Speaker 1: Fresh off the heels of the big Jake Tapper book
Speaker 1: that's coming out talking about how, oh President Biden was
Speaker 1: actually senile and everybody knew about it, and now we're
Speaker 1: going to do this giant cya and we were all
Speaker 1: deceived by this elaborate ruse, which, by the way, I
Speaker 1: don't want to call whatever happened with basically the media
Speaker 1: refusing to acknowledge that Biden was senile. I don't want
Speaker 1: to call it a cover up. It was an emperor
Speaker 1: has no clothes situation, and that's not a cover up.
Speaker 1: Emperor has no closed situation is the emperor's in full
Speaker 1: view of everybody with no clothes on. Everyone can see it.
Speaker 1: But everyone is too intimidated by the emperor, or I
Speaker 1: don't know, wanting the emperor to remain in power or something,
Speaker 1: to actually have the guts to stand there and say, hey,
Speaker 1: the emperor has no clothes. Only in this context, sixty
Speaker 1: percent of the country was acknowledging that the emperor had
Speaker 1: no clothes. You have to reinforce this point. Before the
Speaker 1: CNN debate, sixty percent of the country said Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is too old to be president. Sixty percent of the
Speaker 1: country had seen the video, the videos, multiple multiple videos.
Speaker 1: Seen the guy talk where he kind of talks like
Speaker 1: this and then he would kind of whisper for some
Speaker 1: stupid reason, like he It was obvious. It was obvious
Speaker 1: to anyone with eyes. And the only people who for
Speaker 1: whom it was not obvious were Democrat partisans who had
Speaker 1: to willfully blind themselves to this reality because the reality
Speaker 1: was really politically disastrous for them. You have a senile
Speaker 1: old man in the White House and he's trying to
Speaker 1: run for president again. Well, now we've got on top
Speaker 1: of it all this cancer diagnosis, and the media is
Speaker 1: rushing to recreate all of the exact same, the exact
Speaker 1: same sort of timetable of denials, giving way to be grudging. Okay,
Speaker 1: yeah it was true. So what happened with Biden's sanility?
Speaker 1: First it was the media saying anyone who thinks Biden
Speaker 1: is senile is a conspiracy theorist engaging in an unfounded speculation.
Speaker 1: Then Biden has the disastrous June debate and it's clear
Speaker 1: he's more of a political liability than he is an asset,
Speaker 1: and the media say, well, recent events have resulted in
Speaker 1: calling into question whether President Biden's mental acuity. And then
Speaker 1: finally we get the Jake Tapper book and there's like, okay,
Speaker 1: well a re updated reporting has revealed as long as
Speaker 1: there's reporting about it, you know, the reporting that they
Speaker 1: the media failed to do initially that they the media
Speaker 1: very easily could have done, should have done for years. Well,
Speaker 1: updated reporting as indicated. But basically, the media tries to
Speaker 1: take this attitude of you were Republicans, you conservatives who
Speaker 1: thought he was senile, then you didn't have enough basis
Speaker 1: to do it. Then you were still wrong for thinking that,
Speaker 1: rather than saying, oh, well, you Republicans were right all along,
Speaker 1: and you know, believing your lying eyes was actually the
Speaker 1: right thing to do, believing your eyes when you would
Speaker 1: watch Biden, you know, try to walk. I mean the
Speaker 1: Biden's greatest enemy seemingly was having to depart from any
Speaker 1: stage where he was talking, because it feels like fifty
Speaker 1: percent of the time he would just walk. He's just
Speaker 1: walking in any rate direction to get off of a
Speaker 1: stage where he's talking, and God knows which direction he's
Speaker 1: going in and whether it's the right one. So that
Speaker 1: was the cycle. It was. Republicans are engaged in unfounded
Speaker 1: speculation to updated reporting because maybe in light of recent events,
Speaker 1: updated reporting is indicated that perhaps President Biden is blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah to begrudging acceptance. It seems like
Speaker 1: the same thing is happening right now with this cancer diagnosis.
