Speaker 1: Seven oh five here fifty five PARC DE Talk Station Friday.
Speaker 1: Always enjoy when to come into the studio in the
Speaker 1: morning and see on the rundown Dave Williams from the
Speaker 1: Taxpayer Protection Alliance, holding government accountables what they do each
Speaker 1: and every day. Find them online Protecting Taxpayers dot org.
Speaker 1: Dave Williams, Welcome back to the Morning show, my friend.
Speaker 1: It's always a pleasure to having you on the show.
Speaker 2: Good morning, Brian, and I have a question for you
Speaker 2: to start off the show. The Washington commanders are looking
Speaker 2: for subsidy to build a new stadium, right yep. So
Speaker 2: in Washington, d C. We have now a stadium, subsidy
Speaker 2: and a street car. So I'm trying to think of
Speaker 2: the trifecta here. What would be the third thing to
Speaker 2: make this just the trifecta of wasteful and unnecessary spending,
Speaker 2: Because I know Cincinnati has the same right, they have subsidies,
Speaker 2: they had the streetcar, and I can't think of the
Speaker 2: third one to make it a trifecta.
Speaker 1: Oh, I don't know, how about some green energy project?
Speaker 2: There you go, bingo, you got it. Okay, we had
Speaker 2: the trifecta of government waste stupid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'm glad you chose you one of our
Speaker 1: favorite subjects street car. You Aubity already mentioned that we
Speaker 1: always managed to get the street car in there, even
Speaker 1: with the only passing reference stadium deals. You and I
Speaker 1: talk about that a lot over the years. And you know,
Speaker 1: our Ohio budget has six hundred million dollars going directly
Speaker 1: to the Cleveland Browns for the purpose of building their
Speaker 1: two point plus whatever billion dollar projects. So how that
Speaker 1: ended up in the Ohio taxpayer's budget is beyond me.
Speaker 1: It really irks me, But there it is governed. He
Speaker 1: is a lineight in Veto, and what he did was
Speaker 1: line it in Veto's three or four issues that it
Speaker 1: would have been baby steps in the right direction to
Speaker 1: providing the Ohio property owners with some measure of relief
Speaker 1: for property taxes. He struck all those out of the bill,
Speaker 1: and yet he stilled allowed six hundred million dollars to
Speaker 1: go to the Cleveland Browns. There, I got it out
Speaker 1: of my system, Dave. So but moving over top top
Speaker 1: five anyway, list of our favorite topics over the years.
Speaker 1: The post office. So let's let's talk about the post office.
Speaker 1: That's an efficient, well oiled business over there isn't it?
Speaker 2: Oh, which sure is sarcasm. Noted they just raised the
Speaker 2: cost of first class mail again, went from seventy three
Speaker 2: cents to seventy eight cents. And I mean, I'm going
Speaker 2: to sound like, you know, one of those old guys,
Speaker 2: but I remember when it was fifty five cents. It
Speaker 2: doesn't seem like it was too long ago that was
Speaker 2: fifty five cents. And here's here's the kicker is that
Speaker 2: they're not making money. Is that they keep on losing.
Speaker 2: And we're not talking about a little bit of money.
Speaker 2: We're talking about billions of dollars a year, and they
Speaker 2: keep on raising prices and it's not working. The Aaron
Speaker 2: lines of problem is that they raise the prices and
Speaker 2: it's not working because the rest of the system is
Speaker 2: so messed up. They are spending eighty thousand dollars per
Speaker 2: truck for electric vehicles.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, see you brought I had a separate article
Speaker 1: that was Olivia Murray over an American thinker did the numbers
Speaker 1: crunching on this one, and part of the Inflation Reduction
Speaker 1: Act allocated money to go to the Post Office for
Speaker 1: the purpose of transforming their feet into a fleet into
Speaker 1: electric vehicles. Right, Apparently they want forty five thousand electric
Speaker 1: battery powered postal service vehicles in this in this Grand Plan,
Speaker 1: vehicles were supposed to be This acquisition supposed to be
Speaker 1: completed by September of twenty twenty eight, funded by in part,
Speaker 1: is a ten billion dollar total overall cost project. Three
Speaker 1: billion of that comes from the so called Inflation Reduction Act,
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal Bill right President Biden signed in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. So from that three billion dollars, currently
Speaker 1: one point seven billion has been distributed. It's out the door.
