Speaker 1: I want to talk about it, about the one big
Speaker 1: beautiful bill. It was passed by the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: last week and it's going to be considered in the
Speaker 1: United States Senate. It's a big, old, beautiful mess. Has
Speaker 1: any piece of legislation that actually is going to pass does?
Speaker 1: I think it winds up being the result of a
Speaker 1: number of different kinds of compromises. There's good and bad
Speaker 1: in it. The compromise seems to be at the fiscal level.
Speaker 1: There's apparently reporting out that I don't actually I don't
Speaker 1: know if it's reporting. I think he's just saying it.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk is actually very is disappointed by the House
Speaker 1: passage of the BBB, the Big Beautiful Bill. He says
Speaker 1: it undermines the work he has done as head of
Speaker 1: his little Doge agency. I was disappointed to see the
Speaker 1: massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not
Speaker 1: just decreases it, and undermines the work that the Doge
Speaker 1: team is doing, Musk told Cbsunday morning. While the bill
Speaker 1: aims to cut one point five trillion dollars in government spending,
Speaker 1: it also increases the debt limit by four trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: The US government is more than thirty six trillion in debt.
Speaker 1: The bill would extend the twenty seventeen tax cuts, introduce
Speaker 1: new tax cuts such as Trump's signature no tax on
Speaker 1: tips policy, and add work requirements to medicaid, among other provisions.
Speaker 1: I think a bill can be big or it can
Speaker 1: be beautiful, said Musk, which is actually a very accurate
Speaker 1: way of describing it. The bill can be big or
Speaker 1: it can be beautiful. The bigger it is, the more
Speaker 1: compromise is needed. I think that's actually a fairly insightful comment,
Speaker 1: said Musk, who recently stepped down as the head of DOGE.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it could be both, he added,
Speaker 1: my personal opinion, So this is an interesting little dynamic.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk jumping into the twenty twenty four presidential race
Speaker 1: wound up being one of the more consequential things that
Speaker 1: happened him jumping in and throwing his weight behind Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and his money. A lot of people were sort
Speaker 1: of wondering, well, is Elon Musk now going to be
Speaker 1: like a major Republican fundraiser going forward? Is he going
Speaker 1: to be a huge contributor? And over the last two
Speaker 1: weeks it seems like he has decided, no, he is
Speaker 1: not going to He had a public statement that he
Speaker 1: was going to be less involved in elections going forward.
Speaker 1: He stepped down from his position with Doge. So I
Speaker 1: don't know if there's some disillusionment going on now that
Speaker 1: Trump's actually president. Maybe Musk is not having quite the
Speaker 1: level of impact he thought he would have. Maybe the
Speaker 1: negative pr hits he's taken. I mean, he kind of
Speaker 1: positioned himself very much with the right, and people on
Speaker 1: the left now really despise him even more so than
Speaker 1: they did prior to the election. Maybe he's sort of
Speaker 1: disillusioned with that stuff a little. I don't know. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I thought that was interesting. Anyway, what stuff is there
Speaker 1: that's good in the BBBB, the big beautiful bill, and
Speaker 1: what stuff is there that's bad? Well, I want to
Speaker 1: talk about some of the bad. One of the things
Speaker 1: to kind of note is that the numbers game that
Speaker 1: gets thrown around, so Democrats are taking this very large
Speaker 1: number of how much the OBBB adds to the deficit.
Speaker 1: The problem is that the numbers they're throwing around are
Speaker 1: numbers that would assume the sun setting of the twenty
Speaker 1: seventeen Trump tax cuts. So after Trump was elected in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen. After Trump was elected the first time in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, he passed around of tax cuts. Those tax
Speaker 1: cuts had a ten year sunset to them, so by
Speaker 1: twenty twenty seven, unless something happens, those tax cuts were
Speaker 1: going to go away. The One Big Beautiful Bill one
Speaker 1: of the things it does is it locks in place
Speaker 1: the twenty seventeen Trump tax cuts to ensure that they
Speaker 1: won't go away. Now, I find it hard to believe
Speaker 1: that any president was going to let taxes increase. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that even Kamala Harris would have allowed taxes
Speaker 1: to increase. Just tax increases are not popular and they
Speaker 1: are damaging to the economy, and I think so. I
Speaker 1: think one of the ways in which the fiscal impact
Speaker 1: of the One Big Beautiful Bill is made to look
Speaker 1: worse is this assumption that you're starting at the baseline
Speaker 1: of the Trump tax cuts from twenty seventeen are going
Speaker 1: to go away. So if those tax cuts are now
Speaker 1: made permanent, all of a sudden, well, the deficits bigger
Speaker 1: because we were planning on getting more revenue in because
Speaker 1: the tax rate was going to go up in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty seven. Well, realistically, I don't know that that was
Speaker 1: ever going to happen. Now, it's still a fiscal mess.
