Speaker 1: This is Dan Capless and welcome to today's online podcast
Speaker 1: edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
Speaker 1: give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
Speaker 1: and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
Speaker 1: single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2: You're on the Dan Taplas said tonight, I'm Christy Burton
Speaker 2: Brown in for Dan, and tonight I would love to
Speaker 2: hear your thoughts if you want to call in any
Speaker 2: time eight five five four zero five eight two five
Speaker 2: five or text me is five seven seven three nine
Speaker 2: and start it with Dan. I did have someone text
Speaker 2: as saying, oh, we'll talking about Social Security benefits and
Speaker 2: would Trump actually be cutting those with doge Trump went
Speaker 2: on a TV show and said, absolutely not. The only
Speaker 2: way we'll cut them is if illegal immigrants are using them.
Speaker 2: We'll cut the fraud, not the benefits for everyone else.
Speaker 2: And so someone texted and said, evil Trump is cutting
Speaker 2: benefits to our most vulnerable and needy citizens.
Speaker 3: And here's the catch, over one hundred and thirty years old.
Speaker 2: So in other words, he's actually doing nothing except for
Speaker 2: cutting fraud, which we're paying people.
Speaker 3: Who are over one hundred and thirty years old. They
Speaker 3: don't exist anymore. They are, So those are the kind
Speaker 3: of things that doge.
Speaker 2: And the Trump administration is looking into to cut fraud waste.
Speaker 3: Which I talked about this a little bit in the
Speaker 3: last hour.
Speaker 2: I think it's a whole new frontier that Republics have
Speaker 2: talked about for so long but have failed to implement
Speaker 2: in many cases. When we look at presidential administrations, many
Speaker 2: of them have cut taxes, many of them have found
Speaker 2: ways to save taxpayers money, but they haven't gone after
Speaker 2: the fraud, waste and abuse in federal agencies. I wrote
Speaker 2: an amachist brief for the U. S. Supreme Court last
Speaker 2: year that overturned the Chevron doctrine, one of my favorite cases,
Speaker 2: just because I am hugely against administrative power. When non
Speaker 2: elected bureaucrats get to tell businesses and people all the
Speaker 2: hoops they have to jump through, all the red tape
Speaker 2: in order to have a free market and actually compete
Speaker 2: and grow business and actually, you know, live in America
Speaker 2: and do what Americans do. I think the administrative agencies,
Speaker 2: the overcreation of them, both at the state and national levels,
Speaker 2: has been one of the most damaging things to the
Speaker 2: free market in America. So I was very happy when
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court overturned the Chevron Doctrine. There are
Speaker 2: a whole lot of thoughts onto how this is going
Speaker 2: to extend down into the states, Like states still have
Speaker 2: a ton of administrative agencies who create a ton of
Speaker 2: red tape and regulations, and the Chevron Doctrine was a
Speaker 2: federal doctrine.
Speaker 3: So I think there's still a lot of work.
Speaker 2: That needs to happen in the States, but so much
Speaker 2: interconnected work goes on. When you look at cutting fraud
Speaker 2: wasted abuse in administrative agencies, the regulations and red tape
Speaker 2: that the Chevron Doctrine dealt with is just one piece
Speaker 2: of it.
Speaker 1: All.
Speaker 2: This fraud wasted abuse that Doge and Trump and his
Speaker 2: administration are working to cut is another giant piece of
Speaker 2: how administrative agencies have become really the fourth branch of
Speaker 2: government and dictated to people what they can and can do.
Speaker 2: Whenever you have giant sums of money and pots of
Speaker 2: money that you can use for whatever you want and
Speaker 2: cram it all into a big bill and get the
Speaker 2: appropriations from Congress, that is where you see these agencies
Speaker 2: continue and have staying power because they get money to
Speaker 2: do it.
Speaker 3: Ever they want.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 3: I'm a huge fan of the cuts on fraud.
Speaker 2: Waste, and abuse, as I really think most people would
Speaker 2: be if they thought about it. I liked what Trey
Speaker 2: Goudi said on TV about this fourth branch of government,
Speaker 2: so I'm gonna go ahead and play him.
Speaker 4: I do not understand, Dana, the argument against eliminating identifying
Speaker 4: waste for all abused duplication. I mean, lawyers are trained
Speaker 4: to try to understand the other side of the argument.
Speaker 4: What is the argument for perpetuating fraud sending social Security
Speaker 4: benefits to someone who's been dead for ten years. I
Speaker 4: don't know the argument in favor of that. I do
Speaker 4: know this. We have created a fourth branch of government,
Speaker 4: the administrative branch, and right now that is all the
Speaker 4: left controls. They don't have the House, they don't have
Speaker 4: the Supreme Courts, they don't have Congress, so all they
Speaker 4: have is this administrative branch, and that is what they
Speaker 4: are clinging to. But I defy anyone to tell me
Speaker 4: identifying waste for all abuse duplication, how is that about
Speaker 4: bad thing?
Speaker 3: And when you phrase it like that, how is that
Speaker 3: a bad thing?
Speaker 2: It's really tough for people to come up with an
Speaker 2: answer to how identifying that waste of taxpayers money is
Speaker 2: not a very very good thing.
Speaker 3: I think what we're really in the middle of is
Speaker 3: a lot of unwinding that has to happen.
