Speaker 1: All right, welcome to another episode of the Chicks on
the Right podcast where we talk to our good friend
and sponsor of the show, Zach Abraham from Bulwert Capital Management.
And today, Zach, there's so much going on with Doge
and with like this continuing resolution drama, the government shutting down,
all the drama that's been happening, and so part of
what's going on with Doge and part of what's going
on with Trump is that there's a lot of focus
right now on federal employees working from home, and apparently
the Social Security Administration came to some agreement with their
union or whatever saying, oh, yeah, all of our work
at home employees can stay working at home until twenty
twenty nine. And Trump is like, no, no, And of
course Elon has not been a proponent of work from
home situations for his own businesses, and so I'm sure
that with Doge, he's going to be weighing in on that.
What are your thoughts about President Trump getting in the
mix of this? Do you think working at home for
federal employees should be allowed?
Speaker 2: And do you do it for your business? And like
how do you handle it? Curious?
Speaker 3: So I'm probably the wrong guy to ask about this
because we didn't have a single work from home day
during COVID, right.
Speaker 1: So yeah, we work every day.
Speaker 2: We did too, Yeah, we did too. We went to work.
Speaker 3: Uh And and I guess I'm safe to say it now,
you know, but like just because it's all blown over now,
But I remember I had I had a discussion with
the team like the first day of the shutdowns, and
I looked at him and I was like, look, I
can't buy law tell any of you to be here,
but I will be taking notes right like this, and yeah, yeah,
And the and the thing is is, first of all,
you know, I was telling them that at that time,
because we went into that period of time really concerned
and so we had a lot of defense in our
investments and so we didn't get it. And I knew
that because of that, we've probably have a big inflow
of new clients. And I said to our people, I go,
this is our superman. You need to be here. Right,
goes back to that competitive.
Speaker 2: Conversation we're having, right right, So no, I think.
Speaker 3: At some point and this is the thing that again
to me, is an a political conversation that we should
all be able to unite around. This is about the
efficacy of our money, right, This is about the efficiency
and the respect for our money. Right, and if they
were a for profit organization, and the respect and duty
they have to their shareholders, which in my opinion, the
fiduciary responsibility of our elected officials far supersedes that of
fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Right. You wouldn't see a publicly
traded company still doing this. They're all reversing policy on this,
but the US government isn't going to. If you want
a club medic sphereans, go get a different job, right right.
And and look, I would even be willing if structured correctly,
especially in something like the education system. I would be
all about stripping out some of the bureaucratic administrative stuff
and give these people increases and salaries. But with that
comes increased responsibility game working fromorrow. Right, This isn't club
med so I love it. And all these bills that
you see passing right now, I just feel like they're
legislative sand in the gears that I feel like a
The other one that I think is really funny is
the way it's worded, how it just exonerates all of
these people right, like, they can't. They can't. I was
going through yesterday, Right, they can't get prosecuted, and and
you sit there and the irony of all of that.
They're they're all paranoid about Trump. He's going to come
after us. He's going to come after us, right, and
you go, why where would you get that idea?
Speaker 2: Right? You should be right?
Speaker 3: And it reminds me of the old ad is right
if you're on a street and somebody tells you, hey,
there's a there's a there's a burglar, there's a cat
burglar on this street, but we're not going to tell
you who it is. How do you find out? Right, Well,
look for the guy with the best security system, right, yeah,
Why that's the lens he sees the world through. Right.
It was just funny reading that legislation because I'm sitting
there going, this is an admission to every single thing
that we would accuse them of. And that's why you
know they're they That's what they did. So they're gonna
they're gonna try to cover their own backside.
Speaker 2: I'm covering their own backsize and then wanting a raise,
all right.
Speaker 3: Well, and then I heard a couple of articles I
saw these articles going you know, you know, congressional salaries
and were going down versus inflation, and and if we
want less bribes, then we need to up their salary.
And I, oh my god, who I go. Hey, I'm
all about increasing their salary more than seventy grand a year,
but not unless it comes with the needed legislation to
end increased punishments for bribes, right, like do a restructuring.
Otherwise this is just a handout to congressional members, right.
Speaker 2: Actually, how much do they make? They make, like because
they und seventy five six thousand a year. Yeah, I
feel yeah, there are a lot of people, especially who
they expect to pay them a raise, like a forty
percent raise. There are a lot of people out there
that don't make that much.