Speaker 1: And one of the ways in which it's a fiscal mess, honestly,
Speaker 1: are some of the tax cuts that some of the
Speaker 1: new tax cuts that are being put in place for
Speaker 1: the one big beautiful bill, I think the most irresponsible,
Speaker 1: of which, yes, there are tax cuts that are irresponsible. Yes,
Speaker 1: not all tax increases are bad. Not all tax cuts
Speaker 1: are good, sorry, Grover Norquist and other libertarian thinkers. The
Speaker 1: most irresponsible was increasing the deduction amount for state and
Speaker 1: local taxes. All right, So why is that? All right?
Speaker 1: Republican members of the House from New York especially, we're
Speaker 1: pushing this whole time to increase what's called the salt
Speaker 1: deduction and in the state and local tax deduction. In fact,
Speaker 1: basically politicians from every high tax blue state have been
Speaker 1: pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing to increase the
Speaker 1: state and local tax deduction. Chuck Schumer has been pushing
Speaker 1: and pushing and pushing for the state and local tax deduction.
Speaker 1: It's this thing that unites both moderate Republicans and boot
Speaker 1: licking the rich Democrats. So the Bernie Sanders is of
Speaker 1: the world hate it, and genuine conservatives also hate it.
Speaker 1: Why Well, the idea is, when you're paying your federal taxes,
Speaker 1: if you increase, you create a deduction for state and
Speaker 1: local taxes, Meaning if you already have to pay a
Speaker 1: bunch of money in state and local taxes, you can
Speaker 1: deduct some of that from the amount you're paying in
Speaker 1: federal taxes. Which, ultimately, what does that mean. It means
Speaker 1: basically that it gives greater leeway for blue states to
Speaker 1: increase their taxes irresponsibly, because well, at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, it won't actually matter to the taxpayer. If
Speaker 1: Blue states increase their taxes, they can just deduct that
Speaker 1: amount from their federal taxes, so it doesn't actually change
Speaker 1: the tax burden for people who live in blue states.
Speaker 1: And so basically increasing the salt deduction is it's basically
Speaker 1: a way to irresponsibly give Blue states to get out
Speaker 1: of jail free card for their improvident tax policies. Also,
Speaker 1: it winds up moving aside the burden of paying federal
Speaker 1: income tax revenue from people who live in blue states
Speaker 1: to people who live in red states, So people in
Speaker 1: Florida don't have a high tax burden, why should they
Speaker 1: be paying all their federal income taxes? But people in
Speaker 1: Blue states therefore have to pay less. I mean, the
Speaker 1: same person similarly situated in Florida and New York, they
Speaker 1: might pay the same overall in tax or similar amount
Speaker 1: overall in taxes, but the New Yorker is paying way
Speaker 1: less federal tax because they can deduct all their state
Speaker 1: and local taxes than the Floridian So it's unfair. It's
Speaker 1: a way to allow Blue states to have high tax regimes.
Speaker 1: Blue states like California, like New York, to have high
Speaker 1: tax regimes, especially high property taxes. And this is a
Speaker 1: big Basically, a lot of the people pushing for this
Speaker 1: seemed to be a lot of the people who pushed
Speaker 1: for it in the One Big Beautiful Bill were Republican
Speaker 1: members of the House from states like New York. And
Speaker 1: it seemingly is being pushed because these Republican House members
Speaker 1: have donors with big houses that they pay a lot
Speaker 1: in property taxes on, and so as you increase the
Speaker 1: salt deduction, it allows those donors to pay ultimately less
Speaker 1: in taxes. So basically it's an increasing of the deduction
Speaker 1: limit for state and local taxes. The Trump tax cuts
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen actually set the deduction rate at a
Speaker 1: fairly low level. I think you could only deduct like
Speaker 1: the first ten thousand dollars, and now I think it's
Speaker 1: getting bumped way up. So I don't like that, and
Speaker 1: that's going to result in less revenue into the federal coffers.
