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