Speaker 2: You can have the US Supreme Court come out with
Speaker 2: a great decision of returning a Chevron doctrine, and then
Speaker 2: you actually have to see it work in practical ways,
Speaker 2: so you can say that going forward, administrative agencies have
Speaker 2: lost a lot of their power, and Congress actually has
Speaker 2: to be the one to make the laws and legislate
Speaker 2: and not delegate that so much nebulously to administrative agencies
Speaker 2: who are unelected bureaucrats. That's great going forward, that will
Speaker 2: make a ton of changes, make more predictability for small businesses,
Speaker 2: for big businesses, for people who want to participate in
Speaker 2: the free market. But it is still a long unwinding.
Speaker 2: Often especially that doctrine was in place for many, many
Speaker 2: years and helped to set up a lot of this fraud, waste,
Speaker 2: and abuse we're seeing in the fourth ranch of government,
Speaker 2: the administrative agencies.
Speaker 3: And so I think Trey Goudy is correct.
Speaker 2: I think what Doge and President Trump are doing is
Speaker 2: part of this big unwinding that unfortunately is going to
Speaker 2: take years to accomplish. But I think if they've been
Speaker 2: able to do this much in the first almost thirty
Speaker 2: days of his presidency, were well on our way to
Speaker 2: seeing it get done. I think that's very, very important
Speaker 2: for anyone who's particularly interested in the administrative agency argument
Speaker 2: that it's a fourth branch of government. There's a number
Speaker 2: of really good books on it, but one of them,
Speaker 2: I think I've talked about it on the show before,
Speaker 2: but it's Overruled by Neil Gorsich, my favorite justice on
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court. He does have Colorado roots, but
Speaker 2: I think he's very intelligent in how he comes to
Speaker 2: his decisions, and the ones he writes are very well
Speaker 2: thought out.
Speaker 3: I'd say that's true of most of the Supreme Court justices, not.
Speaker 2: Every one of them, but just the way he thinks
Speaker 2: I really like. And he was an author before he
Speaker 2: was the US Supreme Court judge. He has a whole
Speaker 2: host of books he's written, but Overruled is the newest one.
Speaker 2: And we often think of overruled as one word, right,
Speaker 2: a decision is overruled, and you think of that in
Speaker 2: context of the judiciary, but the way he is saying
Speaker 2: it is actually has two words over ruled.
Speaker 3: You are ruled too much by the government.
Speaker 2: And so a lot of stories across the nation where
Speaker 2: people got caught up in administrative regulations and enforcement of
Speaker 2: these very narrow laws that if people knew about them,
Speaker 2: they'd be like, really, that puts someone in jail, that
Speaker 2: shut down their business, And hey, if you're committing an
Speaker 2: actual crime and hurting people and hurting their property and
Speaker 2: doing wrong things, like I'm well, I am all for
Speaker 2: cracking down on crime. But when we're talking about a
Speaker 2: fish caught by a fisherman not measuring the exact link
Speaker 2: that lengths that an administrative agency says it must be
Speaker 2: it's like one inch over, and then your business can
Speaker 2: be shut down.
Speaker 3: You can go to jail. Like that's not a good regulation.
Speaker 2: You can you can set the regulation if you want,
Speaker 2: but often the punishment doesn't fit the supposed crime. So anyway,
Speaker 2: Justice Corsitch goes through all these examples across the nation
Speaker 2: of how the fourth branch of government has been empowered
Speaker 2: in many cases to go after people, to shut down business,
Speaker 2: to hurt families, and how the legal saga plays out
Speaker 2: over years and years and years of the tiniest.
Speaker 3: Violation of a regulation.
Speaker 2: And so I think for anyone who wants to consider
Speaker 2: how damaging the administrative state, this fourth branch of government
Speaker 2: has been to people, there's some real kind of fun,
Speaker 2: kind of sad, practical examples.
Speaker 3: In Justice Corss's book Overruled.
Speaker 2: Actually was able just to get it from an audiobook
Speaker 2: from my library on my phone. If you use the
Speaker 2: Libby or Hoopla apps, you can actually borrow these books
Speaker 2: for free on your phone and listen to them while
Speaker 2: you drive. That's what I like to do. It's how
Speaker 2: I get a lot more reading in these days. So
Speaker 2: that would be my recommendation if you want to read something.
Speaker 2: When we have a couple more minutes still in this segment,
Speaker 2: but when we come back, I want to play some
Speaker 2: clips about federal workers. There's actually one particular federal worker
Speaker 2: and she talks about what it actually looks like to
Speaker 2: work as a federal employee. I find some of her
Speaker 2: words particularly interesting because my dad is actually a federal
Speaker 2: employee as well. Now, I would obviously say that he
Speaker 2: is one of the very hard working federal employees, because
Speaker 2: my dad will often be like, they should give me
Speaker 2: more to do I want more work.
Speaker 3: And that's definitely the kind of person.
Speaker 2: I grew up with a dad who had a very
Speaker 2: very strong work ethic. He doesn't have a college degree.
Speaker 2: I was the first one in my family to get one,
Speaker 2: and so he had to work his way through everything.
Speaker 2: He would have two and three jobs sometimes to pay
Speaker 2: for everything for my brothers and I and also like
Speaker 2: it'll be my brother's hockey coach and also be at
Speaker 2: all of our events. And it's just an amazing person
Speaker 2: with a really strong work ethic. He would, you know,
Speaker 2: didn't have an engineering degree, but would be paid to
Speaker 2: design the plans for engineers. So just a really brilliant person,
Speaker 2: hard work ethic. But when he works for the federal government,
Speaker 2: he will ask for more work sometimes. Let me think,
Speaker 2: you know, you can just sit there. We don't have anything.