Speaker 1: Biden is diagnosed over the weekend with horrible stage four
Speaker 1: prostate cancer. It's really bad. Over the weekend, pretty much
Speaker 1: all the talking points from elected Republicans from the president
Speaker 1: down were just sympathy, sympathy directed to the Bidens themselves,
Speaker 1: which is the right thing to do. As we come
Speaker 1: out of the weekend into Monday Tuesday, the question then arises, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know, he's only been out of office for I
Speaker 1: don't know, less than one hundred and fifty days. Did
Speaker 1: he have cancer while he was president? Like and I
Speaker 1: from what I have read and seen, it seems like
Speaker 1: it's only a very small percentage of prostate cancer cases
Speaker 1: can go from you know, zero to stage four within
Speaker 1: that short of a timeframe. The overwhelming majority of cases
Speaker 1: would indicate that actually, yeah, Biden probably had this while
Speaker 1: he was president. And you've got people like you know.
Speaker 1: There was a good piece in National Review about this,
Speaker 1: written by Noah Rothman, who's one of their big writers,
Speaker 1: And the title of it is simply, how dare they?
Speaker 1: And it's basically all about this topic. Basically, he's saying,
Speaker 1: how dare the media act like we are wild eyed
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorists for asking the question about an administration that
Speaker 1: the media themselves is admitting that the administration engaged in
Speaker 1: a massive cover up of Biden's sinility. And now the
Speaker 1: media is going to have the temerity to say of
Speaker 1: conservatives asking did he have cancer while he was president,
Speaker 1: they're going to say that we are wild conspiracy theorists.
Speaker 1: There's an NBC News story about the Biden diagnosis and
Speaker 1: Republicans speculating. Here's the quote from this NBC News story
Speaker 1: about it, which which seems to be the going This
Speaker 1: seems to be the line that the media is using
Speaker 1: across a lot. Many media outlets are using this line.
Speaker 1: This is an NBC News piece by Peter Nicholas and
Speaker 1: the correci They write, the alarming news of Biden's illness,
Speaker 1: coupled with the damage to biden world's credibility when it
Speaker 1: comes to his fitness, are the tender for unfounded speculation
Speaker 1: that Biden knew he was sick. And concealed it until
Speaker 1: he left office. Unfounded speculation. I'd say it's pretty well founded.
Speaker 1: I didn't just come up with the idea on my own.
Speaker 1: They just announced he's got stage four cancer. I would
Speaker 1: like to know when it was stage one and call
Speaker 1: me crazy. I feel like that could very well have
Speaker 1: been over a year ago, while he was still the
Speaker 1: leading Democrat candidate for the presidency. I don't how is
Speaker 1: that crazy? There are a million scenarios where that could
Speaker 1: have been the case. In fact, there was a video
Speaker 1: of Biden giving a speech back in twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: where he made some We just chalked it up to
Speaker 1: Biden being senile and doing one of his usual verbal
Speaker 1: slips where he seemed to indicate that were where that
Speaker 1: he and all of his family members have cancer or
Speaker 1: a lot of family members have had cancer, and at
Speaker 1: the time it was brushed off with, oh, well, you
Speaker 1: know he's had skin cancer before. So they they're they're
Speaker 1: redoing this whole same this, this whole same circus where
Speaker 1: they start by saying, oh, this is just wild, unfounded speculation.
Speaker 1: Then they will do any reporting, any investigation into it
Speaker 1: at all, and they're going to come up with more
Speaker 1: data that yeah, Biden knew about this for you know,
Speaker 1: years and was getting treatment for it the whole time,
Speaker 1: and lied to the American public, including like Biden was
Speaker 1: getting regular checkups and was having the results of those
Speaker 1: checkups be announced. Were we just being lied to? Because
Speaker 1: that's the thing. If this is Vinnie Schmucatelli getting diagnosed
Speaker 1: with stage four cancer, Joe Schmoe, who you know maybe
Speaker 1: goes to the doctor once a year, you know, not
Speaker 1: doing a full battery tests whatever. If it's if it's
Speaker 1: my wife's Minnesotan relatives who lived in rural Minnesota, like
Speaker 1: her grandpa and that that sort of generation who you know,
Speaker 1: never wanted to go to a doctor ever for anything,
Speaker 1: only go to the doctor like when you know, their
Speaker 1: legs falling off after a you know, a combine accident. Okay,
Speaker 1: I could believe that we only just learned that Grandpa
Speaker 1: Kleisky has you know, stage four cancer, and that nobody
Speaker 1: knew about it before. This is the President of the
Speaker 1: United States. Nobody's health is being more closely and carefully
Speaker 1: monitored than his nobody. And again, stage four colon cancer
