Speaker 1: Gather around my friends. Let old Johnny g give you
Speaker 1: the story of his field trip to Sacramento. So yesterday
Speaker 1: I went to Sacramento. I went to testify in a
Speaker 1: hearing of the California State Senate Health Committee about a
Speaker 1: bad abortion bill. Basically, it's this bill Abe forty. It's
Speaker 1: basically trying to replace this bad Biden era regulation that
Speaker 1: Trump just rescinded to try to interpret a federal law
Speaker 1: governing emergency rooms and emergency rooms that take Medicare and
Speaker 1: Medicaid patients, trying to say that they have to do
Speaker 1: x Y and z, and that X y and Z
Speaker 1: is provide abortion. So I went to testify against it.
Speaker 1: So I testify during this committee.
Speaker 2: Hearing, and I want to.
Speaker 1: Not so much that committee hearing. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: that bill is bad. I could probably talk about it
Speaker 1: on Right to Life radio. There's not too much to
Speaker 1: say about it. It's really bad. I mean if I
Speaker 1: went on and on about every single bad pro abortion
Speaker 1: law that's being passed in the state legislature, it would
Speaker 1: you know. That's why we have a whole show for it.
Speaker 1: But and you should encourage your state senator and encourage
Speaker 1: your state assembly member to vote no on AB forty.
Speaker 2: It's a really bad bill.
Speaker 1: I think they kind of want every emergency room in
Speaker 1: California to have the resources on hand to perform abortions.
Speaker 1: I don't think they actually want it for emergency abortions
Speaker 1: even I think they just want everyone performing abortions all
Speaker 1: the time. They want emergency rooms to have MiFi pristone,
Speaker 1: which is the abortion pill, which is not used for
Speaker 1: emergency situations anyway.
Speaker 2: AB forty is really bad.
Speaker 1: But I want to tell you about the broader experience
Speaker 1: and just the atmosphere in Sacramento, because it is so
Speaker 1: divorced from reality. First, I get there and I park,
Speaker 1: I find a meter, and I park a couple of
Speaker 1: blocks away from the capitol, and I walk past the
Speaker 1: offices of SEIU. S CiU has a big office right
Speaker 1: near the Capitol, which I laughed, I joked about.
Speaker 2: I took a picture of it and posted it on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's so fun to visit the seat of all
Speaker 1: political authority in California. Hey, there's a big building with
Speaker 1: a dome on top of it over there. Maybe I'll
Speaker 1: go check that out too. Just because SEIU basically runs
Speaker 1: the state legislature and Indeed, I don't think I've ever
Speaker 1: been to the Capitol, and I've been there a bunch
Speaker 1: of times.
Speaker 2: I don't think I've ever been to.
Speaker 1: Sacramento and not seen a large presence of SEIU T
Speaker 1: shirt clad people out there lobbying for something. And indeed, today,
Speaker 1: yesterday rather it was no different. I go there, s
Speaker 1: CiU has a whole like.
Speaker 2: Picnic lunch going on on the lawn outside of the
Speaker 2: Capitol building.
Speaker 1: They've got DJ playing music, They've got food, They've got
Speaker 1: T shirts that the people are sitting around having like
Speaker 1: a gazillion people. I saw their charter buses parked nearby.