Speaker 2: We're going to spread it around across everyone, which kind
Speaker 2: of drives my dad nuts because he's like, hey.
Speaker 3: You're paying me to work. I'd like actual work to do.
Speaker 2: And it just so I've heard firsthand, that's not how
Speaker 2: the federal government operates. They just hire and hire and
Speaker 2: hire and then don't fire and don't fire and don't fire.
Speaker 3: Even when people are not doing their jobs.
Speaker 2: According to some people I've heard who are federal employees,
Speaker 2: what some of their fellow employees do is literally spend
Speaker 2: their entire day going around from cubicle to cuba cole
Speaker 2: just chatting it up with people. And that's certainly not
Speaker 2: what you're paid to do, but it ends up being
Speaker 2: what they're paid to do because in many cases, like
Speaker 2: tenure at public colleges and universities, you can't fire them.
Speaker 2: I think people would be surprised that they knew how
Speaker 2: deep that tenure under a different word exists within the
Speaker 2: federal government, where they are not hiring the best and brightest,
Speaker 2: they're hiring whoever it is, and despite how they perform, uh,
Speaker 2: they are going to stay there for their lives. So
Speaker 2: after this, I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on the Dan
Speaker 2: Kaplis Show, and you can call it eight five five
Speaker 2: four zero five eight two five five doge that suggested
Speaker 2: cuts and you know what Trump has been saying about him,
Speaker 2: because he's always talking and saying something out there. If
Speaker 2: you have thoughts, you can call in eight five five
Speaker 2: four zero five eight two five five or texture thoughts
Speaker 2: start with Dan to five seven seven nine I said,
Speaker 2: I had play a clip from a federal worker for you.
Speaker 2: When we got back. She is talking about how difficult
Speaker 2: it is to ever get fired if you are a
Speaker 2: federal employee.
Speaker 3: Let's listen in.
Speaker 5: I used to be a federal employee, and I'm going
Speaker 5: to tell you why I don't feel bad for federal
Speaker 5: employees being forced to come back.
Speaker 6: Into the workplace. I worked for the Army Corps of
Speaker 6: Engineers for almost a year, and the abuses that I
Speaker 6: saw by government employees was astounding and shocking. I worked
Speaker 6: as a realty specialist, and that is someone who manages
Speaker 6: government own lands, so when farmers in ranchersleys land to
Speaker 6: Gray's cattle, we would manage that.
Speaker 5: When I was hired, my boss brat that it was
Speaker 5: basically impossible to get fired from the federal government, and
Speaker 5: that in her entire time working for the government, she'd
Speaker 5: only seen one person fired, and that person assaulted a
Speaker 5: fellow employee. And she wasn't even fired for assaulting the
Speaker 5: employe at work, who was fired for learning about it
Speaker 5: because they caught it on camera.
Speaker 2: And when you caught it on when you catch it
Speaker 2: on camera, you don't really have any options other than
Speaker 2: taking care of it. But had it not been caught
Speaker 2: on camera, I wonder what have actually happened to that
Speaker 2: federal employee.
Speaker 3: They'd probably still have a job today.
Speaker 2: So this is one of the reasons that President Trump
Speaker 2: is in fact cutting the federal workforce, because it has
Speaker 2: been for decades nearly impossible to fire federal workers. That's true,
Speaker 2: and I related a little bit to the tenure in
Speaker 2: universities and colleges that professors often get. But the same
Speaker 2: thing happens if you work for the government at the
Speaker 2: federal level. They don't call it the name tenure, but
Speaker 2: it becomes extremely hard to fire people. And in part
Speaker 2: the reason they don't fire people is because they're always,
Speaker 2: you know, afraid that their own laws are going to
Speaker 2: come back to bite them, and people are going to
Speaker 2: claim they're fired for discriminatory reasons, even if they were
Speaker 2: underperforming and doing all these things that you get fired
Speaker 2: for in the corporate world, that they're always going to say, oh, discrimination.
Speaker 2: They just basically don't want lawsuits, they don't want to
Speaker 2: deal with it, and so instead they continue to have
Speaker 2: incompetent people they can stay working at the government even
Speaker 2: though they get fired somewhere else. About an hour ago,
Speaker 2: news came out that starting tomorrow, the IRS is going
Speaker 2: to fire six seven hundred employees. One of the headlines
Speaker 2: on this said IRS to lose progress it has made
Speaker 2: in recent years. I'm not sure how many taxpayers or
Speaker 2: average voters would say the IRS having more agents is progress, but.
Speaker 3: I would definitely say that it is not.
Speaker 2: In the IRS should cut some employees so they can
Speaker 2: cut some of the insane amount of pages they have
Speaker 2: and regulations they have on how you have to file
Speaker 2: your taxes and all the ways they can go after
Speaker 2: you if you make even the smallest unintentional mistakes.
Speaker 3: So good news for.
Speaker 2: Most Americans that the IRS is now going to get
Speaker 2: smaller with about six thousand, seven hundred people getting fired.
Speaker 2: I'd rather make it clear that I don't ever think
Speaker 2: it's great to be like, yes, someone else is getting fired.
Speaker 2: It's a real family, that's a real job that someone has.