Speaker 1: Private sector raises are three percent to five percent if
you're lucky.
Speaker 3: Right, their raised still, their raise, I believe is higher
or commensurate to the average living wage in this country.
Speaker 2: Goes raise the race, just the raise.
Speaker 3: I might even go for it if we sit there
and say, okay, the one caveat that comes with this
raise is you nor you no longer nor anybody connected
to you can trade based off information you're here on
Capitol Hill.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Martha Stewart would agree with you you yeah.
Speaker 3: Well yeah, and and and why would we with all
of the things wrong that both sides, that all of
the constituency understands is wrong with Congress, why would any
of us sign off on this? Right?
Speaker 2: Well, because people are people like to punish themselves, especially
people on the left. They think because it's same, all same, Well,
they don't like because it's very disruptive, right, this is
very just we wanted it forever I've been We've been
talking about this for fifteen years. We've been talking about this,
but it's finally like we're thinking, oh my gosh, this
could maybe happen. They don't if they get the balls
to actually do it, because that's part of the problem
this week at least. But I mean, if it happens,
a lot of people are very uncomfortable with change. They
just they're they're comfortable with the abuse that we've been
taking because a lot of this, let's face it is theft.
That's the way I look at it.
Speaker 3: It is. But that's why it's so important that these
guys got to follow through, because this is not one
of those classic situations. Truthfully, I believe if they follow
through and what they say they're going to do, they'll
win the next election sixty forty, right, because people are
so tired of it. Right, there is such easy fat
to cut out of the system.
Speaker 1: So do you think that they can really reach that
two trillion dollar cut goal?
Speaker 2: Do you think that they can do that?
Speaker 3: Well? So, possibly, as it relates to something like the
CBOE right, or excuse me, the CBO, the Congressional Budgeting
Office the CBO, Like if you extrapolated over time, perhaps yes,
But they can they trim the Can they trim the
expected budget over the next ten years by two trillion? No? No,
not without serious economic pain. But remember you've got to
look at these things on you know, twenty five to
fifty year time horizons. The other thing that they can do,
and the thing that's really hard to handicap, is if
done correctly, the decreases in regulations will lead to increased
productivity for you, increase profit and increased tax receipts. That's
that's really to me going to have a bigger impact
than the than the tax cuts. Yeah, right, uh, or
excuse me, than the than the spending cuts in terms
of balancing the budget long term and putting us in
a in a realistic place because when you look at
the math and you just look at the button, you
look at what we spent per year versus the economy. Hey,
you you you have to pull both of those numbers
together to ever think you're going to approach stable, right,
Like the spreads too large, right, Yeah, you got to
do it on both ends.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: I love hearing all the belly ache and from like
you know, the deep state, the establishment, especially with these
work from home guidelines. They're like, well, but if we
insist that these employees come back to work, then a
whole bunch of people are going to quit. And you know,
Vavak and Elon are like, yeah, that's what I want.
Speaker 3: What do you want? By right by? And this is
like this to me, if they quit, they don't need
the job exactly, So so we're supposed to like we're
sad that they retired the job. Great, enjoy the rest
of your life, right. And this is this is the
thing that angers me so much, is that at some point,
being in government, or being employed by government, or being
a politician, they act as if it entitles them to
a better life yeah, right, and you look at them
and go. It entitles you to service.
Speaker 2: Right, right, It's supposed to do right And.
Speaker 3: Our job is not to line your pockets. If you
want to maximize your income capability, start a business, right Like,
it's called public service. Now, Like, could I be like
I said, could I be in favor? And I can't
even believe I'm saying this, but could I be in
favor potentially to pay congressional members five hundred grand a year? Sure?
If if packaged correctly, Because there is one thing to say, like,
if we want to if we want to eliminate corruption
from the system, and we want to get our best
and brightest right into the system, I do think it
is appropriate to say that part of that solution probably
would need to include substantially higher salaries. Right, well, really
that would happen, yeah, because look, I mean, look, I'm
not calling myself one of the best and brightest, all right,
I'm just saying, as a forty three year old business owner,
there's no way in hell I could take I could
afford to take that job. I just can do it.
Speaker 2: But I would say, but the thing is, the caveat
would be if we paid them that much money. There
would have to be no insider trading. There'd have to
be no speaking engagements, no book deals, none of that crap. Like,
they would really be truly serving and they wouldn't be
in service to lobbyists. They'd be in service to us,
and we'd have to have check some balances to make
sure that that was actually happening.