Speaker 1: And it's basically, again, it's offloading the federal tax burden,
Speaker 1: the tax revenue burden off of blue state taxpayers onto
Speaker 1: red state taxpayers and letting blue states off the hook
Speaker 1: for their stupid policies. So that's one thing about the
Speaker 1: one big beautiful bill that I don't like. But let's
Speaker 1: I mean, let's remember the politics at play here. Mike
Speaker 1: Johnson got the bill passed literally by a vote of
Speaker 1: two hundred and fifteen to two hundred and fourteen. That's
Speaker 1: how narrow the margins are. Okay, Republicans only have like
Speaker 1: a three vote majority in the whole House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: That's it, like three votes. So Johnson just could not
Speaker 1: afford to lose I think he was basically he could
Speaker 1: only afford to lose like three Republican votes, so he
Speaker 1: had Thomas Massey didn't vote for it because Thomas Massey
Speaker 1: is a true believer in fiscal responsibility and just said,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to vote for this. It's going to
Speaker 1: increase the deficit too much, it's going to lead to
Speaker 1: too much deficit, spending too much debt. Not going to
Speaker 1: vote for it. So he lost Thomas Massey. He couldn't
Speaker 1: afford to lose those New York Republicans who want, you know,
Speaker 1: and increased salt deduction. So he had to put it
Speaker 1: in or else it just didn't pass. And Trump wants
Speaker 1: a thing passed. That's clearly Trump's priority. So often that's
Speaker 1: Trump's priority is get something passed, get a win on
Speaker 1: the board. That seems to be the Trump priority. And
Speaker 1: I will say this for Trump, he did demonstrate I think,
Speaker 1: real leadership on this. You know, he went and sat
Speaker 1: down with members of the House. Apparently he told some
Speaker 1: of these Republicans from New York who were pushing for
Speaker 1: the salt deduction, like, this is what you're getting, that's it.
Speaker 1: Drop it, just forget it, and you're going to vote
Speaker 1: for this. So and he's really the only Republican who
Speaker 1: can do that. He's really the only Republican who can
Speaker 1: talk to these guys and tell them in those kinds
Speaker 1: of blunt terms and have them listen to him because
Speaker 1: he's got so much political weight within with Republican voters. Now,
Speaker 1: one of the good things in the bill is the
Speaker 1: defunding of abortion providers. And when we return, I want
Speaker 1: to and I will say, I want to give a
Speaker 1: lot of credit to Mike Johnson for this, and I
Speaker 1: guess ultimately to President Trump because there were a lot
Speaker 1: of there was a lot of hand ringing over this
Speaker 1: and a lot of liberal leaning Republicans who did not
Speaker 1: want to defund abortion providers, and they got it done anyway,
Speaker 1: all right. So when we were and I want to
Speaker 1: talk about that, what it means to quote defund planned parently,
Speaker 1: what it means to quote defund abortion and actually it
Speaker 1: might even be more important is defunding abortion providing health
Speaker 1: insurance plans. That is next on the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: There's a lot to dislike in the One Big, Beautiful Bill,
Speaker 1: but there's a couple of things to really like, and
Speaker 1: a lot of things that social conservatives have been cheering,
Speaker 1: particularly defunding federal reimbursement for various kinds of transgender interventions
Speaker 1: and not just transgender interventions for children. That was one
Speaker 1: of the debates, apparently, was our federal health insurance program
Speaker 1: is going to fund transgender interventions, all transgender inventions, no
Speaker 1: transgender inventions, just transgender interventions for adults. Apparently the funal
Speaker 1: version of the House bill landed at no transgender interventions
Speaker 1: are going to be funded. So that's a great win.