Speaker 1: Looked like they were bussed in from San Francisco, if
Speaker 1: you know, that's where the charter bus was from anyway,
Speaker 1: So uh, and you know, just having a good I
Speaker 1: don't even know what they were lobbying about. I assume
Speaker 1: they're lobbying about the budget bill, because as I for
Speaker 1: reasons I will get into as we go along, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of agita on the left about the whole
Speaker 1: situation with California state budget. Now, I was I met
Speaker 1: with some folks who were helping me out with coordinating
Speaker 1: the testimony, and then I walked over to that. They're
Speaker 1: they're renovating the Capitol right now. It's a gazillion bajillion
Speaker 1: dollar renovation that of course, the state legislature passed a
Speaker 1: law to exempt that construction process from SIQUA, the California
Speaker 1: Environmental Quality Act, and other kinds of environmental laws that
Speaker 1: us little folk have to deal with if we want
Speaker 1: to build anything or do any construction. But the state
Speaker 1: legislature managed to exempt themselves for the project of renovating
Speaker 1: the state capital. They passed a law to exempt themselves
Speaker 1: from that. But the renovation to the state Capitol building
Speaker 1: is costing a gazillion dollars, way more than is necessary,
Speaker 1: and they've been working on it for years. So they're
Speaker 1: holding a lot of hearings, and that they've moved all
Speaker 1: the senators and the assembly members' offices to this other
Speaker 1: building that's on O Street, a couple about a block
Speaker 1: or two away from the actual capital building itself, and
Speaker 1: that's where they have a lot of committee hearings. So
Speaker 1: I walked over to O Street. I go into the
Speaker 1: committee room, and I'm supposed to go to a Senate
Speaker 1: Health Committee hearing. My bill is the first bill they're
Speaker 1: going to hear, So I get there. I try to
Speaker 1: get there early. I get there about fifty minutes forty
Speaker 1: five minutes early, and I get there for the tail
Speaker 1: end of the Senate Budget Committee their meeting.
Speaker 2: Now, I don't know.
Speaker 1: How closely you followed the news, but there's a lot
Speaker 1: of storm and drawing over California's state budget over the
Speaker 1: last month.
Speaker 2: Governor Newsom in May did his it's.
Speaker 1: Called the May revise, so every May the government, So
Speaker 1: let me take it back in January, the governor gives
Speaker 1: his budget proposal.
Speaker 2: After the April tax Day.
Speaker 1: The governor then gives what's called the May revive, is
Speaker 1: to the budget. He revises his budget proposal from January,
Speaker 1: and this revision is meant to reflect whatever changes updates
Speaker 1: in expected revenue have happened since April fifteenth, which is
Speaker 1: tax day. Okay, So if we gathered as much in
Speaker 1: state tax revenue as we sort of anticipated back in January,
Speaker 1: then we don't need to change very much. If we
Speaker 1: collected a lot less, then we got to cut things.
Speaker 1: If we collected a lot more, maybe we allocate things differently.
Speaker 1: So back in May, Governor Newsom announced his revision to
Speaker 1: the state budget, and it's a dire, dire, dire budgetary situation.
Speaker 1: We're staring down the barrel of a twelve billion dollar
Speaker 1: deficit again, another you know, thirty year in a row
Speaker 1: with a big deficit. California is now facing. According to
Speaker 1: sort of the non partisan budget analysts from the state,
Speaker 1: California's facing what's called a structural deficit. What that means is,
Speaker 1: it's not like, oh, we just had another happened to
Speaker 1: have another bad year and revenue, you know, is getting
Speaker 1: outpaced by spending. No, we have now put ourselves in
Speaker 1: a position where our spending commitments are going to outstrip
Speaker 1: revenues on a consistent basis. We are, in a consistent
Speaker 1: basis of year over year, we're going to have deficit
Speaker 1: spending by about ten to twenty billion dollars unless we
Speaker 1: really course correct and cut back, hold back, retreat from
Speaker 1: a lot of the commitments we have made. Now, Governor
Speaker 1: Newsom gives his May budget revision proposal, and I cannot
Speaker 1: express to you how furious everyone in the Capitol is
Speaker 1: with him. Everyone who can't do math is really angry.
Speaker 1: And that's most of the people in the building. Okay,
Speaker 1: they are so mad, and it's a thing of they
Speaker 1: live on a different planet from us, from you and me,
Speaker 1: from those of us who can do math, who say, well, geez,
Speaker 1: we're deficit spending, so I guess we gotta cut things.
Speaker 1: That's not gonna be fun, you know, But eventually there's
Speaker 1: a thing you have to cut that someone will be
Speaker 1: upset about. Anyone who's run a business knows that feeling
Speaker 1: that eventually you have to cut things, and you have
Speaker 1: to cut things in ways that are unpleasant and not good.
Speaker 2: And that's just the way it is.
Speaker 1: Now, one of the big things that was brought up.
Speaker 1: So I'm in this. I get there early. I find
Speaker 1: myself in the room for the tail end of Senate
Speaker 1: Budget Committee hearing.
Speaker 2: And this is a committee hearing.
