00:33:49.039 are keeping. We are treating these human beings as human beings because that's what 337 00:33:49.039 --> 00:33:53.319 they are, with a unique DNA never before seen in the history of the 338 00:33:53.319 --> 00:34:01.599 world, never going to be seen again, unrepeatable human lives, as disposable 339 00:34:02.000 --> 00:34:13.840 commodities that we can lose via wastage. I understand that probably some of you 340 00:34:13.880 --> 00:34:19.159 listening have a kid via IVF. I'm not saying that your child is not 341 00:34:19.280 --> 00:34:23.639 valuable. I'm not saying you're an irredeemable person. What I am saying is 342 00:34:23.639 --> 00:34:30.079 that I believe that utilizing that process is wrong. I understand that not a 343 00:34:30.119 --> 00:34:34.719 lot of people who think about it that did not even occur to them that 344 00:34:34.760 --> 00:34:37.599 there was an ethical dimension to the IVF problem. And I'm not judging you 345 00:34:37.719 --> 00:34:47.320 personally your subjective choices. We judge actions, not people. What I'm saying 346 00:34:50.119 --> 00:34:54.320 is that from a policy perspective, I'm not sure how you can be pro 347 00:34:54.400 --> 00:35:02.360 life and be unreservedly pro IVF. And it makes me kind of honestly suspicious. 348 00:35:04.480 --> 00:35:14.239 When people are it makes me suspicious of at least their intellectual coherence. 349 00:35:14.880 --> 00:35:19.920 That's what it makes me suspicious of when we return. Is it racist to 350 00:35:20.199 --> 00:35:27.880 like Taylor Swift? Possibly next on The John Girardi Show. There's a story 351 00:35:27.920 --> 00:35:35.800 in The New York Post being shared about some college professor who thinks that being 352 00:35:35.840 --> 00:35:40.920 a Taylor Swift fan is slightly racist and that the Super Bowl win by the 353 00:35:42.000 --> 00:35:49.760 Chiefs was a white supremacist conspiracy. A California professor is no stranger to controversial 354 00:35:49.800 --> 00:35:52.840 opinions, speculated that it might be racist to be a Taylor Swift fan. 355 00:35:53.159 --> 00:35:57.719 Why do I feel like it's slightly racist to be a Taylor Swift fan? 356 00:35:58.119 --> 00:36:02.320 Molina Abdullah posted to Twitter X on Super Bowl Sunday. Abdullah, a professor 357 00:36:02.360 --> 00:36:07.559 of Pan African Studies at cal State University Los Angeles, is a self described 358 00:36:07.599 --> 00:36:13.039 black hashtag black Lives Matter organizer, Pan Africanist, hip hop scholar, daughter 359 00:36:13.079 --> 00:36:15.960 of God, womanist, truth teller, and mama. According to her post 360 00:36:16.000 --> 00:36:20.559 on x Twitter, she's also listed as a co founder of the Black Lives 361 00:36:20.639 --> 00:36:24.039 Matter Los Angeles chapter and co director of the activist wing of the advocacy organization 362 00:36:24.119 --> 00:36:29.800 Black Lives Matter grass Roots. When one user asked her to elaborate on her 363 00:36:29.800 --> 00:36:35.199 opinion, she replied, I said feel not think kind of like that feeling 364 00:36:35.239 --> 00:36:37.920 I get when there are too many American flags. In the same post, 365 00:36:38.000 --> 00:36:44.119 someone commented that literally everything is racist, Abdullah replied, responded, indeed, 366 00:36:46.679 --> 00:36:53.800 I knew this was coming, all right. There's this undercurrent of liberals have 367 00:36:53.960 --> 00:36:58.760 kind of not liked Taylor Swift for a while because for a long while, 368 00:36:58.800 --> 00:37:01.400 Taylor Swift said absolutely nothing about politics, and then after a while she got 369 00:37:01.480 --> 00:37:06.800 so many liberals complaining that she eventually said a couple of liberal things, like, 370 00:37:07.920 --> 00:37:09.599 you know, she's supported gay marriage, and then I think she supported 371 00:37:09.840 --> 00:37:16.000 Biden, but she was not as full throated about it as basically liberals wanted 372 00:37:16.280 --> 00:37:21.360 her to be. And then there got to be there's a little bit of 373 00:37:21.400 --> 00:37:28.400 this whole Taylor Swift versus Beyonce thing where Beyonce, who is also an incredibly 374 00:37:28.519 --> 00:37:32.960 popular, incredibly famous recording off artist, her moment that kind of like Taylor 375 00:37:34.000 --> 00:37:37.480 Swift's happening having right now, Her moment was probably more like ten or twelve 376 00:37:37.559 --> 00:37:45.599 years ago, and so people are mad. There's a certain undercurrent of liberals 377 00:37:45.239 --> 00:37:51.239 mad that Taylor Swift is like more popular right now than Beyonce because Beyonce's black, 378 00:37:51.280 --> 00:37:55.639 and so is it racist. There's liberals just have all this agita. 379 00:37:57.320 --> 00:38:04.719 There's a great Italian word, ajita, all this ajita that like people like 380 00:38:04.760 --> 00:38:08.239 a thing, and that it's not a black person, it's not someone in 381 00:38:08.280 --> 00:38:14.760 their intersectionality rainbow spectrum. Anyway, that'll do it for John Girardi Show'll see 382 00:38:14.760 --> 00:38:15.960 you guys next time on Power Talk.