Speaker 1: And I want to turn just quickly given that it's
Speaker 1: kind of my subject matter area about how the One
Speaker 1: Big Beautiful Bill defunds playing parented. So again, for those
Speaker 1: who don't know, the One Big Beautiful Bill is the
Speaker 1: so called Reconciliation Bill. It's a budgetary bill. Presidents I
Speaker 1: think only get a shot at doing it once every
Speaker 1: two years. So realistically, given that Republicans I think are
Speaker 1: likely to lose the House in twenty twenty six, they
Speaker 1: only get one shot at this, and so Trump is
Speaker 1: trying to pack as much of his agenda into this
Speaker 1: bill as possible. One of the benefits of the Reconciliation Bill,
Speaker 1: it's kind of tied to budgetary stuff, is that it
Speaker 1: does not require a sixty vote majority in the Senate
Speaker 1: in order to pass. Most things require a sixty vote
Speaker 1: majority in the Senate to pass most normal pieces of legislation.
Speaker 1: This does not so that that is a massive procedural
Speaker 1: hurdle that Republicans don't have to worry about. They have
Speaker 1: fifty three votes in the Senate, so they can. It'll
Speaker 1: actually be easier to pass stuff in the Senate than
Speaker 1: there is than it is to pass stuff in the House,
Speaker 1: given how razor thin the majority is for Republicans in
Speaker 1: the House. Now, defunding Planned Parenthood, what does that mean? Chiefly,
Speaker 1: what it means is abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, and
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood's kind of the biggest of these nationally, but
Speaker 1: there are others. Okay, there's, for example, in California, there's
Speaker 1: this entity called Family Planning Associates. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: the rc Cola to Planned Parenthood being Coca Cola. It's
Speaker 1: just California based. They have I think it's something like
Speaker 1: twenty clinics, but it's just based in California. So these
Speaker 1: kinds of providers are going to be quote defunded. How
Speaker 1: most of the federal funding that abortion providers get they
Speaker 1: get through Medicaid. Medicaid is the federal health insurance program
Speaker 1: that was originally designed for certain kinds of groups who
Speaker 1: are sort of more knee groups like disabled people, disabled adults.
Speaker 1: Eventually that those categories got expanded to include pregnant women.
Speaker 1: To now in this post Obamacare world, Medicaid is basically
Speaker 1: just health insurance for lower income people. If you're at
Speaker 1: or under I think in California it's one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty eight percent of the federal poverty line you qualify
Speaker 1: for Medicaid. That's it. A ton of Planned Parenthood's patients
Speaker 1: therefore are Medicaid beneficiaries, and in California that's medical So
Speaker 1: a lot of the revenue Planned Parenthood gets nationally, and
Speaker 1: it's probably at this point it's well over half a
Speaker 1: billion dollars per year comes from they provide a service
Speaker 1: to someone who has Medicaid, they get reimbursed for that service,
Speaker 1: So that's the federal funding that they get. Now, federal
Speaker 1: dollars don't go to Planned Parenthood directly for their abortion services,
Speaker 1: which is their chief revenue generating service. But so Planned
Speaker 1: Parenti's not getting federal money for abortions that they do,
Speaker 1: except for abortions in instances of rape or incest, although
Speaker 1: there are also some pretty serious lingering questions from when
Speaker 1: the House investigated this about nine years ago about whether
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood engages in various kinds of medicaid fraud to
Speaker 1: try to get abortions paid for by federal medicaid that
Speaker 1: are not instances of rape or incest. And at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, money is fungible. If you know,
Speaker 1: if I've got twenty dollars in my pocket and my
Speaker 1: mom hands me a twenty dollars bill and says, don't
Speaker 1: use this twenty dollars bill to go to the movies, well, okay,
Speaker 1: I can use the twenty dollars. I now have the
Speaker 1: leeway because my mom gave me that twenty dollar bill.
Speaker 1: I can use the twenty dollar bill that's currently in
Speaker 1: my pocket to go to the movies. Money is fungible.