Speaker 1: To review the budget bill, not Governor Newsom's may revision
Speaker 1: to the budget bill, but sort of the counter proposal
Speaker 1: to Newsom coming from the state Legislature itself, from the
Speaker 1: State Assembly in the State Senate. The State Assembly and
Speaker 1: the State Senate work together. They put together their sort
Speaker 1: of response to Governor Newsom, and it's it deficit spends
Speaker 1: more than Newsom. Basically, it cuts fewer things than Newsom cut.
Speaker 1: It rolls back a lot of his cuts, and the
Speaker 1: format for the Budget Committee hearing was a little weird.
Speaker 1: It seems different from what I'm used to. Maybe that's
Speaker 1: just the way the Budget Committee works is you had
Speaker 1: just a whole line of folks from different organizations coming
Speaker 1: up to the microphone to talk for I don't know
Speaker 1: what the time limit was, if it seemed like everyone
Speaker 1: had about four or five minutes apiece to talk, representing
Speaker 1: different organizations, to say what they thought about the new
Speaker 1: Senate and Assembly budget bill. And everyone was trashing the
Speaker 1: Newsome budget proposal. Everyone was talking about how horrible the
Speaker 1: Newsome budget proposal is, how punitive it is, how it's
Speaker 1: hurting people precisely when the Trump administration is using militarized
Speaker 1: Everyone thought everything Ice was doing was militarized militarized attacks.
Speaker 2: On immigrants.
Speaker 1: No one ever said illegal aliens, No one ever made
Speaker 1: any distinction between documented or undocumented, just immigrants. And it's horrible,
Speaker 1: and that governor knew some cut these programs.
Speaker 2: This is horrible. These weak and vulnerable communities.
Speaker 1: To do this at this time is terrible, And it
Speaker 1: was just taken as a given by like all these
Speaker 1: people who are clearly very at home being in the
Speaker 1: Capitol and talking, it was clear that Newsoone's persona on grata.
Speaker 1: When it came time for the members of the Budget
Speaker 1: Committee to vote, the vote was really quite surprising. Now,
Speaker 1: all of the committees in Sacramento, they're they're heavily stacked
Speaker 1: in favor of Democrats, and that kind of makes sense.
Speaker 1: Democrats have, you know, three quarters of the seats, so
Speaker 1: they have, you know, obviously the overwhelming majority of everyone
Speaker 1: on an individual committee is going.
Speaker 2: To be Democrats.
Speaker 1: So the Budget Committee had eighteen members, five of whom
Speaker 1: are Republicans. Not all the Republicans are there, not all
Speaker 1: the Democrats are there either, And you've got person after
Speaker 1: person after person coming up and being like Newsom's thing
Speaker 1: is terrible. But one of the things that was really
Speaker 1: surprising to me was that, Okay, so here's Newsom's proposal.
Speaker 1: Newsom's proposal is still deficit spending, like it's not a
Speaker 1: thing Republicans would like. Then you've got the State Assembly
Speaker 1: and State Senate budget bill. They're spending more. We Republicans
Speaker 1: would like it less. But these left wing groups that
Speaker 1: feel so totally at home, that feel so comfortable that
Speaker 1: feel like they deserve their place and are outraged that
Speaker 1: they're not getting what they want in Sacramento.
Speaker 2: These left wing groups, a lot of them were mad
Speaker 2: not just at Newsom's proposal, but at the more fiscally
Speaker 2: profligate Assembly and State Senate proposal. They thought they.
Speaker 1: Weren't spending enough, so much so that the bill passed
Speaker 1: out of the committee on a vote of ten to six,
Speaker 1: with three Democrats voting no on it. I'm presuming the
Speaker 1: other Republicans were going to come and probably put it
Speaker 1: to ten to eight or closer than that, but only
Speaker 1: ten Democrats as of yesterday voted for the thing. Three
Speaker 1: Democrats voted no Senator Derazzo, Senator Menhevar, and Senator Weaver Pearson,
Speaker 1: who voted not present, which is effectively the same as no.
Speaker 2: So you had two senators vote no. One refused to
Speaker 2: vote on it.
Speaker 1: A sizeable chunk of Democrats in the state legislature, they're
Speaker 1: not even apparently there's gonna be a decent chunk of
Speaker 1: Democrats in the state legislature who are not going to
Speaker 1: vote for this because it's not profligate enough. So again,
Speaker 1: like I just want to emphasize this to you guys.