Speaker 2: I'm never excited about a specific person. I shouldn't say never,
Speaker 2: because there's some awful people out there, But for the
Speaker 2: most part, I'm not excited about people getting fired because
Speaker 2: it affects their family. But what I do think is
Speaker 2: often if you have IRS experience there actually are a
Speaker 2: whole lot of corporations and nonprofits who will line up
Speaker 2: to hire you because they need someone to give them
Speaker 2: IRS advice to know how to navigate taxes.
Speaker 3: So it's typically not hard to.
Speaker 2: Get a job when you've worked at a federal agency
Speaker 2: that a lot of corporations and nonprofits worry about.
Speaker 3: So I don't think.
Speaker 2: This is going to be something that's devastating to most
Speaker 2: of the families. Also, because the federal government tends to
Speaker 2: have programs in place where you get a severance and
Speaker 2: you get the ability to have a runway and go
Speaker 2: find another job. So what I think is great about
Speaker 2: this is that the IRS is going to get smaller
Speaker 2: and have fewer people cracking down on unintentional mistakes on
Speaker 2: taxes instead of going after the real fraud, wasted abuse
Speaker 2: in the system, which we've been talking about all day
Speaker 2: long on the show. Or you know, Ryan, I think
Speaker 2: it's felt like a whole day, but it's really only
Speaker 2: been an hour. So the other interesting piece of news
Speaker 2: a couple other things that so the Trump administration is doing,
Speaker 2: and this may also come out tomorrow. I don't think
Speaker 2: the timeline has been officially decided on yet. But the
Speaker 2: Trump administration is considering in the very near future making
Speaker 2: a public health order on the border to stop the
Speaker 2: flow of immigration across the border, saying that illegal immigrants
Speaker 2: are bringing in flu, tuberculosis, measles, and respiratory illnesses. You
Speaker 2: may remember that in the first term of Trump's administration,
Speaker 2: he made an order like this and stopped some immigration
Speaker 2: flow across the border because of diseases that were being
Speaker 2: brought into the United States. And I think the purpose
Speaker 2: of an order like that is to say that the
Speaker 2: flow across the border can't just be indefinite, all these
Speaker 2: people pouring across. It has to be limited so we
Speaker 2: can actually evaluate who is sick, who isn't, who can
Speaker 2: be vaccinated, who can't be And so I think, you know,
Speaker 2: a public health order like that would be in order.
Speaker 2: We do see some of the border states, in particular
Speaker 2: Texas right now struggling with some outbreaks, not all caused
Speaker 2: by illegal immigrants, but some of these diseases certainly are
Speaker 2: that's just a fact they don't have vaccines in their countries,
Speaker 2: or they don't have the same level of medical care
Speaker 2: we do in the United States. And so many times
Speaker 2: when you do have in abundance of illegal immigrants coming
Speaker 2: across the border, you do, in fact get more diseases
Speaker 2: in the United States. So that is a legitimate concern
Speaker 2: and something that may come down as early as tomorrow
Speaker 2: from the Trump administration. Another order that has come down
Speaker 2: from the Trump administration is that any school receiving federal
Speaker 2: funding anywhere down from preschool all the way up to
Speaker 2: colleges and universities, if you are receiving federal funding, then
Speaker 2: this order applies to you, and you now have two
Speaker 2: weeks and this came out today two weeks to ban
Speaker 2: DEI and they talk about in the order what DEI is,
Speaker 2: but specifically they're focusing on treating students differently based on race.
Speaker 2: So there's a whole lot of ways that applies, a
Speaker 2: whole lot of ways that different schools do this and
Speaker 2: segment students based on their race and either give some
Speaker 2: specific abilities or privileges, and others they box them out
Speaker 2: from certain things. I mean, this definitely happens not in
Speaker 2: every single school that gets federal funding, but in a
Speaker 2: number of them people are treated differently based on their race.
Speaker 2: It's actually a lawsuit currently against the Cherry Creek School
Speaker 2: districts here in Colorado, alleging that they've done exactly that
Speaker 2: and segmented students by race and treated them differently in classrooms,
Speaker 2: had different classroom policies based on the color of your
Speaker 2: skin in Cherry Creek schools, very very nearby here. So
Speaker 2: those are the kind of things that the Trump administration
Speaker 2: is basically saying, if you receive any amount of federal funding,
Speaker 2: you have two weeks to figure this out. They already
Speaker 2: previewed this earlier when they first got into office and
Speaker 2: said you can't have DEI if you accept federal funding.
Speaker 2: But now they're actually putting in under a timeline and
Speaker 2: saying you have two weeks to get rid of it.
Speaker 2: And if schools don't, and I'm sure there's going to
Speaker 2: be a number of them that don't and that refuse to,
Speaker 2: I think then it's going to be up to the
Speaker 2: federal government if they pull back federal funding or exactly
Speaker 2: what kind of consequences they put on schools that refuse
Speaker 2: to do this. I think you will most likely see
Speaker 2: colleges and universities jump on this first.
Speaker 3: There's going to be a.
Speaker 2: Few holdouts, a few ones that probably want to be
Speaker 2: the example and resist, but I think a lot of
Speaker 2: them is very very easy to trace. The exact federal
Speaker 2: funding that comes and flows to the college and universities.