Speaker 1: If you get a bunch of money in this pot
Speaker 1: over here for this, it frees up money that you
Speaker 1: could use for other stuff over here. The fact that
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood's getting five hundred million, excuse me, at least
Speaker 1: five hundred million dollars per year, and I don't want
Speaker 1: to just focus on Planned parent All these different abortion
Speaker 1: providers are getting tons and tons of money for non
Speaker 1: abortion services. It frees up money for them to provide
Speaker 1: abortion services. And I think, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I don't want my tax dollars to fund entities whose
Speaker 1: chief business is providing abortions. I don't want to subsidize
Speaker 1: their loss leaders so that they can focus more time, money, resources,
Speaker 1: donor funding on their chief revenue generating service of abortion.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what's happening. Planned Parenthood's non abortion services
Speaker 1: are often loss leaders to help their abortion business. If
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood gives out contraceptives to ten nineteen year olds,
Speaker 1: the contraceptives they give out, any contraceptive has a certain
Speaker 1: built in failure rate to it if you use it perfectly.
Speaker 1: They also know that nineteen year olds are unreliable and
Speaker 1: won't use birth control perfectly, leading to the effectiveness going down.
Speaker 1: So if they give out birth control a kind of
Speaker 1: loss leader service, but hey, they get a little federal
Speaker 1: reimbursement for providing it. If they give out contraceptives to
Speaker 1: ten nineteen year olds who are lower income, at least
Speaker 1: one or two of them are coming back for abortions,
Speaker 1: and then they make up whatever they lost with the
Speaker 1: other eight. Okay, that's that's the mo that's the game plan,
Speaker 1: and your federal tax payer dollars are paying for it.
Speaker 1: And in California, your California tax payer dollars are paying
Speaker 1: for the abortion itself. So what the One Big Beautiful
Speaker 1: bill does is it defunds Planned Parent. It basically says
Speaker 1: entities like Planned Parenthood are not eligible for federal reimbursement
Speaker 1: under Medicaid. Entities like Planned Parenthood that are providing abortions
Speaker 1: are not eligible to receive reimbursement as part of the
Speaker 1: Medicaid program. That's a huge deal, and I don't know
Speaker 1: how Planned Parenthood is going to necessarily survive from it.
Speaker 1: They have a lot of donor support, it's true, but
Speaker 1: I don't know that they've got enough donor support year
Speaker 1: over year. That's five hundred million, five hundred million, five
Speaker 1: hundred million, five hundred million year over year over year
Speaker 1: to sustain the loss of federal revenue, especially at a
Speaker 1: time when Planned parent it's not doing so hot. So
Speaker 1: I think it is a huge deal if this is
Speaker 1: retained in the Senate, And I really commend Mike Johnson
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump for keeping this in when there were
Speaker 1: a bunch of wobbly liberal leaning Republicans in the House
Speaker 1: who were like, oh, we don't want to do a
Speaker 1: defunding of planned parenthood. Here they stood firm. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I deeply appreciate Mike Johnson kind of holding the line
Speaker 1: on that front. As well as taking out federal funding
Speaker 1: for Obamacare subsidized health insurance plants that cover abortion. That's
Speaker 1: also going to be huge. A ton of Obamacare subsidized plants,
Speaker 1: not Medicaid, but health insurance plans through the Obamacare exchange
Speaker 1: ranges that are subsidized by the federal government. Our federal
Speaker 1: dollars were subsidizing tons of tons of health insurance plans
Speaker 1: that included abortion coverage. That's going to get cut off
Speaker 1: by the one big beautiful bill, and that might be
Speaker 1: maybe an even more significant thing than just cutting off
Speaker 1: funding for planned parenthood. So those are huge, huge pro
Speaker 1: life accomplishments in the OBBB as we call it. All right,
Speaker 1: when we return a new plan for how to grade
Speaker 1: students in San Francisco Unified School District, this is sure
Speaker 1: to be a massive success grading for equity. Next on
Speaker 1: the John Girardi Show, there's a fascinating story about San
Speaker 1: Francisco schools. San Francisco public schools, that it's highlighting the
Speaker 1: worst examples of staff. That is, it's going to be
Speaker 1: more intensely in San Francisco, less intensely across the whole
Speaker 1: state of California, I think is ultimately what's happening. One
Speaker 1: of the things we're seeing is the application of the
Speaker 1: equity concept to education. And what is equity? Okay, equity
Speaker 1: the actual dictionary definition word equity is nothing bad. It
Speaker 1: means something close to equality, fairness of treatment, et cetera.