Speaker 1: These people have so many more votes than we do
Speaker 1: in the state Assembly, in the state Senate. These people
Speaker 1: have so much more power in Sacramento than you and
Speaker 1: I do. You know, don't let anyone show you some
Speaker 1: like county map.
Speaker 2: Well, what if we got rid of the fraud. Okay, guys,
Speaker 2: even if we got rid of all the fraud.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that it does anything. I mean, you
Speaker 1: look at favorability ratings. Gavin Newsom is still at forty
Speaker 1: four percent and Donald Trump's at twenty nine percent. I
Speaker 1: don't think we're flipping the state read anytime soon. I
Speaker 1: don't care how many county wide maps you show me showing.
Speaker 2: Oh, look at all this red area of California. Yet
Speaker 2: nobody lives in a lot of the red areas.
Speaker 1: There's like three blue areas, and it's where the huge
Speaker 1: majority of the people live. And I'm just saying, these
Speaker 1: people are living in an alternate reality where math doesn't exist,
Speaker 1: where spending to a deficit doesn't exist, where we don't
Speaker 1: have to account for that somehow. Now, when we return,
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the attitudes surrounding illegal immigrants,
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, how it relates to the Trump The Trump
Speaker 1: initiated raids by ice and again, how everyone in that
Speaker 1: building in Sacramento is thinking in ways that are completely.
Speaker 2: Foreign to you and me. That's next on the John
Speaker 2: Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: There's a pole that's been put out by the Public
Speaker 1: Policy Institute of California. Should California provide health insurance to
Speaker 1: undocumented immigrants? Fifty eight percent of Californians oppose giving health
Speaker 1: insurance to quote, undocumented immigrants illegal aliens. Only forty one
Speaker 1: percent of Californians are in favor. That's a big split.
Speaker 1: Fifty eight percent of Californians oppose giving health insurance to
Speaker 1: illegal aliens, forty one percent are in favor. Now, as
Speaker 1: I've been talking about in the first segment, I went
Speaker 1: on a trip to Sacramento yesterday. For the day, I
Speaker 1: went to testify in opposition to a bad abortion related
Speaker 1: bill in the state legislature.
Speaker 2: But I got to.
Speaker 1: Kind of hang out and see other committee hearings and
Speaker 1: hear other things and learn sort of the attitudes of
Speaker 1: what's going on in that place, and had the luck
Speaker 1: of sitting in on a State Senate Budget Committee hearing.
Speaker 2: Yesterday.
Speaker 1: The State Senate Budget Committee voted to pass the Joint
Speaker 1: Assembly and Senate budget deal, which is clawing back a
Speaker 1: lot of the cuts that Newsom has made. Newsome made
Speaker 1: a bunch of cuts to the state budget in recognition
Speaker 1: of the fact that we're staring down the barrel of
Speaker 1: a twelve billion dollar deficit. And I want to talk
Speaker 1: about just the attitudes towards illegal aliens that that committee
Speaker 1: hearing sort of evidenced. First, you got to understand, Sacramento
Speaker 1: is crawling with lobbyists. It's crawling with people who represent
Speaker 1: and lobby for all kinds of different organizations, people who
Speaker 1: make the trip up from La or over from San Francisco,
Speaker 1: or you know, lobbyists who just live in Sacramento and
Speaker 1: represent a number of different clients. But it's these people
Speaker 1: who seem very comfortable to me anyways, seem very comfortable
Speaker 1: and confident being there, that they work for, as you know,
Speaker 1: lobbying entities for all these different industries or for all
Speaker 1: these different entities. And so many of the people in
Speaker 1: the room for that budget committee hearing were representatives of
Speaker 1: different kinds of left aligned nonprofits that do all kinds
Speaker 1: of stuff with immigrants, with various kinds of you know,
Speaker 1: child welfare. This that the other, you know, County of
Speaker 1: Los Angeles doing a gazillion different organizations that all of
Speaker 1: a lot of whom might seem like, well, they're helping
Speaker 1: feed the poors, so that's not politically aligned.
Speaker 2: But obviously everyone there is a.