Speaker 1: They have acquired two hundred and fifty total trucks, meaning
Speaker 1: if you do the proper division or math on that,
Speaker 1: it comes out to six point eight million dollars per truck.
Speaker 1: And since they've only acquired a small number, they said
Speaker 1: at this current rate eighty three vehicles per year, it
Speaker 1: would take the government another five hundred and thirty nine
Speaker 1: years to finalize the plan. It's supposed to be completed
Speaker 1: by twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 3: They can't do anything, right.
Speaker 2: No, they absolutely can't. And the Inspector General at the
Speaker 2: Post Office has been warning about this for years and
Speaker 2: telling them not to do this. Not to buy electric
Speaker 2: vehicles because of the maintenance cost, because of downtime, you know,
Speaker 2: just charging these vehicles. It takes time to charge the vehicles,
Speaker 2: so they aren't listening. And when you talk about the
Speaker 2: number of vehicles that have already been purchased, I mean,
Speaker 2: this is just embarrassing, to say the least. And there
Speaker 2: is a new Postmaster General and hopefully you know he
Speaker 2: and he just started I think last week. So yeah,
Speaker 2: let's see what this guy can do. And so his
Speaker 2: first name is David, So I have a lot of faith,
Speaker 2: you know. I don't know if that's something that well,
Speaker 2: we'll see. But there's there's management problems. There's so many deep,
Speaker 2: deep problems at the post Office. And obviously the glaring
Speaker 2: one is spending all this money on electric vehicles.
Speaker 1: I mean, it really is. But it's just one additional expenditure,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, if they're they're looking, you have
Speaker 1: an imagery reported and you know the numbers on this.
Speaker 1: The United States Postal Service has lost more than one
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars over the past fifteen years, and they're
Speaker 1: continuing down that road currently. I guess how many billions
Speaker 1: of dollars have they left had lost so far this year.
Speaker 1: It's like three billion dollars, three billion dollars.
Speaker 2: And if they would end Saturday delivery, they could save
Speaker 2: two point six billion dollars a year just ending Saturday delivery.
Speaker 2: That is an incredible number to think that it could
Speaker 2: be saved easily.
Speaker 1: Well, but that wouldn't even solve the problem. It's a
Speaker 1: great step in the right direction. Dave Williams tax Favoritextion Alliance.
Speaker 1: But apparently they lost nine point five billion dollars collectively
Speaker 1: last year alone. So yeah, save two point five billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Let's get that figure down to seven billion dollars in loss.
Speaker 1: That'd be a notable improvement. But that's still seven billion
Speaker 1: dollars in loss. This is a business model. This isn't
Speaker 1: even a business model.
Speaker 2: No, it's not a business model. You look at seasonal
Speaker 2: hiring and we're going to hear about the Post Office
Speaker 2: hiring people for Christmas. Well, what happens with the Post
Speaker 2: Office is when they hire someone for a seasonal work,
Speaker 2: they offered them a full time job afterwards. FedEx and
Speaker 2: ups hire seasonally and they don't hire them full time
Speaker 2: afterwards because it's seasonal. It's only for a few months.
Speaker 2: But because of what the unions have done inside the
Speaker 2: Postal service is that they're required to offer them a
Speaker 2: full time job after Christmas. And again you said it,
Speaker 2: it's not a business. They don't have any business sense whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Well, how is it the American tax payer dollars are
Speaker 1: supporting all of this.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you what it is. There's a nostalgia about
Speaker 2: the post office, and rightly so, because you know, you
Speaker 2: meet your mail deliverer and he's a nice guy, she's
Speaker 2: a nice woman, right, and you have that bond. But
Speaker 2: people don't see the bigger picture. Nostalgia overtakes business sense,
Speaker 2: and I think if people really saw the numbers and
Speaker 2: understood just how much of a mess the post Office is,
Speaker 2: they would really, I think, change their view. And you know,
Speaker 2: this is an entity that tried to get into banking.
Speaker 2: Elizabeth warrens, Oh my god, try to get the post
Speaker 2: Office into the banking. I mean, that doesn't send a
Speaker 2: shiver down your spine. Nothing ever will.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess I'm wondering.