Speaker 1: The way the word which, by the way, that's the
Speaker 1: annoying thing when people say you conservative the pose dei,
Speaker 1: So which part of DEI do you oppose? Diversity, equity
Speaker 1: or inclusion? You don't think people should be treated equitably?
Speaker 1: And I would respond to such a critique equity is
Speaker 1: the thing I object to the modern twenty first century,
Speaker 1: twenty twenties political use of the term equity. That is
Speaker 1: what I oppose. I don't mind diversity, I don't mind inclusion.
Speaker 1: Those words sort of don't have like really precise meanings
Speaker 1: at this point and can mean things that are fine.
Speaker 1: But equity in the modern sense has a very specific
Speaker 1: kind of meaning that I disagree with equity is basically
Speaker 1: an equality of outcomes. Mandating forcing brute forcing, an equality
Speaker 1: of outcomes if the outcomes don't reflect whatever kind of
Speaker 1: categorization you are looking at, the breakdown based on race,
Speaker 1: or sexuality, or gender whatever. If say, the end results
Speaker 1: don't match the breakdown on the basis of race, gender, whatever,
Speaker 1: then something inequitable happened. If African Americans constitute twelve percent
Speaker 1: of the population of a city and police arrests involve
Speaker 1: fifteen percent African Americans rather than twelve percent, inequity, there
Speaker 1: is racism in the system somewhere. The only reason why
Speaker 1: your arrest percentage would be higher than the breakdown of
Speaker 1: the actual population as a whole is racism. It's because
Speaker 1: cops are persecuting black people inequity. If black kids are
Speaker 1: performing lower on SATs than the average, well, racism is
Speaker 1: in the system somewhere, the historical lingering effects of slavery,
Speaker 1: or the historical lingering effects of this, that or the other,
Speaker 1: and therefore equity means taking artificial steps to flatten out
Speaker 1: those results. That's the idea. So that's the idea of equity.
Speaker 1: How is this being applied to California? Well, One of
Speaker 1: the ways we're starting to see it applied at a
Speaker 1: statewide level is through the elimination of higher track math
Speaker 1: courses for high performing students. So instead of having like
Speaker 1: a gifted kid track for math, we're going to just
Speaker 1: not offer those. And why are we doing that? Because
Speaker 1: those gifted track math sort of pipelines, we're being dominated
Speaker 1: by Asian kids than White kids, with a disproportionately low
Speaker 1: representation of Latino kids and Black kids. That's the rub Okay,
Speaker 1: that's the problem. That's the problem, as California public educators
Speaker 1: saw it. So their solution was not, gosh, how do
Speaker 1: we help African American kids to perform better? What are
Speaker 1: we doing in inner city schools that are predominantly African American? Okay?
Speaker 1: Are there certain kinds of cultural difficulties that we're dealing with,
Speaker 1: you know? And maybe some of it And by the way,
Speaker 1: I'm not denying that some of the social ills that
Speaker 1: you see within African American communities are I'm not denying
Speaker 1: that many of them are probably in various ways, in
Speaker 1: various capacities, partly the lingering effects of racism. Why are
Speaker 1: African Americans predominantly concentrated in Fresno. In Southwest Fresno, well,
Speaker 1: it was because of redlining. It was because banks would
Speaker 1: not offer African American perkins loans for houses in any
Speaker 1: neighborhoods other than Southwest Fresno. They wouldn't let them get
Speaker 1: homes in North Fresno. So they were sort of secluded
Speaker 1: into more industrial concentrated areas, places where it was not
Speaker 1: as nice to live, and African Americans did lose out
Speaker 1: on certain kinds of generational wealth creation. Now, a lot
Speaker 1: of that redlining stuff and banks not allowing people to
Speaker 1: buy homes in nicer parts of town, that stuff ended
Speaker 1: in you know, after some of the Civil Rights Acts
Speaker 1: were passed by the sixties and seventies, such legal restrictions
Speaker 1: were no longer such kinds of legal discrimination was no
Speaker 1: longer technically allowed. Was it still practiced privately? Maybe? I
Speaker 1: don't know, but I do think there are reasons why
Speaker 1: to this day, African you know, they're lingering bad effects. Now.