Speaker 1: Liberal, and that's just I feel like if you take
Speaker 1: a survey, that's a huge percentage of everyone who's just
Speaker 1: walking around in the halls in the state legislative office buildings.
Speaker 1: The attitude that they took towards Newsome rolling back coverage
Speaker 1: for illegal aliens for medical and that's the signature thing
Speaker 1: that Newsom has cut is limiting that we're not going
Speaker 1: to accept certain kinds of illegal aliens into medical because
Speaker 1: we accepted a bunch of illegal aliens into medical and
Speaker 1: it was way more expensive than we anticipated.
Speaker 2: So we're going to freeze that.
Speaker 1: We're not going to let any basically limiting the eligibility
Speaker 1: of these groups. The budget proposal from the State Assembly
Speaker 1: and State Senate, I think it softens newsome position a bit,
Speaker 1: but it still retains that there's certain groups of illegal
Speaker 1: aliens that are not going to be eligible for medical.
Speaker 1: This was the chief point of furious.
Speaker 2: Anger, as Samuel L. Jackson said during Pulp Fiction, furious anger.
Speaker 1: The chief point of furious anger on the part of
Speaker 1: these liberal activists who are in the room for this
Speaker 1: Budget committee hearing.
Speaker 3: How can you do this to immigrants when the Trump
Speaker 3: administration is weaponizing military raids with ice and attacking immigrants.
Speaker 3: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. How can you
Speaker 3: do this? This is the most vulnerable population in California.
Speaker 3: To this extent, I want you to understand how these
Speaker 3: people think, and so much so that there are several
Speaker 3: Democrats who voted no on this bill.
Speaker 1: I don't know all the reasons why they voted no,
Speaker 1: but I suspect that's one of them. Okay, so yeah,
Speaker 1: you had two Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee vote
Speaker 1: no on it. One refused to vote on it, which
Speaker 1: has the same ultimate effect as voting no. When you
Speaker 1: and I see that someone's in the country unlawfully without permission,
Speaker 1: without appropriate legal permission, either they snuck across the border
Speaker 1: when they weren't supposed to, evading immigration authorities, or they
Speaker 1: over state of visa or whatever. You and I look
Speaker 1: at that and rightly think, well, that makes us less
Speaker 1: inclined to give them some form of government aid support, largesse.
Speaker 2: You've broken the law. You now shouldn't be.
Speaker 1: Here because the penalty for what you're doing is usually deportation.
Speaker 1: So we don't want you. You're not supposed to be here,
Speaker 1: You're legally not supposed to be here. So no, I
Speaker 1: don't want to give you more stuff. That is how
Speaker 1: we think of it. In fact, that's how fifty eight
Speaker 1: percent of Californians think of it. In a very liberal state,
Speaker 1: even still fifty eight percent of Californians think that way.
Speaker 1: They don't want to give health insurance medical coverage to
Speaker 1: illegal aliens in that building in Sacramento. They view the
Speaker 1: fact that you're in the country illegally as actually a
Speaker 1: greater incentive to give you aid, largesse and help because
Speaker 1: you're more vulnerable as a result. This is our most
Speaker 1: like I remember one of the people coming up and
Speaker 1: speaking about this during this budget committee hearing. One of
Speaker 1: these activist group representatives said, this is the most vulnerable
Speaker 1: patient in California, the most vulnerable group of people in California,
Speaker 1: and they're so vulnerable right now they're facing attacks from
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. How can you cut back their healthcare
Speaker 1: coverage at a time like this, and this group of
Speaker 1: all people, they it's almost like they genuinely view not
Speaker 1: being in the country legally as like a protected category
Speaker 1: that should be deserving of, like a form of affirmative action,
Speaker 1: like the way that they would want to do for
Speaker 1: you know, giving racial preferences or you know, preferences to
Speaker 1: LGBT persons.
Speaker 2: The fact that you're in the country illegally puts you.
Speaker 1: Higher in the area of people we should be concerned about.