Speaker 2: They're going to have to make a concrete decision. You're
Speaker 2: either getting rid of your DEI programs or you're not,
Speaker 2: and you're going to lose federal funding. That's a very
Speaker 2: easy stream to cut off. I think when you look
Speaker 2: at elementary schools, high schools, junior highs, kindergartens, preschools that
Speaker 2: are run publicly at least, which are the ones that
Speaker 2: receive federal funding for the most part that's integrated within
Speaker 2: the state funding system. That's going to be a lot
Speaker 2: harder puzzle I think for the federal government to figure
Speaker 2: out how do you actually block federal funding for one
Speaker 2: particular high school whose federal funding comes through the state
Speaker 2: that is granted a certain amount of federal funding.
Speaker 3: It's not entirely true, there are.
Speaker 2: Some direct federal funds that go to states, but in general,
Speaker 2: I think that's going to be a more difficult piece
Speaker 2: for the Trump administration to figure out. Colleges and universities,
Speaker 2: though probably a better listen or they're going to get
Speaker 2: their funding pulled.
Speaker 3: I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're here on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 7: Call in anytime eight five five four zero five eight
Speaker 7: two five five next to Dan at five seven seven
Speaker 7: three nine.
Speaker 8: You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the Dan Kaplis Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2: A lot of people have been paying attention to the
Speaker 2: Colorado legislature this session, and they really only just got started.
Speaker 3: I'll have so much time left.
Speaker 2: People have been paying attention to the gun bills and
Speaker 2: the labor bills that have been going through.
Speaker 3: Both have passed at.
Speaker 2: Least one House or Senate and were making their way through.
Speaker 2: The labor bill would extend the rights of unions in
Speaker 2: the state, basically flying in the face of a deal
Speaker 2: that was made that actually gave more to the unions
Speaker 2: than to the businesses involved at the time. Decades ago,
Speaker 2: this agreement was reached and now the unions are pushing
Speaker 2: to kind of go back on that deal and get
Speaker 2: unions more power. So naturally, of course that would be
Speaker 2: currently passing through the legislature.
Speaker 3: Unsure what will happen at the end.
Speaker 2: I think a lot can happen in these kind of
Speaker 2: bills when it goes from one House to the next,
Speaker 2: and when the governor takes a look at it, I
Speaker 2: guess we'll see. I was there when Polus gave his
Speaker 2: State of the State address, and he indicated in that
Speaker 2: speech that, at least in its current form, he was
Speaker 2: not in favor of the labor bill, and less businesses
Speaker 2: actually ended up agreeing with it, and I don't think
Speaker 2: they're going to So we'll see what happens with that
Speaker 2: gun bill that a lot of people have been focused on,
Speaker 2: has already been changed in a number of ways.
Speaker 3: Originally would have banned most.
Speaker 2: Weapons that people use in self defense or home defense
Speaker 2: these days, and they tried to add on training requirements
Speaker 2: to it, where okay, fine, you can have some of
Speaker 2: these guns if you take a hunting and firearms course,
Speaker 2: So basically conditioning your right to bear arms on going
Speaker 2: through a training program authorized by the government. So big
Speaker 2: problems with both of these bills. But what I would
Speaker 2: like to tell you about is a supposed voting right
Speaker 2: bill that's going through the legislature right now as well.
Speaker 2: Representative Bacon is one of the sponsors, and there are
Speaker 2: a number of other suspect sponsors. If you look at
Speaker 2: the list of sponsors, often you can tell what angle
Speaker 2: a particular bill is going to take. But this one
Speaker 2: is actually really bad. It starts out in a way
Speaker 2: that you would think, oh, this isn't really all that suspicious.
Speaker 2: I'm not really sure how much this changes in voting.
Speaker 2: I mean, of course, as per usual, it adds some
Speaker 2: regulations and some red tape, puts more work on county
Speaker 2: and city clerks. But how egregious is it really?
Speaker 7: Like?
Speaker 2: Yess what you'd think when you first read through some
Speaker 2: of the pages, and the description of the bill itself
Speaker 2: actually doesn't get into a lot of the core details.
Speaker 2: But I like to read actual bills and comb through
Speaker 2: the thirty forty pages of them, and when I did this,
Speaker 2: what I found I think was quite would be quite
Speaker 2: shocking to anyone who actually took the time to read
Speaker 2: through it. At first, they set it up where, hey,
Speaker 2: we want to give more opportunities to vote for people
Speaker 2: who are disabled in Colorado. If you're a nonprofit who
Speaker 2: works with people at disabilities, you need to post notice
Speaker 2: is about voting voting locations for them, which I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm just against requiring nonprofits to do the government's job.
Speaker 2: So I don't think it's like the world's worst idea,
Speaker 2: but I don't think that's a nonprofit's job. Like, if
Speaker 2: they want to educate people about how to vote, like
Speaker 2: more power to them, go for it. But the government
Speaker 2: again shouldn't tell a nonprofit to do the government's job.
Speaker 2: So I don't like that, But it's not the end
Speaker 2: of the world. Here's what was actually really bad. This
Speaker 2: goes after cities when they conduct their elections and how
Speaker 2: they conduct their elections. So the sponsors of this bill
Speaker 2: don't like two things. They don't like that cities in
Speaker 2: Colorado often hold their elections either in April or in
Speaker 2: November in an off year election. So basically it doesn't
Speaker 2: match up with like a main election, a governor's election,
Speaker 2: a presidential election, and so often you will actually have
Speaker 2: if you look at the statistics, you have more Republicans
Speaker 2: and Conservatives churning out in these local elections because by
Speaker 2: and large, Republicans and Conservatives do vote.