Speaker 1: I mean, who's going to be responsible for initiating some reform?
Speaker 1: I mean, if the union contract requires these part time
Speaker 1: employees to be offered full time jobs. That's got to
Speaker 1: stop right away. That had to stop years ago. Why
Speaker 1: isn't that element being addressed. That's clearly a problem, Dave.
Speaker 2: I hate to say this, but this is up to Congress.
Speaker 2: And Congress did the Postal Reform Act a few years ago,
Speaker 2: and their big savings was taking the healthcare costs of
Speaker 2: postal employees and shifting it over to Medicare. Well, it's
Speaker 2: still a taxpayer cost. They thought that they were doing
Speaker 2: the post Office and taxpayers a wonderful thing by doing this,
Speaker 2: but that's just shifting the burden from one part of
Speaker 2: the government to another. This is what Congress did, and
Speaker 2: but Congress needs to do this. They need to go
Speaker 2: inside the post Office and completely reorganize it. And I
Speaker 2: know when you talk about privatization, people you know, lose
Speaker 2: their minds. And I'm not saying privatize it, but I
Speaker 2: gotta tell you, we may have to start to look
Speaker 2: at that and maybe privatizing certain parts of it because
Speaker 2: it just isn't working. And they get a bailout every
Speaker 2: time they get a bailout from taxpayers. So that's why
Speaker 2: they don't have the pressure to make money. Is they
Speaker 2: know that Uncle Sam and uncle taxpayer is right there
Speaker 2: to bail them out.
Speaker 1: Going back to your comment about nostalgia, maybe I'm just
Speaker 1: a cold and callous guy day, but I don't have
Speaker 1: that nostalgia. Every time I go to the mailbox, I
Speaker 1: retrieve usually what amounts about three or four pieces of
Speaker 1: junk mail. Maybe three times a week I get some
Speaker 1: sort of mail that actually is important in some way,
Speaker 1: shape or form. Now I could go electronic billing. When
Speaker 1: it comes to say, my cell phone, I like getting
Speaker 1: the hard copy of the bill. My wife has paperwork
Speaker 1: to do for reimbursement from work, so you know, but
Speaker 1: I don't really even need that delivered. I could have
Speaker 1: it go to my email. I could pay it online,
Speaker 1: and I do pay the bill online. I don't stick
Speaker 1: a stamp on an envelope and send Verizon a check.
Speaker 1: So I've cut out half of the mail needed for
Speaker 1: that transaction. But in the final analysis, you know, if
Speaker 1: the mail showed up one day a week, that will
Speaker 1: be a Okay. I get all my junk mail. I
Speaker 1: can sort through a throw it away because it goes
Speaker 1: directly into the garbage, can recycle and pull out the
Speaker 1: stuff that really is important. I mean, the times have
Speaker 1: obviously changed so dramatically. The need for the Post Office,
Speaker 1: well of its current size anyway, has gone the way
Speaker 1: of the DODO.
Speaker 2: It has. And when you see other companies that go
Speaker 2: through and I said other companies, you know my mistake.
Speaker 2: But when you see companies go through this, they downsize,
Speaker 2: they change their business model exactly. The Post Office has
Speaker 2: not done that. They do the same thing over and
Speaker 2: over again, expecting a different result.
Speaker 1: All right, which is why they lost one hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollars in the past fifteen years. We'll continue with taxpayer
Speaker 1: protection lines. Dave Williams got well, the energy industry. Apparently
Speaker 1: the Grand Ole Party has forgotten what the free market is.
Speaker 1: They tend to do that from time to time. We'll
Speaker 1: get that information from Dave seven to fifteen. Right now,
Speaker 1: Get Affordable Imaging Services now open in New Richmond, and
Speaker 1: they got more than one office now right at the
Speaker 1: Ohio Indiana border. Get X rays X rays from Affordable
Speaker 1: Imaging Service. You know what they cost, seventy five bucks.