Speaker 1: I would say also though, that at various kinds of
Speaker 1: liberal programs that led to various incentives that led to
Speaker 1: the breakdown of the African American family probably had have
Speaker 1: more to do with present day bad socioeconomic conditions for
Speaker 1: a lot of African Americans than redlining practices of you know,
Speaker 1: over over sixty years ago at this point. Nonetheless, so
Speaker 1: California statewide, we're going with this idea of we're just
Speaker 1: flattening things out. Don't allow smarter kids to be smarter,
Speaker 1: don't even give them the opportunity to be smarter, because
Speaker 1: too many Asian kids are doing too well, too many
Speaker 1: white kids are doing too well. Which, by the way,
Speaker 1: Latanos keep getting treated as a disadvantaged minority. Just want
Speaker 1: to talk about this, Honestly, Latinos have not always been
Speaker 1: treated well in this country. Totally agree, But after a
Speaker 1: couple of generations, Latinos seem to integrate into have integrated
Speaker 1: into American culture quite well. I think there's more. I
Speaker 1: guess I don't have a ton of stats about this,
Speaker 1: but I think there's more intermarriage between Latinos and whites.
Speaker 1: Latinos don't have the history of racism or the same
Speaker 1: kinds of like segregated disadvantages that African Americans had. I
Speaker 1: guess I don't understand why there is. And I say
Speaker 1: this basically as comparing Latinos to say the Chinese. I
Speaker 1: don't know that there's too much different between the as
Speaker 1: far as being treated disadvantageously and being singled out for
Speaker 1: racial characteristics. There's not too much difference between the Chinese
Speaker 1: and Latinos. Yes, their experiences are different, Yes, their immigrant
Speaker 1: experiences are different. There's a lot of differences. But I
Speaker 1: don't know that the Chinese were, Like, it's not like
Speaker 1: the Trent and Chinese were welcomed into the United States
Speaker 1: with wide open, loving arms, or the Japanese or other
Speaker 1: kinds of East Asians. Yet basically all these equity programs
Speaker 1: that we see, they basically have taken the posture of oh,
Speaker 1: Asians aren't Asians were never treated badly that there's no
Speaker 1: historic legacy of racism that we have to account for
Speaker 1: with Asians that have to be corrected in uh, you
Speaker 1: know equity stuff. In fact, we can actively discriminate against Asians.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, like, like, I think Latinos had a
Speaker 1: very hard time. Many Latinos at a very hard time
Speaker 1: integrating into America. Asians did also, all right, Remember in
Speaker 1: World War Two where we shoved basically every Japanese person
Speaker 1: into you know, camps because we were afraid that every
Speaker 1: person of Japanese descent in the United States was like
Speaker 1: a sleeper cell agent for the emperor or something was
Speaker 1: gonna aid the Japanese invasion of the West Coast, so
Speaker 1: we shoved everybody into internment camps. It's not like Asians
Speaker 1: had the easiest time of it. Like the rationale, the
Speaker 1: equity rationale for giving advantageous treatment to African Americans, to
Speaker 1: various kinds of minorities, is that we treated that, We
Speaker 1: disadvantaged them in the past, and therefore the way to
Speaker 1: correct that is to advantageously favor them in the present.
Speaker 1: Past discrimination has to be corrected by present day positive discrimination.
Speaker 1: That's the theory. That's the anti racist equity theory. I
Speaker 1: don't know why Asians don't get to be the beneficiaries
Speaker 1: of that anyway. Here is how equity is coming to
Speaker 1: San Francisco. This is from the Voice of San Francisco.
Speaker 1: Without seeking approval of the San Francisco Board of Education.