Speaker 3: More in off your elections.
Speaker 2: It's just a fact, not that everyone doesn't have an
Speaker 2: equal opportunity to vote and is INCENTI ballot is just
Speaker 2: what happens.
Speaker 3: And so they don't like that.
Speaker 2: They think the results would be different if city elections
Speaker 2: matched up with general elections when there's a bigger turnout
Speaker 2: and people are already voting for a host of other reasons, Basically,
Speaker 2: they don't necessarily believe in personal responsibility, like why are
Speaker 2: these people not voting? Why are the people on your
Speaker 2: side not engaging in the election? Maybe you should do
Speaker 2: some culture change instead. They want to force an election
Speaker 2: to fit into the box of when these people are
Speaker 2: already voting. So it's one thing it's clear they don't
Speaker 2: like from the bill. The second thing that it's clear
Speaker 2: they don't like from the bill is normal voting, Like
Speaker 2: they actually want to get ranked choice voting and other
Speaker 2: methods that they think increase the ability of their preferred
Speaker 2: candidates to win. This bill is literally all driven because
Speaker 2: they don't like that some cities they wouldn't expect to
Speaker 2: be controlled by conservatives are controlled by conservatives, like Aurora.
Speaker 2: They don't like that when that partisan R or D
Speaker 2: isn't behind a candidate's name, many times voters look at
Speaker 2: the issues and actually elect Republicans. They don't necessarily they
Speaker 2: know they're Republicans, but they like their issues, and so
Speaker 2: the sponsors of this bill don't like that. They want
Speaker 2: to find a way to change local city elections. So
Speaker 2: here's their idea of how they do it. It would
Speaker 2: allow people or organizations to sue cities if people in
Speaker 2: what they're calling protected classes have what they're calling a
Speaker 2: material disparity in voting compared to other populations. So even
Speaker 2: if the reason is that not enough people of a
Speaker 2: particular minority race in Aurora, for example, are registered to vote,
Speaker 2: like their voter registration is down, the fact that less
Speaker 2: of them are voting in the city election than in
Speaker 2: the general election would be enough to be a violation
Speaker 2: of this new Voting Rights Act. So literally, just the
Speaker 2: fact that one particular minority has a lower voter registration
Speaker 2: and so therefore they vote in less numbers in the
Speaker 2: local election than they do in the general election, that
Speaker 2: is enough for a violation of the Voting Rights Act,
Speaker 2: and it's considered a material disparity. It also says that
Speaker 2: the method of voting, so basically cities don't have ranked
Speaker 2: choice voting in Colorado can be challenged if it results
Speaker 2: in a material disparity and if they can prove through
Speaker 2: whatever research they want to create that. Oh, by the way,
Speaker 2: they're going to force the city to pay for the
Speaker 2: research if people of a certain race would vote in
Speaker 2: higher numbers if another method were used. They can also
Speaker 2: use one election as the basis for any of these claims. So,
Speaker 2: as you can imagine, it would be incredibly easy to
Speaker 2: find that a city both has to change the dates
Speaker 2: of its election and its method of voting, and that
Speaker 2: the city has to pay for all the research showing
Speaker 2: that in even one single local election, people of any
Speaker 2: particular minority race or minority group, including LGBTQ people didn't
Speaker 2: vote at similar levels compared to a general election. So literally,
Speaker 2: if they can say, hey, a Hispanics in Aurora, thirty
Speaker 2: percent of them voted in the local election, but eighty
Speaker 2: percent of them voted in the general election, there's a
Speaker 2: material disparity. They can turn that into it is now
Speaker 2: the city's fault. The city is violating voting rights. My
Speaker 2: question is do they really think the government has the
Speaker 2: job of forcing people to vote? Like, what more is
Speaker 2: the government supposed to do? They mail a ballot to
Speaker 2: your house in Colorado. If you choose a not to
Speaker 2: register to vote, you're not gonna get a ballot.
Speaker 3: If you choose not.
Speaker 2: To actually cast to vote. How is that government discrimination.
Speaker 2: I don't care what color you are, what group you're
Speaker 2: a member of. There's plenty of people of all groups
Speaker 2: who choose not to vote in local elections.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's a good choice.
Speaker 2: But what I want government to do knock down your
Speaker 2: door and demand that you cast a ballot, or blame
Speaker 2: the city that they're not.
Speaker 3: Forcing you to do it.
Speaker 2: It's one of the worst thought out election bills I've
Speaker 2: ever seen, and I'm super curious how far it makes
Speaker 2: it through the process. But they are running it as
Speaker 2: a voting rights bill and pitching it like, oh, we're
Speaker 2: trying to help people with disabilities, we're trying to help
Speaker 2: minority groups that don't vote in big enough numbers. In
Speaker 2: my view, go fix it. You should go get more
Speaker 2: people to vote. We want more people to vote. But
Speaker 2: it is not a city's If they're mailing people a
Speaker 2: ballot and those people choose not to engage in an election,
Speaker 2: that is not.
Speaker 3: Discrimination by any form of the word.
Speaker 2: And under this bill, though it would be classified as
Speaker 2: a material disparity that goes after people in any sort
Speaker 2: of minority group or class.
Speaker 3: Race is not the only measurement for this. So anyway,
Speaker 3: I think it's one of the most terrible bills making
Speaker 3: its way through the legislature.