Speaker 1: That is how totally backwards these people think. When we
Speaker 1: return the idea of new taxes and the lack of
Speaker 1: second order thinking. Next, on the John Girardi Show, there's
Speaker 1: a proposal that Democrats are kicking around that is so
Speaker 1: stupid that I kind of makes your head explode, but
Speaker 1: it sort of reveals the absolute lack of any kind
Speaker 1: of second order thinking, thinking through not just the immediate result,
Speaker 1: but the consequences that will follow.
Speaker 2: After the immediate result.
Speaker 1: I don't feel like Democrats think about this at all,
Speaker 1: especially in California. I just think that they assume that
Speaker 1: you can impose some kind of regulation or duty on
Speaker 1: a business and then they will just comply with that thing,
Speaker 1: accept something that hurts their profits and then not do
Speaker 1: anything else. In response, Newsom clearly thought that with his
Speaker 1: stupid regulation on oil refineries in California, oh, just maintaining
Speaker 1: a higher supply of oil all the time to avoid
Speaker 1: gas price hikes during the summer.
Speaker 2: Easy. Oh, these greedy oil companies spike their prices. They
Speaker 2: know that there's going to be an increase in demand.
Speaker 1: They should just keep a higher supply all the time.
Speaker 1: And the oil companies say, you realize if we do that,
Speaker 1: it's going to add tons of costs to us, and
Speaker 1: we have to make the calculus of like, is it
Speaker 1: worth our time to keep investing the money to maintain
Speaker 1: these refined if we can't make as much money and
Speaker 1: we have to keep our prices high inflated all the time.
Speaker 1: If you pass this law, we might just pull out
Speaker 1: our refineries. And that would be disastrous for you because
Speaker 1: it would massively lower supply of gasoline in California and
Speaker 1: massively increase prices. And Newsom said, whoh, well, I don't
Speaker 1: care you gas companies are greedy. So he signs the law,
Speaker 1: and what happens two major oil refineries in California shut
Speaker 1: down and we're going to be looking down the barrel
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty six of gas being like six dollars
Speaker 1: a gallon, six seven dollars a gallon up and down
Speaker 1: the state gas prices are about to spike massively, so
Speaker 1: there's no second order thinking. Democrats get so myopically focused
Speaker 1: on whatever their hobby horses, either corporations being evil or
Speaker 1: something like that, that they'll just impose some tax and
Speaker 1: pose some regulation to show those greedy companies, those greedy
Speaker 1: corporations what for, without thinking through, oh, well, that could
Speaker 1: have bad consequences on the little guy. Because I can
Speaker 1: assure you the multi gazillionaire, multi multimillionaire execs at the
Speaker 1: oil company you hate, they're not suffering. And you know
Speaker 1: who is suffering, Everyone who had a job at those
Speaker 1: oil refineries who's now lost their job. And now everyone
Speaker 1: in California who has to pay way higher gas taxes
Speaker 1: because Gavin Newsom had a little fit of a little
Speaker 1: fit of peak at greedy gas companies. A similar thing
Speaker 1: I feel is about to happen now. It's just at
Speaker 1: the discussion phase, and I don't know that Democrats have
Speaker 1: the votes to do it yet, but it's getting kicked
Speaker 1: around and you've got people like Scott Wiener saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's an interesting idea. Scott Wiener, by the way, who's
Speaker 1: the chair of the Senate Budget Committee.
Speaker 2: Less I say about Scott Wiener the better anyway.
Speaker 1: So what's this proposal. What Democrats are seeing is we
Speaker 1: are facing structural deficits. Year over year, our commitments to
Speaker 1: spending outstrip our revenues by ten to twenty billion dollars.
Speaker 1: And that that's what a structural deficit is. That that's
Speaker 1: the that's the situation that California finds itself in. It's
Speaker 1: really bad. So we have to fix the problem. And
Speaker 1: you got to. I mean, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: there's only two ways you can do that. You either
Speaker 1: cut what you're going to spend, or you increase your revenue.
Speaker 2: And how do you increase revenue.
Speaker 1: Well, you either collect you increase taxes and hope that
Speaker 1: people don't leave the state in such a degree that
Speaker 1: that would offset the amount of extra tax revenue you're collecting.
Speaker 1: And so Democrats are thinking, we're going to increase some taxes.
Speaker 1: That's what's being kicked around. The idea is let's kick
Speaker 1: around the idea of increasing taxes and on whom are
Speaker 1: we going to increase taxes. We're going to increase taxes
Speaker 1: on quote.