Speaker 1: I'll go back to that CT scans my favorite illustration
Speaker 1: because five thousand dollars at a hospital. If I emphasize
Speaker 1: that enough, probably pay extra for the board Certified Radiologist report. No,
Speaker 1: don't do that. Save literally thousands and thousands of dollars
Speaker 1: because a CT scan without an enhancement or out of
Speaker 1: contrast is only four hundred and fifty bucks at Affordable
Speaker 1: Imaging Services four fifty MRI four ninety fives. Whether you're
Speaker 1: a New Richmond or off Route thirty two on icol Troad,
Speaker 1: getting it done, you're gonna save tons of money. You
Speaker 1: have a choice when it comes to your medical care.
Speaker 1: So for echo cartograms, MRI, CT scans, ultrasounds, and X
Speaker 1: rays go to Affordable Imaging Services. Keep that money in
Speaker 1: your pocket. Five one three seven, five three eight thousand,
Speaker 1: five one three seven, five three eight thousand online learn more,
Speaker 1: Go to Affordable Medimaging dot com. This is fifty five
Speaker 1: KRC and I Heart Radio Station our IHEARTREO seven twenty
Speaker 1: On a Thursday, Brian Thomas with Dave Williams from the
Speaker 1: Taxpayer Protect Alliance again online at Protecting Taxpayers dot org.
Speaker 1: Worthwhile bookmark right there.
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 1: See you address this political article political reporting that the
Speaker 1: Department of Interior says the agency's going to subject wind
Speaker 1: and this is their words, wind and solar projects to
Speaker 1: heightened scrutiny potentially slowing approvals and construction across vast swaths
Speaker 1: of some of the most sun and wind rich portions
Speaker 1: of the country. Now that sounds typical Politico. They're obviously
Speaker 1: on the green side of the ledge. You're rather left
Speaker 1: leaning rags that website is, and I consolt political all
Speaker 1: the time in order to get some balance in my
Speaker 1: consumption of news. Dave, So, I'm no no stranger. They're
Speaker 1: reporting on political but I know where they're where the
Speaker 1: wind's blowing from Politico, no pun intended, right, But apparently
Speaker 1: what they say is in order to proceed on lands
Speaker 1: managed by the Department of Interior, they have to have
Speaker 1: the personal assent of the Interior Secretary, who is currently
Speaker 1: Doug Bergham. So they're placing the authority to thumb up
Speaker 1: or thumb down any given project on Department of Interior
Speaker 1: lands to one man.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So read between the lines and read the lines
Speaker 2: on this one. And this is very disturbing because listen,
Speaker 2: i'mno fan of green energy, especially the subsidies. But you know,
Speaker 2: as a country, this is all of the above. If
Speaker 2: you want to invest in green energy, if you want
Speaker 2: to develop green energy, without my money without tax payer money.
Speaker 2: You should have the ability to do that. And what
Speaker 2: this is is the government picking winners and losers. And
Speaker 2: this is something that Trump administration has done a lot
Speaker 2: of actually picking winners and losers in the economy. And
Speaker 2: this is not going to help. Now. Listen, if they
Speaker 2: said that we're not going to subsidize any of these projects, amen, brother, Yes,
Speaker 2: do not subsidize, But that's not what they're saying. They're
Speaker 2: saying is that we are not going to allow this
Speaker 2: because we don't like these particular forms of energy. That
Speaker 2: really bothers me. It's just weaponization of government.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know, Dave, I think everybody has to
Speaker 1: bear in mind that we do have changes of administrations.
Speaker 1: And while we're all seen to be quite pleased and
Speaker 1: happy with the way things are going into the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: there could be a Democrat elect in an office and
Speaker 1: the Department of Interior may no longer be run by
Speaker 1: Interior Secretary Doug bergerm He could be run by Interior
Speaker 1: Secretary or I don't know, Pete, but a judge. So
Speaker 1: they would be inclined to approve any wind in solar
Speaker 1: projects without any additional scrutiny. I suppose and say no
Speaker 1: to perhaps oil or fracking projects that are done in
Speaker 1: that land.
Speaker 2: And Brian Darren lines the problem because at the Federal
Speaker 2: Communications Commission we have them approving or disapproving of mergers
Speaker 2: and acquisitions based upon DEI. Again no fan of DEI.
Speaker 2: I think it has no place in business. But if
Speaker 2: a business will us to do that, that is their business.