Speaker 2: Not currently getting a lot of attention as the gun
Speaker 2: and labor bills are getting the attention right now. But
Speaker 2: I'm very curious to see how far this goes through
Speaker 2: the process. I'm Christy Burton Brown here on the Dan
Speaker 2: KAPLA show. You can call in with any thoughts eight
Speaker 2: five five four zero five eight two five five, or
Speaker 2: you can text your thoughts to Dan at five seven
Speaker 2: seven three nine. While we often talk about the federal
Speaker 2: government and the good things that are happening there with
Speaker 2: all the cuts to fraud, waste, and abuse, if we
Speaker 2: look here at home at the Colorado Capital, you often
Speaker 2: are going to see many examples of power grabs and
Speaker 2: more abuse. I think of voters intents in ballot measures
Speaker 2: that they passed. I mean, the fees are wild right now,
Speaker 2: and in fiscal you're twenty twenty three. This state collected
Speaker 2: over twenty three point three billion dollars in fees from
Speaker 2: Colorado citizens trying to get around tabor and not ask
Speaker 2: you if they want to charge you more money. So
Speaker 2: a lot of things like that going on. You should
Speaker 2: watch for them. We'll be back after the break. I'm
Speaker 2: Christy Burton Brown here on the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 8: And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2: Here on the Dan Caplas Show. I'm Kristy Burton Brown.
Speaker 3: Thanks for joining us for the last segments. Today.
Speaker 2: We talked a lot about DOGE and all the fraud,
Speaker 2: waste and abuse that's being cut are.
Speaker 3: Hopefully going to be cut at the federal government.
Speaker 2: Dough doesn't actually have the authority to cut it themselves,
Speaker 2: but in hand to agencies all the information of what
Speaker 2: they can and should cut. What I find kind of
Speaker 2: interesting at all the discussions about DOGE is Kevin O'Leary
Speaker 2: from the Shark Tank talking about why all these cuts
Speaker 2: are necessary, and he's actually pushing for more, which I
Speaker 2: think makes a lot.
Speaker 3: Of sense from someone who actually knows business.
Speaker 2: I mean, kind of amazing when you get someone like
Speaker 2: Elon Musk looking into the depths of governments, when you
Speaker 2: get Kevin O'Leary looking at what's going on. People have
Speaker 2: been successful in business. They see what politicians often seem
Speaker 2: to miss, which is that we are miss spending and
Speaker 2: wasting people's money. I'm going to play you a clip
Speaker 2: with Kevin O'Leary's advice.
Speaker 9: I think the issue is they're not whacking enough. There's
Speaker 9: this concept in private equity when you get a bankrupt
Speaker 9: company and you go in there, you cut twenty percent
Speaker 9: more than your initial read, and then you find like
Speaker 9: a pool of mercury. The organization jails back together again.
Speaker 9: Always cut deeper, harder when there's fat and waste.
Speaker 2: Always deeper and harder, is his advice. He specifically also
Speaker 2: addressed to FAA, who has been into news a lot
Speaker 2: of Federal Aviation Administration with the plane crashes that have
Speaker 2: also been in the news. So his comments there are
Speaker 2: also fairly interesting, and you can definitely imagine part of
Speaker 2: what he's.
Speaker 3: Saying the FAA. It's not the people.
Speaker 9: The code is cobalt, it's from the sixties. It needs
Speaker 9: cap X put into it for the technology we upgraded
Speaker 9: to make it safer.
Speaker 3: Fat like a chicken.
Speaker 9: All of these agencies are like big fat chickens, dripping
Speaker 9: over barbecues of fat. This is the best barbecue I've
Speaker 9: ever seen. But I don't think it's happening fast enough.
Speaker 3: They're not cutting enough.
Speaker 9: Keep slashing, keep packing while you have a twenty four
Speaker 9: month mandate before the midterms, A.
Speaker 3: Fat take it over barbecue.
Speaker 2: I think it's an interesting picture, and you know, I
Speaker 2: think it's a lot of sentiment, a shared sentiment by
Speaker 2: a lot of people who are looking into it, of hey,
Speaker 2: it's not happening fast enough.
Speaker 3: But the reason for that is.
Speaker 2: Not that Trump hasn't been going after it extremely quickly,
Speaker 2: since he's been in office for less than a month
Speaker 2: at this point, but it's that this should have been.
Speaker 3: Done years ago.
Speaker 2: And so I think that's why once people start seeing
Speaker 2: everything exposed and see the waste and fraud behind the scenes, like,
Speaker 2: oh my goodness, why haven't we done this sooner? Well,
Speaker 2: I mean other presidents could have and they didn't. And
Speaker 2: so now Trump is under a timeline like when you
Speaker 2: have the House, the Senate, and the presidency, you do
Speaker 2: have almost always only two years to see how much
Speaker 2: you can get done, because most of the time a
Speaker 2: president does end up losing either Congress or the Senate
Speaker 2: or both in a midterm kind of no matter who
Speaker 2: the president is. There's been a number of exceptions during wartime,
Speaker 2: which hopefully will not to be the case in two years.
Speaker 2: But for the most part. That's what happens to a president.
Speaker 2: Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen to Trump. But Kevin
Speaker 2: Larry's right that his administration needs to operate as if
Speaker 2: that is what's going to happen. I think that's one
Speaker 2: thing that Trump administration probably learned from their first time
Speaker 2: in that four year gap in between the two terms,
Speaker 2: was that you have to act fast. If you wait
Speaker 2: too long, it's never going to happen.