Speaker 1: Superintendent of School's Maria Sue plans to unveil a new
Speaker 1: grading for Equity plan on Tuesday that will go into
Speaker 1: effect this fall at fourteen high schools and cover over
Speaker 1: ten thousand students. The school district is already negotiating with
Speaker 1: an outside consultant to train teachers in August. In a
Speaker 1: system that awards a passing C grade to a score
Speaker 1: as low as forty one on a one hundred point exam,
Speaker 1: not for an intrepid school board member, the drastic change
Speaker 1: in grading, with implications for college admissions and career readiness,
Speaker 1: would have gone unnoticed and unexplained. It is buried in
Speaker 1: a three word phrase on the last page of a
Speaker 1: PowerPoint presentation embedded in the school board meeting's twenty five
Speaker 1: page agenda. The plan comes during the last week of
Speaker 1: the spring semester, well parents are assessing the impact of
Speaker 1: over one hundred million dollars in budget reductions and deciding
Speaker 1: whether to remain in the public schools this fall. While
Speaker 1: the school district acknowledges that parent aversion to this grading
Speaker 1: approach is typically high and understands the need for quote
Speaker 1: vigilant communication outreached parents has been minimal and maybe nonexistent.
Speaker 1: The school district's Office of Equity homepage does not mention it,
Speaker 1: and a page containing the f you San Francisco Unified
Speaker 1: School District definition of equity has not been updated in
Speaker 1: almost three years. So basically, this is what this is
Speaker 1: what they're gonna do. They're gonna just change all let's see. Okay,
Speaker 1: I got it, I got it here, all right. It
Speaker 1: eliminates homework and weekly tests from counting towards semester grades.
Speaker 1: So you don't get graded for homework, you don't get
Speaker 1: graded for weekly tests. Okay, so why do homework? Why
Speaker 1: study for weekly tests? It allows students to take their
Speaker 1: final exam multiple times? Okay, so why study for it
Speaker 1: the first time? You know you're gonna get a Gimme
Speaker 1: take it the first time, get a sense of what
Speaker 1: you're supposed to study, and then go again. It will
Speaker 1: convert all B grades into a's and all f's into c's.
Speaker 1: So if this is the other thing, if this policy passes,
Speaker 1: First of all, the goal of this is equity. Clearly
Speaker 1: it's a flattening of results so that there's no to
Speaker 1: the school district embarrassing breakdown between minority students and non minorities, well,
Speaker 1: I should say certain minorities and certain other minorities. They
Speaker 1: don't want the Asian kids to be dominating everybody else,
Speaker 1: so they the point of this grading system seems to be,
Speaker 1: we want a flattening. Really, what it's doing is it's
Speaker 1: gonna punish and lessen the weight of the accomplishments of
Speaker 1: the high performing kids at their expense. They're gonna benefit
Speaker 1: the low performing kids. And it makes me wonder if
Speaker 1: a kid from San Francisco Unified School District is applying
Speaker 1: for colleges and so, oh I got a four point
Speaker 1: oh GPA, what's the college gonna say anymore? Oh, that's nice.
Speaker 1: Any dumb dumb can get a four point zero in
Speaker 1: San Francisco Unified. If you get a B, you get
Speaker 1: an A. I mean, the impact of this is going
Speaker 1: to be terrible. Really, it's just going to hurt all
Speaker 1: the high performing kids, and the beneficiary is going to
Speaker 1: be liberals to make them feel better that other minority
Speaker 1: groups are not doing as worse as they actually are.
Speaker 1: When we return, a storm is brewing in California an
Speaker 1: at Buchanan High School for the statewide track meet where
Speaker 1: a boy is going to be competing against girls next
Speaker 1: on the John Girardi Show. So this weekend, the CIF,
Speaker 1: the California Interscholastic Federation rather which governs high school sports
Speaker 1: in California, is having their big track and field meet.
Speaker 1: It's going to be at Buchanan High School, and there
Speaker 1: is a biological boy who is competing in a bunch
Speaker 1: of the events and kicking all the girls butts. It
Speaker 1: has now gotten to the point where the Trump administration
Speaker 1: is actively threatening Gavin Newsom threatening the state of California
Speaker 1: if they allow this boy to participate. The CIF has
Speaker 1: responded by basically saying, girls who got bumped from qualifying
Speaker 1: by this person will be allowed to participate. But I'm
Speaker 1: going to be covering this quite a bit for the
Speaker 1: rest of this week. That'll do it, John, girladies show
Speaker 1: see you next time on Power Talk