Speaker 1: usually just does not materialize that quickly. That oh yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was totally healthy when he was in office, and
Speaker 1: now he's Oh, now he's about to die. And even
Speaker 1: liberals have admitted this. Z Commanuel, who the guy who
Speaker 1: wrote Obamacare, who was a prominent advisor to the Obama
Speaker 1: and Biden administrations on healthcare issues. Rama Manuel's brother wrote,
Speaker 1: he did not develop it in the last one hundred
Speaker 1: two hundred days, said doctor z Commanuel, a former advisor
Speaker 1: to the Obama administration. He had it while he was president,
Speaker 1: probably had it at the start of his presidency. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one. Urologist doctor David Schusterman agrees. This is
Speaker 1: from Noah Rothman's piece in National Review. Doctor David Schusterman
Speaker 1: eurologists agrees the fact that we just find it at
Speaker 1: a Gleason nine level. So the Gleason scale, I guess,
Speaker 1: is the scale which you use to determine, I guess
Speaker 1: the severity of at least colon cancer. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if it's for other kinds of cancers. So it's a
Speaker 1: scale one to nine. Excuse me, one to ten. Nine
Speaker 1: is like almost the worst. That's where Biden is. Eurologist
Speaker 1: doctor David Schustman agrees the fact that we just find
Speaker 1: it at a Gleason nine is just pretty much unheard
Speaker 1: of in this day and age of medicine, he said,
Speaker 1: of the curious extent of Biden's cancer. Of Biden's cancer's metastasis. Rather,
Speaker 1: the president's condition is what a physician might encounter when
Speaker 1: treating a patient who hasn't had medical attention in ten year. See,
Speaker 1: that's what I'm talking about. This. This is like Grandpa
Speaker 1: Kleisky living out in rural Minnesota who still has like
Speaker 1: a rural like distrust of doctors. But he feels so
Speaker 1: bad that finally his wife convinces him to go to
Speaker 1: the doctor, and he hasn't been to the doctor in
Speaker 1: you know, seven years. Yeah, you have stage four cancer. Like, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's an outcome. We could that that that is understandable,
Speaker 1: not you know, the president of the United States, who's
Speaker 1: getting the best healthcare humanly possible. So unfounded speculation, bul bleep.
Speaker 1: It is not unfounded. It is heavily founded, just on
Speaker 1: the nature of what he had, of what he they're
Speaker 1: telling us he has. It's one percent reasonable. And furthermore,
Speaker 1: it's even more reasonable given that they lied to us.
Speaker 1: They lied to us. We know that they lied to
Speaker 1: us about his mental acuity. They lied to us while
Speaker 1: we could see it. I mean, there's something particularly galling
Speaker 1: about being lied to while you can see it in
Speaker 1: front of your face, the telling you to not believe
Speaker 1: your lying eyes aspect of it. And I think it's
Speaker 1: this horrific danger to the whole structure of Republican governance
Speaker 1: that we have the executive power vested in one person,
Speaker 1: the executive He's the lynchpin for the whole executive branch. This,
Speaker 1: by the way, is a quote from the Jake Tapper book.
Speaker 1: And as much as I dislike Jake Tapper cynically like
Speaker 1: cashing in on this after denying for years that Biden
Speaker 1: had anything wrong with him, I mean this is a
Speaker 1: telling quote because it's exactly what every Republican was saying,
Speaker 1: what every conservative who was pretty sure that Biden was
Speaker 1: seen al was saying. He has this quote from quote
Speaker 1: a person familiar with the internal dynamic of the Biden
Speaker 1: White House. And although I must say I hate the
Speaker 1: cowardice of all these Biden people who are leaking these
Speaker 1: anonymous quotes to Jake Tapper in this obvious c ya.
Speaker 1: Now when it doesn't matter, when it doesn't actually when
Speaker 1: you know, the country already went through the risk of
Speaker 1: having basically an incompetent person at the head of the
Speaker 1: executive branch. Anyway, this quote from a person familiar with
Speaker 1: the internal dynamic of the Biden White House that is
Speaker 1: in Tapper's book. This person said, quote, five people were
Speaker 1: running the country and Joe Oh Biden was at best
Speaker 1: a senior member of the board. Who were those five people?
Speaker 1: That's what we all suspected all along. We suspected all
Speaker 1: along that there was a couple of people, a shadowy
Speaker 1: group of people, really pulling the strings, and that Biden
Speaker 1: was sort of with it, maybe with it, maybe part
Speaker 1: of the decision making, but ultimately there were there were
Speaker 1: power brokers pulling the strings. Who were they? I want
Speaker 1: to know their five names? When we return. I ask
Speaker 1: the question kui bono? Who benefits from all this? Next?