Speaker 10: Man, I'd like to hear the leftist explanation or justification.
Speaker 8: For this per bill illusion. Just breaking Fox News.
Speaker 10: President Trump's scheduled to sign an executive order tonight terminating
Speaker 10: any and all federal taxpayer benefits going to illegals. The
Speaker 10: fact that this has been going on as long as
Speaker 10: it has, Christie is infuriating, but it's coming to an
Speaker 10: end tonight.
Speaker 3: Let's get so.
Speaker 2: Let's let's see the lists justin No, they haven't justified yet.
Speaker 10: Federal benefits that American citizen taxpayers provide.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, you know, I think for them, they
Speaker 2: always advocate for the children of illegal immigrants to go
Speaker 2: to school, have education, And I'm like, I can get
Speaker 2: on board of that. Okay, because I actually think children,
Speaker 2: it's not children's fault where your parents bring you, and
Speaker 2: you shouldn't, you know, have to skip school because your
Speaker 2: parents brought you somewhere they weren't supposed to bring you.
Speaker 2: But the problem is nothing is ever good enough for
Speaker 2: the liberals, So like, well, let's care.
Speaker 3: About the kids.
Speaker 2: Okay, if we got to move on from that, let's
Speaker 2: care about this, let's care about that. They're just reaching
Speaker 2: and pulling for straws because in their view, they would
Speaker 2: give illegal immigrants every single right and ability that American
Speaker 2: citizens have, which then makes being an American citizen meaningless.
Speaker 3: So that's just not what you can do.
Speaker 2: So yes, I think it's a whole nother level of
Speaker 2: fraud to not only be in the country illegally, but
Speaker 2: sign up for benefits that are supposed to be dead
Speaker 2: catered to American citizens.
Speaker 3: That means you're having to lie on paperwork.
Speaker 10: And well, it was walking this in that interview sit
Speaker 10: down he did with Hannity along with Elon Musk, was
Speaker 10: you know, we're wondering this ponzi scheme that is Social Security,
Speaker 10: and let's call it what it is. I'm against it
Speaker 10: from the premise all the way back to FDR. However,
Speaker 10: it is what it is. We've been there for hour
Speaker 10: many years. How is this going bankrupt? Why is it
Speaker 10: going bankrupt? You know, we're paying into Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
Speaker 3: That's that's for.
Speaker 8: Us, the people that paid into this system.
Speaker 10: And the fact that somebody that comes to this country
Speaker 10: illegally has not contributed to that system is drawing from
Speaker 10: it again should be infuriating no matter your political strikes.
Speaker 2: Well, especially because they're saying that the people who are
Speaker 2: currently paying into it will never see the money, like
Speaker 2: people in our generation will pay into it our entire
Speaker 2: lives and then never get anything out of it.
Speaker 3: That's what they're saying exactly what it's like.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a whole so many solutions that the
Speaker 2: federal government should have implemented with Social Security instead of
Speaker 2: using it as like their you know, free for all
Speaker 2: bank account to go fund whatever they want, you could
Speaker 2: invest it in ways or Social Security well would grow
Speaker 2: and cut down the federal dead and do a whole
Speaker 2: lot of other things.
Speaker 10: You're very astute at a young age, and you might
Speaker 10: recall twenty years ago or so, President George W. Bush
Speaker 10: wanted to do exactly that it wanted to. And those
Speaker 10: of us who are you know, fiscal conservatives like you
Speaker 10: and me, we know that this is going. Banker Marco
Speaker 10: Rubio's talked about this and it needs to be revamped,
Speaker 10: but nobody wants.
Speaker 8: To touch it.
Speaker 3: No, exactly.
Speaker 2: It's almost like the thing that you just have to
Speaker 2: leave alone and let it die a slow death on
Speaker 2: its own. But you're you're hastening the death when you
Speaker 2: say anyone can draw from it.
Speaker 3: And here's a huge problem. Kevin Millarry actually mentioned this
Speaker 3: and one.
Speaker 2: Of the clips we played how outdated some of the
Speaker 2: federal government systems are Colbal Yeah, No, like an insanely
Speaker 2: old system in almost every department.
Speaker 3: They don't stay up to date. Their cybersecurity is terrible.
Speaker 2: I mean like they're leaving the country extremely vulnerable, not
Speaker 2: only for a fraud like this and waste and misspending
Speaker 2: of taxpayer dollars, but on an international scale, like it's
Speaker 2: shocking that other foreign governments haven't been able to do
Speaker 2: more than they have.
Speaker 3: And we already see China.
Speaker 2: In some of our government systems and in our corporate
Speaker 2: systems because we lack so much modern technology that corporations
Speaker 2: use but the government won't use when it comes to
Speaker 2: cybersecurity and so many other systems like there's no excuse
Speaker 2: for the federal government of the freestation most proplmation in
Speaker 2: the world to have outdated systems in your giant, bloated
Speaker 2: federal agencies that are overpaid and overspend. But so much
Speaker 2: we could say on this. Thank you Ryan, thank you Kelly.
Speaker 2: I'm Christy Burton Brown. You've been on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening. I hope you have an excellent
Speaker 2: rest of your week. It is not the weekend yet,
Speaker 2: there's more work to be done. I hope you enjoy
Speaker 2: doing it and tune in tomorrow