Speaker 2: Big businesses, So in what way? Why? How? And towards what?
Speaker 1: Well, one of the big problems. One of the big
Speaker 1: reasons why we're facing a structural deficit is medical. Okay,
Speaker 1: we are spending a ton of money on medical. A
Speaker 1: huge percentage of Californians are on medical. That percentage is
Speaker 1: just growing and growing. Gavin Newsom opened up medical eligibility
Speaker 1: to illegal aliens that was way more expensive than anyone anticipated,
Speaker 1: So that's sort of the one of the big things
Speaker 1: that's driving this new structural deficit idea. And one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why so many people are on medical is
Speaker 1: because of how expensive it is to provide health insurance
Speaker 1: to your employees. And what a lot of big companies
Speaker 1: have wound up doing is just hiring part time employees,
Speaker 1: massively overstaffing themselves with part time employees rather than full
Speaker 1: time employees, so you don't have to pay for health insurance.
Speaker 1: With the thought of well, medical eligibility has increased so
Speaker 1: much that people can just get medical. So it's basically
Speaker 1: you have large corporations taking advantage of the fact that
Speaker 1: Democrats have so massively increased medical eligibility that they basically
Speaker 1: have said, well, we're just not going to pay health insurance.
Speaker 1: Then we're just not going to hire these people as
Speaker 1: full time employees. So we'll have this person work twenty
Speaker 1: nine hours a week rather than thirty, which is kind
Speaker 1: of the normal threshold for full time. We'll have this
Speaker 1: person work twenty nine hours a week part time. No
Speaker 1: health insurance benefits, go get medical. Now that's not how
Speaker 1: I run right to life of Central California. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of small businesses try not to do that
Speaker 1: with employees that are good employees that they're they're dedicated
Speaker 1: to and want to take care of for the long haul.
Speaker 1: And employees who want to recruit good people recognize they
Speaker 1: have to step up. But a lot of big corporations
Speaker 1: have taken that posture. Now I'm not defending this. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying this is good or ethical business. I think
Speaker 1: that it is a response to a lot of problems
Speaker 1: that Democrats themselves have made. If California wasn't such a
Speaker 1: tax and regulatory heavy state as it is, if California
Speaker 1: hadn't you know, so massively, and perhaps one could argue
Speaker 1: profit will get expanded medical eligibility. Maybe corporations would be
Speaker 1: more open to would need to to stay competitive, would
Speaker 1: be more open to paying their employees with health insurance
Speaker 1: benefits and hiring more full time people and having more
Speaker 1: health insurance benefits being offered rather than relying on medical
Speaker 1: I can see the critique of the corporations. I think
Speaker 1: it's fair, But I also can understand that the corporations
Speaker 1: may have been pushed there by a bunch of bad
Speaker 1: dumb Democrat policies as well as a lot of other
Speaker 1: bad dumb Democrat policies that just generally increase cost of
Speaker 1: living and cost of doing business all across the fruit,
Speaker 1: all across the state. But you know, I'm not here
Speaker 1: to say all the corporations are clean and pure as
Speaker 1: the wind drivens.
Speaker 2: No, No, I don't you know.
Speaker 1: I think corporations, big corporations in America, and especially in California,
Speaker 1: have done nothing to deserve conservatives, you know, weeping and fawning,
Speaker 1: you know, esteem or concern big corporations, you know, big
Speaker 1: time corporate America was as aggressive a proponent of the
Speaker 1: cultural left as anybody, so they you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: shedding big alligator tears for Amazon or anyone like that. However,
Speaker 1: the Democrats idea is a big tax on corporations to
Speaker 1: pay for medical a new tax healthcare related tax.
Speaker 2: On big businesses in California.