Speaker 1: On the John Girardi Show. There's a Latin phrase, kui bono?
Speaker 1: Who benefits? And it's a good question to answer to
Speaker 1: ask yourself in politics, especially with the release when certain
Speaker 1: information gets released, Why certain information it's released? Who benefits?
Speaker 1: Who benefits from all these different revelations we've had in
Speaker 1: the last two weeks about Biden's mental health, now, Biden's
Speaker 1: physical health, et cetera. So why do we learn now
Speaker 1: about Biden's cancer? I mean, they covered it up this,
Speaker 1: you know, assuming that they covered it up this whole time,
Speaker 1: which frankly it seems implausible to think that they didn't
Speaker 1: cover it up. Again, you don't. It's basically exceedingly rare
Speaker 1: to go from no cancer while you're president to stage
Speaker 1: four cancer you're going to die within I don't know
Speaker 1: how how far out we are from January twentieth, about
Speaker 1: you know, less than one hundred and fifty days. It's
Speaker 1: just not plausible. This is the diagnosis you would find
Speaker 1: in someone who hasn't been to the doctor in seven years.
Speaker 1: Even hardcore left wing docs like Exekiel Emmanuel are saying
Speaker 1: he probably had it the whole time he was president
Speaker 1: and he didn't tell anybody, So why reveal it now. Well,
Speaker 1: it may be that the Biden family thinks he's gonna
Speaker 1: die this summer, so maybe they feel like they kind
Speaker 1: of have to say something that they're you're not gonna
Speaker 1: see Joe around it, or he's about to go into
Speaker 1: super heavier treatment, or he's not going to be making
Speaker 1: any more public appearances for the foreseeable future or something.
Speaker 1: So the Biden family kind of feels like they have
Speaker 1: to give some kind of public explanation for that. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's it. I could see though, this being a ham
Speaker 1: fisted given you know, the brain trust running this at
Speaker 1: this point, which is presumably now reduced to you know,
Speaker 1: Jill and Joe and Hunter, and you know, they probably
Speaker 1: don't have the the bevy of Democrat advisor and political
Speaker 1: advisors and pr advisors around them. They assuredly they have some,
Speaker 1: but they certainly don't have as many as he did
Speaker 1: when he was still president. So maybe this was a
Speaker 1: ham fisted attempt to deflect from the Jake Tapper book.
Speaker 1: Here's the Jake Tapper book coming out. I'm going to
Speaker 1: say President Biden was seen ale this whole time, and
Speaker 1: there was this big cover up. So maybe the Biden
Speaker 1: family thinks, why don't we release that he's got this
Speaker 1: cancer diagnosis. Maybe that will stem the tide a little
Speaker 1: bit and people will have sympathy for Joe and it'll
Speaker 1: just make that story kind of it'll sort of deflate
Speaker 1: the book, deflate that story and kind of make it
Speaker 1: go away. Maybe they didn't account for the fact that
Speaker 1: really all that revelation is going to do is make
Speaker 1: people ask more questions that maybe they covered up more stuff,
Speaker 1: specifically his cancer did Oh so, now not only were
Speaker 1: you lying to the American public about the state of
Speaker 1: his mental health, you are also lying to the American
Speaker 1: public about the state of his physical health. That you know,
Speaker 1: and what are we to think of all of these
Speaker 1: releases from his doctors saying, Oh, he's in the greatest
Speaker 1: health ever, He's super clean, Bill hillth Oh, this Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: he's just an amazing guy. What are we supposed to
Speaker 1: think of that? It seems kind of I mean, those
Speaker 1: statements seem pretty implausible at this point. Now, let's go
Speaker 1: to Jake Tapper's book Koi Bono. Who benefits well? Tapper benefits.
Speaker 1: Tapper and Alex Thompson, the writers of the book, they
Speaker 1: benefit because now they've got a number one New York
Speaker 1: Times bestseller on their hands. They got the hottest book
Speaker 1: in Washington, they got the book that's going to be
Speaker 1: driving news coverage for the next month. They're going to
Speaker 1: make out like bandits financially. It also provides them and
Speaker 1: maybe the media as a whole with cover, this cover
Speaker 1: that they desperately need, and Tapper certainly feels himself a
Speaker 1: member of this tribe and wanting to defend this tribe
Speaker 1: of media hacks that we were deceived. They want to
Speaker 1: create this landscape of it's not our fault that we
Speaker 1: didn't investigate this, that we didn't report on it, and
Speaker 1: that we called everyone who said it was happening conspiracy theorists.