Speaker 2: The problem is that you were having the government is
Speaker 2: saying you have to get rid of your DEI policies
Speaker 2: or I'm not going to allow you to merge with
Speaker 2: these two companies. Well again, what happens in the next
Speaker 2: administration if it's a Democrat and they say, well, you
Speaker 2: have to have DEE policies in order to acquire this.
Speaker 2: So this is going to bite them in the back
Speaker 2: end at some point. Yeah, this weaponization and it really
Speaker 2: bothers me that they're doing this. And you know, Brendan Carr,
Speaker 2: who's the chairman of the SEC, has done a really
Speaker 2: good job deregulating. But this is very troublesome.
Speaker 1: It is, and I understand all day along the points
Speaker 1: you're springing from here, Dave, but it and just to
Speaker 1: hammer the point home, if private business a wants to
Speaker 1: merge with private business b then my belief is the
Speaker 1: federal government shouldn't have anything to say about the terms
Speaker 1: of conditions of what that agreement is. I mean, unless
Speaker 1: it falls into perhaps Sherman antitrust or something along those lines.
Speaker 1: What's the problem with letting them merge. Why would you
Speaker 1: have to say you can't do this or you must
Speaker 1: do this in order for us, the federal government to
Speaker 1: put a stamp of approval on the merger. It's a
Speaker 1: shocking illustration of how much power and control the federal
Speaker 1: government has over completely private business.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, when you're talking about two wireless companies merging,
Speaker 2: we're not talking about standard oil.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're not subsidized.
Speaker 1: This isn't They're not getting federal dollars to run their business.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're just they're just running their businesses.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And that's why, you know, I would love to
Speaker 2: see the old Republican Party take hold as you know,
Speaker 2: limited government, you know, and really, you know, merging and
Speaker 2: acquisitions I think are a really good indication of just
Speaker 2: how activist a government is. And unfortunately we see a
Speaker 2: disturbing trend in the Trump administration. But again, you know, listen,
Speaker 2: that's you know, prefaces by saying that it's a heck
Speaker 2: of a lot better than it would be under iris.
Speaker 3: Richie, gotta put a positive spin on that.
Speaker 1: Dave, you got to Let's do one more with Dave
Speaker 1: Williams and taxpayer protection lines. We'll talk about some new
Speaker 1: recycling regulations, more regulations, Oh goodie. First words, my friends
Speaker 1: at Colin Electric, the folks with the right connections, they
Speaker 1: will treat you great. They pride themselves on their honest reputation.
Speaker 1: They pride themselves on the efficiency of their licensed certified electricians,
Speaker 1: and they are good at what they do. And they
Speaker 1: pride themselves on the price. You get great service, great price,
Speaker 1: all the work done to your satisfaction. You will get
Speaker 1: a ten year wiring warranty on whatever they do for you,
Speaker 1: big projects, small projects. Everything goes with a warranty. You
Speaker 1: can trust the folks at Coling Electric, locally owned and
Speaker 1: operated at eight plus of the better business Burea've been
Speaker 1: around since nineteen ninety nine. So how do you reach them?
Speaker 1: Two ways? Cullin, culln Color Electriccincinnati dot com. Schedule the
Speaker 1: appointment right there. Learn more about what they can do
Speaker 1: for you. Call them up directly and then say Brian
Speaker 1: said Hi please five one three two two seven four
Speaker 1: one one two. That's five one three two two seven four.
Speaker 2: One fifty five KRC heart He's eight.
Speaker 1: Here fifty five KIRR C DE Talk Station. Spend some
Speaker 1: time with Dave Williams from the Taxpayer Protection Alliance. Always
Speaker 1: enjoy our conversation Dave. Even though they involve important issues,
Speaker 1: usually big, big money and how it's misspent. We at
Speaker 1: least try to keep things a little light when talking
Speaker 1: about it. And now we're pivoting over to recycling. What's
Speaker 1: going on more regulations, you know.
Speaker 2: So recycling has really come a long way over the
Speaker 2: past ten, fifteen, twenty years, and we see just really
Speaker 2: a renaissance in how they're able to deal with plastics,
Speaker 2: and of course the government doesn't recognize that, and of
Speaker 2: course the companies are bad. They're trying to pollute the planet,
Speaker 2: which you know, I never understood. Why would you want
Speaker 2: to pollute and kill the people that you're selling your
Speaker 2: product to. I don't, you know, understand the logic. But
Speaker 2: there the EPA is refusing to acknowledge new ways to
Speaker 2: recycle plastics. And yeah, part of the problem is is
Speaker 2: that a lot of blame gets placed on the US
Speaker 2: for other countries that are doing the biggest damage. And
Speaker 2: we've seen these you know, flotilla's of plastic emotion, and
Speaker 2: I think it's like one or two percent of that
Speaker 2: actually comes from the US, and it you know, the
Speaker 2: bulk of that comes from other countries.