Speaker 1: I can guarantee you this is not going to work
Speaker 1: well because, again, just Democrats seem to think that, Okay,
Speaker 1: here's a corporation, it's operating a certain way. We're going
Speaker 1: to increase taxes on them that will result in their
Speaker 1: profits dropping, and nothing different will happen. They will take
Speaker 1: no other action in response to us increasing their taxes
Speaker 1: which results in their profits dropping. Do they not understand
Speaker 1: how corporations work. Corporations don't work that way. They will
Speaker 1: do something to correct in order to try to keep
Speaker 1: their profits up. That's what they do. That's what every
Speaker 1: corporation does will try to do. So here's how they're
Speaker 1: going to do it. I'll give you two options. Now,
Speaker 1: let me give you three. The way that corporations are
Speaker 1: going to respond to new healthcare taxes in already the
Speaker 1: highest tax state in the Union. Corporations who are still
Speaker 1: operating in California are operating in the highest tax state
Speaker 1: in the Union. They've all thought about going to Texas.
Speaker 1: They've all thought about going to Nevada. They've all thought
Speaker 1: about going to Florida, They've all thought of going to Idaho.
Speaker 2: Here's what's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: They're gonna either lay off employees to keep their profits up,
Speaker 1: they are going to move out of state and lay
Speaker 1: off their employees, or whatever good or service that company
Speaker 1: offers to consumers the general public. They're going to massively
Speaker 1: increase the prices, so the costs are going to be
Speaker 1: borne by people losing their jobs and or the general
Speaker 1: public paying more and another increase in cost of living
Speaker 1: to Californians.
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 1: I would love corporations act more responsibly, but just imposing
Speaker 1: a tax is not gonna do that. They are going
Speaker 1: to pass the cost off to someone else. You can't
Speaker 1: stop them from doing that. I cannot fathom how these
Speaker 1: people can't do any level of second order thinking to think, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll just in the highest tax state in the Union,
Speaker 1: We'll just impose more taxes on corporations. They're going to
Speaker 1: either fire employees or pass the costs off to us,
Speaker 1: or they're just gonna leave.
Speaker 2: That's what's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: It's so stupid these but that's the attitude in that building.
Speaker 1: The state legislature exists in an alternate universe where math
Speaker 1: and basic mechanisms of the economy just don't seem to operate.
Speaker 1: It's astonishing when don't we return One quick thought about
Speaker 1: the California National Guard and how they're being deployed.
Speaker 2: I don't think the media is really talking about it
Speaker 2: super accurately.
Speaker 1: Next on the John Girardi Show, So one of the
Speaker 1: things I learned about Governor President Trump's activation of the
Speaker 1: California National Guard at which Gavin Newsom is trying to
Speaker 1: legally challenge and stop and lost his request for a
Speaker 1: temporary restraining order which he filed with the Northern District
Speaker 1: of California because he was judge shopping and tried to
Speaker 1: find the most liberal federal judicial district that he could
Speaker 1: file the law.
Speaker 2: Student.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the riots are in Los Angeles, but Newsom was
Speaker 1: suing to stop it in San Francisco because all the
Speaker 1: judges in the Northern District of California, which is based
Speaker 1: in San Francisco, are Democrat appointees. So what the National
Speaker 1: Guard is being asked to do is just stand around
Speaker 1: and protect areas of federal property.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 1: They're not executing the ICE rates. And that's the thing
Speaker 1: is the relevant law that's being cited is basically deals
Speaker 1: with either a rebellion or interference making it impossible to
Speaker 1: engage in the work of federal law enforcement. And that's
Speaker 1: what's happened now. I don't know that ICE can show
Speaker 1: up somewhere without it being a problem. And now you've
Speaker 1: got LA Unified getting cops to police the outside of.
Speaker 2: Areas where like graduations are.
Speaker 1: Happening, which I don't want anyone to get picked up
Speaker 1: by ICE during a graduation ceremony. I guess that seems
Speaker 1: a bit more than a bit traumatizing. But are we
Speaker 1: going to try and set up a genuine LA cops
Speaker 1: fighting against ICE officers kind of conflict like that seems
Speaker 1: like a really bad idea. But anyway, I think Newsom
Speaker 1: is acting as if the use of these National Guard
Speaker 1: troops is we're weaponizing the Donald Trump is taking over. No,
Speaker 1: the National Guard troops are there to protect federal buildings.
Speaker 1: That's all they're being asked to do. So anyway, I
Speaker 1: find the whole thing to be a silly controversy, and
Speaker 1: I think Trump is in the right, that'll do it.
Speaker 1: John Girardi Show, See next time on Power Talk