Speaker 1: They want to say that it's not their fault. It's
Speaker 1: not their fault, even though again they didn't report on it,
Speaker 1: they didn't investigate it, and they called all the Republicans
Speaker 1: who were saying itnspiracy theorists. They want to have this
Speaker 1: book out so that the party line is we were
Speaker 1: deceived with an elaborate ruse, even though all you had
Speaker 1: to do was look at the guy and you could
Speaker 1: figure out that, yeah, probably everything's not quite right upstairs.
Speaker 1: Like and that's the most galling part about this that
Speaker 1: they dare call it a cover up. It's not a
Speaker 1: cover up. It was happening right in front of everybody,
Speaker 1: for all the world to see, on all the television
Speaker 1: cameras that you guys were watching, just as well as
Speaker 1: everyone else, and they didn't want to believe it because
Speaker 1: if they accepted the reality that was in front of
Speaker 1: them Joe Biden is senile, then it's a disaster for
Speaker 1: their preferred politics. Their preferred politics was for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: to win the twenty twenty four election so that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump wouldn't And really that's the end goal of everything.
Speaker 1: They just didn't want Donald Trump to win in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, so they had to keep pretending like Joe
Speaker 1: Biden was okay, and he wasn't okay, And so they
Speaker 1: didn't investigate it, they didn't report on it, and they
Speaker 1: called everyone who was a Republican who was saying that
Speaker 1: there was a problem here conspiracy theorists. So now they
Speaker 1: have to have some kind of way to cover their butts.
Speaker 1: So the Jake Tapper book comes out saying what an
Speaker 1: elaborate ruse was played on us, the poor innocent media.
Speaker 1: All right, when we return, we'll talk about a couple
Speaker 1: of different California things. Poor old Gavin Newsom, He's made
Speaker 1: everybody angry and he still hasn't really fixed the budget.
Speaker 1: That's next on the John Girardi Show. Poor Gavin Newsom,
Speaker 1: I'm willing to say, poor Gavin Newsom, because I think
Speaker 1: his whole political house of cards, his ambitions of running
Speaker 1: for president, I think they're all kind of falling apart
Speaker 1: right now. The high speed rail continues to be a disaster.
Speaker 1: He's facing another huge hole with the state's budget, and
Speaker 1: just basically this assessment that we're going to just chronically
Speaker 1: chronically face billions of dollars in deficits, tens of billions
Speaker 1: of dollars in deficits year over year over year. He's
Speaker 1: trying to do some cuts as best he can, and
Speaker 1: it's really ticking off his own allies. Planned parenthood of
Speaker 1: all people is furious at him. He you know, one
Speaker 1: of the centerpieces of his campaigning for governor in twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen was single healthcare for all, single payer healthcare for all,
Speaker 1: and he's had to roll that. Well, he never actually
Speaker 1: pursued single payer health care. That was, you know, one
Speaker 1: of the big sleazy lies of his or I guess
Speaker 1: baiton switches whatever. Instead of going for single payer healthcare,
Speaker 1: which he realized would have required enormous tax increases and
Speaker 1: you know, politically was not feasible for him, he instead
Speaker 1: just massively increased medical eligibility and capped it off by
Speaker 1: offering medical eligibility to illegal aliens. And he now has
Speaker 1: to roll that back because it costs billions and billions
Speaker 1: of dollars more than he anticipated it would, So he
Speaker 1: has to retreat even from that one of his signature
Speaker 1: policy quote achievements, and he's left with nothing. He said
Speaker 1: he would try to do stuff to fix wildfires all throughout,
Speaker 1: and then we had the worst wildfires ever in January
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty five. He said he would do stuff
Speaker 1: to fix almostness. Holmelessness is still a terrible problem. He
Speaker 1: said he do stuff to help fix, help build more
Speaker 1: housing and housing affordability. Nothing has happened to improve that situation.
Speaker 1: An issue after issue after issue he has failed. He
Speaker 1: has no real successes to hang his hat on other
Speaker 1: than a couple of pot shots at Ron DeSantis and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and suing Donald Trump a lot. That's his
Speaker 1: only success that he can claim. And so as a result,
Speaker 1: I sort of look at him like a wounded I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe he doesn't see how wounded he is, and maybe
Speaker 1: he's still mister confident or something, but I just don't
Speaker 1: feel like he's got a shot. I feel like on
Speaker 1: any debate stage, if there's any Democrat ambitious enough to
Speaker 1: really go at him for his record, he has nothing.