Speaker 1: Because we have a good sanitation system. We have garbage
Speaker 1: cans literally everywhere, they're ubiquitous. We have recycling programs. I
Speaker 1: even have a separate recycling garbage can that Rumpky comes
Speaker 1: and picks up. We have trash, and we have recycling.
Speaker 1: Now I don't believe it for a minute that those
Speaker 1: recyclables we put in that can Dave are actually getting recycled,
Speaker 1: but I try. I do my best to separate them,
Speaker 1: and we endeavor to conform and try to keep that
Speaker 1: stuff because I don't believe in throwing something away that
Speaker 1: has a useful life. Now, what Rumkey ultimately does with
Speaker 1: it outside of my realm of knowledge, but you know,
Speaker 1: there it is. It's easy to do. That's why we
Speaker 1: don't pollute as much as other countries. Other countries don't
Speaker 1: even have sewage systems.
Speaker 2: And if these companies can take plastic or aluminum or
Speaker 2: whatever and turn it into something else. They're going to
Speaker 2: make money off of that. Dumping it into a landfill
Speaker 2: does not make money for a company. Recycling does and
Speaker 2: producing something else. And you know, one thing we haven't
Speaker 2: talked about our you know, plastic bags versus paper bags.
Speaker 2: There is a lot of scientific evidence that says that
Speaker 2: paper bags take more energy to produce and are actually
Speaker 2: worse for the environment than plastic bags, and yet plastic
Speaker 2: bags are the ones that are taxed. And yeah, it's
Speaker 2: it's incredible the lack of knowledge of science that the
Speaker 2: government has and I think people in general have at
Speaker 2: this point, well you.
Speaker 1: Know, and craming if I'm wrong, But I've read so
Speaker 1: many articles over the year's dave that recycling doesn't work.
Speaker 1: That if there was money to be made in recycling,
Speaker 1: then there'll be clamoring out there to you know, collect
Speaker 1: all the recyclables out there and make money off of them.
Speaker 1: But I I I've consistently read though, that that's not
Speaker 1: going on. And it was a period of time where
Speaker 1: weren't we sending a lot of our plastics for recycling
Speaker 1: to China and then China said no, we don't want them.
Speaker 1: We can't do anything with them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there was, and you know, and really China is
Speaker 2: such a problem with a lot of things. But when
Speaker 2: we talk about recycling or the environment, you know, they're
Speaker 2: the ones that are never going to conform to a treaty.
Speaker 2: They're the ones that are going to you know, be
Speaker 2: the big polluters. And again, you know, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of blame America and it comes with inside this country.
Speaker 2: And I got to tell you that the plastics revolution
Speaker 2: is fascinating and companies are coming up with new technologies.
Speaker 2: It's not you know, this isn't the seventies, This isn't
Speaker 2: the Indian.
Speaker 3: Crime on the I remember that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, bag feet, Yeah, yeah, we've come a long way.
Speaker 2: Baby. As the mixed sort of metaphors here, So.
Speaker 1: You mentioned in the article pi rolysis, it's a it's
Speaker 1: a different process. They have some newly developed process for
Speaker 1: recycling plastics, and the EPAS is not acknowledging that or
Speaker 1: preventing that move from preventing it.
Speaker 2: They're they're they're actively preventing this and this is something
Speaker 2: that could turn plastics into into fuels. So, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's really just short sighted of the EPA. Listen, this
Speaker 2: is very little to do with kind of who's in power.
Speaker 2: These are the bureaucrats that have been here for years
Speaker 2: and that have a singular point of view and vision,
Speaker 2: and they refuse to look outside, you know, u of
Speaker 2: their own comfort zone a box, to see what these
Speaker 2: new technologies are and what they can bring. It's it's frustrating,
Speaker 2: to say the least.