Speaker 3: Yes, And another one that would have to be included
in that package is a ten year freeze out, a
ten year moratorium on you taking an employment with anybody
in an industry that you did legislation on, or that
you lobbied on, or that anything whatsoever to do totally
if you just sat on a committee, Yeah, penyres, you
are blackballed from taking employment that at that industry.
Speaker 2: I could get on board with that, Zach, because I
think it would weed out a lot of the scumbags really,
and then you would get better people in there, because
they'd be like, all right, I'm doing this because I
am wanting to serve, you.
Speaker 1: Know, because yeah, But then you'd also be getting total
riff raff because you're what you're doing is you're always
relying on just the general public to get people elected
and people in America elect morons. We've seen this time
and time again.
Speaker 3: It is, but we are we're believers in free markets, right,
so totally if we up compensation, if we're CEO. Let's
say you and I start a company, right, the Chicks
Podcast Company, and you guys bring me in as a consultant, right,
and we want to hire a CEO. Do you think
we're going to get better applicants at two hundred and
fifty or five hundre grand a year?
Speaker 2: Well? Probably maybe, obviously five hundred, but for this job.
I mean, I don't really consider these Yahoo's CEOs. And
maybe it's because I'm just so jaded. Maybe that's why
it is. I need to be less jaded about it.
Speaker 3: Well, I no, no, I agree with you. I don't
think they are CEOs. All I'm saying is I don't
like the idea of paying these guys more, but to
like to preserve the sancty like for instance, one of
the reasons we don't have a corruption problem in this
country is because of the compensation that our police officers receive. Right,
it doesn't make sense for them to take one hundred
dollars bill on the side of the highway and compromise
their pension and they're ninety to one hundred and twenty
thousand dollars a year income. Right, Right, So like you
flip down in Mexico, you got the exact opposite problem, right, So,
meaning there is a part of that, but it would
need to like like we said, it would need to
come with so many of these caveats and the current system,
if you really sit back and think about it, right now,
the current system attracts only two types of people, right,
people that truly want to serve and are passionate about
making a difference or grifters.
Speaker 2: Right, and the people who and the people who really
want to serve a lot of them get in there
and they become grifters.
Speaker 3: Well true, yeah, because and it's it's the slippery slope, right,
because you know what, I don't really believe in this bill,
but if I don't vote for it, I won't exactly
elect it again, and then I won't be able to
keep making a difference. Right.
Speaker 2: They're always running, They're always running for freaking election always,
right Johnson. Yeah, and you know who.
Speaker 3: Staff talks them into it too? Right? No, no, no, hold on,
I know this goes against your morals, but don't vote
for this. You're not going to get re elected, and
then what good can you do? And then most of
these people are narcissists. So when you tell them, when
you frame it like the whole world is relying on you,
right of course, oh yeah, they what would America do
unless I was there holding up the pillar? Right?
Speaker 1: So well, in fact, we always love talking to you
about what's going on in the economy, and we always
tell our folks that listen to our daily show that
they should be getting in touch with you to help
sort through or at least give it once over of
their retirement portfolios, because it doesn't hurt to get a
second opinion, even if they already have a financial advisor.
So remind people how they can find you and how
they can schedule a free risk review.
Speaker 3: Yes, pretty easy to find. Just google Know your Risk
Radio dot com or go to Borcapitalmanagement dot com. Got
a lot of great things going on, like economically coming up,
I think with the president, But when we look at markets,
they're incredibly off sides and really scurry right now. So
we see a lot of risk but also a lot
of opportunity. It's just not where everybody's looking so yeah,
we'd love to if nothing else, just give you a
second opinion and hopefully leave you more more educated.
Speaker 1: Love all right, know your Risk Radio dot com.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, sach Thank all right, Thank you
very much.
Speaker 3: Merry Christmas, you too. Investment advisory services offered through Trek
FINANCIALOC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor. The opinions expressed in
this programer for general informational purposes only and are not
intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual
or on any specific security.
Speaker 1: Any references to performance of security so are thought to
be materially accurate, and actual performance may different.
Speaker 3: Investments involve risk and are not guaranteed.
Speaker 2: Past performance doesn't guarantee future results.
Speaker 3: Track twenty fourth three, Zeroly