Speaker 1: He has nothing to hang his hat on. He has
Speaker 1: no real accomplishments to hang his hat on, other than
Speaker 1: expanding medical eligibility I guess which he's now had to
Speaker 1: roll back in shameful embarrassment. So Dan Walters is always
Speaker 1: a good read, writes for Calmutters dot org. He's writing
Speaker 1: about how basically news and this often is a dynamic
Speaker 1: and sacramento. The governor has to be the adult in
Speaker 1: the room. Sometimes the members of the state legislator legislature,
Speaker 1: the Democrat state legislators and the Assembly and the state Senate,
Speaker 1: they're able to act like unaccountable left wing babies and
Speaker 1: pass wild bills that are totally unaccountable, that aren't really responsible,
Speaker 1: that refuse to look at the big picture, and that
Speaker 1: look at the narrow picture of this pet cause that
Speaker 1: they have without acknowledging that, hey, we have a whole
Speaker 1: budget that we have to take care of. If we
Speaker 1: spend a lot of money on every single thing in
Speaker 1: the budget, the budget's going to be too bloated. We
Speaker 1: have to cut things, we have to reduce spending on
Speaker 1: certain things. A state budget like California's cannot permanently spend
Speaker 1: in the red the way that the federal government can.
Speaker 1: The federal government can just keep printing money. State government
Speaker 1: can't do that. So as a result, the governor and
Speaker 1: I don't care how liberal your governor is, Newsom has
Speaker 1: had to do this multiple multiple times over the course
Speaker 1: of his term. Governor Jerry Brown had to do it
Speaker 1: over his eight years as governor. They have to be
Speaker 1: the adult in the room and they have to say
Speaker 1: we're gonna cut this, we're gonna cut that, and we're
Speaker 1: not going to pass this bill because it spends too
Speaker 1: much money or that bill, and it's always kind of
Speaker 1: angry Democrats. But this year, boy, there, I feel like
Speaker 1: maybe the liberals in California are just like, look, he's
Speaker 1: a lame duck. After this year, we don't have to
Speaker 1: listen to him anymore. We don't care about alienating him anymore,
Speaker 1: we don't have to work for him. You know, We've
Speaker 1: got one more year with this guy and then we're
Speaker 1: done with him. They just don't care as much about
Speaker 1: alienating him again. Like I read the Planned Parenthood Federation
Speaker 1: of California press release about some of Newsom's budget cuts,
Speaker 1: which they say are going to result in a one
Speaker 1: third cut of all California state funding that goes to
Speaker 1: Planned parenthood. And their attitude was outrage. We are outraged
Speaker 1: at Governor Newsom. At Governor Newsom, they're not even talking
Speaker 1: about like, oh, well, we look for you know, we're
Speaker 1: concerned about this and we want to work with the
Speaker 1: governor in order to help see if we can fix this. No,
Speaker 1: they're like, we are outraged. We look forward to working
Speaker 1: with the legislature to see if we can fix it.
Speaker 1: Not working with Newsom anyway. Here's Dan Walter's writing about this.
Speaker 1: When Governor Newsom unveiled a revised state budget last week,
Speaker 1: he irritated and perhaps alienated major interest groups allied with
Speaker 1: his Democratic Party. They flooded reporters email inboxes with critical
Speaker 1: reaction statements, demanding that spending reductions he said were necessary
Speaker 1: to cover a substantial deficit in other aspects of the
Speaker 1: budget be blocked. The loudest reactions came from advocates for
Speaker 1: the poor and elderly. They decried Newsom's planned to scale
Speaker 1: back an expansion of medical health care to undocumented immigrants
Speaker 1: that he had championed last year, as well as his
Speaker 1: imposition of one hundred dollars monthly premiums, elimination of some benefits,
Speaker 1: limits on at home care, and tighter qualifications for benefits.