Speaker 1: Well, this process obviously exists. You have information discussing the
Speaker 1: process and how it works, and you know the temperatures
Speaker 1: and everything else. You also have the the the the
Speaker 1: cost benefit that could come from this six hundred and
Speaker 1: nine hund dollars per time after this process of plastic
Speaker 1: is performed. So there it is. It's all there. Why
Speaker 1: would the EPA stand in the way of this allowing
Speaker 1: this process to come online?
Speaker 3: I guess is what I'm looking for.
Speaker 2: I don't know. If I had the answer, if I
Speaker 2: could crawl inside a bureaucrat's head and figure out what
Speaker 2: the heck was going on inside there, I'd be a
Speaker 2: rich rich man.
Speaker 1: They don't have to provide an explanation for why. I mean,
Speaker 1: they can't say no, this is actually everything you say
Speaker 1: is true, but the amount of pollutants and carcinogens that
Speaker 1: go out into the world in the environment far exceed
Speaker 1: the benefit from this recycling process. Ergo, we're gonna say no,
Speaker 1: none of that's in this.
Speaker 2: They slow walk everything. Look at the process at the
Speaker 2: FDA to approve vapes and new tobacco harm reduction. They
Speaker 2: have a shot clock of eighteen months, right, well, some
Speaker 2: products have been under review for seven years. They low
Speaker 2: walk everything and they don't provide any sort of answers
Speaker 2: or rationale for what they're doing. And that's exactly what's
Speaker 2: happened at the EPA right now.
Speaker 3: God, it sounds like something from a Kafka novel.
Speaker 2: Yes, Yes, making blush geez.
Speaker 1: Dave Williams Taxpayer text lines. That's what we have you around.
Speaker 1: You can just illustrate and highlight this stupidity and epic
Speaker 1: insanity of the regulatory state. And I appreciate you doing that,
Speaker 1: and I'll welcome your return of the fifty five KC
Speaker 1: Morning Show as soon as you're ready to do it
Speaker 1: again and again. Remind my listeners. Protecting Taxpayers dot Org
Speaker 1: agreed what Dave is writing about every single day and
Speaker 1: his team there Dave always a pleasure to help you.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great work, my friend, and stay well.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Brian, have a great day.
Speaker 1: You do the same and get in touch with cross
Speaker 1: Country Mortgage. Got me Suzette loads the Camp, specifically cross
Speaker 1: Country Mortgage. You want to work with Suzette because you
Speaker 1: want to work with the best person in the mortgage business,
Speaker 1: and that's her customer service superior. I hear from it
Speaker 1: from my listeners. I heard it specifically from my daughter.
Speaker 1: I recommend my own daughter to work with Suseette Los Camp.
Speaker 1: She and Eric were working with some bank and you know,
Speaker 1: a week later, nothing happened. They couldn't find out what
Speaker 1: was going on. It's like, did you call SU's that
Speaker 1: Low's camp. Lauren doesn't listen to the morning show, so
Speaker 1: she didn't know to make that. It's the first step,
Speaker 1: so I'm cutting out the problem for you. Call her initially.
Speaker 1: You'll be glad she's working for you. Got gazillions of
Speaker 1: different mortgage possibilities out there, license in all fifty states,
Speaker 1: and uh, where do we go? So she can help
Speaker 1: you out? In thirty five plus years in the mortgage business,
Speaker 1: the best in customer service. She acts promptly and quickly.
Speaker 1: She had my daughter and Eric's financing within like two days,
Speaker 1: and my daughter raved about how pleasant and wonderful it
Speaker 1: was working with Susette, and that certainly will be your experience.
Speaker 1: She'll go the extra mile for you. Great rates at
Speaker 1: a low cost, no junk fees, no application fees, no problems,
Speaker 1: no issues ever with Suzette Low's Camp. Two ways to
Speaker 1: reach your caller or send her an email. Either way
Speaker 1: she'll get right back with you. The phone number five
Speaker 1: one three three one three fifty one seventy six five
Speaker 1: one three three one three fifty one seventy six. Email
Speaker 1: Susan that dot lows Camp that's spelled l O S
Speaker 1: E K A M P so is that dot los
Speaker 1: Camp at c c M dot com.
Speaker 2: Fifty five k R c