Speaker 1: The twenty twenty five budget proposal fails tomorrow marshall the
Speaker 1: resources needed to help vulnerable Californians meet basic needs like
Speaker 1: health care, housing, and food assistants. The left leaning California
Speaker 1: Budget and Policy Center said it also falls short in
Speaker 1: delivering the bold response needed from California's leaders amid unprecedented
Speaker 1: federal threats and economic uncertainty. However, there were also adverse
Speaker 1: reactions from public employee unions over Newsom's intention to hold
Speaker 1: down state worker raises, from city and county officials over
Speaker 1: a lack of grants for homelessness. Newsom intends to crack
Speaker 1: down on local governments. He deems to be negligent. Boy,
Speaker 1: if he's upsetting the public sector unions, that is big
Speaker 1: me jumping in here. Look the one group. If you
Speaker 1: keep public sector unions happy in California, teachers' unions, other
Speaker 1: public employees, you've got it pretty good as a Democrat.
Speaker 1: All right, they're the most important power brokers in Democrat politics,
Speaker 1: in California politics. So and here's Newsom saying, hey, I
Speaker 1: Newsom is facing a bigger problem, which is that he
Speaker 1: authorized gazillions of dollars to be spent statewide on homelessness
Speaker 1: and it's not doing jack. So he's trying to shift
Speaker 1: the blame somehow. He's trying to shift the blame to
Speaker 1: these local governments. And that's the line that the pro
Speaker 1: Newsom side has been pushing out. It's not Newsom's fault.
Speaker 1: It's not Newsom's fault. Homelessness is a local government problem.
Speaker 1: He can't help it if these local well maybe he's
Speaker 1: going to try to help it now, he's going to
Speaker 1: try to have greater accountability for local governments if they
Speaker 1: don't spend the money. Right, So, here's Newsom trying to
Speaker 1: fix trying to shift the blame away from himself on
Speaker 1: the homelessness problem to local governments. And local governments are
Speaker 1: staffed by member of public sector employee unions, so they're
Speaker 1: not happy about that. Medicare provider. Medical care providers dislike
Speaker 1: both Newsom's medical restrictions and his diversion of fund uns
Speaker 1: from a special tax on healthcare approved by voters last year,
Speaker 1: meant to increase payments for treatment. Environmentalists are angered by
Speaker 1: Newsom's declared intent to fast track a tunnel beneath the
Speaker 1: Sacramento San Joaquin Delta to increase water deliveries to southern California.
Speaker 1: So the environmentalists are. Environmentalists are mad at anything. You
Speaker 1: can do anything. If you move a muscle in California,
Speaker 1: there's going to be an environmentalist wacko who is gonna
Speaker 1: just flip out because somehow it's harming something environmental. So
Speaker 1: he's ticking off the environmentalist And the thing is, nobody
Speaker 1: actually cares about ticking off the environmentalist groups. What they
Speaker 1: care about is ticking off the billionaires who give to
Speaker 1: environmentalist groups. That's what they're concerned about. Advocates of Proposition
Speaker 1: thirty six, a voter approved measure to crack down on
Speaker 1: some crimes that Newsom opposed, decried his failure to include
Speaker 1: funds for its implementation. Oh so we all voted for
Speaker 1: Prop thirty six and now we have no funds to
Speaker 1: implement it. Great. The wave of criticism and opposition puts
Speaker 1: the legislature on the spot. Those who dislike the budget
Speaker 1: are demanding that legislators compel Newsom to scale back his
Speaker 1: proposals as they negotiate a semi final version of the
Speaker 1: spending plan over the next four weeks to meet a
Speaker 1: June fifteenth deadline. Many legislators owe their careers to the
Speaker 1: budget critics, particularly unions and environmentalists, and they don't want
Speaker 1: to alienate them. See this is what I say. This
Speaker 1: is why you get the Dan Walters is saying, and
Speaker 1: you're getting the best political commentary in all California on
Speaker 1: this show. Unions and environmental groups they run the state.
Speaker 1: The state lawmakers, a lot of them owe their careers
Speaker 1: to unions and environmentalist groups. So if the unions are
Speaker 1: unhappy with this budget and the environmental groups are unhappy
Speaker 1: with this budget, Newsom's alienated them all. I don't know
Speaker 1: who's whom he's got left. Newsom, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: is approaching lame duck's status with his gubernatorial career, having
Speaker 1: just nineteen months remaining. We're counting down. We're counting down
Speaker 1: bad nineteen months. That's like when parents say that their
Speaker 1: kid is like, oh, he's twenty seven months old, Just
Speaker 1: just say he's two. But boy, the countdown is bad
Speaker 1: when people really want to get rid of this guy.
Speaker 1: If they're starting to countdown at like twenty months nineteen months, politically,
Speaker 1: Newsom can afford to. Politically, Newsom can afford to irritate
Speaker 1: those groups. However, his relatively brief remaining tenure also means
Speaker 1: he is beginning to lose his sway over legislators, particularly
Speaker 1: those who will still be in office after Newsom is gone. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so they're not as eager to listen to him now.
Speaker 1: Maybe Newsom thinks will to run for present. I don't
Speaker 1: actually care about whether I tick off California state public
Speaker 1: workers unions. Okay, fair environmental groups though I don't know
Speaker 1: environmental groups that can be dicey because a lot of
Speaker 1: their big time donors can also be big time donors
Speaker 1: for national Democrat politics too. Newsom is obviously hoping that
Speaker 1: by making budget cuts now to narrow the state's chronic
Speaker 1: gap between income and outgo, he can avoid joining the
Speaker 1: list of ex governors who left the state's finances in
Speaker 1: disarray for their successors. Newsom inherited a state budget from
Speaker 1: predecessor Jerry Brown that was in pretty good condition, but
Speaker 1: over the last six plus years which included a pandemic.
Speaker 1: Spending growth has outpaced revenue increases. The legislature's budget analyst
Speaker 1: recently cited an average nine percent annual increase in outlays
Speaker 1: since Newsom became governor, but just six percent in average
Speaker 1: revenue growth. So our revenue has grown by an average
Speaker 1: of six percent every year, and we've been spending an
Speaker 1: average of nine percent more per year. That's not going
Speaker 1: to work. That has left the state with what budget
Speaker 1: maven's call a substantial structural deficit that the analyst gave
Speaker 1: PETEC and Newsom's own budget staff estimate to be fifteen
Speaker 1: billion to twenty billion dollars annually. If it went unaddressed,
Speaker 1: it would total forty two billion through twenty twenty eight
Speaker 1: twenty twenty nine. Even with the reductions Newsom proposes projected
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five twenty twenty six general revenue General fund
Speaker 1: revenues of two hundred and seven billion dollars are still
Speaker 1: nineteen billion dollars short of the two hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: six billion dollars in spending that he proposes. The gap
Speaker 1: will be covered by loans and transfers from special funds,
Speaker 1: shifting spending to the other pots of money and various
Speaker 1: bookkeeping gimmicks when we return, how can Newsom really run
Speaker 1: for president? With this? Next on The John Drurdy Show,
Speaker 1: Poor Gavin Newsom, I really I got to ask this question,
Speaker 1: how does he think he can win the presidency? I
Speaker 1: really can't understand it because the failures that Newsom has
Speaker 1: racked up over his you know, almost six and a
Speaker 1: half years now in office. It's been in office six
Speaker 1: and a half years. The failures he've racked up a
Speaker 1: lot of them are not necessarily partisan coded failures. We've
Speaker 1: continued to have tons of wildfires. That's bad. Whether you're
Speaker 1: a liberal or a conservative, you haven't fixed the problem.
Speaker 1: That's not a liberal or a conservative critique. It's not
Speaker 1: like Newsome, you know, introduce single payer health care and
Speaker 1: some people like it, some people don't, and Republicans say, oh,
Speaker 1: liberal Newsome introduce single payer health care. Well, like a
Speaker 1: Republican might criticize that, But on a Democrat primary debate stage,
Speaker 1: Newsom having done. If he had done something like that,
Speaker 1: Newsom would look like a million bucks on a Democrat
Speaker 1: debate stage. Other Democrats would have to acknowledge he accomplished
Speaker 1: a big liberal priority. But the problem is Newsom's failures
Speaker 1: are all not really partis encoded wildfires, having to roll
Speaker 1: back his own policies because it costs too much, massive
Speaker 1: budget deficits, structural budget deficits year over year, homelessness, spending
Speaker 1: gazillions of dollars in homelessness and the homeless levels aren't changing.
Speaker 1: This is all stuff where he's open to criticism from
Speaker 1: other Democrats. I don't understand how he's gonna get on
Speaker 1: a debate stage with other Democrats and with his record
Speaker 1: not have them tear him limb from limb. The high
Speaker 1: speed rail is still not operational. Democrat is going to
Speaker 1: be on that debate stage and be the Tulsa Gabbard
Speaker 1: to his Kamala Harris and just rip him apart because
Speaker 1: his failures are not necessarily partisan, They're just failures that'll
Speaker 1: do it. John Girardi Show, See you next time on
Speaker 1: Power Talk